1986-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents of the riding of Scarborough West who protest that the continued operation within the City of Toronto on the premises known as the Morgantaler clinic for the stated purpose of performing unlawful abortions is an affront to law-abiding citizens.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of other residents of the constituency of Scarborough West recognizing that family reunion is an integral part of Canadian immigration policy. They call upon Members of Parliament to direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to amend the regulatory by-law in order to permit sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of petitioners and others, regardless of age or marital status, to immigrate under a family reunification program.



NATIONAL RAIL PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ACT


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-97, an Act respecting rail passenger transportation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, as you know, a year ago 1 put Question No. 296 on the Order Paper. 1 have risen on a number of occasions asking when 1 might receive answers to that particular question.
I would like to put the question again to the Parliamentary Secretary in the spirit of parliamentary reform as we embark upon a new set of rules and Standing Orders. Specifically, 1 would like to know whether he intends to answer questions on the Order Paper more expeditiously and, in particular, when 1 might receive an answer to Question No. 296.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of parliamentary reform, I would advise the Hon. Member that there will be a changeover period while we work into the new rules. There is provision under the new rules that an answer may be asked for within 45 days.
If I am referring to the correct question, the Hon. Member will find that it has several parts to it and it is very difficult to obtain all of the answers to all of the parts. 1 think under the new rules the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to ask for a response from the Government. We have not got the changeover exactly tied down yet. 1 am sure that once we do, the Hon. Member will have recourse to that method.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary just when exactly the Government intends to respond to Question No. 319 standing in my name. This question refers to the Summit at Quebec City last March 17. Soon a year will have gone by. The question is a multi-part one relating to costs. As much as I recognize that it must be difficult to answer several questions of many parts, this one involves invoices of the event. One would think a year later that even the Government must have paid its bills.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I know that on several occasions the Hon. Member opposite has commented on the success of the Shamrock Summit. I know in asking these questions he does not in any way want to derogate from the new improved relations we have with the United States as a result of these initiatives and others taken by the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Shall all questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
February 24, 1986

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). 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 referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 10, consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex) moved:: 
Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I ask for consent to move a motion later today standing in the name of my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). He is unable to be here today. I would like to have unanimous consent for that as I did when this Bill was previously considered.


Mr. Speaker:: I have one motion of that kind and I am sure the House will grant that consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few remarks on this amendment at report stage. Studying the Immigration Act was one of the
priorities of the Government when it came to office. We H increased the levels of immigration because of our concern that Canada be as open as possible. The Bill had a great deal of debate in the House at second reading and the committee gave long and careful consideration to it and to many amendments. We were assisted in this by Government and Opposition Members in an attempt to improve the Bill by making changes which would benefit Canada and which would give as fair a hearing as possible to people who wish to immigrate to Canada. I was not able to participate in the debate at second reading nor in the committee hearings. I am, therefore, pleased to have this opportunity to put a few words on the record with respect to this very important legislative initiative of the Government.
It is fair to say that we want to give every opportunity to people who immigrate to our country. We understand the problems in trying to come to a new land. Through this legislation and other initiatives we have endeavoured to bring the Immigration Act up to date. This is just one further method of doing that. I know that there have been several report stage amendments and I appreciate that there will be further debate on them.
I would like to take this opportunity to indicate exactly where the country is headed in terms of immigration. We have increased immigration levels in an effort to open our country to people from other lands. My Party believes that immigration is a source of strength for the country. By bringing in people from diverse cultures, we strengthen the culture of Canada.
Yesterday I attended a luncheon put on by the Greek community in Orillia in an effort to raise funds for the Greek Roman Catholic church. I ate some things I do not normally eat. They agreed with me, or I agreed with them. It was a time of happiness as we mixed together and enjoyed sharing the Greek culture.
I am pleased to have had this brief opportunity to put some remarks on the record which I have wanted to make for some time. I appreciate the latitude the Chair has given me in discussing this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the ruling by the Speaker,
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 were to be grouped for debate. I will, therefore, put Motion No. 3. Does the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) have unanimous consent to move the motion for the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)?
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 2 the following:
"(5) Subject to subsection (4) members appointed for two year terms may hear and determine an appeal or application made under all sections except 70 and 71."


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, you have clarified one point about which I was a bit concerned. 1 think


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 3
fflnnnn
February 24, 1986

that the amendment of the Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford), while useful, is minor. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that the Government will accept that because it is a technical amendment which, from what I can see in the preceding part of that section, simply rounds it out. I do not think there is any question of principle. It is just a matter of drafting.
Motion No. 3, which stands in the name of my colleague, the New Democratic critic for immigration, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), is a more fundamental issue of principle. 1 hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government will be prepared to accept that amendment as well and will not give Members of the House instructions to vote it down.
The amendment recognizes that the membership in the Immigration Appeal Board has increased because of the Supreme Court ruling that there be an in-person hearing on questions of determination of refugee status. I think everyone acknowledges that there are real problems in having inexperienced members of the Immigration Appeal board making decisions which affect the very complex issue of whether or not a person is a convention refugee under the UN convention and protocol relating to refugees. The definition of "convention refugee" is as follows:
Any person, who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
(a)	is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, by reason of such
fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or
(b)	not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of his former
habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of such fear, is unwilling to
return to that country;
I have had experience with constituents and with friends who have been seeking refugee status. It is a process which I think everyone agrees has taken far too long. It is also an extraordinarily contentious process. I recall the cases of a number of people who came to this country from Latin America during the time of oppressive dictatorships there who sought refugee status. It seemed that the Canadian officials in those particular countries only mixed with the economic and political elite, such as their good friend, General Stroessner in Paraguay, or their good friend, the dictator of Brazil, or their good friend, General Pinochet. It seemed as though that was the approach taken by the External Affairs officials on the scene who were giving Canada advice on whether it was safe for people who sought refugee status to go back to their country. They offered advice as to whether or not it was reasonable for a person claiming refugee status to have fear of going back.
There is a movie showing in the city right now about one of the children who disappeared from Argentina. The parents had been killed and the child was given to a middle-class family. The wife was told not to ask any questions about where the baby came from. In fact, the baby had come from people who had been illegally and cruelly seized in the middle of the night, taken away, tortured and killed. God knows that happened. That happened to large numbers of people in Argentina.
Immigration Act, 1976
Things are now changing in Latin America, but it is a fact of life that there are still certain countries in Latin America, including Chile, and some countries in Central America, where people quite properly fear for their lives because there is no reliable judicial process. There is a dictatorship or junta in charge. I regret to say the Americans often support corrupt dictatorships, as they did in Nicaragua and other countries. Nonetheless, however it occurs, when people come here they have a very legitimate concern about whether they can ever go back.
What is suggested in the Bill is that persons appointed for a short time to the Immigration Appeal Board would be able to make what are life or death determinations for refugees. It should be amended to ensure that applications under Section 70 and 71 are determined by experienced members of the Board, and not by people who are there for the short time in order to clean up the backlog.
We are quite in agreement with extra personnel being added, if not in the numbers proposed by the Government, to resolve the backlog in simpler and more straightforward areas such as sponsorship, but not when it comes to the question of refugee status. That is why I hope the Government is prepared to consider Amendment No. 3 very positively. I appeal to Members of the House from all Parties for their support. This is intended to be humanitarian, and I think it reflects the fact that the vast bulk of Canadians are prepared to reach out, as we did with the Ugandan Asians and th Vietnamese refugees, as well as others from Southeast Asia, to people who have become persecuted and have to seek refugee status.
I want to conclude by pointing out that I spent last week in Westminster learning how the Mother of Parliaments works. I was very impressed by the fact that on issues such as this, which are not fundamental to the survival of the Government, there was a good deal of independence demonstrated, not only by Government back-benchers but also by opposition backbenchers. Members are prepared to exercise independence on issues like this, and it frequently occurs that the Government cannot carry a particular clause or amendment. Our House has just begun today to work under new rules which are designed to encourage greater independence by Members. Therefore I urge Members to consider carefully this amendment which is designed to ensure that people who are subject to refugee determination get as good a hearing as possible from IAB members with enough experience to adequately make the determination. I hope the amendment passes.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-55 is to expand the Immigration Appeal Board and make it flexible so it can better manage its workload and, in particular, reduce a large and growing backlog of appeals. It is not designed to resolve the problems with Canada's refugee determination process. New legislation resulting from the report presented by Rabbi Plaut will speak to that issue, and that legislation can be expected in the near future. We are not
10860

February 24, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
here to change the mandate of the IAB, and for that reason I ask Members of the House to not approve the proposed amendment.
As to Motion No. 2, my hon. friend is correct that this results simply from a drafting error and does not introduce changes of a substantive nature. Rather, it corrects what must have been a technical oversight by ensuring that a decision by a single-member panel of the IAB is recognized as a decision of the Board. This I believe is consistent with the will of the legislative committee following its clause-by-clause deliberations, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.


Michael Morris Cassidy: May I have the consent of the House to ask the Hon. Member a brief question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to put a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if, as the Hon. Member says, this Bill does not concern itself with the question of the backlog of refugee claims, then why leave a loophole which permits members of the IAB to do precisely that? Why not accept the amendment and therefore ensure acceleration of the process along the lines proposed by Rabbi Plaut? Surely that is a more sensible approach, rather than leaving to the Government or the bureaucrats the option of perhaps delaying the legislation and using this instead.


Miss MacDonald:: Why don't you follow developments?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have a process in place and there is a backlog. For at least the last year we have been trying to give the Board enough resources to deal effectively with this backlog. We are not attempting to respond to the Plaut report in this legislation. Legislation dealing with the refugee determination process will come up later on. However, this legislation is absolutely essential to deal with the existing backlog.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest and alarm to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) concerning immigration officers who serve overseas. He said quite pointedly that some of the decisions those officers were making were because they were friends of dictators of some of those countries. I take great exception to that. I have spent most of my time in this House in Opposition, so I am not defending the Department of Immigration because I sit on the Government side. I have worked with immigration officers for 10 years. I have always found them to be fair. They make decision on the basis of regulations, not on the basis of friendships, if there are any. I would like to ask the
Parliamentary Secretary if he has seen any evidence to support the scurrilous allegations which the Hon. Member made?


Mr. Kempling:: Stupid allegations.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak on the basis of my own experience, first as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when I had an opportunity to travel extensively around the world and meet with these officials, and now as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In both cases I found them to be of the highest calibre. They are concerned Canadians. They translate this Government's policy. Most recently I had the opportunity of visiting and spending a number of days with a very senior officer in Hong Kong. These officers have a grasp of what we are trying to do. I did not want to think that the Hon. Member was casting aspersions and, therefore, hoped that was not what he meant. Canadians who work abroad do not reflect what has been suggested. In fact they reflect a degree of excellence in their transmission and translation of our policy.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps the Hon. Member should have directed the question to me rather than to the Parliamentary Secretary. He raised questions about comments I made which I believe to be well-founded, certainly back in the 1970s.


Finlay MacDonald: You are always attacking public servants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Does the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) wish unanimous consent to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not unanimous consent.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak very briefly to Bill C-55 at report stage. As you know, the purpose of the Bill is to expand the Immigration Appeal Board. There is a tremendous backlog with respect to refugee claims in Canada at present. I understand the figure is in excess of 16,000 or 18,000.


An Hon. Member:: Twenty thousand.


John V. Nunziata: I am told by the Minister that it is near 20,000. There is no question that that particular concern has to be addressed in a very forceful fashion. The purpose of this Bill is to expand the Board in order to hear more cases and get through the backlog. The Bill presumes what the reform of the refugee status determination process will be.
We have yet to come up with a solution to the problem, and as I understand it the committee is presently considering a possible solution to the problem. The Supreme Court stated on April 4 that instead of reading transcripts of interviews the Immigration Appeal Board must hear claimants before
February 24, 1986

making a decision. The issue is how to deal with the backlog, and Bill C-55 purports to come up with a solution to dealing with it. It suggests that the Board be expanded and shall consist of not fewer than seven and not more than 50 members to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
As you know, we on this side of the House have always been concerned about Governor in Council appointments. The record of this particular Government with respect to patronage is unparalled, notwithstanding the many promises they made during the last election campaign.
You know that the moment the Conservative Party took over the reign of power they started immediately to appoint friends and relatives. I need not go through the list of patronage appointments that were made. This Government has a horrible record, notwithstanding the promises that were made during the last election campaign. I only say that in passing because that is not the main thrust of my submissions. I have a concern when a piece of legislation gives to the Governor in Council, that is the federal Cabinet, the authority to appoint individuals. I should point out that as with other pieces of legislation, the legislation that established the security intelligence service provided that the review board should be appointed by the Governor in Council-in other words, the Cabinet-in consultation with the Opposition. That was a Liberal piece of legislation passed in the last Parliament. The reason why those words were added "in consultation with the Opposition" was to ensure that those appointed to that particular body would be above suspicion, and that there would be no appearance at all of a conflict of interest and that these people are neutral.
I would hope in the future that legislation introduced by this Government will include the same words, "in consultation with the Opposition", so that we can be sure that an end is put to the patronage.
Having said that I want to speak to the motion before us moved by our friends to the left. I am speaking to Motion No. 3, which in part states:
Subject to subsection (4) members appointed for two year terms may hear and determine an appeal or application made under all sections except 70 and 71.
The Member for Ottawa Centre indicated that the NDP are moving this particular amendment because when refugee status issues are determined one should have the more experienced Members determining that particular issue.
The concern 1 have with that is that this particular amendment would create different classes of individuals sitting on the Immigration Appeal Board. The committee in its wisdom amended the legislation to provide that there are, indeed, different classes of Members on the Immigration Appeal Board.
The committee moved that not more than 18 members may be appointed for terms exceeding two years, and a member appointed for a term not exceeding two years is only eligible for reappointment for one term not exceeding two years. So you have two different kinds of Immigration Appeal Board Members. You can have between seven and 50, but not more
Immigration Act, 1976
than 18 may be appointed for terms exceeding two years. Now, we do not know what the length of those terms would be. I suspect the reason this particular amendment was moved at committee was to ensure that once the backlog is worked through the system we will not be stuck with 50 people on the Immigration Appeal Board because we might not need them at that point in time. I suspect that is the reason this particular amendment was moved at committee, but I am not a member of that committee.
I would hope that the purpose of this amendment moved at committee was not to create two different classes of Immigration Appeal Board members, because we all expect that anyone appointed to the Immigration Appeal Board will be qualified, or will render him or herself an expert on the Act in order to adjudicate on matters under the Immigration Act.
I hope that the purpose behind that particular amendment was not to suggest that those who are appointed for more than two years-the full time Members-should know more than those appointed for less than two years. The net effect of this motion would be to do that, because we are going to have two different classes. You are suggesting that those who and are appointed for a term exceeding two years can address or determine all issues under the Immigration Act, so they are more qualified.Those that are there for less than two years are secondary Immigration Appeal Board Members and, therefore, cannot determine certain issues relating to the refugee status of a particular individual.
For those reasons I do not intend to support this particular amendment moved by the New Democratic Party. It is well meaning, as are most initiatives by the New Democratic Party. Their hearts are in the right place, it is just that they have not thought out the particulars or the ramifications of the particular action they are recommending. I commend the Member for having his heart in the right place, and for his concern about the freedom of those individuals who have come to Canada and have requested status. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of parliamentary reform I would ask NDP members to refrain from heckling during my remarks.


An Hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


John V. Nunziata: We all see the light sooner or later, Mr. Cassidy. Some day you might even see the light.


An Hon. Member:: Don't get carried away now.
In closing I might add a few general comments for the record on the issue of immigration. I represent a riding in Metropolitan Toronto that is very multicultural. One of the biggest issues facing my constituents is the whole immigration issue. I would say anywhere from 70 to 80 per cent of my constituents who come to my office are coming forward with concerns relating to immigration. In an effort to facilitate the immigration process and to reunite families we should open the doors to those who are seeking refuge in Canada, especially those being persecuted in foreign countries. We hope that good legislation is introduced. While we intend to support

February 24, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
legislation that has that goal, we will try to perfect the legislation when it is introduced.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, no matter how one defines the board members, their number or the period in which they will serve, it should be kept in mind that a serious problem has arisen in this country over the past year and a half with an incredible backlog of applicants. The Minister chuckles when I say that this problem started within the past year and a half, but the facts speak for themselves.
While it is true that part of the problem arose because of a judge's ruling, the Minister will have to agree that there is a backlog of 20,000 people. No matter how many people are on the board or how long their tenure, the intent of the legislation is to process an extra 100 a year.


John V. Nunziata: Is that all?


George Baker: One hundred a year. Furthermore, when one considers the numbers that are accumulating over a period of a year, this will not even take care of one-thirtieth of the new applicants. The Government is not addressing the problem when it simply rearranges the number of people on the board and their tenure of office. The Minister stated in western Canada some time ago that this Bill would, unfortunately, address a part of the problem that is affecting Canada today.


John V. Nunziata: A small part.


George Baker: The Hon. Member says a small part. It is a very miniscule part of the problem. The fact is that the problem is getting much worse.
The Minister knows that the real problem concerns applying the refugee status. I am familiar with these problems in my riding in relation to people who are claiming refugee status, and the backlog facing the Appeal Board. No matter how one looks at it, this Bill will not do anything to relieve the backlog of people who are awaiting some action on the part of the Government. They have not seen action and, as far as I am concerned, we will not see it as long as the present Government is in power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Weiner) rising on a point of order? The House should remind the Hon. Member that he has already spoken to these motions. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member to speak?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for London-Middle-sex (Mr. Clifford). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Althouse:: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Clifford) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to move Motion No. 4 for the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 11 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"opportunity to be heard and time to prepare the case".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members know, until the recent Supreme Court decision, the consideration by the Immigration Appeal Board of refugee determination cases was only a matter considered on the basis of a written record. One reason there appeared to be bias is that the written record came from immigration or consular officers in the country of origin. These records were well prepared and put together in the appropriate bureaucratic manner.
Many of the refugee applicants, on the other hand, might have been ignorant of the law or had lawyers who did not understand the refugee determination process very well. Furthermore, they may have had a poor command of the English language and had no way of communicating their sense of fear and the experience they had undergone in their country. Let me give an example. I understand that the Immigration Appeal Board has accepted 13 refugees from Peru. However, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), was in Peru recently and spoke to an immigration officer there who said that there were no problems in his country and could not understand why refugee applications were being allowed here. While this may be hearsay, it does substantiate the kind of problems that exist.
The Minister must know from her days in opposition that people who suffered torture in Uruguay and Argentina were
February 24, 1986

unable to persuade the Immigration Appeal Board of their case because they did not appear before that board.
The Minister has had the opportunity to be heard before the board while the applicant has not. This amendment would allow both sides an opportunity to appear. Furthermore, it also suggests that, bearing in mind the resources available to applicants, they should not be sent to a hearing immediately without time to prepare their case.
One could argue that this is a theoretical problem rather than a practical problem given the lengthy backlogs in refugee determination cases, if what the Flon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) said is correct. The delays are such that any applicant will have had time to prepare a case before appearing before the board. However, we believe that this protection should be contained in the legislation in the event there is a short circuit process by which applicants from certain countries are rushed before a board before they have had an opportunity to prepare their case.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) must be aware that there were approximately 15,000 outstanding refugee determination cases at the end of June, 1985. These involve refugees from countries where there is ample evidence for people to fear going back to their homelands. These countries include Guyana and Sri Lanka where there has been persecution of Tamils, including a massacre that took place in a remote village recently. Jamaica currently has no parliamentary opposition. We know the situation in Iran. El Salvador and the Dominican Republic are countries in Central America where death squads are known to exist and the concept of human rights as we understand it here is unknown to them. While cases from India may have to be considered individually, I know that my friends who are Sikhs believe they have ample reason for fear over the treatment of their fellow citizens, particularly when the Punjab was literally closed off to outside contacts for almost a year. I have already spoken of Chile. Refugee determination cases are being accepted in Peru. Do Hon. Members opposite really consider that there is no case for refugee status for someone who manages to flee Afghanistan, Poland, Bolivia or Uraguay? In almost all of these cases we are talking about these kinds of countries, and when it gets down to making the decisions on refugee determination the Immigration Appeal Board is almost forced to let those people in. In fact, I believe in the case of Poland and some of the East Bloc countries, it is now the policy of the Government that people seeking refugee status from those countries will not be sent back because it has been established that once a person applies for refugee status their status in their country of origin then becomes so tainted they cannot go back.
I raise these points because I really regret that the Government is not prepared to make necessary changes in the Bill now, pending the implementation of the Plaut report. I would like to say as well to the Hon. Minister-and she can perhaps join with me in lamenting the inconsistency of my colleagues
Immigration Act, 1976
to the right-that the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mr. Pepin) in committee was in fact in favour the amendment which has just been voted down by the Liberals in conjunction with the Conservatives. In other words, in committee the Liberals saw it our way and I guess they have now been persuaded by the eloquence of the Hon. Member for Dollard to change their position, or perhaps they were persuaded by the anathema which the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton (Mr. Nunziata) displays to any proposals which come from the New Democratic Party, since he is one-time Member who some years ago abandoned ship.
To return to the question before you suggest that I do so, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the purpose here is not so much a matter of broad principle as perhaps the previous amendment, Motion No. 3. The purpose here is just simply to ensure against the possibility-unlikely for now-that people seeking refugee status would not have adequate time to prepare their case. I would hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to accept this particular amendment.
I would also hope that given the very large numbers of refugee applicants who come from countries which are placid, peacefufl and so on, but from countries where all kinds of things are developing, that we not go on with this sham that people have to wait two or three years before they can get their determination heard. In the case where countries blow up, as the Philippines and Haiti have blown up, whether from the left or the right, we must recognize that from time to time it is impossible for people to go back home. When that is the case, let us deal with them on a broad basis rather than on a case-by-case basis.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, and my fellow Hon. Members, I move not to support the motion because the amendment as proposed is redundant and adds nothing to the text of the Bill. Any appeal to the Federal Court from an IAB decision would utilize the ground of lack of reasonable time to prepare if, indeed, none was given. It is one of the principles of fundamental justice that sufficient time be given to prepare one's case. For this reason, I find the amendment suggested by the Hon. Member redundant and I recommend that the House not support it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, once again the heart of the New Democratic Party is in the right place but-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You can sit down now.


John V. Nunziata: -if those Hon. Members gave the issue a bit of thought, they would conclude, as did the Parliamentary Secretaray, that the amendment is redundant. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), in support of Motion No. 4, talks about Haiti and Afghanistan and the issue of refugee status, but I would suggest he address himself to the motion before us. What is the motion? The motion purports to amend Clause 71 of the Bill, which reads as follows:

February 24, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
Where the Board receives an application referred to in subsection 70(2), it shall hold a hearing to determine the application, after having notified the applicant and the Minister of the time and place of the hearing, and shall afford the applicant and the Minister a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The reason for this particular clause is the Supreme Court decision. What the New Democratic Party wants to do is to add the words "and time to prepare the case". Those Hon. members want the legislation to say that a hearing should be held and that sufficient time to prepare the case must be given to the particular appellant. As was pointed out, that is redundant. I would go so far as to say all of the words after the word "application" on line 7 are redundant.
The purpose of Clause 71 is to make it mandatory that a hearing be held in order to comply with the Supreme Court decision. We need not specify in legislation that notice must be given of the hearing or that the individuals involved, the appellant and the Minister, should have sufficient opportunity to prepare. As the Parliamentary secretary pointed out, the principles of natural justice would demand that one be given an opportunity to prepare.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the principles of natural justice require, first, that an individual be given notice-that is adequate notice of a particular hearing-and that an individual be given the right to be heard before a tribunal that is about to make a decision with respect to a particular issue. As well, reasons for the decision must be rendered by a particular board. To give someone sufficient opportunity to prepare almost goes without saying. If we give a person the right to a hearing and the right to be heard at a particular hearing, we must give the appellant sufficient opportunity to prepare for his case. The amendment is redundant.
I understand what the New Democratic Party is driving at. It is concerned that perhaps the board will require an individual to state his or her case on the spot, that a hearing will be called within a matter of hours and the person will not be given an opportunity to be heard. I happen to have a little more faith in the system. I believe the principles of natural justice would be adhered, to. If they were not, the appellant would have the opportunity to bring an action to ensure that he or she did have sufficient opportunity to prepare his or her case.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Would Hon. Members permit me to put a question to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Michael Morris Cassidy: 1 would ask the Hon. Member if he considers 15 days sufficient to prepare a case which deals with the nature and basis of the application for refugee status, and a statement of reasonable detail of the facts on which the application is based, and so on, that is, the nature of the case must be defined within 15 days? I understand that is the current prescribed period. So even if the applicant has a year thereafter to wait for the case and prepare for his or her argument, the written case which is submitted must be prepared within 15 days. Does the Hon. Member consider that to be adequate or does he not feel that some longer period might be more appropriate?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party simply says: "opportunity to be heard in time to prepare the case". It does not specify a particular period of time. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that if we are going to prescribe time periods for preparation of cases, that should be done by regulation and not by amendment to the Act itself. If the Hon. Member feels that 15 days is not a sufficient period of time, then he should direct his efforts towards amending the regulations, making submissions to the Minister to expand that period of time in order to give an appellant sufficient opportunity to prepare the case.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Finlay MacDonald: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions on this matter, although I would not want to suggest that they have been finalized, and the possibility of proceeding to third reading of Bill C-55 at this time in order to deal completely with the Bill. If that is acceptable to my colleagues in the Opposition, then I would ask that the Chair proceed to ask for unanimous consent to proceed to third reading.


Mr. Deans:: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleagues, we are prepared to proceed as has been suggested.
February 24, 1986


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that the discussions have not yet been finalized. Perhaps we could come back to this matter today after some agreement has been reached.


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an unusual thing to say. However, a good friend of Parliament, Tommy Douglas, died this morning. There will be some comments at two o'clock this afternoon, at which time I am sure all Hon. Members will want to be here to join in.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply saddened to learn of the passing of our former colleague, the former Leader of the New Democratic Party and the former leader of my province. As suggested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), we will be paying tribute to this great Canadian at two o'clock, at which time appropriate words will be spoken with respect to his passing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent to proceed to third reading of Bill C-55, the House will proceed to the next Government Order.


CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: that Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the legislation authorizing the sale of Canadian Arsenals Limited has reached second reading stage. Hon. Members will know that the privatization committee, as authorized by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget, has been reviewing a number of Crown corporations with a view to determining which of them no longer fulfil their public policy purpose. This task force, and all those associated with it, have concluded that Canadian Arsenals Limited, a company which has been in existence for a long period of time, no longer fulfills its public policy purpose. For this reason bids were secured from a large number of Canadian companies with a view to finalizing a sale, which is now under agreement with SNC Corporation of Montreal.
We consider that SNC is an appropriate purchaser of Canadian Arsenals Limited. It is a large, substantial and internationally renowned company with some 4,000 employees, 500 of whom will be the purchasers of the company under the agreement. The great majority of those 500-in excess of 95 per cent-are Canadian. Under the legislation introduced it is a prerequisite that at least 75 per cent of the company's shareholders be Canadian. SNC has fulfilled its obligation in this regard very well.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
The purchase price is some $92.2 million, which the Government considers to be representative of the real worth of the company. It is an extremely fair price. Having regard to the $50 million book value of Canadian Arsenals Limited, we think the Government has performed its obligation well in securing a reasonable purchase price for this company. The final purchase price was only reached after a great deal of negotiation with some eight Canadian companies, a process which took place over a period of months. I am happy to report that all of the participants have indicated that they are satisfied that the procedures which we followed in the bidding process were fair and reasonable and that everyone had adequate opportunity to respond.
We wish to recognize that Canadian Arsenals Limited is the only supplier to the Government of Canada of large and medium-calibre ammunition. It is perhaps appropriate that SNC, which is at the present time one of the very few suppliers of small ammunition, is indeed the purchaser. It will now be in a position to manufacture a range of ammunition for all of the Government's requirements. It will be able to devote the necessary funds to research and development and to give to this particular undertaking the necessary expertise and management which is required to ensure that the company be competitive and able to enlarge its export activities. This was a facet of Canadian Arsenals Limited which was lacking. We see this as one of the great merits of the privatization of this particular company-indeed, of all companies which we are considering under our privatization scheme.
SNC was established in 1911. We know that it is a leading Canadian engineering, construction and manufacturing firm with activities throughout Canada. Its assets are in excess of $100 million, and its 1984 revenues exceeded $200 million. The inference we are able to draw from these statistics is that SNC has in place the financial capacity and the management expertise which will inevitably guarantee the performance of its undertaking to purchase Canadian Arsenals Limited. I must add that of the $92.2 million in cash being paid for the company $87.5 million is for the shares of Canadian Arsenals Limited and the remaining $4.7 million represents the assumption of an outstanding obligation of Canadian Arsenals Limited to the Government.
This Bill was first introduced in the House on December 4, 1985. Arrangements have been made with the present employees, who number approximately 800, for the portability and transfer of their pension plans. There will be no prejudice resulting to the employees in this regard. Only recently was Canadian Arsenals Limited able to secure a labour agreement for all of its employees. The purchaser has agreed to abide by the terms of that agreement until it is able to secure an independent and new agreement with the employees after the purchase. The point is that we are persuaded that the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited are safe and that their positions are secure. The undertaking and indication of the company is that it will continue to employ the great majority if not all of the employees. As I have said, there are

February 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
plans indicated for expansion and development for the two plants which the company now has in Quebec.
1 think that the only outstanding difficulty is that management of both Canadian Arsenals Limited and SNC are, at the present time, very anxious to conclude the transaction, obviously for the benefit of the employees and for the company. 1 would ask Hon. Members to endorse the concept of this legislation and approve it in order to allow this to happen.
The legislation, of course, will provide that Canadian Arsenals Limited will no longer be an agency of the Crown and that this company will be absolutely independent. There are provisions in the agreement to ensure that the continuity of supply of ammunition is guaranteed to the Government on a first priority basis. There are safeguards there to ensure that the purchase price of ammunition to be purchased from time to time will be reasonable and there are certain tests and safeguards imposed in the agreement to allow the Government to satisfy itself that the purchase price for ammunition will be reasonable on a continuing basis and that the Government will be protected in that regard.
I would be prepared to suggest that this particular legislation has proceeded without hitch and without adverse comment. 1 can only conclude that Canadians are universally satisfied that this is a right and proper decision and is in the best interests of Canada and the employees. Without further word, I commend this legislation to Hon. Members of this honourable House.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the initiative by the Minister on behalf of our caucus. Perhaps the first thing I should say is that it is not totally right to assume as the Minister has, that the fact that this particular issue has not made national headlines like de Havilland means that everyone approves of it. It would be somewhat exaggerated to think that-


John V. Nunziata: Presumptuous.


Don Boudria: 1 know that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) would not want to inadvertently, of course, mislead this honourable House and that at the first opportunity he will want to correct that false impression he has created.
Of course this issue has not come to the attention of the Canadian public as much as the sale of de Havilland. The sales of both companies were announced at the same time. One of the deals was just awful, so obviously this awful deal captured a great deal of the attention of the public of Canada. Therefore, the sale of the other company which was smaller was not discussed as thoroughly as the main sale which occurred at that particular time-the sale of de Havilland. The sale of de Havilland was particularly controversial and overshadowed the attempt of the Government to sell Canadian Arsenals Limited.
The Minister indicated in his remarks that Canadian Arsenals Limited was one of those companies which, in his view, no longer fulfilled a public policy purpose. My hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), will probably be making some remarks later in so far as the policy issue of armaments and security of supply to the Canadian military is concerned. That is his area of expertise as our Party's critic for national defence.
In so far as I am concerned, I intend to make my brief remarks on the matter of the selling of the Crown corporation, the price the Government received and the entire management aspect. I will leave the policy initiative issues to one of my colleagues who will speak later.
The first thing we should know is that, although the Minister has assured us that there has been an agreement with the employees and that the employees were seemingly satisfied with the way this whole sale will take place, this does not at all reflect the conversations I have had with the people from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As a matter of fact, those people were particularly critical of the Government for not consulting them previously and for not having been given any information concerning the portability and transfer of their pension plan. They have very little information about how the SNC pension plan works. Apparently they have not been provided with enough information on that. As well, they have grave concerns over the crossover to this new company. Therefore, I want to be on record as stating that at the time this legislaiton appears before the legislative committee we would like to have before us representatives from the Public Service Alliance. We would like them to state their case and enlighten Hon. Members of the House so that we can be assured that jobs will be protected, that pension funds will be transferred and that the total package of benefits the employees enjoy at the present time will be fully transferred the way the Minister says they will be.
Perhaps I should deal with some of the history of Canadian Arsenals Limited. As we know, Canadian Arsenals Limited was established in 1945 and it manufactures small and medium ammunitions. It operates a plant in Ville Le Gardeur near Montreal. There are presently 750 employees there. There is another plant in St. Augustin near Quebec City employing some 50 employees. We are not talking about a very small company, we are talking about a company that is significant in terms of jobs and what it has to offer. Were it not for the fact that the sale of this company happened at the same time as the sale of de Havilland, I have the distinct feeling that we would have heard a lot more about the proposed disposal of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
In the mid-1960s, the Government of the day in its wisdom had determined that a small portion of the ammunitions produced at that time by Canadian Arsenals Limited did not fulfil a public mandate and it was transferred over to the private sector. However, it was still the view of the Government that the rest of the operations of the corporation indeed were significant in terms of fulfilling a public policy. That was
February 24, 1986

reflected in Government investments in Canadian Arsenals over recent years.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian Arsenals Limited summary of corporate plan. All Members of the House have been provided with this, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have read your copy thoroughly, as I know you always do. However, in the unlikely event that some Hon. Members may not have read the whole thing, I would like to bring some items to their attention.
According to this Government document, in 1976 the Minister of Supply and Services confirmed the corporation's mandate. Ten years ago, the importance of this corporation was determined by the Minister of the day. A reorganization was ordered and revised Letters Patent were issued in order to widen the industrial base to include related military products, and that is what is indicated by the Government's report.
Substantial Government investments have gone into this company, Mr. Speaker. Let me outline a few to you: $3.6 million worth of modernization and $3.7 million for the recovery of operating deficits, a total of $7.3 million to be spent between 1977 and 1982. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will say that not all of those funds were used. He is quite correct. Not all those funds were required to modernize Canadian Arsenals Limited. Of course, the magnitude of the funds offered by the Government was to ensure viability and a good profitable operation. We know there was a definite commitment.
Let me read a little further for your information, Mr. Speaker. In 1982, the corporation took title to the moveable and immoveable assets located at Ville Le Gardeur, Quebec, the replacement cost of which was set at $25 million. That was in 1982, Mr. Speaker. In 1984, the company completed the installation of a new cartridge case manufacturing facility at St.-Augustin located near Quebec City at a cost of $13 million. Again, these are taxpayers' dollars. Some were profits generated by Canadian Arsenals Limited rather than an injection of taxpayers' funds per se. Because this is a Crown corporation, one can always argue that all dollars are taxpayers' dollars. Since 1978 the profits have increased tremendously and now total some $25 million. The shareholders equity as of March 31, 1984, was $44 million compared to a deficit of $1.2 million in 1977.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you have grasped this by now, this indeed has turned out to be a very profitable Crown corporation.
I want to briefly draw a few more things to your attention, because I recognize that many other Members want to speak to this important issue of the proposed divestiture of Canadian Arsenals by the Government.
First, it is proposed that the company be sold to the SNC group, a well known engineering firm. None of the remarks I will be making today, nor those of most of my colleagues, will have anything to do with lack of confidence toward the new company. We know that SNC is a company with a world-wide
Canadian Arsenals Limited
reputation. It is not really a question of how well SNC can run the company. It has a reputation of being good at the things it does. That is not an issue here. What is an issue is not the credibility of SNC but the credibility of the Tories. I want you to know that, Mr. Speaker, and I put that in the forceful and non-partisan way that I always try to follow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: The Government in its attempt to sell this company decided to look for bids; it decided that someone should make an appraisal and an evaluation of the worth of the company. The Government apparently employed the services of the consulting firm, a very reputable one, Arthur Andersen and Associates. This consulting firm, we are told, issued a report. 1 put all of this in a hypothetical sense because the Government refuses to share any of the information with us. The Government says that the report states the company is worth somewhere between $60 million and $80 million.


Mr. Valcourt:: You wouldn't know.


Don Boudria: We do not know whether it is worth that. The Member across who was just heckling obviously knows far less.
The Conservative Government in its usual attempt at keeping everything secret refuses to table the report by Arthur Andersen and Associates in this House. You heard the eloquence of the Minister a little earlier when telling us about the great merits of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. If he is so convinced this is the right move, why does he not share the report with us? Do you know who paid for the report, Mr. Speaker? The taxpayers. Our constituents paid for this evaluation by Arthur Andersen. My constituents have asked that I see that report. The Government refuses to share it.


John V. Nunziata: What is the Government hiding?


Don Boudria: A very good point has been made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). He usually makes good points. He asks, what does the Government have to hide? I ask Conservative Members will the Government not table a copy of the Arthur Andersen report stating the value of the company?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: What did you pay for
PetroFina?


Don Boudria: We have a sign of life from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). It is nice to hear that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I am sure the people of Rockcliffe and Manor Park are wondering whether their parkland will be disposed of and whether that Member will be reacting today at the appropriate time in the House on their behalf.
We are talking about divestiture of the holdings of the Crown and there is a good local issue. I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton has an interest in the

February 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
divestiture of Crown holdings. We certainly hope that at the appropriate time later today he comes back to life once more, as he has been known to do once or twice, and speak forcefully and eloquently for the people of Ottawa-Carleton.


John V. Nunziata: That is asking a lot.


Don Boudria: I shall not hold my breath.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Please do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I shall not hold my breath because the Member is not likely to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I seem to have done the impossible. I have actually awakened Tories.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I asked the Minister of Supply and Services about getting a copy of the Arthur Andersen report. I would like to read to you what the Minister wrote in reply. I will do this very briefly. On January 20, I received the following:
Dear Don:
Further to my Legislative Assistant's discussion with you last week, I must once again advise you that 1 cannot provide you with a copy of the Arthur Andersen Report. However, I can confirm that the Arthur Andersen Company carried out a valuation study of CAL prior to commencement of the bidding and negotiation process and estimated that the value range for CAL was $80 to $98 million.
That is very interesting seeing that the Minister had said before that the company was worth between $60 million and $80 million. Maybe, if some day we can see that report, we will all be able to judge just what it is Arthur Andersen said.
Let me continue with the letter:
The total price offered by SNC for CAL was $92,224,941 and was made up of the following: -$87,500,000 for the purchase of shares; $4,724,541 for the debt owed to the Government.
SNC have made a deposit of 5 per cent on $4,611,247 with the balance payable on closing the sale.
Of course I am sure you have noted by now that the Minister answered all kinds of questions that I did not ask, but refused to share the information that 1 did ask for. Let me continue:
In accordance with government policy, the downpayment will bear interest from the date of deposit to the closing date.
With respect to the question of employee pension benefits, I am pleased to inform you that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale requires SNC to enter into a reciprocal pension transfer agreement with the Government of Canada.
1 would like to know where that agreement is. It has not been tabled with us. 1 have not been provided with a copy of this second agreement. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has it with him and would be willing to share it with us. We
still do not know about that agreement. That is two documents we do not have. It continues:
In addition, SNC has agreed to honour the existing collective agreement until such time as a new revised agreement is negotiated after closing. Agreement was reached on the present collective agreement between the employees and CAL in late 1985.
I am sure you have noticed by now, Mr. Speaker, that that does not coincide with what I have been told. It concludes: "Yours sincerely, Stewart Mclnnis".
That is the information that was provided to me by the Minister. The Minister has agreed to share the report with me so that I can look at it but not discuss it publicly. Obviously I do not want that. I was elected by the public, the people of my riding, as the Minister was by the people of his riding. If there is any information to be shared, I do not want it for myself. Yes, I voted for myself, but that is not the reason I am here. I am here because the people of my riding sent me here. They want that information.


John V. Nunziata: They have a right to know.


Don Boudria: That is why I am asking for the information. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston points out very correctly and eloquently that the people indeed have a right to know. It is not only a matter of whether or not this would be a good thing. Of course it would be a good thing, but the appropriate and correct thing for the Government to do is to share with us the Arthur Andersen report. Perhaps the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary can indicate later why he refuses to share that report with us. This is a point of contention with me, Mr. Speaker, as much as I try to be objective in this particular issue.
Let us review the process of the sale of Canadian Arsenals. 1 would like the Minister to tell us how the negotiations commenced with the bidders. I was informed that the process was very informal in that it was mostly word of mouth between officials of the Department and potentially interested customers who were contacted. 1 hope that there was a more formal process which took place and that the information 1 received is not correct. However, 1 would like the Minister to elaborate on that later because we want to be sure that all individuals and companies concerned had the opportunity to bid on this company.
We also want to know whether they were all given the same set of written criteria. That is important as well. We were informed that some time after the process started some of the people who were in the process of bidding were notified that price would be the sole criterion. One could argue the merits of using that for the criterion for disposing of the company, as we could argue the merits of disposing of the company at all. The point is really whether all bidders were provided with that information from the beginning and, if the rules were changed midway, whether all bidders were notified. The other question is whether everyone was invited to bid on the disposal of this company.
There are various issues on which 1 will be looking for answers from the Minister at the parliamentary committee. I
February 24, 1986

also want to know whether there were lobbying firms involved in this process. 1 hope that the Minister pays close attention to this particular point, as he always does, because this is very important. If there were lobbying firms involved, have any of the employees of these lobbying firms recently been employees of either Canadian Arsenals or the Department of Supply and Services? I would really like to have that information. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is noting that now. I do not expect an immediate response because, obviously, this will require some research as it is rather complicated. Perhaps we could receive a response to that at the parliamentary committee.
This is important, not only for the discussion at hand, but since we are in the process of reviewing all lobbying activity by various firms on behalf of various groups. I am the Opposition critic in the area of lobbying, so I am very interested in that process.
I think I should speak briefly about the profitability of Canadian Arsenals Limited. On December 2, 1985, the Minister of Supply and Services and his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced the policy of the proposed divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited. One of the first things I did at that time was to ask for a copy of the last annual report of Canadian Arsenals Limited in order to go through it with the assistance of other people to determine how viable this company was, whether it was in fact making money, and what the impact would be upon the group which proposed to purchase it. I will attempt to answer some of these questions right now, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you really want to know about this.
First, the profits of Canadian Arsenals Limited have gone up considerably over recent years. I draw your attention to page 6 of the annual report, which I am sure you have had ample opportunity to read. Page 6 of the report talks about the profits and losses of that company in thousands of dollars. In 1978 the company made $8,129 million worth of sales. Unfortunately, it had a loss in that year of $1,157 million. As the years went on the picture changed tremendously. In 1979 the sales of Canadian Arsenals	were $14,159 million and there
was a profit of $181,000. In	1980 sales	were	$30	million	andthe profit was $2 million. In	1981 sales	were	$45	million	andthe profit was $3 million. In	1982 sales	were	$57	million	and
the profit was $5 million. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is starting to become quite profitable at this point. In 1983 there were $87 million worth of sales and nearly $7 million of profit. In 1984 there were $97 million of sales and $8.5 million of profit. In 1985 there were $103 million of sales and $11,298 million of profit.
That is not so bad. The Government certainly cannot use the excuse for selling this company that it used in the case of de Havilland, notwithstanding that that particular excuse on its part was not very valid. The Government said it wanted to sell de Havilland because it was not making money. We knew, of course, that it was just on the threshold of making profits so that was not exactly an accurate statement by the Tories across the way. However, Tories never win prizes for being
Canadian Arsenals Limited
accurate, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker. This particular company is quite profitable, as I think I have demonstrated over the last couple of minutes. I highly recommend to Hon. Members across the way the 39th Annual Report of the Canadian Arsenals Company.
I spoke to you about sales and profits, Mr. Speaker. However, that is not the sole measure of the profitability of a company. I am sure that what you want to know at this point is the rate of return on equity. That is the important part. The Minister said that the company's equity is some $52.9 million. He aslo said we are proposing to sell the company for some $92 million. I guess he was trying to tell us that that made it a good deal. Obviously you recognize that if people sold their businesses for book value they would not be very good business people. Businesses are usually worth a lot more than book value. The rate of return on equity of this company in 1981-82 was 15.5 per cent. I am sure you are probably thinking that this is not bad.

But let me continue: in 1982-83, 18.1 per cent; in 1983-84, 19.4 per cent; and in 1984-85, 21.4 per cent.

So you see that this is indeed quite a profitable operation.
It is not the wish of the Canadian electorate to give away a licence to print money in the form of a company with a rate of return on equity of 21.4 per cent. At that, the price we are selling it for is totally unsubstantiated by anyone except the Minister in a letter he wrote to me. 1 know the Minister is a very honest person but, as the Hon. Member for York South-Weston said, the people of Canada clearly have the right to know what is contained in the Arthur Andersen Report. Even if the information the Minister gave us is correct, and we do not know that, did the report also say that the company is worth the amount they said it was worth? That figure was between $80 million and $98 million. Did it say it was worth $80 million if there were no guaranteed sales to Government? Did it say it was worth $98 million if there were? We do not know, we have not seen the report. If it is worth $98 million, why are we selling it for $92 million? Who is going to pay the taxpayers of Canada the other $6 million? That is their money, they have the right to find out. So I ask the Minister again, why will he not share that report with this House?
I have gone on for a few minutes longer than I thought I would but I have a few more points 1 want to make. I want to read from an article by James Bagnall in The Financial Post of December 14, 1985. It says:
Canada has never been one of the world's heavyweights in the making of ammunition.
Yet Montreal's diversified engineering outfit, the SNC Group, has just received a tough-to-fulfill mandate to turn Canada into a major munitions exporter.
I am sure that you vividly recall what the Minister said about this deal. He said it would enable further export activities involving armaments. That is a big concern for me. Are we

February 24, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
proposing to divest ourselves of Canadian Arsenals because we want to become a world-wide exporter of armaments? Is that what we are trying to achieve? If it is, I have some concern.
I read in the newspaper the other day that there seems to be division within Cabinet on whether to permit the Thyssen company of West Germany to make arms in this country for export to countries which are in troubled circumstances at the present time. Are we privatizing another firm for the purpose of sending it in that direction? If so, then I am really worried about the policy initiatives which are being espoused in this venture.
To quote further from The Financial Post article, and here they are talking about IVI, another company owned by the SNC Group:
The fact that there is no competition between the two firms is not an accident. IVI was part of Canadian Arsenals until the mid-1960s, when it was sold by the government as part of a strategy to privatize as much of CAL's assets as possible. That's when the companies were assigned different segments of the munitions market.
I said earlier that those parts which did not fulfil a policy initiative in the munitions market at that point were divested, although this was mainly in the area of small armaments. However, when it comes to the heavier munitions the Government felt it was better to have that remain in the public sector, as it did until this point. I must say that I am very concerned if the direction which the Government wants to give the SNC or anyone else is that of getting further into arms exports to other countries. Canada is quite well-known as a peace-loving nation, a country which traditionally stays out of conflicts. We have not in the past been a vulture trying to capitalize on unfortunate events which occur in other countries. Therefore I hope that is not the direction we are trying to give anyone at this point.
A little earlier I was talking about the profitability of this Crown corporation. I now want to share with you some of the projected profits for the company as indicated in the annual report. I will share some of this with you very briefly because 1 would not want you to become impatient with me. However, this is very important as I am sure you recognize.
The corporation has entered into an agreement with chartered banks' leasing corporation to lease production machinery, to a total cost of $11 million, upon terms that transfer substantially all benefits and risks of ownership to the corporation. It has concurrently entered into another agreement whereby it has been appointed as an agent of the lessor to purchase the said machinery against reimbursement of moneys disbursed. As at March 31, 1985, amounts so advanced to the corporation total $10,109,599... including $760,112 for accrued interest... which, when added to future purchases shall be converted into capital leases specifying repayment terms.
So you see what we are hearing again is that in fact this company here has in the past had a very good record of not only producing but of improvement to that same company, or to the capital assets of the company, in order to ensure that it remained a good company and that it remained profitable for the taxpayers of Canada while it was a Crown corporation, with the majority of the sales being to the Government of Canada itself for us to use as a peaceful role that we have as a
nation, but not to make it a major exporter of armaments to other countries. So again, very briefly, those are some of the concerns I have as a Member of this House and as a critic for our Party. In closing I will ask, through you, that the Minister provide to this House the documentation that is missing.
[ Translation]
We need the assessment by the Arthur Anderson firm, to know how much the company's assets are worth and what the company is worth to Canadian taxpayers. We also need to see those so-called arrangements made with company employees, which because we never saw since the Government refused to give us all the requisite information. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the employees' unions have said that up to now they were not aware of any arrangements and were not duly informed of their rights and the transfers.

I notice you are telling me that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I did have a few other remarks to make, but unfortunately I will have to abide by your wishes.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help but agree with the previous speaker in suggesting that although this particular divestiture of a Crown corporation by the Government has not created a great deal of public interest, that had to do mostly with the timing of the announcement rather than the concern, because there is a great deal of concern about this whole idea of the divestiture of Crown corporations.
The history of Crown corporations in Canada-I suppose in the world-is very interesting because in every case it is based on the need for development in countries. It is very interesting to note that the first probable Crown corporation, if we could call it that in Canada, was the Board of Works, which eventually became the Department of Public Works, and is now part of the Government. Other pre-Confederation corporations were the Harbours Board and the Nova Scotia Railway Company, companies that were established for particular reasons.
Since Confederation we have gone through a whole series of developments which were based on putting Crown corporations in key positions, as far as the economy was concerned. I suppose the first one after Confederation of major import was the CNR. The last one was probably Petro-Canada. We have gone through that series of Crown corporations being used as key developers in the economy of the country.
We could probably divide the development of the country into a series of areas or of times when particular directions of development were needed or wanted. Consequently the Government used Crown corporations as instruments of public policy; used them to develop the economy of the country by putting those Crown corporations in place. The biggest and the most common area of Crown corporation development was in transportation, the CNR, the Nova Scotia Railway Company and a series of other companies which were given support and
February 24, 1986

contributed a considerable amount to the development of the country.
That purpose of developing the infrastructure of the country, and using Crown corporations to do so has been a long tradition as far as Canada is concerned. In fact in 1979 when a review was done of the assets of crown corporations it was found that 49 per cent of the provincial Government in Canada-almost half of the assets of the provincial Governments in Canada-were held in the form of Crown corporations. Even within the federal Government 33 per cent of the assets of the federal Government are held in Crown corporations.
If it is now the policy of the Government to try and get rid of the deficit by selling these assets, we all know that the first sign of bankruptcy, as far as business is concerned, is when they start putting their assets up for sale. There has to be some good reason for the divestiture of any Crown corporation. I would question, along with many people of Canada, whether the ideological reasons which are being expressed by this Government are good enough for the divestiture of Crown corporations.
If we were to divide the country into certain periods from the time of Confederation until now, relative to the development of Crown corporations, we would probably say that first period was the development of transportation. At that time we had the CNR, Trans-Canada Airlines and later Air Canada. Those were established for a particular purpose. If they had not been, the development of Canada would have been slowed down considerably. We can say that in that first period of time Crown corporations were used well for the development of Canada.
I am not convinced the reasons that are being given now for the divestiture of some of the Crown corporations are based on any policy which has been well thought out, having to do with the development of Canada and the continued prosperity of Canada. If the ideology of the Party is being used as the basis for divestiture it is not good enough. The effect on the economy of Canada must be the basic concern as far as these divestitures are concerned.
The war propagated a large number of Crown corporations. Some 30 Crown corporations were developed during the war, again for very good reasons. Most of those Crown corporations were disbanded after the war. They were used to expedite the war effort and, except for a few like the Eldorada Mining Corporation, Palimar, which became Polysar I think later, and even the one we were talking about today, Canadian Arsenals, which are offshoots of the Crown corporations that were put in place during the war, they did the job at that time and then were disbanded. What we have in Canadian Arsenals is somewhat of a hold-over from that particular time.
The next period of time from the war-Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could come back at three o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
Canadian Arsenals Limited AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


THE LATE HONOURABLE T. C. DOUGLAS TRIBUTES TO FORMER MEMBER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: "I am an ordinary guy who has done the best he can to promote the cause in which you and I believe". So said Tommy Douglas a short time ago.
This morning, at 10:45, Tommy Douglas died. He was a great man, one of those truly rare individuals who actually changed the course of history. He was a man whose life and work made Canada a better nation for us all.
Tommy Douglas was a Privy Councillor, a member of the Order of Canada and a Member of this House for 26 years; from 1935 to 1944 and from 1961 to 1979. In between he was Premier of Saskatchewan for 17 years.
As Premier of that province he and his Government broke new ground in almost every domain of social and economic activity. It was his Government that introduced the first Bill of Rights in Canada. It was his Government that brought electrification throughout rural Saskatchewan. This is something which he always proudly remembered and a fact that many people in Saskatchewan have recalled with a great deal of affection and appreciation. It was his Government that brought in the first piece of legislation that gave unrestrictive collective bargaining rights to people who work in the public sector in Canada. It was his Government that brought in the first truly modern labour legislation that treated working men and women as positive members of their community rather than simply people who had to be dealt with in some way.
Perhaps most important, in terms of its impact on our nation, it was his Government that brought in medicare to the Province of Saskatchewan, one part of our immense nation. It was an act that was soon picked up by other governments and became part of our national legislative heritage.
As a Member of the House of Commons, Tommy Douglas was a defender of civil liberties. Members who were with us at that time will recall that he voted against the War Measures Act which he saw, along with others at the time, as an unnecessary infringement on civil liberties. He fought relentlessly against the horrific build-up of nuclear weapons by the super powers on both sides of the global conflict.
He was a determined champion of Canadian autonomy in every field of human endeavour.

There will be other opportunities to comment on his impressive achievements as a legislator.
Today, I would like to stress his qualities as a politician, qualities which have had an enormous impact on so many of
us.

February 24, 1986

1 think first of his great capacity for combining passion and reason. Tommy demonstrated throughout his life that for our movement, these two must coexist. He knew it was not enough to make criticism of the society of the day. That can be easily done by anyone. "Our obligation", he said time and time again, "is to create alternatives which can command the support of the intellect". But in giving expression to this view, it is also totally appropriate to do so with passion. Tommy's whole life was an embodiment of the truth that reason and passion are far from contradictory, that in a political life seriously undertaken, they go hand in hand.
Over the years, Canadian men and women appreciated Tommy's superb sense of humour. More than any other politician of his generation, he brought to politics a sense of fun and the ability to laugh at himself. He was not sarcastic, because sarcasm always implies a desire to hurt. In fact, he had a very humorous outlook on life which attracted people instead of putting them off.

Most of all, when I think of Tommy, and my personal encounters with him, and I am sure this is true for many, many other Canadians, I think of his almost unlimited capacity for generating a sense of hope about the future. He never despaired no matter what the obstacle. That exuberant and hopeful spirit, based on the deep conviction that society should be organized for the benefit of all of the people and not for the privileged few, is what took him through all of the obstacles in his long and remarkable life. That is his legacy to us today.
Our deepest sympathies go to his wife, Irma, his daughters, Shirley and Joan, and to his grandchildren. Canadians all across our land join them in their loss of a truly great man.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, no one could have put it better than the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who knew Tommy Douglas so well and who carries on the leadership of his Party. Many of us in the House of Commons had the honour of knowing Tommy Douglas well. I guess the younger Members of the House of Commons particularly considered him to be a historic Canadian figure going authentically to the grassroots of our country, particularly the prairies and western Canada.
As one of the signatories to the Regina Manifesto, he was the first head of a Social Democratic Government in North America and, as the Hon. Member for Oshawa has reminded us, he introduced medicare into this continent. He was a living legend to the people of Saskatchewan. At one stage in his parliamentary career, he represented British Columbia with great distinction as a leader of a national Party in that province. As I look at Stanley Knowles, I am reminded that both he and Tommy Douglas studied together at Brandon College for the ministry and his great Christian commitment
The Late Tommy Douglas
to the public good and public order followed him throughout his political career.
I had the privilege of attending the founding convention of the New Democratic Party as an observer in 1961 when Mr. Douglas and Senator Argue fought it out. I remember the great speech he made then. I felt he incarnated that unique tradition in Canadian political life beginning with J. S. Woodsworth, Mr. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas, and after him the late David Lewis, and now our friend from Oshawa. It has been a great tradition. I never heard a better orator in the House of Commons or on the hustings. There is something in Saskatchewan in those church basement rallies which brings out the best in the human temperament and in the skills of speech and timing.
He was a superb speaker. He was formidable in parliamentary debate and out on the hustings but he was never mean-spirited.

He was never, ever mean-spirited. I never heard Tommy Douglas take a cheap shot at anyone. However, he had an absolutely contagious sense of humour. I was sitting close to the late Secretary of State, the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, when he looked over and advised her to be a little more silent than was her habit. He said to her: "The Hon. Minister only opens her mouth to change feet".
Jimmy Gardiner once walked into a debate against Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. He said to Tommy: "What do you know about farming? You've never been a farmer". Mr. Douglas said: "I never laid an egg either, but I know more about making an omelette than either a hen or the hon. gentleman". It was his sense of humour and dignity, the self-sacrifice with which he clothed his life, and his public purpose, that made him a remarkable Canadian-indeed, a great Canadian.

The New Democratic Party has lost one of its founding members, one of the main founders of its movement.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada I wish to join with the Leader of the New Democratic Party in saying to Mrs. Douglas the children and family how much his life has been valued by Canadians from one end of our country to the other.
I am reminded of the words of Longfellow:
Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime.
And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost the voice and the vision of one of our great humanitarians and one of our truly outstanding parliamentari-
February 24, 1986

The Late Tommy Douglas
ans in the passing of the Hon. Thomas Clement "Tommy" Douglas, who died this morning in Ottawa. 1 knew of his reputation and his legend and, like many others here, was privileged to know the man himself. I knew of his personal qualities, his devotion to his church and to Canada and his love of his wife, his daughters and grandchildren.
Tommy Douglas was an outstanding Canadian beloved by all Members despite political differences. Perhaps the old Saskatchewan proverb said it best of all: "Tommy Douglas doesn't have to kiss babies, babies kiss him".
As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking, I could not help but remember something which I heard him say once at a political rally. It was an example of the kind of humour he exhibited so well. He told of meeting an elderly farmer in Saskatchewan and in searching for a compliment he said: "Well, I suppose there have been worse Premiers than me". In the absence of any response at all, and thinking the farmer was hard of hearing, he elevated the decibel level and said: "1 suppose there have been worse Premiers than me". The farmer said: "I heard you the first time, I was just trying to remember".
I remember, as well, his comment about one of my predecessors in regard to a great debate that was going on concerning nuclear weapons: He said: "My right hon. friend is, of course, consistent. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays he's in favour of nuclear weapons. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays he's against; and on Sundays he's a Baptist like me".
Mr. Speaker, there was also an important dimension to Tommy Douglas which attracted Robert Cliche to his side. I remember well seeing both Douglas and Cliche in Quebec during those difficult years, difficult not only for his political party but also for mine, and that was in 1963, 1965 and 1968.
I saw the courage and dignity with which they tried to establish their political party on Quebec soil. Subsquently, Mr. Cliche spoke to me at length about his relationship with Mr. Douglas, his affection for Quebec, his respect for the French fact, his desire to set up a truly national political movement, and the courage he showed in the many positions he took in a spirit of understanding and solidarity.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, the privilege that I had in November, 1984 when I was able to call Tommy Douglas to tell him that I had the pleasure of recommending his appointment to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. 1 was greatly touched by the generosity of his acceptance and of course his wit and his kindness. His appointment was in recognition of his devotion to parliamentary service both in Saskatchewan as premier and as a very distinguished leader and member of the New Democratic Party here in the House of Commons.
His passing is not only a loss to all Canadians but 1 think a gentle reminder that no honour was greater to Tommy Douglas than the respect of his peers and the affection of common people. On behalf of all Canadians, I express our bereavement for the passing of Tommy and 1 call upon this House to rise for a moment of silence.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


Mr. Speaker:: It is our tradition in these matters to sometimes allow others who are seeking to say a few words, because of their personal relationships, to speak. I propose to allow this.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make some personal comments as a long time opponent of Tommy Douglas and 1 think one of his better friends over the years. My remarks will be of individual things that he did that are not known to the public.
1 was very pleased when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke of his one great attribute that endeared him to the people of Saskatchewan and, I am sure, to all parts of Canada, his humour. However, underneath his humour was a deep feeling that I have to express at this time.
To me, Tommy Douglas was fundamentally a great Canadian. I personally remember the tragedy he felt when he was not allowed to go overseas with the South Saskatchewan Regiment because of his physical disability. He wanted to serve his country. He started out as a printer in Winnipeg but his one great devotion was to this country, Canada.
1 was the elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Saskatchewan from 1949 to 1957. I was never elected to that legislature, although I tried several times. He noticed me sitting in the gallery of the legislature in Regina. He came up to sit beside me and said: "What are you doing up here?" I replied: "I do not have a seat in the House but 1 like to hear what is going on." He said: "All right. 1 will go down and speak to the Leader of the Opposition," who was then Mr. Walter Tucker. Together they arranged to speak to the Speaker. I was invited to sit on the floor of the House of the legislature of Saskatchewan. To be as neutral as I could, one day 1 sat behind the Liberals and another day I sat behind the NDP. That is where I joined with Tommy Douglas, because in effect I was sitting in the caucus of both Parties-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is when 1 joined with Tommy Douglas in agreeing that a political caucus is a creature that no one can understand unless he understands the differences of being in a political caucus and a cactus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In that period, he also asked me, with the permission of all Members of the House, to accept the privilege of a legislator, with one exception. I could not utter a

February 24, 1986
word. The technique that I used if 1 wanted to ask a question was to pass a note up to a Liberal or a New Democrat, whoever I was sitting beside, either in committee or in the House. The question would be asked and when the answer came back I would send a supplementary question, and so on. That is how l endured for eight or nine years in that legislature. 1 had every right in committee and I had every right to deal with civil servants as an MLA. When I came down to Ottawa in 1957 his provincial treasurer, the Hon. Clarence Fines, said in the House that even though I had never sat in the legislature I had done more than most of them in the House had ever done because 1 had learned the technique of working through the civil servants, then going to the Minister to get approval of what we had already agreed upon; the Cabinet would then support it and we would get whatever it was done.
I would like to mention that this is a personal testament. I give the credit for this concept of practical democratic government to Tommy Douglas. He did something there that gave respect to the thousands of Conservatives who had no seat in the legislature for 40 or 50 years, it seemed to me. But the fact is, we did have our voice. 1 speak for a generation of people in Saskatchewan who had no voice politically in the legislature, and 1 pay this tribute to Tommy Douglas because 1 do not think too many people know about it. He gave expression of his true Canadianism in that way.
We fought publicly, sure. Of all the jokes that he told, many of them were on me. I tried my level best to outdo him but he always ended up one step ahead of me, and we very often joked about that.
My final words to Tommy Douglas are: No person ever served his God, his country and his community more devotedly. No person ever tried to think in terms of the real philosophy of life, namely, that your first responsibility if you believed in a God was to be humble. He was always that way. The second was to do your utmost to give the people of all thoughts and place their due right. I subscribe to that philosophy, only I call it Conservatism.
In paying tribute to Tommy Douglas 1 could tell you a thousand jokes. But let me say that above all he believed in principles which all of us here can support, regardless of our Party or background.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of part of Tommy Douglas' last riding, Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I want to say how much Tommy Douglas was loved and respected by the people he served so faithfully for so many years. Tommy Douglas, while one of Canada's great legislators and parliamentarians, was above all a man of the people; he loved people, he believed in people, and he drew his strength from people. In return, people loved Tommy Douglas, they believed in Tommy Douglas, and they drew strength from Tommy Douglas.
The Late Tommy Douglas
Tommy has left us a legacy of laughter, a legacy of battles that have been fought and won, and a legacy of concern for battles that still have to be fought and still have to be won. On behalf of all of his former constituents, I want to express our support for Irma and his family. Above all, I want to say: "Thank you, Tommy".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 when 108 of us were newly elected and came into this House we learned rapidly to respect the spirit and mind of Tommy Douglas. This was not only because he was a spell-binding orator and had a great sensitivity to social issues, but also because he was gifted with a generous mind.
When he was celebrated in this Chamber 10 years ago he told us a number of political anecdotes. One is still fresh in my memory. He recalled the first time he ran for office with his main political opponent being a strong, burly, big type who turned to him on the platform and said: "As far as you are concerned, I could eat you up in one gulp". To that Tommy Douglas retorted: "If you do that, you will have more brains in your stomach than in your head".
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if there is a paradise where parliamentarians go, although I am not so sure there is such a place for us, I am inclined to think that as of today it is going to be a more lively and more interesting place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the first time I heard Tommy Douglas speak was in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, in June of 1944. The election campaign was on and the skating rink was full. A few years later I became a member of and a candidate for the CCF. I remember telling Tommy years after that I learned much of my democratic socialism at his knee. He said: "Yes, and a few other low joints".
This man led a social and economic revolution in the country from 1944 to 1961. I want to remind this House and the people of our country that this man led in so many things that set a criterion and example to follow not only for the Province of Saskatchewan, but for other provinces and the nation as a whole. I think of the air ambulance service and the Farm Security Act. Even though financial institutions took him to the Supreme Court, no longer could they take a farmer's land, home, barn and cattle. I think of the seed and feed grain debts which he took off the backs of grain producers and municipalities, and of hospitalization, medicare, and the Swift Current health region. Then there was automobile insurance, about which he once said that in a civilized society he thought that anyone who would make a profit from the misfortune of others was basically immoral. He brought in collective bargaining and political rights for public servants and Crown corporation employees in 1945-46, and in this he was ahead of his time by many, many years.
February 24, 1986

The Late Tommy Douglas
Speaking personally, when I was a green and frightened candidate for election the first time, attending my very First political meeting on a public platform in Leader, Saskatchewan, in May of 1956, Mr. Douglas was the guest speaker. The hall and street outside were full, and a public address system had to be put up outside. Earlier in the day his executive assistant had phoned me and said that Mr. Douglas would like to see me in his room in the hotel. 1 was even more nervous, fearing that I had done or said something wrong.
At that time I was on leave of absence without pay from the railroad, 1 had a wife and three children, and owed bills all over town. I was broke, to put it bluntly.
Tommy asked me how I was doing, and what not. Finally 1 told him. Then, Sir, without saying a word, he reached in his pocket, got his wallet out, and gave me $200 to see me through the rest of the campaign. I don't know of any other Leader who has thought of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, it was something which caused me and many hundreds of others who were candidates for our Party in those years and since, to think of those who follow us in public life. It means all of us in this place, in all Parties, have a similar obligation to pass on to present and succeeding generations the kind of example and criteria which that man laid down for all of us to follow. I think none of us can do any less than to try and to do just that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is a clear sign of the stature of Tommy Douglas in Canadian politics that so many Members from all three Parties rise here today to pay him tribute and claim him as one of their own. I, too, as the sitting Member for Nanaimo-AIberni, rise to salute the former Member for what was then known as Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Tommy will be missed by the people of Canada, but he will be particularly missed by the people of central Vancouver Island.
His accomplishments have already been listed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broad-bent), and so many others here today. Many stories were, quite rightfully, full of the humour that Tommy loved so much.
In my brief term representing his riding the incident which stands foremost in my mind, and which is perhaps indicative of the character of this tough and steely little Scotsman, was in 1984 when Tommy was struck by a bus while crossing the Ottawa River Parkway. The reaction in Nanaimo-AIberni was: "We know Tommy is okay, but what kind of condition is the bus in?" He was not a native son, but his death today has had a profound effect on the people of central Vancouver Island. On their behalf I wish to say goodbye to Tommy in this Chamber he loved so much. We are sure that if he has his way, Heaven will be a better place by Tuesday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief but I hope I speak with the same emotion demonstrated by my colleagues who have spoken before me. Today, as you may appreciate, we are entering into what is known as a time of reform of the House of Commons under the new provisional rules. I think nothing can better signify the kind of attitude I would like to see in this House than the way in which Tommy Douglas conducted himself while a Member not only of the Saskatchewan Legislature, in my home province, but indeed of this House of Commons.
Tommy was outstanding in debate and in the contributions he made sitting with the NDP on the far righthand side of the House. He used this House of Commons but not to his own personal benefit. He used it for principles and issues. He gave us an opportunity to observe the kind of participation which I think all of us seek to emulate.
As a person who grew up in Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was the Premier of that province, one cannot help but be deeply touched by the way in which Tommy Douglas faced adversity with great ebullience, spirit, and wit. 1 say to Mrs. Douglas and her daughters, as well as to the rest of the family, that all of us who were born and lived in Saskatchewan owe a great debt to him as Premier of our province, as a Member of the NDP in this House of Commons, and especially as a person whom we all respected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the House would like to proceed in the normal way and we will now proceed to Statements under Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there is conclusive evidence that the election in the Philippines was fraudulent and not a democratic expression of the will of the people. Any nation that embraces and cherishes the principles of democracy and freedom cannot condone the illegitimate leadership of Ferdinand Marcos. Canada cannot and should not remain silent in the face of this travesty, nor should we wait for the Americans to take a position. We must call immediately for the resignation of Ferdinand Marcos and recognize Corazon Aquino as the rightful and legitimate leader of the Philippines.
The appointment of our new ambassador to the Philippines should be held in abeyance to avoid even the slightest hint of

February 24, 1986
Canada condoning the Marcos dictatorship. 1 call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to speak up for freedom and democracy in the Philippines, indeed in the world.

[ Translation]



EXTERNAL AID


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa was taking a very short view when he proposed giving Europe's food surpluses to poor and vulnerable countries. These countries should not be allowed to become an international dumping ground for the surplus products of rich countries.
The Africa Forum held in Ottawa from February 13 to 15 concluded that Canada can and should pursue a long-term policy. We must co-operate with the African countries to further their own development.
The measures required to achieve this objective include: renegotiating the debt, increasing the means of subsistence of farmers, developing agriculture and supporting reforestation projects.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 1918, an independent Estonian democratic republic was proclaimed. The years that followed were harsh for this tiny nation which experienced the ravages of war and dislocation of its economy. Estonia's short-lived freedom came to an end in June, 1940, when the Soviet Union overran the three Baltic States and forcibly annexed them to the Soviet Union. The popular Soviet version is that the peoples of the Baltic States joined voluntarily. The historical fact is that this revision of history in Soviet textbooks is nothing more than a hoax.
To Canadians of Estonian origin, this day commemorates the brief period of democracy enjoyed by their homeland. This day also gives reason for all Canadians to recall just how precious the gift of democracy is, and how swiftly it can be lost. Today let us join with Canadians of Estonian origin to commemorate this day and to pay tribute to their national courage and resilience. Freedom and democracy are nonnegotiable commodities and they must be restored wherever they are denied.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's 60 seconds have expired.



PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUTE TO WORK OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Public Service of Canada is, without question, one of the finest in the world. My father, Ren Turner, worked in the Public Service for 34 years. During my own years at Parks Canada and CIDA I developed some lasting friendships, as well as a professional appreciation for the quality of the men and women who serve Canada with distinction.
My colleagues in this House recognize the vital role that public servants play in implementing legislation passed here, and in enforcing subsequent regulations and programs. We all rely on the services of program managers, scientists, secretaries, clerks, and many others, to do the best possible job they can in providing the goods and services demanded by all Canadians. When Governments change in Canada, policies and priorities usually change as well. During a period of transition that can last from one to two years there is inevitably some dislocation of personnel in Ottawa and in other parts of the country. We all feel the uncertainty of change-


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Member his time has expired.



STATISTICS CANADA


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the unscrupulous manner whereby Revenue Canada has been forced by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), affectionately known as Stewart the Dreaded and Mike the Knife, to increase the price of its publications. One example of this is the Canadian Statistical Review which sold in March, 1985, for $38.50 and is now selling for $200. Employment and Earning Hours, formerly sold for $65, is now sold for $350. I could go on and give examples upon examples of these dramatic increases.
Many users of information supplied by Statistics Canada are non-profit organizations which cannot afford such drastic and Draconian increases. The Minister of Supply and Services will agree with me that these measures should be withdrawn immediately. I therefore urge this Minister and the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
February 24, 1986

5.0. 21



LA FRANCOPHONIE


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the brilliant success of the Sommet de la francophonie which I had the privilege of attending last week. This historic event united a community of 39 countries in a firm resolve to help each other.
In a spririt of harmony and co-operation, representatives of the countries attending adopted 28 resolutions that are vital for the Francophone world, including Francophone audiovisual exchanges by satellite, joint publishing of text books by Francophone authors, the use of French in the high tech sector, mechanisms for promoting trade exchanges among Francophone countries, and these are just a few examples.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that Canada's status has been enhanced by this summit, and as a Member from Quebec, 1 am delighted with the arrangement to hold the next summit in Quebec City: one more indication of the national reconciliation made possible by the Mulroney Government.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by a statement made by the Liberal employment critic questioning the manner in which Statistics Canada collects employment information, calling the unemployment rate "the big lie". Our Government inherited a severe unemployment problem, along with a method of calculating job creation and employment statistics.
The result of this Government's policies and of those of the previous administration are as follows: One, monthly rate of job creation for the Liberals was approximately 7,000 jobs per month, while our Government averages 36,000. Second, only 18 per cent of the jobs the Liberals created were full-time, while the PC record is 81 per cent of 580,000. Two thousand jobs alone in the last three months were created in my city of Saskatoon.
This statistical approach has been used by the federal Government for decades. No matter what factors are used to establish employment figures, the Government is accomplishing historic job creation. These trends are representative of the trends that are positive in seeing unemployment drop. Rather than-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would like to advise the Flon. Member that his time has expired.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is now more than one year since the Conservative Government opposite revoked the Order in Council requiring that broadcast media and daily newspapers not be controlled by the same company. The folly of that decision has been demonstrated by the Power Corporation's bid to take over the Tele-Metropole media interests. Power already owns daily newspapers in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke and Granby.
Power now wants to own television stations in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke and three other cities. Power will dominate French language media in three cities and influence the media strongly in the whole province. The New Democratic Party believe this will give Power the opportunity to become the K.C. Irving of Quebec. We call on the Government to act before its policy failure leads to irreversible damage to public life in Quebec. Quebec does not need, as New Brunswick now has, a stultifying and repressive hand on the need for free inquiry by journalists, newspapers, and broadcasting outlets.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in a Gallup poll published this morning 55 per cent of those polled said they had little or no confidence in the way the Government is handling the problem of unemployment. This should indicate to the Government that despite its boast of new jobs all is not what it seems, and there are serious employment problems in this country.
The unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent is still too high. Before the recession in 1981 it was 7.5 per cent. Too many of the jobs are part-time and temporary, non-unionized with low wages and no benefits. Twenty-seven per cent of women are in part-time work. Those unemployed for more than one year are four times what they were in 1981. The unemployment problems of youth, older workers and the illiterate are not being addressed. When is the Government going to stop the rhetoric and posturing, admit the problems, and attempt some solutions?


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will bring down a Budget that will be tough but appropriate for the times. It is relatively easy to predict the reaction of the New Democratic Party. They will state without hesitation, as

February 24, 1986
they always do, that we will lose 100,000 jobs. I hope our liberal colleagues will take a more realistic view. May I urge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to show all Canadians that he still has the capacity to rise above the fray and help lead Canada to better times ahead?



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) released a report on the refinery in Montreal. It says, and I quote:
In summary the closure of Gulfs Montreal refinery will have a negative impact on competition, particularly in light of the serious competition problems that have been demonstrated in the course of the petroleum inquiry,
There it is, Mr. Speaker. Why did the Government close the refinery? Why doesn't the Minister resign? He has no clout in the Cabinet.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, "if we do not act immediately, the industry will feel the effect in 10 years, and in 50 years our forests will be destroyed. It will take 200 years to replace them". These words may sound as if they were spoken by an environmentalist or a Haida Indian fighting for the giant trees of South Moresby. No, these are the words of Paul Lamontagne, Executive Director of the International Maple Sugar Institute. Maple syrup is a $75 million a year industry. Acid rain is destroying the foundation of the industry, the maple tree. A Quebec Government study found that only 16.6 per cent of the maple trees in a 20,000 square kilometre zone were healthy.
Once again we have a forceful demonstration of the cost of inaction on acid rain. Even if the United States adopts the proposed $5 billion research program, the maple trees will die. A 50 per cent cut of S02 emissions by 1994-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-ORAL QUESTION PERIOD STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Oral Question Period, which will occur in two or three minutes, I think I should make a statement which was asked of me by the Hon. Member for
Oral Question Period
Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Eleven years have elapsed since Mr. Speaker Jerome made the last such statement, and at that time the House was not televised. Television has had a marked impact on parliamentary behaviour, on the public's perception of parliamentarians, and on our practices.
The traditional guidelines regarding questions, written and oral, are to be found in Citations 356 to 371 of Beachesne's Fifth Edition. They are also summarized on pages 25-26 of the Precis of Procedure recently prepared by the Table Research Branch and distributed to all Members. While some of them remain valid, others have fallen into disuse as a result of the development of our practices. The House is the master of its own procedure and the Chair cannot enforce guidelines unless they conform to the will of the House.
For Question Period to function well-and for it to be seen to be meaningful-it must have some form. There must be some rules. As Members can imagine, several representations have been made to the Chair as to what those rules should be.
At one extreme is the view that the "old" rules should be brought back in their entirety, even those that have not been enforced for many years. At the other extreme is the view that the Chair should be concerned only with length and language, that in all other respects Members should be allowed to use the time as they see fit and that the public would judge appropriately.
A few even carried this argument to its logical conclusion, that Members should be allowed to use the time to make statements, if they wished, instead of questions, and to use whatever language they wanted, whether unparliamentary or not. If their voters didn't like it, they would act, went this argument.
In my view it would be practically impossible to go completely backwards to the rules which, for example, made it out of order to question a Minister about matters reported in the media, out of order to ask Ministers about statements made outside the House, out of order to ask certain kinds of questions regarding Government policy, nor would it make sense to do so, no matter what certain columnists might think.
On the other hand, while length and language are very real concerns they cannot be all that concerns the Chair. Question Period belongs to the whole House and, today, to a larger audience. While there may be political consequences, surely the House must be collectively concerned for the image and reputation and perceived relevancy of Parliament itself. If Question Period were to depart even more from its origins, to become only free-time partisan political theatre, surely that is not in our collective interests.
It seems to me, therefore, that the appropriate rules for Question Period should recognize the following principles:
One, the time is scarce and should, therefore, be used as profitably as possible by as many as possible.
February 24, 1986

Oral Question Period
Two, the public in large numbers do watch, and the House, recognizing that Question Period is often an intense time, should be on its best possible behaviour.
Three, while there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the Government and calling the Government to account for its actions.
Four, Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles, or our practices should seek, in the words of Mr. Speaker Jerome: "To reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a Member's right" to ask questions.
Mr. Speaker Jerome, in his statement 11 years ago, put his view with regard to the first principle of brevity so well that I would merely quote it:
There can be no doubt that the greatest enemy of the Question Period is the Member who offends this most important principle. In putting the original question on any subject, a Member may require an explanatory remark, but there is no reason for such a preamble to exceed one carefully drawn sentence.
It is my proposal to ask all Hon. Members to pay close attention to this admonition and to bring them to order if they fail to do so. It bears repeating that the long preamble or long question takes an unfair share of the time, and invariably, in provoking the same kind of response, only compounds the difficulty.
I agree with these comments and would add that such comments obviously also apply to answers by Ministers. I would also endorse Mr. Speaker Jerome's view that supplementary questions should need no preambles; they should flow from the Minister's response and be put in precise and direct terms without any prior statement or argument. It is the Chair's view that it equally follows from the first principle, that time is scarce, that Members should seek to avoid merely repeating questions that have already been asked. I do not mean that other questions on the same subject should not be asked-as apparently I have been interpreted-just that subsequent questions should be other than ones already asked.
For similar reasons it has always been a fundamental rule of questioning Ministers that the subject matter of the question must fall within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibility of one of its Ministers. This is the only basis upon which Ministers can be expected to answer questions.
Beyond these few restrictions, there are a few other traditional restraints that flow from the principles above. Questions should relate to matters of some urgency and not be purely hypothetical. They should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a Minister has received. They should not normally anticipate Orders of the Day. However, I hasten to add that there is a normal exemption to that with regard to the budget process which I fully intend to honour. Members should be very careful with regard to questions or matters that are sub judice. Ministers should be questioned only in relation to their current portfolios and not in relation to any previously held responsibilities or Party responsibilities.
Finally, I would remind all Hon. Members of the citations in Beauchesne and in our rule book regarding language and
decorum. It seems to the Chair and, judging by the mail I receive, it also seems to many of our constituents that our language and decorum do not match those quite sensible citations and that we are not projecting the image of honourable men and women that is expected of us. Heckling and political quips are part of our tradition; barracking and personal insults must not be.
I intend to be as tough as I can in cutting off Members or Ministers in this regard, but there is little the Chair can do with regard to barracking from the benches on both sides except to appeal to all Members to realize that such behaviour reflects very badly on Parliament itself, and to ask again that we remember where we are. However, it is possible that excessive noise may blur the vision of the Chair and make it difficult to see Members rising.
As always, I seek the co-operation of the House in all these matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of what you have just set forth to the House, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Has he or his Government informed the President of the Philippines that it is the overwhelming opinion of Canadians, I believe, that the results since the election have not properly reflected the popular will of that country and that Canadians would rather encourage a peaceful transition of power under the democratic tradition?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in that same spirit let me take this opportunity to call upon President Marcos to recognize the obvious reality, that the interests of the Philippino people are best served by the establishment of a new Government having the confidence of the Philippino people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. We approved the Minister's statement, but considering that most independent observers condemned the procedure used in this election, why did the

February 24, 1986
Government of Canada wait so long before deciding to take the position it did just now? Why the delay?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, events in the Philippines were in a state of flux, and they still are. I have just made a statement that, I believe, is supported by Members of all parties of the House of Commons and by most Canadians. We intend to continue very prudently in this respect in order to promote lasting and durable stability in the Philippines.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Minister would share, as I do, the concern of over 100,000 Philippino Canadians who have special emotions at this time. There are also thousands of Canadians living or present in the Philippines.
In view of the closing of the Manilla airport this morning and gunfire outside the presidential palace, will the Minister continue to keep us up to date on what measures have been taken?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this morning I telephoned the External Affairs critics of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party extending an invitation to maintain full briefings. Naturally, we will continue that.
In light of the current circumstances in the Philippines, I think it would be appropriate for me to counsel Canadians to avoid travelling to the Philippines if at all possible.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns a story in The Globe and Mail today about the possible use of Canadian territory for deployment of SDI and it concerns the Government's support for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Will the Minister assure Canadians that our country has not and will not be considered for use in any future deployment of the Strategic Defence Initiative?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the fears raised by the story in The Globe and Mail this morning are unfounded.


ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree that a Canadian-United States joint declaratory statement to respect the ABM Treaty as suggested by the NORAD committee report is too weak to
Oral Questions
allay the concerns of many Canadians and, therefore will Canada make it clear in the NORAD Agreement itself that it will not have anything to do with active ballistic missile defence?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada with respect to the ABM regime is clear. The Government is in the process of considering the report tabled by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Philippines. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the Government wants to see a change of Government in the Philippines. Does that mean the Government is now publicly stating our support for Corazon Aquino to become the President of the Philippines tomorrow?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would think it appropriate for the people and institutions of the Philippines to decide who will be their Government.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: In view of the fact that, as the Minister well knows, the election was a fraud and that the people have supported Corazon Aquino to be their new president, will this Government, as other Governments have done, say that it, too, supports her as the democratically elected President of the Philippines? If the Philippines do not do that, will we immediately withdraw recognition of the Marcos Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the view of this Government that it would be appropriate for President Marcos to recognize that the best interests of his country would be served by the putting into place of a new Government which commands the respect of the people of the Philippines. 1 would not presume to dictate to the people of the Philippines how that could be achieved.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The price of crude oil is now below $15 a barrel, yet
February 24, 1986

Oral Questions
Canadian consumers have only seen a price decline of two cents per litre in the price of gasoline. The Prime Minister knows that is not fair. It is not fair to the consumers. When are we going to see a real drop in the price of gasoline at the pumps?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows full well, because he is the energy critic, the price we saw drop at the gas pumps reflects the price last December when prices started to fall rather gradually. The sharp decline in prices did not take effect until late January. Once that works its way through the system, we will see lower gas prices.


LEVEL OF TAXATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, will the Minister of Finance guarantee to consumers that the savings at the pumps will not be lost through increased or new taxes in the upcoming Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Government of Canada has been stated very clearly by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I suggest the Hon. Member wait. He has the patience, I am sure, to wait for maybe 50 or 51 hours, and he will have some answers then.


POSITION OF MOTORISTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to the last question, given that the Minister of Finance this morning bought an expensive new pair of Dack's goat-skin shoes, is he in a position to tell Canadian motorists that after Wednesday they will still be able to buy fairly reasonably priced shoes for their families?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: At least they weren't Gucci's.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that I did not buy those shoes. All the members of the Conservative Caucus bought those shoes for me and I appreciate very much their good wishes as expressed through that purchase. They are Dack shoes. They were made in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I will be delighted to have those shoes on my fee on Wednesday afternoon when I make my presentation.


CONTENT OF FORTHCOMING BUDGET
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister, then, if he would stand in his place in his ordinary shoes and, in view of the protests out there, assure us, that the Canadian motorist who, after all, had to pay because of the last Budget, will not be milked in this Budget for any
more gasoline taxes at the pumps? Is the Minister prepared to make that commitment right now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member should know that he is asking me to make statements he knows I cannot make.


John Edward Broadbent: You can say what is not going to be in the Budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I appreciate very much the concern the Hon. Member is expressing. We on this side of the House share that same concern.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for finally publishing the O'Farrell Report. Better late than never. On page 19 of the report, the Director indicates his concern that a drop in the price of crude oil will not be reflected in the price at the pump, owing to a lack of competition among the three remaining refineries in Quebec, this according to the Director. I would therefore ask the Minister how he intends to provide a substitute for the laws of the market, to ensure that consumers will see a substantial drop in the price of gas in Quebec.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I may simply remind my hon. colleague that this report by the Director of Combines Investigations is an entirely independent report, reflecting the Director's views following a study that he made. It is part of a series of five different reports by experts that were submitted and published, and of course I thought it was appropriate to ask him to submit his report to the Canadian Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for consideration. As soon as the Commission, which is now examining the oil industry, submits its recommendations, we shall be looking at them very carefully.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS TO ENSURE QUEBEC CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM REDUCED CRUDE OIL PRICES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that after a reply as vague as the one I just received, you will allow me a short supplementary.
Could the Minister inform the House what he intends to do to ensure that the Quebec consumer will benefit from the drop in the price of crude? The O'Farrelll Report suggests this might not happen, owing to a reduction in the number of

February 24, 1986
competitors. What does the Minister intend to do, besides providing us with vague replies?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I will make it short, and I simply want to say that the decision regarding the acquisition by Ultramar was made with a view to creating jobs and attracting investment to the province of Quebec, and enhancing the competitive position of Ultramar, for the benefit of the consumer.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member will know why I am just going to go to the next question.


John Horton McDermid: Ask her to withdraw that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carle-ton.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
* *
*


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Tourism. He will know that women across the country are outraged at his commissioning of sexist commercials-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: -in which-to keep the language parliamentary-women's bodies are used as decorative objects. Will the Minister undertake to withdraw all of the scenes which are contrary to the guidelines on non-sexist advertising, not just those scenes which are insulting to nurses, which he has agreed to withdraw, but all of the scenes that offend the equality and dignity of women?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the commercials a number of times, I am completely satisfied that the commercials in question do not represent in any way at all any type of sexual stereotyping of women. In fact what we have tried to do, and what we have done, is get a good balance between men and women in the commercials themselves, as well as children.
As the Hon. Member knows, we have been in touch with the Nurses' Association because of the concern of their professional association. I talked with them on Friday about their problem. On Saturday I instructed my Department to remove the depiction of nurses from that particular segment. Other than that, I do not intend to make any other changes.



CONTENT OF COMMERCIALS

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not see that these commercials are merely a slicked up version of an old message: "Hey, Mister, want my sister?"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: -and this use of women's bodies makes the Minister of Tourism Canada's number one pimp?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Public Works. As the Minister may know, there is considerable opposition within the National Capital region to the National Capital Commission's preferred site for a new American Embassy on the Mile Circle. Would the Minister tell the House whether this decision is a fait accompli or are other sites still being actively considered?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern of the Hon. Member. No, there has been no formal recommendation for the site to which he referred. There has been a study commissioned by the National Capital Commission to look into the environmental and other impacts of such a location. A decision will not be made until spring. Between now and next spring, I am sure that any concerns the Hon. Member or any citizens of Ottawa may have, can be expressed directly to the Commission or to the planning process."


John Barry Turner: Supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



VIA RAIL


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wrote to the Minister three months ago regarding unsafe conditions at VIA Rail's Toronto maintenance centre. Is the Minister not concerned that in less than four months there have been 153 accidents at the yard and that management's response has been to ignore the problem and discipline workers who complain about unsafe conditions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, these matters are being investigated and looked into as a result of the meetings which I had with CP, CN, and VIA Rail. I am sure that any safety deficiencies to which the Hon. Member refers will be corrected.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Meet with the guys who do the job.
February 24, 1986

Oral Questions



OVERTIME WORKED BY EMPLOYEES

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not know that workers involved in fixing train brakes at the Toronto yard' worked an average 92 hours overtime in the past seven weeks? One worker actually worked four weeks overtime during a seven-week period. How can the Minister expect Canadians to agree to his guarantees of rail safety when VIA Rail is cutting back and forcing the remaining workers to work dangerous periods of overtime?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the examples to which the Hon. Members has referred are precisely the kinds of things that we are investigating and hope to address in the very near future. As a result of the initiatives we have taken, we will once again make the railways safe and turn the situation around, which is quite different from what occurred over the last four or five years under the previous administration.



CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, 94 per cent of Canadians have expressed support for Katimavik. Young people all over the country are rallying to its support. Recently, two reports described-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now on his third statement or preamble. I would ask him to come to his question, please.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the wide support for Katimavik expressed most recently in two reports dealing with the crisis among Canadian youth, will the Prime Minister now act to reverse the decision to cancel Katimavik?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we were very clear about this last week. We said that the decision on Katimavik was final and irreversible.
I am sorry to see that when the Hon. Member read the Senate report, he failed to notice the emphasis on job creation for youth. Young people need jobs. This year, my colleague at Employment and Immigration is investing $330 million in job creation for young people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is starting to sound like a Minister's statement.
Supplementary Question.
[English)



REQUEST FOR REINSTITUTION

Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State take into account what happened when the Government said it would not reverse its decision on pensions, and make a proper decision now in response to the strong feelings which have been expressed all across the country? Will he not, in fact, change his mind and reinstitute Katimavik in response to the concerns expressed by youth all across the country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I repeat that the decision on Katimavik is final and will not change.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
After six accidents within a few weeks, how can the Minister table a Bill on VIA Rail today which contains no new measures to provide more adequate and more complete protection for railway passengers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the very first objectives of VIA Rail is to carry out a safe, efficient, effective and reliable rail transportation service. That is consistent with Section 3 of the National Transportation Act. I think the Hon. Member is fully aware of the steps and initiatives which I have taken in the recent past in order to address the recent rash of rail accidents which have occurred.



PURCHASE OF PASSENGER CARS

André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister ready to put his money where his mouth is? The Bill which he tabled today is a dead fish, unless there is a major financial commitment by the Government. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he has sought the approval of the Minister of Finance to allow him to purchase urgently needed new passenger cars?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, the Bill is not a dead fish. At least we brought in a Bill. The Government of which the Hon. Member was a member chose to create VIA with the stroke of a pen without giving it a clear mandate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As a one-dollar item.

February 24, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, as a one-dollar item.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: First, VIA will have a clear mandate, a new costing order, and a mission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And no passengers!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With respect to the issue of equipment, I am advised by VIA that it is close to reaching a letter of agreement with a consortium formed by Bombardier and UTDC and that within a month or so a contract should be signed. At that time we hope that we will be able to acquire the necessary-


André Ouellet: You said that a year ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It does take a little while. However, we are doing something. We are not procrastinating; we are putting our money where our mouth is.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister is aware that extremely high levels of dioxin have been found in another United States chemical dump on its side of the Niagara River. Will the Minister advise the House if dioxin is leaking into the Niagara River and into Lake Ontario and, if so, what is the Government going to do about it?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no confirmation that the dioxin has actually leaked into the groundwater, and through the groundwater into the Niagara River itself. However, the New York State Government and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are supervising a major investigation into the question and into possible required remedial action. In the meantime my Department, with the Government of New York, the Government of the United States, and the Government of Ontario, is putting the finishing touches on a master plan for the clean-up of the Niagara River in general.



FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he knows, on the Friday before the House adjourned for one week the Minister of Finance introduced legislation which would
Oral Questions
restrict the increases in money going to the provinces in transfer payments. This is money used for post-secondary education and health. Does the Minister have any prediction of the estimated increase in the cost of health services over the next five years?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be asked the question. The Minister of Finance in his previous Budget, and also in legislation which was tabled, clearly showed that the Government will increase its spending on both health and post-secondary education. It is projected to rise from the present approximately $65 billion to $90 billion. That is a good increase. 1 think that if people look at it objectively they will see it as such.



COST PROJECTION INQUIRY

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, despite what you said earlier, my question to the Minister is this. Does the Minister have any figures in his Department which would tell us how much it expects the cost of health services to rise over each of the next five years? Does he have that information and will he give it to the House?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the legislation and the formula, as the Hon. Member knows, are before the House. If he takes a look at the formula in the legislation he will see that it is maintained at inflation plus. If he takes a look at it very seriously he will see that the Governments of the various provinces can maintain their health programs within those constrictions. In fact 1 hope that the Province of Manitoba will take its responsibilities seriously in regard to health and not cut back on beds as has been done, as well as start paying its share of post-secondary education.



ENVIRONMENT CANADA


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is the Minister reorganizing Environment Canada offices around the country, muzzling officials, applying political criteria to public information, and preventing the public from hearing the facts as they really are?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, none of the statements in the Hon. Member's preamble is true. As the Hon. Member knows, my Department has the highest proportion of scientists in the Government of Canada. These scientists are a credit to the Department and to the country.
The fact is, however, that an expert in acid rain is not an expert in dioxin, just as an expert in dioxin is not an expert in PCBs. When an official makes a categorical statement to the public through the media in an area outside of his or her
February 24, 1986

Oral Questions
expertise, especially in such a sensitive area as drinking water quality, then at best, the public is short-changed and, at worst, the public can become panicked. 1 am putting a stop to it.



STATEMENTS MADE BY OFFICIALS

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister assure the House that officials will be able to speak according to their knowledge of the facts and not according to the political wishes of the Minister?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with ensuring that the public gets reliable information. When an official speaks with the authority of the Department of the Environment and of the Government of Canada, it is very important that that official speak within his or her area of expertise and competence, and not outside it. That objective is not a strike against information but a blow for reliable information.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs. Given the complete inadequacy of most armed service pensions, can present and former members of the Armed Services look to the Minister to stand up for them and get justice from the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Will the Minister go to bat for these people and make sure that they can collect unemployment insurance benefits since they are required to pay into that fund?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member I am sure realizes, I do not answer questions put on behalf of ex-service personnel. I do answer questions put on behalf of war veterans.
I am very glad to assure the Hon. Member, as I am sure he knows, that in all matters to do with the veterans of this country, those who fought in our various wars receive the very closest attention from me and my Department, and get the very best attention that veterans in any country in the world receive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



KOREAN WAR VETERANS

James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the event that veterans from the Korean War are involved in this, will the Minister go to bat for them and ensure that they get fair treatment from the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows this, and if he does not, all he has to do is walk out of the House onto the streets of Ottawa or anywhere else, and ask any veteran he runs into, and he will tell him that this Minister and this Department are looking after their problems 24 hours of every day.



ENVIRONMENT CANADA


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister just said that he is making changes in his Department to ensure that the scientists from the Department speak within their area of competence. Who decides whether a scientist in the Minister's Department is or is not speaking in his area of competence?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there have been a few cases in which junior officials within my Department have been quoted as senior officials of Environment Canada when nothing could be further from the truth. They have been interviewed, and on the basis of those interviews, have given information to the public through the media without authority from their immediate bureaucratic superiors. That is the first line of reference. If in a given case it is appropriate for the Minister himself to give such approval, then Fine, but it will be in rare circumstances.



REPORT ON TOXIC CHEMICALS

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think those concerned with the environment must be very worried about the Minister's answer. On January 30, almost a month ago, a team of 50 scientists from the Minister's Department issued a report on toxic chemicals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a preamble to a supplementary question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will the Minister say today that he has accepted the 24 recommendations in that report and is proceeding immediately to implement them?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the House Leader of the Official Opposition is out of date, in this case by two weeks. I made a public statement to the effect that all 24 recommendations had been accepted, and most of them are now already being acted upon.

February 24, 1986



HUMAN RIGHTS


Andrew Witer: Mr, Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For the last year and a half, Leila and Valdo Rand-pere, two young Estonian defectors, have been trying in vain to secure the release of their two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Kaisa who is being held by Soviet authorities in Estonia. What action is the Government prepared to take in order to demand the release of this young political prisoner?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a most unusual situation in which the Hon. Member has interested himself. It is the situation of an infant, two and a half years of age, who has spent one-fifth of her life separated by Soviet authorities from her parents. We are looking at every possibility and opportunity by which Canada might achieve or contribute to the reunification of that family.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Would the Minister confirm that his Ministry is investigating the firm of Fleet Industries, and would he also confirm that DND has indicated it would accept no further materials from Fleet at this time?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, based on complaints we have received, we have undertaken some investigations and have caused those investigations to be carried out. I cannot as yet confirm the second part of the Hon. Member's question.



NATURE OF INVESTIGATION

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister indicate to the House what his in-residence inspection staff have been doing all this time while questions of inappropriate quality in parts for items like the F-18 have been in production?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my information at this point in time is that questions of inappropriate procedures and so on have not dealt with the F-18 or in fact any aeronautic equipment or aerospace equipment, but rather with marine equipment. Nevertheless, the implied question as to what we are doing is part of the investigation and I am certainly most interested to ensure that our inspection services are adequate and that inferior products are not accepted by the Canadian Armed Forces.
Oral Questions RAILWAYS



NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY-DIRECTIVE TO INCREASE FREIGHT RATES

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will be aware that the Canadian Transport Commission has issued an order to terratransport in Newfoundland to increase its freight rates rather dramatically. Will the Government of Canada be exercising its Order in Council authority to prohibit, as the Government did in 1985, these dramatic freight rate increases from being implemented in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, decisions of this nature are subject to appeal, and intervenors and/or interested parties have 30 days within which to appeal to the CTC or the Governor in Council, and they can choose that route if they wish.



EFFECT OF RATE INCREASES

Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with the comments contained in the CTC report to the effect that implementation of the Commission's recommendations with respect to freight rate increases will cause a loss of traffic for the railway system in Newfoundland and thereby further critically erode the viability of the railway in the Province of Newfoundland?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member would appreciate the fact that it would be inappropriate for me to comment or express an opinion on a decision that was brought down by the CTC. There is an avenue of appeal or a process that can be taken. Until due process takes place, I really cannot add anything further to my first answer.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Friday, the Director of Combines Investigations said in his report that closing the refinery in Montreal East would result in a lack of competition. My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister agree with this statement? If so, what does he intend to do?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. These are the opinions of the Director of Com-
February 24, 1986

Oral Questions
bines Investigations. He is responsible for making a study when a situation of this kind occurs and to report on it, and that is what he did. I have asked the Director to transmit his views to the Canadian Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which is now examining the oil industry.



STATISTICS CANADA


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services in his role as Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Can the Minister tell the House why he has ordered or permitted Statistics Canada to increase its fees for publications to such an exorbitant extent that publications which non-profit groups formerly got for $38.50 per copy now cost over $200? Why has he allowed this unfair tax to be imposed?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that our Department has made available, through public libraries throughout Canada and in all offices of the Department of Supply and Services, copies of every publication to ensure that any member of the public requiring the same will have them available at absolutely no cost.



INCREASE IN PRICE OF CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. Does the Minister feel it is right that an agency in Vancouver known as the Trade Union Research Bureau, which paid $592 for 32 publications in 1985, should now pay $2,829 for the same service? Does he think it is reasonable for agencies that try to help workers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One question, please!


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the position of our Department is that supply and demand be the cardinal rule. If there are very few organizations that require the material, then obviously the cost factor will be a little higher. Cost recovery has to be a basis of this program, and we have announced that. There is widespread acceptance and, indeed, there is no prejudice, as I have already indicated.



PRICE OF GASOLINE

Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Why are Canadians being asked to pay $1.90 for the same amount of gasoline that can be purchased in the U.S. for $1.30?


John Horton McDermid: There are many reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. It has been discussed in this House many, many times. The Hon. Member was in the House when 1 gave the answer the last time. There are social benefits in Canada, social benefits that have to be paid for. I know Americans would gladly pay a few more pennies for their gasoline if they had a medicare system like ours in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REQUEST THAT TAXES NOT BE INCREASED

Ian Deans: We are not talking about a few more pennies, Mr. Speaker.
Given that in the United States you can purchase the same amount of gas that costs you 60 cents more in Canada, can the Prime Minister assure us that there will be no additional increase in taxes on the price of gasoline to Canadians come budget day on Wednesday?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Hon. Member be here at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday and he will get the answer to that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is regrettable that the Government of Canada will not recognize Carazon Aquino as the leader in the Philippines.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: If Ferdinand Marcos does not step down as the President of the Philippines-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is hypothetical.


John V. Nunziata: -will the Government of Canada break off diplomatic relations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member may want to ask a policy question about those relations but he is now asking a

February 24, 1986
purely hypothetical question. May I ask him to rephrase his question?


John V. Nunziata: In view of the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will the Minister break off diplomatic relations with the Philippines until a new Government is installed in Manila?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we think it highly important that the Government of Canada and other Governments interested in stability in the Philippines act in a positive way, designed to achieve that purpose in the Philippines, not designed to serve any other goal that might be sought here in Canada.
Our judgment is that it is important for Canada to register the view that it is time for President Marcos to recognize the current reality in the Philippines. We believe also it is important for this House and for the country to recognize that events are changing in the Philippines. It may well be that there will be clear support in that country for a regime led by Mrs. Aquino. If that is the case, it will be supported by the Government of Canada.
It may well be that some other constellation of forces would provide the kind of stability-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the House is interested, but this is becoming a statement. A short supplementary, please.



CANADIAN POSITION

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada no longer recognizes Ferdinand Marcos as the President in the Philippines, why would Canada continue to have diplomatic relations with an illegitimate leader in the Philippines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Among other things, Mr. Speaker, there are some
3,000	to 4,000 Canadians now in the Philippines whom we do not want to place in jeopardy. There are very many Canadians of Philippine origin whose relatives and interests we do not want to place in jeopardy.
1 think it highly irresponsible to suggest that instead of contributing to an evolution toward stability in the Philippines we should take a random act that might add to instability in that country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



VIA RAIL


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in light of
Oral Questions
his announcement today about legislation and a rail passenger act.
In light of the situation of VIA Rail in terms of cost and the two-year period the Minister is prescribing as a target for cost recovery, can the Minister assure the House that the two-year period to reach the target of cost recovery will not commence until VIA Rail has its new transcontinental passenger equipment in place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That would be a little difficult to guarantee, Mr. Speaker. 1 doubt very much whether we could have new equipment much before the fall of 1988, but the provisions in the Bill will make it much easier to achieve those targets. A new costing order, and an incentive scheme are built into the legislation. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the details of this might be more appropriately explored during consideration of the Bill itself.



ACQUISITION OF RAILWAY STATION PROPERTIES

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister assure the House that VIA Rail will be able to obtain properties, particularly railway stations, from either railroad at no cost or the legal cost of $1, in view of the fact that those properties have been written off, for which they received


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in some difficulty as to whether that question should properly be put in committee when the Bill is before committee as opposed to being put here. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Scarborough West.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the Philippines.
The Minister has cautioned Canadians not to travel to the Philippines. Can the Minister advise the House whether the Government will be able to take action to assist Canadians already there should evacuation be made necessary by possible violence?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant touch with members of the Canadian community who are in the Philippines. I do not think it would be fruitful at this stage to indicate in any detail the contingency arrangements that are in place there, as indeed they are in place in many countries where changes might occur. I think the House would want to know that those contingency plans are in place.
We are in contact with Canadians there. I think that we can give a reasonable guarantee of the safety of Canadians in that region.
February 24, 1986

Oral Questions CANADIAN POSITION


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising, I believe, out of the ambiguity of the Government's position on the Philippine matter. He has said that the Government's position is to impress upon President Marcos the reality in this current situation, but he has fallen short of recognizing the alternative for the Presidency as a result of those elections.
The Minister has suggested in ambiguous terms, Mr. Speaker, that there might be some other constellation of power-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: My question: surely it is the position of the Canadian Government that we want the will of the Philippine people to be recognized in a legitimate Government? Surely that is what the Minister is saying?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is what we seek, Mr. Speaker. We also believe that it would be appropriate for the people of the Philippines to make that decision-


Pauline Jewett: They already have.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and not for the Government of Canada or some other Government to offer instruction to them before a situation that is now in evolution has taken the kind of form that would allow some reasonable guarantee of that kind of certainty in the Philippines.
1 understand the interest of Members in the House in having a situation more clear cut than at the moment it appears to be. We believe that we have to deal with realities. We believe the reality now is that President Marcos no longer commands the support of the people of the Philippines.


Pauline Jewett: Because Aquino does.


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe it important that this country and others-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although this is important, I must recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of National Defence. Would he be prepared to table in this House those amounts that are now being spent in Canada for the production of both defensive antidotes to chemical weapons and the production of chemical weapons, particularly in relation to Suffield?


Mr. Speaker:: That is properly an Order Paper question. 1 suspect that is what the Minister would want to say. Does the
Hon. Member want to rephrase the question? Last question, please.


James Ross Fulton: Would the Minister of National Defence tell the House how much is being spent right now on the production of chemical weapons and defensive chemical weapons in Canada?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, apart from the question being of a nature which is properly put on the Order Paper, it would be inappropriate for me to allow that kind of fear to be aroused in the hearts of Canadians by that sort of statement. No chemical weapons are being produced in Canada and no Member of this House should try to leave the impression that they are.


James Ross Fulton: That's a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena will withdraw that comment.


James Ross Fulton: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena will please stand in his place and withdraw that comment now.


James Ross Fulton: No, I won't.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena will simply withdraw the statement, please, for the sake of the House. Under the new Standing Orders the Hon. Member gives me no choice. He has the right simply to stand and withdraw, or I must name him.


Some Hon. Members:: Name him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member gives me no choice. I must name the Member and require that he leave the House for the rest of the day. 1 must do so. I must name the Hon. Member for Skeena and I must ask him to leave the House for the rest of the day, under the authority of the new rules.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Fulton having withdrawn;]


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Get out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All such comment is also out of order. Let me make it clear that the rules about language and conduct apply to all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Well done.

February 24, 1986



CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT

['The House has heard the terms of the order. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the order?']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard) on Friday, February 14, 1986, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my point of order actually arises out of your statement to the House today. I am a little disappointed that your ruling did not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not possible to raise a point of order on a statement by the Speaker.


John Barry Turner: I then have a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. Speaker:: I am very pleased to introduce to Members today a new Clerk at the Table, Camille Montpetit. Mr. Montpetit has been appointed, by means of a regular competitive process, to the position of principal clerk in charge of the Table Research Branch.

All Members appreciate the judicious advice and assistance offered by the Clerks of the Table, and 1 am sure that they will wish to join me in offering our congratulations to Mr. Montpetit on his appointment.


STANDING ORDERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House with respect to two draft orders that have been the subject of discussion between the Opposition House Leaders. 1 think he will find a disposition at this time for these orders to be received by unanimous consent and passed without debate. The first one is:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, provisional Standing Order 64 shall be deemed to apply from 5.01 o'clock p.m. Friday, February 14, 1986, to all written questions for which notice is thereafter received; Provided that:
(1)	the Provisional Standing Orders in force prior to the above mentioned time shall be deemed to continue in force in relation to any question then remaining on the Order Paper;
The Budget
(2)	the questions referred to in paragraph (1) above shall be immediately
transferred to the Monthly Supplement to the Order Paper-Questions.
The second one is with regard to a different subject, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps you will put that question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has just proposed an order to deal with questions on the Order Paper at the time the new Standing Orders are adopted. I want to say on behalf of the official Opposition that we are pleased to give our consent to this order. I appreciate the fact that the Government House Leader has, in effect, responded favourably to a suggestion I made at the time this came up a week ago.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the order. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the order?



THE BUDGET


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the second order which we have discussed which I think you will find a disposition to receive now by unanimous consent and to pass without debate is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the House reaches Orders of the Day on Wednesday, February 26, 1986, it shall proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceeding No. 35; Provided that,
(1)	if the House completes consideration of Routine Proceedings prior to 4.30 o'clock p.m. on that day the Speaker shall suspend the sitting until that time when the Orders of the Day shall be taken up;
(2)	if the House has not completed its consideration of Routine Proceedings by 4.30 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, February 26, 1986, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then before the House and shall call Orders of the Day; and
(3)	when the Minister of Finance has completed presentation of the Budget the House shall immediately revert to Introduction of Bills in order to provide for introduction of an Act to provide borrowing authority and the House shall then resume consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 35 until the debate thereon is adjourned whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 had an opportunity to review the proposed order. We will, of course, give our consent, although I must express my disappointment that the Government has so mismanaged financial affairs that it finds it necessary to continue to borrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.
February 24, 1986

Point of Order-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) POINT OF ORDER



DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONS AMONG MEMBERS

John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a point or order arising out of Question Period. As a private Member on the Government side I attempted to ask a supplementary question. In light of the reform of Parliament, I would like you to rule soon on this issue of a different distribution of questions in Question Period to all of us in this Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 did rule some time ago.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask if it is the ruling of the Chair that the 48 per cent of the private Members who support the Government are only going to be allowed three questions a day without supplemen-taries? This constitutes less than 8 per cent of the questions asked in the House. That, Sir, is grossly unfair. It is unfair to me and my constituents. I submit, with great respect, that it is unfair to the rest of us on the Government side of the House who support the Government but still have the on-going responsibility of representing our constituencies.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I have been waiting for four weeks for representations. For them to arrive, in some cases, this morning, was a little unfair. With great respect, I have already indicated my view on this matter. It is simplest to check the record for what I have said on the matter. I think that is the only fair thing to say to the Hon. Member. If the Hon. Member looks at today's Question Period, he will see that when we were able to get more Members in Question Period it was possible to share that distribution as well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to intrude myself into this debate, but now that it has been raised, maybe I will intrude myself.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course it is not a debate, it is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: Unintrude yourself now.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the Hon. House Leader knows full well that he and 1 and the other House Leaders have an appropriate time to discuss this matter, and this is not it, with great respect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member if he wishes to raise a different point or order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that next time we meet 1 will raise the topic discussed on the floor of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: In which case I cancel the meeting. No, that is fine.


John Barry Turner: I want to be there.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mclnnes that Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestitute of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had the floor. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, before the lunch break I was attempting to put before the House the concern that we in this Party and many of the people of Canada have with the decision that is being made by the Government to divest itself of many of the Crown corporations which have been established over the years, but particularly of Canadian Arsenals Limited. This is a firm which manufactures armaments. As I stated earlier, many of these corporations were set up by the Government over the years because the private sector was unwilling or unable to provide the necessary service which it was in the public interest of Canada to have provided. Many of these provincial and federal Crown corporations have been used, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) stated, to pay for the social services we all depend on. We have here a corporation which is doing just that. In the last year this company made a profit of $11 million. Taking a business approach, is it better to keep a company which produces a profit of $11 million to be used for those social services, or to sell that company for $90 million and eliminate the profit? That is a concern all of us should have.
Given an understanding of how we can best contribute to the peace of the world, do we want to increase the number of corporations in Canada that make armaments and leave that sector of the economy outside the control of the Government?
This is the moral problem involved in the selling of this particular corporation. We consider ourselves to be peacemakers. We have a very well-established policy concerning the sale of arms. They cannot be sold to nations considered to be a threat to Canada, to countries with whom the UN Security Council has banned arms trading, or to regimes considered
10892

February 24, 1986
repugnant because of human rights abuses by security forces. South Africa and Chile are two such countries. However, lately we have had many examples of Canada moving into the world's arms race. Some headlines recently have said things like: "Canada supplies arms to Chile and turns a blind eye to their deployment". Or, "U.S. chases merchants of death", and the article specifically names Canadians arms going to parts of the world which are unacceptable to the Canadian Government. Another headline said: "Church groups alarmed at the increase of military exports". I am not suggesting that the group which is attempting to buy Canadian arsenals is going to disperse these arms illegally all over the world. However, we do know that armaments have ended up in the hands of the wrong people before and they will do so in the future. More and more arms with the stamp "Made in Canada" are appearing in Nicaragua, Chile and other places where they have no business being. That will happen more and more if we start selling arms for profit.
At present the Canadian Arsenals corporation exists because it supplies 90 per cent of its production to the Department of National Defence. That is the way it should be. However, do we want to increase the amount of arms produced in Canada for profit? Do we want to be part of the development of a war potential by our country?
I have a number of other concerns about this Bill. The Financial Administration Act requires that the Minister lay before this House any directives he gives to a Crown corporation. This Crown corporation had to prepare itself for sale, instructions had to be given for its sale, and the terms and conditions made known to those who may want to bid on it. However, none of that material has appeared in this House. I suggest that the Government has not fulfilled the requirements of that Act in this particular case.
There is another factor involved here as well, which I mentioned before, and that is that this corporation does make money. The Government, however, cannot use it. We have had our fourth divestiture of a Crown corporation. The Northern Transportation Company did not make money, de Havilland did not make money, and they used, in each case, the idea that there was something that was costing the taxpayer money, "therefore we are good fellows and we are going to sell it even if it did supply a private service or give us the kind of pride we thought we should have as far as Canada was concerned". We were proud of de Havilland as a national corporation owned by the people of Canada, but they sold it to a foreign corporation. In this case that particular situation could not be used as an excuse because this corporation did not lose money.
'
So what are we doing here-and this is what I would like to know and why I think the Minister should come before the committee to explain the policy of the Government-why is the Government they selling certain parts of the Crown corporation, or all of the Crown corporations? What is the basic policy behind this divestiture of Crown corporations? Are there certain areas or Crown corporations that are not going to
Canadian Arsenals Limited
be sold that are sacred to the Government? But that is a word that does not carry too much credibility with this Government. Will it proceed to sell them all off? This particular corporation, because it does not fulfil the requirements that have been established in the previous sales of Crown corporations, is probably a good testing ground. This may be the time when we should ask the Government and the Minister to come before a committee of this House to explain what their policy is on the divestiture of Crown corporations.
Regardless of what the Minister said in his original statement, it is a concern of ours that this particular sale does not have the real support of the union that represents the employees of Canadian Arsenals.
On December 4, 1985, The Ottawa Citizen suggested that the union was unhappy with the Canadian Arsenals sale. There was no consultation at all. This Government, which prides itself so much on consultation-although quite often it is just one-way consultation-did not really consult the employees' union and keep it informed as to how it felt about the sale of its company.
Before we go on to some other items we should also take a look at the really serious concerns that some people have about the Department of Supply and Services handling this sale for the federal Government, a Department whose basic responsibility is procurement. It is not a company that is well versed in sales; it is a company that is well versed in buying. We have been unable to receive from this Government any of the procedural background, although the Minister stated very categorically that it was done very democratically, everybody had the opportunity to bid, and that it went through four or five bids. I think that is probably correct.
There has been no opportunity for anybody in this House- as far as I know, unless it is for one of the members of the Government who is close to the Minister-to judge whether the whole process was above board. In fact, there have been some accusations against a senior official of DSS-although he have indicated by swearing an affidavit that he was not dealing with any aspect of the CAL sale-that this could be questioned as being a conflict of interest. We need an opportunity, and therefore we will be taking a look at these items in the committee when this Bill goes before committee.
As I mentioned before, the employees are not sure of their pension right now, after four or five months of the sale being almost completed, they do not feel secure about their pension plan.
We also have another concern, Mr. Speaker, that possibly some politics were involved in this. SNC was a large contributor to the Tory election fund in 1984. The Toronto Sun stated in December of 1985 that the SNC paid $1,000 into the campaign fund of one of the Ministers of the Government. Officers of the company paid additional funds into the central Tory campaign funds. La Presse also stated that SNC contributed in excess of $10,000 in 1984 to the Tory campaign. So these things also need to be investigated before we say yes and put the stamp on the sale of Canadian Arsenals.
February 24, 1986

Canadian Arsenals Limited
There is also the fact that SNC already owns almost the entire armaments industry outside of Canadian Arsenals. Val-cartier Industries, which at one time was part of Canadian Arsenals, together with Canadian Arsenals will end up being almost entirely a monopoly of armament production in Canada. It will be producing for profit.
There are a number of other areas which have to be investigated. If this is a method of getting rid of the deficit or selling off some of the assets so we can turn in that money to get rid of the deficit, is this a good business procedure? I think we should investigate whether, after five years or ten years, using the corporate plan of Canadian Arsenals, the net result to the Canadian Government will be better if it keeps this company or if it sells it. The Conservative Government, which prides itself on its great business acumen, should recognize that this kind of investigation should be part of the discussion which takes place before the actual sale of a corporation.
The previous speaker did mention the need to take a good look at the value of this corporation. As I say, it is already profitable. It is our understanding that its sale value is practically the same as its book value. Do we have any real idea whether the assets of the company that are being turned over to the purchaser are not worth much more than the $90 million which he is going to have to pay? all we have is the speech made in the House and the press release sent out by the Minister. There are no figures which would give us any indication that the approach being taken is acceptable and the amount offered is actually near the amount that could be received for this corporation. The agreements which are going between the two corporations are public papers. The Minister has not yet given any indication that he will make those papers available to us. It is the responsibility of Members on the committee to demand to see those papers before we approve this kind of divestiture of a Crown corporation.
I suggest that the sale of Canadian Arsenals is the first test case because de Havilland was sold under different circumstances. de Havilland was part of a larger corporation that had a mandate to privatize.
Canadian Arsenals was established for sound reasons. The Government believed it should have control over the production of armaments that are used by Canada and that might end up in countries that should not have them. I do not believe that the Government's reasons for selling this Crown corporation are adequate. When this Bill goes before the committee we will seek the information that will allow us and the people of Canada to determine whether the Government is selling this company for practical or for ideological reasons. This review will allow the people of Canada to watch how the privatization process will take place in the future and judge whether the Government of Canada is doing what is best for Canadians.
Canadian Arsenals is one of Canada's most successful Crown corporations. I find it difficult to understand why the Government would choose to sell a corporation that is third in profitability in the last five years. We must question whether
the Government is selling this corporation for ideological reasons-to show that the sale of Crown corporations is good for Canadians.
Some 90 per cent of the product produced by this company is purchased by the Government. Why is it divesting itself of its source of these products?
The corporation is required to file a corporate plan pursuant to the Financial Administration Act. According to its corporate plan, the corporation suggests that its sales are expected to double in the next few years, thereby doubling its profitability as well. When we are considering whether this is a good business deal, we must question whether $90 million is a good price for a company that may have a profit or $20 million next year.
We are also faced with the moral question of the production of munitions for profit. Many Canadians, including church groups, have stated their opposition to such a policy. This is another issue which must be taken into consideration when studying the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals by the Government of Canada.
Canadian Arsenals also suggests in its 1985-86 corporate plan that it would increase its production because it was motivated by the Canadianization of the products. However, according to an article arising from the sale of Canadian Arsenals, the Minister stated that the Government will purchase some of its munitions from NATO countries and that this corporation will be increasing its sales abroad to other NATO countries. We must question the Government's policy in this regard.
When the Government was in opposition it was active in passing Bill C-24 to amend the Financial Administration Act and make Crown corporations much more accountable to the Parliament of Canada. Now that it is in Government, it is ignoring that Act by selling this Crown corporation without giving Parliament the information to which it is entitled.
The Government sold de Havilland without requiring parliamentary approval. At least in this case the Government must bring before Parliament the sale of this and all other Crown corporations that were formed as a result of legislation. While I am not pleased with the manner in which this divestiture is proceeding through Parliament, at least the Government must bring its sale before the House, as it will with all Crown corporations formed by legislation, so that Canadians will have an opportunity to determine whether the divestiture will be good for the economy and the people of Canada.

February 24, 1986



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)- Agriculture-Sugar-beet industry-Government policy, (b) Ontario and Quebec corn producers; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-The Economy-Interest rate levels, (b) Exchange value of dollar, (c) Government policy; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Criminal Code- Acquisition of firearms by persons convicted on gun charges.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mclnnes that Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the sale of Canadian Arsenals to SNC. I had a couple of concerns when I heard about this sale. First, there is no way we in Canada should be left without a company that guarantees the production of ammunition for our use in Canada such as for our Armed Forces and, indeed, the sports world, which is becoming a very demanding market. The Government seems to have adopted a three-tier system in selling Crown corporations. First, if it can, it will sell these Crown corporations outright at whatever price. Second, the Government will chop a company in half so that it will be crippled in order to make the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) look good. That is the target. It is not whether or not the Company is sold for a useful purpose. Let us face the facts. Third, the Government will just simply close a company down, period.


Don Boudria: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Government could not care less what happens to the economy of the various regions or what happens to the individuals in those regions. Members of the
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Government have been making glorious remarks about increased employment statistics in various cities across Canada, but I have yet to hear the Government announce how many jobs were created in Chalk River. I asked that question the other day and no one answered me. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has no compunction about chopping Crown corporations. She will just whack them down. She does not care whom she hurts. She will just shut them down, get rid of the employees, but she will never call it a lay-off. "Lay-ofF' is a dirty word. The policy of the Government is to bribe them to leave, if it can, persuade them to leave, but never use that never use that nasty word "layoff'. What it is in fact is a simple decrease in jobs in a certain area.
Right now the Government is chopping away at the roots of Atomic Energy of Canada limited, another good Crown corporation. Canadian Arsenals Limited is a company which is quite a success story. Ninety per cent of its production right now is being used in Canada. One of its large customers, of course, is the Canadian Armed Forces. I am sure we all want to see an assured production of various types of munitions for all branches of our Canadian Armed Forces. That is a must guarantee with the sale of this plant.
I would also like to comment on foreign ownership. Because of the type of plant it is-there are only about two plants of any significance in Canada which produce ammunition-it is very important that ownership be retained by Canadians. I note in the guidelines that only 25 per cent of the value of Canadian Arsenals Limited is allowed to be sold to foreign owners. The preferable way would be to have it 100 per cent owned by Canadians. Another guideline seems to indicate that the company cannot be dissolved or liquidated without the approval of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes)-so he is still keeping his hand in-as a condition of the sale. But there must be assurances that a domestic source of ammunition will be maintained for the secure supply to our Armed Forces. I do not see that security clause in the Bill.
We have just heard some comments that it is bad to sell ammunition for profit. I do not know of any well organized businessman in this world who would go into business if he knew ahead of time that he would not make a cent. So I do not agree with that statement. What is wrong with selling ammunition to our other 15 NATO partners? There is nothing wrong with that. They are our allies. We are all involved in a common cause.


John Horton McDermid: That's right. Speak to them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If we are going to sell this plant, I think it behooves the Government to ensure that support for this type of philosophy will be a condition of the sale. Many countries have munition plants which are owned by Governments. I visited one in Portugal which would be similar to this, although it is not as sophisticated as the type of plant we have here in Canada. Nevertheless, it makes munitions. So if we want to support our NATO allies with Canadian Arsenals Limited when it is sold to SNC, we should do it with lots of
February 24, 1986

Canadian Arsenals Limited
energy, knowing that there is nothing morally wrong with supporting one's allies in the goal of freedom for mankind. If we do not have our freedom, our moral arguments cannot even be expressed because we will not have the right to do so.
1 would like to know from the Minister of Supply and Services why he does not wish to table the Arthur Andersen Report which provides the details of this sale. In a letter to one of my colleagues, the Minister of Supply and Services informed him that the plant was worth anywhere between $80 million and $98 million. Surely, we have the right as Parliamentarians to see that report. If there is nothing wrong, as far as the Government is concerned, in selling the corporation, what has it got to hide? What is in the report? We know the company was sold for $92.2 million. The question then is, what is it worth? What about the $98 million figure? We also note as well-and this should be worth a lot of money to the Government when it sells a company to private industry-that there are about $200 million in back-log orders. Anyone would want to purchase a company with back orders like that. Why should they not be paying top dollar for it? The sales are projected to double in the next five years. The Hon. Member of Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is starting to quote some figures. Just give us the Arthur Andersen Report. We will take a look at it and let the Hon. Member know what we think about it.


John Horton McDermid: You wouldn't understand it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank the Hon. Member for his compliment. That is typical of his gentlemanly-like conduct. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown always comes out with some very pleasant language in this House. He is an example of what the Speaker was talking about earlier today.
With regard to the conditions of purchase, SNC must ensure the portability of the employees' pension fund. This is a key part of the deal, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada did not see fit to talk to the union to find out what its views were on the matter, or even to discuss it with the employees at large.
SNC must complete the modernization of the Ville Le Gardeur plant and the investment may range between $40 million and $80 million. Whether or not the investment will qualify for 50 per cent subsidy under the Defence Industry Productivity Program has not yet been determined. I think it is important that we know what is in the report of Arthur Andersen. He was the Government's financial adviser. The Government said it would be open with the Canadian people and that it would hide nothing. Yet, here it is selling off Canadian assets and it does not want to tell the people what it is all about.
As a carry-on from Canadian Arsenals Limited, it has always been Canada's policy to try to provide ammunition and equipment which is inter-operable with that of other NATO countries. I certainly want to see this policy carried on when the Government sells Canadian Arsenals Limited to SNC.
As I mentioned before, Canadian Arsenals Limited will remain 75 per cent Canadian-owned. However, with an industry such as this, which has a considerable amount of security-in fact, it must have a certain amount of security built around it-I would think it would be in the best interests of Canadians to ensure that the plant continues to be 100 per cent owned by Canadians, as it has been since its inception in 1945.
I wish to say in conclusion that we cannot possibly let this moment go by without pressing the point home to the Canadian people that the Government is bound and raring to sell off Canadian assets left and right, if it can sell them at all. When it wants to sell off Canadian Arsenals Limited, which is a very profitable company, it means that it will certainly sell of anything else it can. However, I think the point must be made here that this is the same as having the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) secretly freeze the expenditures of all Government Departments about two weeks ago. Why? To make the Minister of Finance look good on Wednesday night. That is why. The Government has even cancelled the Canadian Armed Forces hockey tournaments because it wants to save a buck. The games are all down the drain.
I want to impress on Members of the House and on all Canadians that it does not matter whether it is a matter of DND school children, a matter of hockey tournaments or a matter of a Crown corporation such as Canadian Arsenals Limited, this Government is ready for sale. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Canada is open for business, what he really should have said is that the Tory Government is putting Canada up for sale.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Bradley).


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker, I am totally taken aback by my hon. friend's comparison of DND school children with the sale of Canadian Arsenals Limited. However, I leave him to his method of scare tactics. We are aware of how it is done in the Party opposite.
I think the Hon. Member would not want it to go on record as a result of the confusion which was brought out in his presentation, which I am sure was not done on purpose. He should be aware that when he points out that there must be security of ownership, he is concerned about Canadian Arsenals Limited not being able to provide munitions for the Canadian Armed Forces. I am sure he is also aware that the conditions of the sale require that SNC maintain the corporation's research and development production capability for present and future requirements for the Department of National Defence. Further, the conditions require SNC to give priority to the contracts awarded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) over contracts from other sources, as was mentioned by the Minister this morning.
Also, the Hon. Member said that in the contract we were providing that SNC have 25 per cent foreign ownership. On the contrary, SNC is 95 per cent Canadian-owned. In fact,

February 24, 1986
500 of its 4,000 workers will own the company. In any case, it will not be a foreign-owned company.
Members of the Opposition opposed the sale of de Havil-land. They put up a big scream. They said that it would be foreign-owned and sold to a foreign company. They said that if we sold de Havilland to a Canadian company then everything would be fine. Here we are selling Canadian Arsenals Limited to a Canadian company and they are still screaming. 1 am aghast at some of the comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) rising on a question or comment?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and then I would like to ask a question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). First, 1 would like to congratulate him on his eloquent speech. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary would have wanted to do the same but he must have forgotten inadvertently.
I would like to ask my colleague a question since he is knowledgeable about military issues. In view of the fact that in 1984, Canadian Arsenals Limited made a profit of $8.5 million out of total sales of $97 million and that in 1985 it made a profit of $11,298 million out of total sales of $103.7 million, and in view of the fact that the rate of return on equity was in the order of 19 per cent last year and 21.4 per cent this year, is it the view of my hon. friend that we should not proceed with any part of this Bill until the Andersen document has been tabled in the House for the benefit of all Members of Parliament? Given these two things, and I have just illustrated for Hon. Members the ratio between net income and sales, and knowing that the Government wants to sell the company for less than the appraised value which it claims was made by Mr. Andersen and which it refused to show us, is it the Hon. Member's view that we should proceed with this Bill only after we have viewed the document?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is the message I was trying to deliver. What is the Government hiding? Why does it not tell us what it is up to? When we start asking for information on sales it tries to accuse us of being against everything. Perhaps we should dig up some of the speeches Members opposite delivered when they were sitting on this side of the House. They would probably recognize their own words.
I wish to straighten out one thing while I am on my feet. The Parliamentary Secretary commented about my comment on 25 per cent foreign ownership. If I have to, I will draw him a picture. I said that the requirements are that the company remain 75 per cent Canadian-owned. I did not say that it was only 75 per cent Canadian-owned, and I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to change my remarks.
With regard to what the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) just said, I do not see any problem with the Government tabling all the information with regard
Canadian Arsenals Limited
to this sale. If the Government is going to sell something and everything is on the up and up, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. The record of dealings with the employees and everything should be put on the table. The Government should not create all these suspicions and then indicate that, just because the Opposition is talking about not getting information, it seems to be against everything. All we are asking for is what we deserve to have and is our right to have as Members of the House of Commons representing our share of the public of Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know, during the last election campaign, members of Conservative Party made a great many promises to the people of Canada. My colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), has documented those promises in a paper entitled The Tory Collection, 338 Commitments in the 1984 Election.
In that election campaign, members of the Conservative Party promised to give high priority to parliamentary review. That was just one of the promises of the 338 promises that were made. During that election campaign, in their thirst for power, they promised to open up the Government of Canada in order to ensure that Canadians had full and complete information with respect to the governing of this nation, subject to the rare exception when highly sensitive material should be kept confidential. Other than that, they said that Parliament and through Parliament the people of Canada should be privy to information concerning the running of this country.
What happened to that promise of an open and accessible Government, a Government that would level with the people of Canada and be honest with them? We know now, 17 long and lonely months later, that those promises were but pure and empty rhetoric.
With respect to the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited, there is the Arthur Andersen Report, a report that the Government is keeping secret. It has yet to give a reason for refusing to make public that particular report. We in the Opposition have no alternative but to question the Government as to why it wants to keep that particular report secret. One can only conclude that it has something to hide. If this deal is such a good deal for Canada and the people of Canada, why not put all the information on the table?
With the divestiture of this company, Canadian Arsenals Limited, we in Parliament at least have the opportunity to debate the matter. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Government decided to sell de Havilland, we were not even given the opportunity to debate the sale of that particular Crown corporation.
I only want to say in conclusion that I agree with my colleague who has just spoken about the views he has with respect to this particular piece of legislation. I would hope that before the debate on Bill C-87 is concluded the Government and the Minister will recognize that Canadians are entitled to, and indeed have a right to, full information. 1 cannot see the Government of Canada asking for the support of the Opposi-
February 24, 1986

Canadian Arsenals Limited
tion when it is not forthcoming with full information on this particular matter.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-87 continues the ideologically motivated plunge into divestiture of Crown corporations without considering the matters from the point of view of what I think ought to be a more pragmatic approach. It is always an unfortunate thing to observe ideology overcoming good sense, but this Government seems totally committed to that point of view.
As the previous speaker indicated, at least the House is having an opportunity to debate this divestiture in contrast to the situation which occurred with de Havilland. I suppose that we should also recognize that at least in this case, there are assurances that the divested corporation will continue to be at least 75 per cent Canadian owned.
I think we should ask some serious questions, however, about the basic premise underlying the sale, but let us for a moment consider that we accept the premise. Let us for a moment accept that it is a moral and economic imperative to get rid of Crown corporations. Even if we were to accept that entirely questionable premise, there would still be some serious questions to be raised. Many of these questions have been examined in the media. Let us look at a couple of them.
First, there is the question why, in spite of the fact that dozens of companies expressed an interest in Canadian Arsenals Limited, only six succeeded in having their offers considered. We might also ask why the final bidders were forced to submit three revised bids between July and November 19, based, we hear, on the fact that the Department of Supply and Services kept changing its story. We also have to ask how we can pursue this sale under circumstances in which a senior official of DSS who is Directo General of Aerospace and Armaments left DSS on November 1 and went to work with CFN Consultants which, it turns out, was lobbying DSS on behalf of SNC which is purchasing Canadian Arsenals Limited. He may have signed an affidavit swearing that he would not be dealing with any aspect of the Canadian Arsenals Limited sale, but nevertheless, we are driven to considerable suspicion.
Perhaps, as was pointed out by the Financial Post, these peculiarities are explained by the fact that this is the first time DSS has had to travel the road of a privatizer. However, we also have to worry just a little bit about the fact that given this rather selective process of accepting bids, we note that SNC was a significant contributor to the campaign of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). We would also have to raise questions about the fact that SNC was a $10,000 contributor to the recent Tory election campaign. We must raise the question that ties in quite well with the expressions of concern on the part of those who failed to have their bids entertained as to whether this was a completely objective process.
We must also worry to some degree about the fact that SNC will now control both Canadian Arsenals Limited and Les Industries Cartier Limitee. It will have a virtual monopoly
on arms manufacturing in Canada. We must also take note of the fact that recently crates of IVI ammunition were found in the camps of Sandinista Contras in Nicaragua in 1982. This raises serious questions about the extent to which we will be able to control exports. I think we should ask other questions as well.
Canadian Arsenals Limited has been a very successful and profitable Canadian corporation. As a most successful Crown corporation making a profit for Canadians, why should we be selling it? Ninety per cent of CAL's sales go to the Department of National Defence. If that is so, why should we be selling it? Sales are expected to double. It is the third most profitable company in Canada, and it will become even more profitable. Why then should we sell it?


John V. Nunziata: That is a good question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Unless we want to create a climate in Canada where arms are sold for as much profit as possible, why should we sell it? It seems to me that there are more serious questions to be asked.
Not too long ago there was an article, I believe, in The Toronto Star that pointed out the consequences of what Eisenhower called some years ago the military industrial complex. If one looks at the United States, one finds that we have a situation in which tremendous profits are made at the expense of the taxpayer, with repeated controversies over cost overruns of a monopoly industry supplying arms to the U.S. military, which has a complete license to charge taxpayers whatever it may choose, of corruption gone uncontrolled and unstoppable in a situation where private enterprise has complete rein in supplying arms and munitions. It is a situation that causes moral bankruptcy.
It is a situation which in Canada need not exist. Yet we are told that under privatization Canadian Arsenals Limited will expand and will probably expand its product and engage in the merchanting of arms all over the world. We hear references to the sale of arms to Third World nations. I do not know whether that is the sort of thing that the Canadian taxpayer wants to see.
I think the Canadian taxpayer does not want to see its Armed Forces well armed with high quality armaments. I do not think Canadians want to see a situation which will change the circumstances of reasonable profits being earned by reasonable costs. I do not think the taxpayers see any necessity for Canada earning income by becoming a competing merchant on the world scene selling arms to nations which ought to have higher priorities for feeding their people instead of pursuing the path of war. 1 do not see the justification for this.
I want to ask Members opposite what their defence is for the sale of a profitable company, what their defence is for placing the sale of armaments and munitions in the hands of private industry, what their response is to the concern of Canadians that we not follow the path of our southern neighbors where armaments become the focus of the entire economic status of a

February 24, 1986
nation. 1 ask all Members to consider very carefully the implications of legislation which at the same time abandons the taxpayers' company and the potential for reasonable profit and reasonable sales of munitions versus a situation in which we will increase our status as merchandisers of death around the world.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) that he continually referred to selling the munitions industry in Canada to the private sector. I am sure the Member is well aware, and 1 would not want him inadvertently to give the wrong impression. In reality, all other munitions manufacturers in Canada are privately owned. Of the five major manufacturers, only the one, Canadian Arsenals Limited, is a Crown corporation.
The Member referred to the fact that we would be exporting munitions with this venture. If SNC expands Canadian Arsenals' base and creates jobs east of Montreal in an area about which we are very concerned and which his Party and the other Party beside him have made many points about in the last little while, I will not oppose that expansion and creation of jobs in the east Montreal area; I will applaud them.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, It does not at all surprise me that a Tory would stand before us and say that willingly he will create jobs anywhere by selling arms. Our Party says that there are too many other needs to be met in this country, too many jobs that could be created by fulfilling real needs than having us try to create jobs in any way, shape or form through the sale of munitions to anyone.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) raises what I consider to be the most important issue facing Parliament today. He asks the question, why should we sell Canadian Arsenals Limited when it is a profitable corporation?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, last year this Crown corporation made $11.3 million, the year before it made $8.5 million, the year before that it made $6.9 million and the year before that, it made $5.3 million. In 1980 it made a $3 million profit, not a loss, a profit. The issue then becomes whether the Government of Canada should be involved in certain corporations or whether certain Crown corporations should continue to exist. We all know that the Conservative Party is philosophically opposed to the Government being involved in business.


An Hon. Member:: You have got that right.


John V. Nunziata: The Member uses a profanity to indicate he is in agreement with me. There is no need to use profanity.


John Barry Turner: I think you should clean out your ears. There was no profanity.


T.A. Bud Bradley: We said that you said something right for a change.
Metis Nation


John V. Nunziata: I am simply trying to point out that it is the philosophy of the Conservative Party to divest the Government of Canada of certain Crown corporations. 1 would simply ask the Member for Windsor-Walkerville whether he believes that the people of Canada would want to divest themselves, would want to sell a Crown corporation that has shown a positive track record in terms of making money over the last five or six years.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker. The Government is taking all kinds of polls. The Government is polling constantly to get the views of Canadians. I challenge the Government to take a poll and ask Canadians whether they would willingly sell a company that is profitable, even at these modest levels.


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

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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HISTORIC EVENTS SUGGESTED REAFFIRMATION OF METIS RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior) moved:: That:
Whereas 1985 is the centenary of the Northwest Resistance, the most important event in the history of the Metis Nation and a milestone in the history of Canada; and
Whereas the leader of the Metis people, Louis David Riel, was executed for his role in that resistance; and
Whereas Louis David Riel negotiated Manitoba's entry into Confederation and was thrice elected to the House of Commons; and
Whereas the Metis people have continued to strive, since the death of Louis David Riel, for the recognition of their rights; and
Whereas the Constitution Act. 1982 recognized and affirmed the rights of the Metis people;
Be it resolved that this House
1.	acknowledge the significant contributions of the Metis people to the
development of the West and the creation of Canada;
2.	recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a father of
Confederation;
3.	celebrate with the Metis their unique culture and heritage;
4.	support self-government and a land base for the Metis.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was motivated by the fact that last year, 1985, marked the centenary of the so-called Northwest Resistance, or the Northwest Rebellion, considered to be the most important event in the history of the Metis
February 24, 1986

February 24, 1986
as the president, and this list of rights was sent to Ottawa. The House may be interested in what that list of rights contained. Here it is. An elected local legislature. Representation in the Canadian Parliament. Appropriation of public lands for roads and schools. The official languages to be French and English. Winnipeg to be connected with the nearest railway. A steamboat connecting Lake Superior and Red River within five years. The franchise to be granted to every man over 21. Confirmation of all existing privileges, customs and usages.
There was nothing very radical or revolutionary there, nothing that any of us in this House can object to, except, perhaps, the limited franchise to men over 21. However, that was still the unfortunate norm of the day and it is difficult to criticise except in retrospect. Nevertheless, as I said a moment ago, there was some opposition and resistance in the community. There followed arrests and one prisoner, Thomas Scott, was executed by firing squad. The new Canadian Encyclopedia, which has enjoyed such great success across the country, refers to this Red River rebellion as being a movement of national self-determination by the Metis of the Red River colony.
Well, if there was some resentment by a few people in the colony, there was also a controversy back here in eastern Canada. Despite the controversy over what Riel was doing, in 1870 the Manitoba Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada. It incorporated many of the rights which I quoted earlier from the Metis list of rights which had been drawn up by Louis Riel and his close advisers and approved by the convention he had called. Under the Manitoba Act of 1870 the Metis were to receive 1.4 million acres of land. Now, time does not allow me to describe the full and sad history which reveals how that land was either kept from these people or tricked away from them by one means or another, often with the banks being the major culprits. I should point out that after the passage of this Act, amnesty was granted to all who had participated in the uprising at the Red River community. Only Riel was exempted from that amnesty because it was alleged that he had played an important part in the death of Thomas Scott. So, for several years Riel remained a fugitive. However, during that period of time he was elected to the Parliament of Canada three times but was prevented on each occasion from taking his seat in this House. Finally, in 1875, Riel himself was given amnesty provided that he was prepared to leave the country, his home and his land, for a five-year banishment.
With his departure, Sir, the Metis people of the Red River began to disperse. They moved out of Manitoba, westward along the South Saskatchewan River, and there faced exactly the same problems they had faced back home. There were questions about their legal right to the land. There were those pesky surveyors once again with their preconceived ideas of how the land should be carved up and divided. So, in frustration, once more the people sent a delegation to see Riel who was now teaching school in Montana. He was asked to come back, and he did. In a meeting held in Prince Albert he urged all those in attendance, Metis, whites and Indians alike, to present their grievances to Ottawa. So you can see that already western alienation was beginning to take form. They were to
Metis Nation
present their grievances to Ottawa just as Members of Parliament from western Canada and other parts of the country present their regional grievances in one way or another to this House. Petitions were sent and, just as today, or at least before we adopted our new rules, there was no response to those petitions. So Riel discovered that the co-operation he had tried to build up among the different groups began to wane. However, there was one issue which, more than anything else, caused division, and that was the question of aboriginal rights. Does that not sound familiar? It is a question which still plagues us as we move closer to the 21st century. Riel once again resorted to a route that he was familiar with, that of the provisional Government which was proclaimed at Batoche on March 19, 1885. However, this time the situation was different. The Northwest Mounted Police were in place. It was easy to bring a militia and weapons into the area by means of the railway, and so the armed engagements of the Northwest Rebellion commenced.
The militia, under General Middleton, was sent in. There was some very, very fierce fighting and, in due course, the rebellion was quelled. Riel surrendered, was taken to Regina as a prisoner, tried by a six-man jury, and found guilty of treason. He was hanged in Regina on November 16, 1885. Sir, I believe that was a dark day for Canada. It was an event which now symbolizes injustice for the Metis people. They regard it as a cynical act, political in nature and carrying with it all of the ugly implications of racism. This despicable act is a constant reminder of the social, economic and political injustice done to our first citizens, the aboriginal people, the Metis people of the new West.
The need to somehow correct this historical injustice is, from time to time, discussed and considered by scholars, and even Members of this House. However, the idea of a pardon for Riel by the Canadian Government is now rejected by the Metis people and their leaders because a pardon, it is believed, would only serve to perpetuate the alleged guilt and make legitimate a political murder. Riel was the leader of a democratic revolution. It was the Metis who led Manitoba into Confederation and Louis Riel is the Metis father of Confederation. He rebelled against oppression, which I have described briefly but which was really much more serious than mere words can convey in a short time. He contributed to the cause of freedom and led the Metis struggle for freedom, a struggle which goes on even today.
In 1932, at a meeting in St. Albert in the Province of Alberta, the Metis Association of Alberta was formed and the minutes of that meeting are available to us. I would like to read just the opening paragraph from those minutes because they enunciate for us a basic Metis principle. It says:
The history of our country shows that we have given service and sacrificed much in the upbuilding of the west. We have suffered as a result, but we do not forget that we are a responsible race and are prepared to play our part in the upbuilding of this country, Canada.
Today the Metis people have won recognition in our new Constitution. They are demanding their rightful place in the
February 24, 1986

Metis Nation
Confederation of Canada. Those among them who are dispossessed and who are among the poorest of the poor are seeking a land base. Others, who live in an urban environment, want some say and some influence over the various institutions that impact and impinge on their lives. A recent policy paper from the new Ontario Government says, "They may wish to receive guaranteed participation in existing legislatures, school boards and other special purpose bodies".
The one greatest priority, Sir, and I end on this note, is their need for economic development, special programs which they manage and which can lead them out of the dreadful poverty cycle in which they find themselves. When the resolution talks about self-government or self-determination it is those kind of goals that are referred to, goals that are reasonable and obtainable. 1 ask this House to consider carefully and to give its consent to this resolution. It is submitted on behalf of the Metis people of Canada, and if we were to respond to it positively, I believe we would be acting in the spirit of our new Canadian Constitution, which recognizes that the Metis people are one of the three major aboriginal groups in our nation.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, today is a very, very special day for me and my father in that I became a proud grandfather and he a great-grandfather for the first time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerry St. Germain: I am honoured to speak of my Metis heritage during this debate, only hoping that the words and the thoughts that I convey today will one day show my new granddaughter that she has a special heritage and a family history to be really proud of.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my views on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). At this time I would like to point out that without question I know that the intentions of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior are above reproach. I think all Canadians can look to the Metis heritage with pride, recognizing in it a strength and vision which characterized the mixture of Indian blood lines with those of our early European settlers, and which continue even up to today. The motion presented to us this afternoon seems to consist of two very different issues; the recognition of Louis David Riel as a national figure, which is undoubtedly an important step in the right direction, and the issue of self-government and land claims by the Metis people of this country.
I would first like to mention that as a Metis brought up in Manitoba I am fully aware of the important contributions of the Metis people in the development of the western provinces. There can be no question of the importance of Louis Riel's support in giving direction and inspiration to the Metis people in their participation in the Canadian Confederation.
This motion seeks recognition, not only for the Metis of Canada but also for their recognized leader, Louis David Riel.
The question of whether Louis Riel should be recognized as a father of Confederation is interesting, and at the same time
seems a bit irrelevant. I would like to clarify that. In explaining my vision of Riel's commitment to Canada, I would like to speak briefly on the question of whether Riel should be recognized as a Father of Confederation. This is an interesting one. Certainly he should be recognized as a prime mover of Manitoba into Confederation, but what is a Father of Confederation? It appears that there is no official list of Fathers of Confederation, only a traditional list. Tradition in Canada has been to refer to the delegate at the three pre-Confederation conferences as Fathers of Confederation. TThese conferences were in Charlottetown and in Quebec in 1864 and in London in 1867, and comprised some 34 delegates. No official protocol list exists that describes the Fathers of Confederation. Many will point out that Joey Smallwood has frequently affectionately been referred to as the only living Father of Confederation. This appellation pays homage to his contribution of bringing Newfoundland into Confederation. Even this designation is based on usage rather than on legality. In fact, he is not a Father of Confederation. Extending the logic of pre-Confederation conferences, if Mr. Smallwood is a Father of Confederation, so too are all of the other signatories at the Ottawa conference in 1949, which led to the entry of Newfoundland into the Union. I am referring to Louis St. Laurent, Gordon Bradley and many others who were all signatories at this time.
You can see that there is no easy formula to determine who is a Father of Confederation. It could create a dangerous precedent to be selective as to who we assign that designate to. In effect, each province has its own history of pre and post Confederation development. Each is equally important to the Canada that we know today.
In clarifying my vision of Riel's commitment to Canada, I think Riel should be honoured as a truly great Canadian and should stand alone on his own merits. Riel not only contributed to the formation of this great nation, he went even further, he laid down his life for that very cause. I honestly believe that this legislation cannot change the course of history, and that Riel's role cannot be limited to that of a Father of Confederation. He represents more than just a political figure, he is a maker of history.
Consultations have taken place with Metis leaders prior to the introduction of this motion before the House, but I am of the understanding that no consultations took part with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior. I have spoken to the leaders of the Metis movement just as recently as this morning and they informed me that they have not been consulted. Possibly he has met with them. He stated in his delivery that he had and, as I say, I do not question the integrity or the intentions of the Hon. Member. In my discussions with them, they stated that no consultation had taken place prior to the presentation of this motion to the House. In the past the Liberal Party paid only lip service to the plight of the Metis. It actually used us for political expedience, and only now is it examining the possibility of giving that national hero the medal that he deserved 100 years ago. History cannot be corrected 100 years later. Certain Parties have always tried to portray themselves as the great saviours of the Metis cause.

February 24, 1986
but what did they actually do for the Metis of the West? I will tell you what they did, they spoke of the poverty we lived in, prejudices we were subjected to, the lack of educational opportunities that they spoke of, but they did nothing about them. There were family upheavals and discrimination. 1 know what grave injustices were done, I lived them. 1 spoke to Angus Spence before he passed on so suddenly last year. He was a prime mover and shaker within the Metis organization in Manitoba. He told me of the discrimination that he lived with in his part of Manitoba, of the religious discrimination that existed even among the Metis that was brought upon them because of the discrimination within the Province of Manitoba. It seemed that the darker one's skin as a result of one's ancestral background, the more the discrimination. I have lived it.
Previous Governments had somehow hoped that the guilt that had been borne by all Canadians would simply disappear like a bad dream. But we remember, and we only wish that Riel will rest in peace and be honoured as a true patriot. We do not want this to carry on. We want Riel to take his rightful place as a Canadian. As Metis, we do not want a preferential spot; we want an equal spot like the place held by every other Canadian in this great Canadian mosaic.
Riel was three times elected to the House and represented the Provencher constituency during a very unstable political period. If we try to understand the forces on the political stage at that time, we realize that there is no doubt that the Metis people and Riel played a vital role in the founding of Manitoba. There is no doubt that Riel is a true national figure.
Let me speak briefly to the second element of this motion. As my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior knows, land claims are now under review by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). There is no doubt that their land was taken from them. The Hon. Member spoke of long river lots that were inhabited by my grandfather, Jean Baptiste St. Germain, Louis Zastre, the Monette and the St. Denis families along the Assiniboine and Red Rivers. Some of them managed to maintain their lands but much of it was taken.
When we go back to the history of La Prairie du Cheval Blanc we recall the names of Cuthbert Grant, Pascal Breland and up to the time of Angus Spence. We think of those who worked so fervently to improve the plight of the Metis.
There is no doubt that injustices were done at that time. But again, I go back to the original motion. I believe we are dealing with two important issues but one is clouded by the other if we do not deal with them separately. Riel is a true national hero. I do not understand the relationship between the two aspects of the Hon. Member's motion. Hopefully, all of the items raised by the Hon. Member will be resolved to the satisfaction of those who were so adversely affected.
Let me reiterate my position as a Metis. I am proud of my ancestry. I thank the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for his wish for recognition of the national Metis hero, Louis
Metis Nation
David Riel. Riel cannot be resurrected from the dead and we can only try to learn by history's lessons. We must always remember that our duty is to seek to do justice within our own time.
I have spoken to members of the Metis organizations across the country. I want to consult with all Parties in the House in seeking to establish a true method of recognizing Louis David Riel for the great Canadian he was. I will be taking it upon myself to consult with the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) in the hope that we can establish a unanimous consensus as Canadians and politicians in bringing forward a resolution that would be acceptable to all and would truly reflect what Riel was and what he contributed.
I would like to make my last words in the debate those of Louis Riel, who was never able to offer them in the House. He said:
[ Translation]
"One's country is the most important thing on this earth, and it is hallowed by the traditions of one's ancestors".

Let us reflect on this man's heroic stance in our nation's history and not resurrect our past mistakes but go on to build a better, stronger and proud Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to debate the resolution that has been submitted by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). This is not the first time I have had an opportunity in the six years I have served in the House to speak on the significance of Louis Riel and the contribution he has made to the Province of Manitoba, the development of western Canada and the development of Canada as a whole.
I have introduced resolutions under the old Standing Order 43, calling for the pardon of Louis Riel when that was being sought by the Metis people themselves. Their position with regard to a pardon has changed and they no longer believe that a pardon would be sufficient to recognize the role Louis David Riel has played.
I have lived all of my life in Manitoba. I was always amazed that we did not study Louis Riel very much in school. We learned about the railway and that he was a person from Saskatchewan causing trouble with the railway. We talked about how Manitoba was developed as a province but the actual study of the contribution made by Louis Riel and the Metis was passed over in one or two days.
As a former teacher of history I will certainly not blame the teachers or those who wrote the curriculum. It is a matter of their perception of history at that time. They had their vision of Canada as a nation of the English and the French. They had their vision of Canada in the west developing as a natural consequence of the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon and French population base from the east to the west in this country. That was a natural oversight and I do not think it can be said that it
February 24, 1986

Metis Nation
was a matter of racial prejudice or tension that existed between the English and the French in Manitoba.
We now have a chance to move forward. I have gone to many of the communities in my riding where the Metis live and I have noted that there is more study being done of the role of Louis Riel and of the significant contributions the Metis people have made to Manitoba. In many ways, the fall-out of the French language dispute which occurred in Manitoba just two years ago has helped to remind people of the original contribution of Louis Riel and the fact that he, through his emissaries, negotiated with the Government of John A. Macdonald and has guaranteed the rights of the English and the French in that province. That is something which many politicians refuse to recognize even at this time. But there was a constitutional clause which guaranteed the rights of English and French groups and certain religions and also recognized that there was a group of people, the Metis of Maniotoba, who had the right to their own land. That is something which is still sought by the Metis people. They have hired Thomas Berger, a former Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, to represent them on this issue through the courts. That is one route the Metis people of Manitoba have taken to try to resolve the land issue.
Other things are happening as well within my province and 1 would like to talk about them. One of the previous speakers who now represents the Province of British Columbia, was born and brought up in the Province of Manitoba. Fie mentioned that there are other problems the Metis people face. The Metis people are really a nation which was founded in Canada as a result of the history of our country. There was the intermixing of the native population with those who came to Canada because of the fur trade and the Hudson's Bay Company, and for homesteading. The Metis people, especially in the riding I represent, but in other parts of Manitoba and western Canada as well, have not had the type of economic development or Government assistance from which other Canadians have benefited. We have all heard the statistics given by Hon. Members, including myself, in the House. We have talked about the need for native people to get postsecondary education, to become doctors, lawyers, nurses, social workers and to develop their own businesses. We have also talked about the terrible statistics with respect to the health of the Metis and other aboriginal people. We know about the tuberculosis, alcoholism and other diseases from which many native people suffer. We have heard of their mortality, their shorter life-span. It is no wonder that that has become a real concern because as I travelled around western Canada 1 saw the type of housing of the Metis people. I know of the lack of water and sewage. Quite often their drinking water is completely unsafe. They have no protection as do the Treaty Indians. The federal Government has recognized responsibility to provide education and water and sewage for Treaty Indians. Mind you, that is a responsibility which federal Governments have reneged on for many years and it is still an issue in many of the regions in my riding. In fact, the federal Government
has not provided adequate water and sewage and is making no real attempt to come up with a system to provide them. We can compare what is happening with the Treaty Indians, who at least have the protection of the treaties. The federal Government is supposed to provide some basic necessities for the Treaty Indians. In many cases, they are much better off than the Metis people who are basically without any protection, without any land or real home site in western Canada. Some of them have land in the southern parts of the provinces, but in the north the Metis people were shoved off the reserves and tended to live in communities that were adjacent to reserves but without any clear title to the very land that they, their fathers, and sometimes their grandfathers and grandmothers-not to be sexist-had lived on for years. They trapped that land and fished off its shores. They had existed there. They were brought up there and their families were raised there. They were brought up there and their families were raised there. But there was no legal recognition of that fact. They were excluded from homestead Acts, for example.
1 am proud to say that within Manitoba much of that has changed. There has been a recognition that there needs to be an improvement in the way of life of native people whether they are Treaty Indians and officially under the sponsorship of the federal Government or whether they are Metis people who in many cases have to rely on provincial Governments for their support.
It is interesting that the Metis National Council, in its issue which came out this winter-and which includes a copy of the draft resolution submitted by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior-talks about how the Council sat down with Premier Pawley and how they agreed on the need to promote Metis economic development. They talked about the increased need to recognize Metis culture and heritage, about the need for Metis participation in the delivery of services and programs to meet their own particular needs and circumstances, and they agreed that the Metis people must participate in Government decision-making in matters which directly affect them. So there is a process which has been going on in northern Manitoba, where the bulk of the Metis live, although they live elsewhere as well, to ensure that we do what we can to aid in the development of the native people, to make sure they have education and levels of services in their communities commensurate with their size. That is happening but it is still only a partial effort. There are things the federal and provincial Governments must do in order to ensure that native people, whether they be Treaty Indians or Metis, have that which they need in order to develop.
As a New Democrat from Manitoba, I think we have made great strides in the last 20 years in my province. I am sure that other Hon. Members from Manitoba, regardless to which Party they belong, would agree that this has happened. But that is not to say that all has happened that should have happened or that all is perfect for the native people in the province.
In the last 10 or 15 years, housing programs sponsored by both the federal and provincial Governments have increased

February 24, 1986
the quality of housing. When I first moved north in 1970 there were Metis people living in tar-paper shacks in Manitoba. I know from my travels to other parts of Canada that the same thing could be said of Ontario and other parts of this country as well. There were almost no native teachers in northern Manitoba. There were no native social workers. There was no one with native ancestry taking training to become an engineer. There were very few native people in any university program whatsoever. The idea of a native businessman was something that no one would have thought would ever exist unless it was to do with some freighting for the Hudson's Bay Company. That was their status some 20 short years ago in the Province of Manitoba. We now have a program, again sponsored by both federal and provincial money-actually a number of programs-which encourage natives to become teachers. Over 300 people have completed those programs and are now teaching within Manitoba. There is a program for the development of native social workers. There is a program for nursing. There are also other programs to encourage the economic development of native people both individually and through their communities.
The history of Louis Riel does not have to be debated in this House. I think all of us recognize his contribution. There may be some who would argue about the details of it. However, there can be no legitimate debate with respect to the fact that Louis Riel was the founder of Manitoba and that through the process he established the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were able to develop in a way which may not have happened had the negotiations not taken place between the people of the Red River settlement and the Government of Manitoba in the years 1869-70. That was a negotiation which took place between the people who lived in Red River and the people who were running the Government in Canada. It set out the Manitoba Act, which is the basic constitution of the province. It obviously influenced the development of our province. By anyone's definition that would be good enough to ensure that Louis Riel be recognized as the founder of Manitoba and a legitimate Father of Confederation in his own right. I hope that would not be questioned by anyone in this House.
What we have to do is to find the best means to further the economic development of the people of Metis ancestry, just as we have to ensure that we develop the possibility for economic development for the other aboriginal people of Canada. We will make mistakes as we go along that road. However, it is incumbent upon us to recognize that, when Government talks about restraint, hopefully, in the Budget which is to be tabled two days' hence, we will not find that programs which would enhance native economic development are being cut.
Even though we will make mistakes with regard to the development of economic opportunities for native people and even though we offer training programs, such as the one with regard to limestone development in northern Manitoba-a massive development under the native affirmative action program-we must ensure that certain people in our society do not try to turn us from the road we must follow. Even though
Metis Nation
from time to time we may find that native leaders and native businessmen will make mistakes, perhaps with money which comes from the Province of Manitoba or the coffers of the federal Government, we should not allow certain elements of our society to turn us from the road we must follow. It will take a massive commitment not only to solve the health problems and to provide basic housing but to provide the proper education, training and economic development opportunities for these people. Anyone who says otherwise is not really thinking.
As I said earlier, there will be failures as we go along this road. However, we as representatives of the people of Canada should be willing to accept that. We should be willing to get up and say that there will be problems, but that should be no reason to cut off funding. Certainly, there were problems with some native leaders who perhaps misused money. In some cases it was done illegally and in others it was done in ways not very different from the way federal Cabinets sometimes deal with money. That is to say money was spent in ways which we would not judge to be the wisest expenditures of money.
However, when we hear such voices-and they are often from the right, but sometimes they come from other parts of the political spectrum as well-we should say that, yes, there will be failure and that, yes, there has been abuse, but let us look at what we should be doing together in the country to help those who need our help the most. That should be the criteria of the programs. We should be judging the programs on the basis of what we can do to help. We should ask how this can best be achieved. We should say no to those people who are benefiting or trying to benefit by attacking the native people and yes to those who seek to help them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecer, I feel it is important to take part in the debate today on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and I wish to congratulate him on his presentation today in the House. I also want to thank and congratulate the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St-Germain) who is a Metis and a Member of this House, and who serves the Government of the Canada, and I want to express to him my appreciate of the work he is doing in our Government.
Metis blood runs through his veins, and in the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, we have a shining example of what the Metis people stand for.
Since we have very little time left, I would like to comment briefly on one aspect of this motion that bothers me a little, and I am referring to the recognition of Louis Riel as the founder of Manitoba. I think no one here in the House would challenge this title, but my objection is that it should be left up to the Province of Manitoba to recognize its founders. What would the Metis people or a province think of having the federal Government making this decision? Mr. Speaker, I see this as a form of interference that would be very ill-received by
February 24, 1986

Metis Nation
the provinces. I think it is up to the provinces to name their founders, and not up to the federal Government which has no business in this area.
That is the only reservation I have regarding the motion before the House today, and once again, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior on a motion that shows great sensitivity to the history and aspirations of the Metis people. And as a Quebecer, 1 would like to repeat that I also feel great affection for and a great affinity to these people who are seeking their own identity within the great Canadian mosaic.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to this motion and congratulate two Hon. Members. I wish to congratulate my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who is one of the most respected Members of this Chamber and who is eminently qualified to bring forward a motion which draws to the attention of us all the continuing concerns which we have about the situation which the Metis people have faced for so many years. I also wish to congratulate the Hon. Member who spoke just before me for the brevity of his remarks in order that the Government and 1, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State, can point out that we as a Government consider the nature of this motion an extremely important one.
1 wish to move directly to the fourth point of the motion which deals with self-government and a land base for the Metis. I do not think there can be any doubt of this Government's support for increased self-reliance for the aboriginal peoples. For example, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has placed before the House a Bill designed to establish self-government for the Sechelt Indian band of British Columbia. The Government is pleased to welcome any proposals from other aboriginal communities designed to further reliance on their own capacities. Likewise, and I think we only have time to emphasize this one point, the Government has supported the efforts of aboriginal peoples to have a right to self-government enshrined in the Constitution. As my colleagues from all sides of the House have pointed out, that has to be one of the key developments to happen in many years in terms of the recognition not only of the Metis but of all aboriginal peoples, in terms of enshrining their rights to self-development andd self-government in the Constitution.
To this end the 1985 First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal matters brought together the Governments of Canada and of the provinces and representatives of aboriginal organizations and the territories to discuss ways to achieve these goals. On behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) and the Government of Canada I can say that we are actively working to achieve the goals which were set out in the 1985 conference.
I would once again like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for bringing this most important matter to the attention of the House and to the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour allocated for Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on February 4 I rose in the House to inquiry as to the Government's policy regarding sugar. I did this because the sugar industry is in trouble. Last year, for the first time in 60 years, no sugar-beets were planted in Alberta. Two weeks ago, the refinery in Winnipeg closed, putting 95 people out of a job and possibly spelling the beginning of the end for the sugar industry in Manitoba. In Ontario and Quebec, several hundred sugar-beet growers, along with the 25,000 farmers who grow corn for the high fructose corn syrup market, face an uncertain future.

The normal and artificial evolution of raw sugar prices on the world market over the last four years is just about to put out of business the Canadian sugar beet industry.

Ninety-five per cent of world trade in sugar consists of long-term buying and selling agreements. The remaining 5 per cent is sold on the free market, which is generally conceded to be a dumping ground for excess sugar. In most of the years since 1960, world production has exceeded consumption and as a result, the prices in this small free market have been greatly depressed, often to but a fraction of the real cost of production for any country. Canada buys about 90 per cent of its sugar on this free market at bargain prices. However, unlike other sugar-producing developed countries, Canada forces its own producers to meet and compete against these artificially low prices.
Our sugar industry is obviously being damaged by these imports, but the Government refuses to refer the matter to the Canadian Import Tribunal. Unlike the Government of the United States, it refuses to support producers by instituting a floor price for raw sugar. In short, regarding sugar policy, this Government is continuing the non-policy of the last Government.

February 24, 1986
It has been argued that for health reasons, we should not encourage an increase in consumption of sugar. However, that does not mean that we should let Canadian sugar-beet and corn growers go out of business. Do not forget that over 90 per cent of our sugar comes from overseas but we go on consuming sugar. The question really is: Where should it be grown?
It has already been argued that it is just good business practice to keep importing sugar at artificially low prices as long as we can. For some people that might be good, but is it good for Canada as a whole? I say hardly.
Never mind that cheap sugar is dumped on the market at below the cost of production. Never mind that this makes it even more difficult for developing nations to diversify their agricultural production into food crops for local consumption. Never mind that it further threatens our way of life by throwing farmers, machinery manufacturers and refinery workers out of work and onto the unemployment rolls. Never mind that the U.S., the European Community, Japan and other developed sugar-producing countries protect their producers.
The hard fact is that consumers in this country tend not to benefit from the low-price policy. If we were benefiting from that policy, why have we not noticed a decrease in the price of ice cream, candy, soft drinks, beer, bread, sweetened yogurt or frozen and canned foods? It sounds like the same old story that we have been hearing recently in the House about the petroleum indistry and the long wait for the lowering of the prices of gasoline.
The decline in the domestic sugar industry also means that consumers are subjected to wild fluctuations in the price of sugar. Most people in the industry remember the tripling in price that occurred in 1980 when foreign supplies ran low. Prices in Canada jumped three times. If that is what the Government means by good business practice, it sounds a lot like short-term pain for long-term pain. As the President of the UPA recently stated:

"We believe that it would not be in the national interest to let such a strategic industry disappear."

The Minister himself was getting to the crux of the matter last October when he stated that we in this country ought to think pretty long and hard about being totally dependent on somebody else for an essential food.
But the Minister has had enough time to think. He has been putting off the decision for too long. It will be March next week. Last week, or rather last year I asked why this delay.
Last April, he replied:
We wish the decision could have been made earlier but we are preparing a long-term policy and it takes time.
Adjournment Debate
He went on to say:
1 repeat, a decision must be announced this week because sugar-beet growers will have to plant their crop very soon. If they do not plant this year we will lose a major agricultural industry.
In January the Minister told us that a national sugar-beet policy would be unveiled by February 10-

In his words "at the very latest". Why was the announcement not made? Given the importance of the industry, why has there been such a delay? Is the Government siding with some factions of the industry which benefit greatly from cheap sugar at the producers' expense? Is the Government afraid to establish a national sugar policy because it has just killed the National Energy Program? Is the Government afraid of following the example of other countries in erecting barriers against artificially low-priced sugar? Is the Canadian sugar industry an indirect early casualty to free trade negotiations?
If the Minister fails again this week to make a clear statement on the issue, the Government will reinforce the impression that the sugar industry in Canada is expendable. Producers in other sectors, producers of eggs, hatching eggs, chickens, dairy products, hogs, fruits and vegetables will grimly take note. They and other Canadians will be filled with foreboding as they see their Government by its inactions submitting its citizens to a buffeting by factors beyond their control.
The Government had to decide whether it wants a sugar industry as part of Canada's agricultural economy. The Government has to decide soon, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for raising this issue tonight. It gives me an opportunity to clarify a few things.
First, the Hon. Member is correct when he said that we are concerned about the Canadian sugar-beet industry. If that had not been the case, we would not have announced in the spring, 1985, a program by which we hoped most sugar-beet growers would plant their crop. That is what happened, with the exception of Alberta. Unfortunately the Alberta growers could not come to an agreement with the sugar refinery in Alberta. The same kind of support was available for producers in Manitoba and in Quebec. They planted and harvested a sugar-best crop. Some money made available from the federal Government has already been mailed to producers and some is in the process of going out. We are concerned about the industry.
Second, if we were not concerned about the industry, we would not have begun to look at the possibility of establishing a national sugar and sweetener policy. I think that is obvious.
The Hon. Member should be aware that we called a meeting July 24 in Ottawa. We asked all participants concerned about the sugar-beet industry in the spring, 1985 to attend. Representatives of the provinces of Albeta, Quebec and Ontario attended because of their concern over the high fructose corn syrup industry. Producers were there, refiners were there, the
February 24, 1986

Adjournment Debate
industrial users were there. Everybody was there except for the Province of Manitoba representatives. 1 found that unfortunate and I think the Hon. Member should know that.
If he wants to show as much concern as he does here tonight, he should be talking to his counterparts in the New Democratic Party in Manitoba and asking them why they have not been as concerned about the industry and why they did not choose to participate and help the federal Government in terms of establishing a national sugar policy.
The Member should know that Manitoba Sugar did not close down two weeks ago in Winnipeg. It simply sent out notices against the possibility of there not being a crop planted in Manitoba this coming spring. They are required by law to give 90 days notice in Manitoba. They do that against the possibility of there being no sugar-beets to process. We are concerned about the sugar-beet industry. We are the first Government ever to begin to look at a national sweetener policy. That is evidenced by the fact that we are well advanced in making a decision. Unfortunately, a decision has not been made as quickly as I or anyone would have liked. I am a farmer and the Hon. Member is a farmer. He knows that the sooner those kinds of decisions are made, the easier it is for farmers to plant. I know that. Ideally we should have had a decision sooner, but we are attempting to be fair to everyone involved, including the producers and the consumers.
The Member rightly pointed out that some of the benefits of the low world market prices have not flowed through to the consumer. That is true from the evidence that I have seen. At the same time, we are attempting to be fair to everyone involved. There are jobs at stake.
With regard to the amount of sugar that is consumed in the country, he should know that about 30 per cent of it ends up on the table and about 70 per cent is used industrially in further manufacturing. Those are things which we are taking into consideration. I would again suggest that if he really wants to make his case he should be talking to his NDP colleagues in Manitoba and asking them to be helpful rather than dragging their feet. The more co-operation we receive in this matter, the better it will be for everyone, above all the sugar-beet industry for which we are trying very hard to develop a policy which will allow that industry to survive and prosper as it has in the past 60 years in the country.


THE ECONOMY-INTEREST RATE LEVELS. (B) EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR. (C) GOVERNMENT POLICY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the Canadian dollar fell below the 70-cent mark for the first time in history. Three days later the Bank of Canada borrowed $2.4 billion to add to our foreign exchange reserves, which are used to defend the value of the dollar, and began intervening heavily in the market to prop up our currency. The Bank of Canada then jacked up interest rates by more than two-thirds of a percentage point in a further effort to attract
investors. Prime interest rates rose within hours from 11.5 per cent to 12.25 per cent, their highest rate in 15 months.
The Government takes the position that this action to boost the dollar was necessary in order to halt a speculative attack on our currency which, according to the Government, was prompted by "negative sentiment" about our economy. Clearly there is doubt and uncertainty, but it is due less to inherent problems with the economy than to the Government's lack of resolve or agenda to deal with those problems. The Government's costly intervention in the market did nothing to address this fundamental problem which was what triggered speculation in the first place.
The decline of the value of the dollar over the last few months is due to a lack of confidence internationally in the ability of the Conservative Government to manage the economy. Even before the dollar fell below the 70-cent mark, the Government was devoting considerable effort to attempts to keep its value up. It was obvious because short-term interest rates have been steadily increasing over the last few months. The higher interest rate policy did not stop the dollar from sinking to an historic low. When we consider our domestic economy, the consequences of continually raising interest rates give much cause for concern.
Higher interest rates discourage spending and encourage saving. This is not a good prescription when our goal is to sustain and strengthen economic recovery. Higher interest rates mean it costs more to borrow. Therefore, businesses cannot afford to expand or to hire new staff, consumers have to reconsider or postpone large purchases, and people renegotiating mortgages will pay more. Higher interest rates mean less economic growth and a larger deficit, because higher interest rates mean more interest added to payments on the national debt.
The recession of 1981-82 was the worst since the Depression. We are recovering from it now, and our first objective should be to do all we can to build on that recovery. We should be concentrating on jobs, economic growth, and stability. Rising interest rates constitute a major obstacle to achieving those goals. Unless interest rates drop, economic growth will slacken and we will have no further improvement in the employment rate.
The Government sees deficit reduction as the key to lower interest rates on the assumption that a reduced deficit will revive international confidence. The other side of that coin is that Government restraint measures aimed at cutting the deficit take money out of the domestic economy, thereby making economic growth and job creation harder to come by.
The Government must act promptly to ease interest rates in order to avoid undercutting economic growth. It must make a serious effort to address the matter of declining international confidence in the ability of the Conservative Government to manage the economy. We cannot afford any more flashy but shortsighted manoeuvrings on international currency markets. We cannot afford any more bank bail-outs or tax concessions to

February 24, 1986
large corporations, or open-ended tax exemptions. Nor can we afford to let high interest rates choke off economic recovery, or tax away the purchasing power of low and middle-income Canadians. This week the Government will bring down its second Budget as well as the Estimates for its expenditures over the next year. Let us hope that the Government moves to correct the inequities arising from its first Budget and to articulate, through new proposals, its view of the way to revitalize the economy and strengthen recovery.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I made a few notes for my reply to the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). First of all, I was astonished when she referred to the inequities in the Income Tax Act, since we know that the Income Tax Act was largely a product of the previous Government. We did not make the Income Tax Act what it is today. The former Liberal Government did.
Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that to date we have closed the loopholes in the legislation and that furthermore, it was this Government that introduced the minimum income tax. I think this should be recognized instead of just talking about what the Income Tax Act contains.
Now, to get back to interest rates, the short term rise in the bank rate was justified as a way to counter the negative speculation going on around the Canadian dollar. I believe that in the final instance, the market, and not a person, agency or government, should be allowed to set the value of the Canadian dollar. That is how we intend to proceed. However, the Conservative Government has committed itself to the extent that it will not allow private intervenors to play games with the value of our Canadian dollar. And was our basis for intervening.
Economic recovery in Canada-and I think this has been amply demonstrated-depends on creating jobs and on a reasonable inflation rate. Mr. Speaker, as far as job creation is concerned, we have created 560,000 jobs in Canada in eighteen months, resulting in an unemployment rate of less than ten per cent for the first time in five years.
Mr. Speaker, last week, and not eighteen months ago, I was doing some door-to-door canvassing in my wonderful riding of Trois-Rivieres. The people are happy. They are glad to have jobs. They are satisfied because we brought the unemployment rate down, and we are going to bring it down even further. I think that is the main point.
Canada's Gross National Product has grown two per cent more than its U.S. counterpart over the last year. Our productivity has improved, which makes us more competitive on international markets. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Conservative Government has accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, most economists and analysts have said that the declining value of the Canadian dollar was due to specula-
Adjournment Debate
tors. Since everything else in the economy is doing fine, the unemployment rate is down, the inflation rate has decreased, the dollar should normally rise within a reasonable delay and interest rates should drop again in the near future. As evidence, the interest rate at noon was 11.84 per cent as compared with 12.1 last week. At noon today our dollar was worth 72.4 cents.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has got the Canada's economy under control and is making sure that everything points towards renewed growth, lower unemployment and brightening prospects generally.


CRIMINAL CODE-ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS BY PERSONS CONVICTED ON GUN CHARGES
Alan Redway: Adjournment Debate
that they would be discussing the whole issue of tougher gun control regulations. 1 am sure that when he got together with his counterparts, the provincial Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice, they undoubtedly discussed the usual concerns that are raised whenever tougher firearm regulations are dis-sussed. There are a good many of those concerns, as Members know.
There are concerns raised by hunters who feel that it is their right, their privilege, and that it dates back historically, to bear arms and to use those arms. There are the concerns that are usually expressed by target shooters, and I have them in my own constituency, who feel they have the right, and they have had it for many years, to acquire and possess weapons and use them for target practice. Many of them belong to target clubs and use them within an organized club setting. There are the concerns, of course, of those people who have antique guns. In fact, this past Christmas season I visited a home which had a wall full of antique guns. It is a long-standing historical right to collect guns and to have them around. There are also the concerns of those who use guns in their profession or occupation. That is another long-standing right. All of these various concerns, whether it be hunters, target shooters, gun collectors or professionals who use these guns in their occupation, have certain rights that have been built up over time. They have some legitimate concerns and reasons for having possession and being allowed to have possession of firearms.
Having said all of that, I think it is quite clear that the public also has a right to be protected in their homes and on the streets from the fear that somebody may have a gun and use it to injure or kill them or their families. I believe that right overrides the rights of the hunters, target shooters, gun collectors and professionals. It is a right that we must look after and protect. This must be done through a form of
tougher gun control. One way to accomplish this is to take the recommendation of that coroner's jury in Metropolitan Toronto and amend the Criminal Code accordingly. That would go a small way toward giving us some further protection.
The Parliamentary Secretary has had the benefit of consulting with the Minister and the Minister has had the benefit of consulting with his colleagues. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that there will be changes, that there will be tougher gun controls, what they will be and when they will be introduced.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would like to be able to tell him tonight that the details of the amendments he is seeking to the Criminal Code will be in the next Bill. I can tell him that his concerns are shared by the Department.
I am assured by the Minister that when the next set of amendments are brought to the Criminal Code, these gun control provisions will be the subject matter of amendments. This decision of the Minister flows from his meeting with the Attorneys General of the provinces that was held last week.
When these amendments are brought forward, we can have a debate in the House that will enable all Members to discuss these rights to which the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has referred. Surely, people have a right to be protected but there are also the rights of gun collectors and hunters. I believe that we can achieve a just balance and it is with this in mind that I think these amendments will be brought forward soon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 25, 1986