1986-12-01

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some general discussions this morning among House Leaders. I believe that Your Honour will find that there is a disposition to let the Government's time allocation motion under Government Notices of Motion stand for today. 1 wish to seek that clarification before we proceed.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that what I suggested to my colleague in person just moments ago would have been sufficient. However, that is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask if you have already called Tabling of Documents? If so, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already called it. Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Tabling of Documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of Documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to five petitions, Nos. 332-9 to 332-13 inclusive.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from Canadians living from the East to the West Coast who ask that whereas the Government of
Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information; and whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, booksellers, distributers and Canada's culture; and whereas rising book prices have placed a certain strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect to free trade negotiations.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present yet another petition. Pursuant to Standing Order 106 the petition has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It deals with the matter of the generic drug laws. In the petition the people from Lynn Lake, Manitoba, indicate that they too are opposed to the Government's attempt to raise the price of drugs in order to appease the Americans in the free trade talks. The petitioners are worried about the increase in prices for drugs and hope that the Government will reject the proposal to change Canadian drug laws.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to present a petition from several residents of the Winnipeg area who also protest the Government's attempt to change the Patent Act which they feel will result in an increase in the cost of drugs and medications.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to table a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose and reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. They feel that the proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will not only increase drug prices but that they will also unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs. In fact, these changes will result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans. They call upon Parliament to reject this legislation.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present to Parliament a petition signed by numerous Canadian citizens who call upon the Government not to proceed with the legislation extending patent rights* to

December 1, 1986
Petitions
multinational pharmaceutical firms. The petitioners urge Parliament to maintain the existing Act as is.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present several petitions from Canadians who are concerned about the proposed changes to generic drug laws. They are concerned that the new legislation will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Since this will also cause higher costs to provincial drug plans, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon ti.e House to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by thirty people from the province of Manitoba, concerning the price of pharmaceutical products and the impact of the Government's proposed legislation, which will be to increase the price of drugs. Mr. Speaker, these people are particularly concerned that concessions made by the Government to the Americans in the context of the free trade talks will have the effect of putting a heavy financial burden on Canadians who are ill, and petitioners are therefore seeking to retain the existing legislation on the price of drugs.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition which was sent to me by the Parkside Golden Age Club Incorporated, Parkside, Saskatchewan, and most of the signatories of the petition are members of that club. They ask the Parliament of Canada to reject proposals which might increase the cost of prescription drugs and that Parliament reject entirely the changes to the Patent Act.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of my riding who point out that changes to the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, that these changes will hurt Canadians who require prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and will increase the costs to provincial government drug plans and that this is another concession to the United States in the free trade negotiations. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. I am glad to see that the Minister is here listening to the presentation of these petitions.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from a number of citizens of Canada who protest this dastardly and terrible piece of legislation that will penalize senior citizens and force up the price of drugs. I am proud to present this petition on behalf of these ordinary people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is presenting a petition with a certain degree of enthusiasm. The Chair would remind the Hon. Member that it is not an occasion to make a long speech but just to describe what is in the petition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They feel strongly about this one so I will file this petition.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to control my enthusiasm a bit. I have several petitions to present to the House as well. It is very much the case, as these petitions suggest, that right across Canada there is swelling opposition to what is happening to the patent legislation. The first of these petitions comes from Alberta. The petitioners indicate their strong opposition to the certain increase in drug prices which they see in the future. The second petition comes from Manitoba and makes the same point. It also indicates that the petitioners feel very strongly that this action is tied as a concession to the free trade talks with the United States.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I will restrain myself from exposing my strong emotional feelings in exercising the honour to submit petitions from several citizens of the Cities of Windsor and Saskatoon. The petitioners are protesting the Government's intention to amend the Patent Act and are asking the Government to withdraw the legislation and listen to the people of Canada with an attentive ear, not an ear that hears the voice of the President of the United States in determining Canadian policy.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the responsibility and privilege of presenting a petition from citizens of my riding who are also opposed to the initiative of the Government manifested in Bill C-22. I think it might be instructive for the House to know that citizens of Dryden, Devlin, Mine Centre, Emo, Fort Frances, Thunder Bay, Rainy River and La Vallee have all signed this petition calling upon the Government to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.

Canadians throughout my riding and throughout the country object to this disastrous piece of legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of western Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. The remedy they seek is for the Government and Parliament to reject the changes to the patent drug Act that would result in significant increases in the price of prescription drugs for ordinary Canadians.
December 1, 1986


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 17, 22, 23, 26 and 28.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Since September 4, 1984, have any housing projects been approved by CMHC in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the total (i) federal (ii) provincial contribution?
2.	Which government has the authority to publicly announce approval of these projects by CMHC under the current federal-provincial agreement in the Province of Ontario?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) Four housing projects have been approved by CMHC in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton since September 4, 1984. (6) (i) and (ii) The total maximum annual subsidy contributions for these projects was:
Federal	- $ 344,190
Provincial	- $ 162,159
2.	Under the terms of the federal/provincial agreement in Ontario signed on February 28, 1986, project publicity is made jointly by the federal and Ontario governments. The joint news releases are issued to the media by the Province.


Mrs. Killens: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate grants to the constituency of Matapedia-Matane under the Canada Works Program (Phase II - 1985) and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	In each case, what is (a) a description of the projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (b) was the list of projects accepted and the (i) amount of the grant (ii) number of jobs created?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. and 2: See reply to question No. 21 tabled this day.


Mrs. Killens: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate grants to the constituency of Rimouski-Temiscouata under the Canada Works Program (Phase II - 1985) and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	In each case, what is (a) a description of the projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (b) was the list of projects accepted and the (i) amount of the grant (ii) number of jobs created?


Benoît Bouchard: 1. and 2: See reply to question No. 20 tabled this day.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Kaplan: Is the Government aware of any liabilities or potential liabilities arising from sales of products by de Havilland Aircraft Corporation, which continue to be the final responsibility of the taxpayers of Canada because of the sale of the corporation to Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Every company incurs real obligations and exposes itself to potential liabilities in the course of doing business. De Havilland was no exception to this rule, and in the high technology world of aerospace these liabilities are potentially much more serious.
The arrangement with Boeing is, in this regard, a positive element in the sale of de Havilland. If de Havilland had not been sold to Boeing, the Canadian taxpayer would have been exposed to the full weight of the various obligations and potential liabilities incurred by de Havilland. However, as part of the sale of the company to Boeing, the Government was able to negotiate an arrangement which significantly reduces the exposure of Canadian taxpayers to these risks. For Boeing, assumption of a portion of the risks associated with de Havilland is, in effect, part of the price that is being paid for de Havilland, and is in addition to the $90 million in cash, the royalties, and the commitment to place up to $325 million in new work in Canada.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek): 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provide coverage of the October 1, 1986, Speech from the Throne and, if so (a) what cost was budgeted (b) what were all direct and indirect actual costs (c) how many CBC employees were directly and indirectly involved?
2.	Were any persons who were not CBC employees on contract for the occasion and, if so (a) how many (b) for what period of time and at what cost?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
I.	Yes. The October 1, 1986, Speech from the Throne was broadcast live by the CBC French and English radio and television networks
On all four networks, the Speech from the Throne was included in news specials that had been produced to cover the events associated with the opening of the second session of Parliament, and to provide some reaction to material contained in the Speech from the Throne.
Television coverage of the events was provided by a single technical team. That team was assembled by the English television network, and it provided pool coverage to CBC French television and other Canadian broadcasters (CTV, Global, TVA and Quatre Saisons).
(a)	There was no separate, special budget allocated for coverage of the opening of the second session of Parliament and the Speech from the Throne. Instead the costs involved

December 1, 1986
Orders for Returns
were covered by the regular budgets allocated to news specials for the various radio and television services.
(b)	The direct and indirect costs of the four news specials are components of over-all program costs, and it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2530 answered November 6, 1975. It should be noted, however, that pool costs were recovered from other participating Canadian broadcasters.
(c)	There were 91 CBC employees directly and indirectly involved with production of the four news specials for the CBC networks as follows: English television 52, French television 27, English radio 7, French radio 5.
2.	No.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 20 and 21 could be made Orders for Returns, the Returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 20 and 21 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Killens: 1.	For 1984-85 and 1985-86, did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate funds to the constituency of Rimouski-Temiscouata, under the Canada Works Program and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	In each case, what (a) was the list of projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (iii) description of the project (iv) amount of the financing (6) according to the latest figures available, was the (i) list of projects accepted (ii) amount of the grant (iii) number of jobs created?
Return tabled.


Mrs. Killens: 1.	For 1984-85 and 1985-86, did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate funds to the constituency of Matapedia-Matane under the Canada Works Program and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	In each case, what (a) was the list of projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (iii) description of the project (iv) amount of the financing (b) according to the latest figures available, was the (i) list of projects accepted (ii) amount of the grant (iii) number of jobs created?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on behalf of the Government to introduce to the House for its second reading the Canadair Limited Divestiture Authorization Act, Bill C-25. The Government is proud to table Bill C-25 to conclude the sale of Canadair to Bombardier of Montreal. This legislation will provide the authority to carry out the final step in turning Canadair back to the private sector where its potential as a dynamic, competitive company can best be achieved.
A decision to sell Canadair to Bombardier was based on the principle of maximizing the social and economic benefits for all of Canada, and not simply of maximizing the selling price. I would like to describe to you in some detail the privatization process of Canadair. I would like to show the House that this divestiture was carried out with sensitivity to the concerns of the many interested parties, that it achieves a fair return for taxpayers, and that it creates the best environment for a strong and competitive company which is capable of sustaining growth and creating more secure employment prospects.
In assessing the terms of the sale, I would ask Canadians to take two factors into account. First, the purchase price. We have been seeking the maximum economic benefits for the country. This may not always mean the highest price. Second, Canadians must realize that no sale could recoup the billions of dollars already expended on Canadair.
In the early 1980s, after having owned the company for more than five years, the Government took the regrettable but necessary step of financially restructuring Canadair. This was done at significant cost to the Canadian taxpayer, but it only treated the symptoms. The difficulties facing this company could not be solved by financial restructuring alone.
December 1, 1986

[ Translation]
Operating in a very competitive industry, Canadair was frustrated in its attempt to remain in the forefront of a rapidly expanding aerospace industry.
Considering this background and after careful study, the Government decided to sell Canadair.
This decision was made because we concluded that maintaining the Government's participation would restrict Cana-dair's prospects for the future.

In October of 1984, the Government announced that Canadair was for sale. Mr. Paul Marshall, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, co-ordinated the marketing and financial analysis necessary before recommending to Government a prospective purchaser for Canadair. The search for appropriate buyers was based on sound business principles. The criteria for evaluation by the financial advisers included the following characteristics: proven managerial, technological, marketing and manufacturing capabilities; established financial depth; and industry experience.
[ Translation]
The CDIC's objective was to select buyers who would develop the assets of a competitive aerospace enterprise with a view to the export market, further develop aerospace technology in Canada, maintain employment prospects in Canada and support regional development priorities.

By early 1986, the groundwork had been laid to start a final bidding process. On February 6, 1986 bids were invited from the six interested parties. They included Bombardier Inc., Canadian Aerospace Corporation, Candian Aerospace Technologies Ltd., a consortium led by Fleet Aerospace Corporation, IMP Limited, and Magna International Inc.
The financial advisers then opened negotiations with the six interested purchasers by providing the additional technical and financial information on Canadair. The team of financial advisers actively worked with the bidders to negotiate final improvements in the submissions. The CDIC board closely reviewed the proposals and recommended Bombardier as having the offer with the superior bid.
The last step of this lengthy and thorough process included a review of the CDIC recommendation by the Ministerial Task Force on Privatization. After reviewing the recommendation and the supporting financial analysis, and after additional study of the proposal by the Government's own financial adviser, the Ministerial Task Force decided to pursue the Bombardier offer.

We also carefully examined the financial background and growth capability of each of the buyers concerned. Again, I want to make it clear that during their scrutiny of this sale, the
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Ministers not only considered the price and the advice of financial experts, but also the economic and social benefits.
We also examined the consequences of liquidating the company and of maintaining Government ownership. After considering these options and Bombardier's offer, we are convinced we made the best possible decision for the company's future and that of its employees.

On August 18, together with my colleagues, the Hon. Michel Cote, the Hon. Robert de Cotret, and the Hon. Marcel Masse, I announced the signing of the letter of intent to sell Canadair to Bombardier.
The terms of the Canadair sale to Bombardier are complex, and have been arrived at only after months of detailed negotiations and careful considerations. I am pleased to provide you with highlights of the agreement my Government has entered into with Bombardier. I have also provided the Hon. Members with a supplementary information package to help in their understanding of this sale, and in preparation for a speedy passage of Bill C-25. The terms of sale address a number of important employee issues. Mindful of the importance of gaining the confidence of Canadair's workforce, Bombardier has agreed to offer participation to all Canadair employees in Bombardier's existing employee stock purchase plan. Bombardier welcomes the desire of workers to buy into the company, and to participate in the future of Canadair.

Bombardier undertakes to maintain the manufacturing operations and the headquarters of Canadair in Quebec.

An important feature of the agreement with Bombardier is that Canadair will keep the world product mandate for current products and their derivatives. However, through the CDIC, the Government will retain the ownership of the advanced Challenger technology. The Government will licence this technology to Canadair for future annual royalties, which are estimated to amount to $173 million.
Upon closure of this transaction, the Government will receive an immediate cash settlement of $120 million in payment for the shares of Canadair. In addition, the Government will receive $100 million of special shares of Canadair Bombardier Inc. to ensure that Canadair's working capital is dedicated to the further development and to the future of the corporation. A further $50 million of special shares are being issued, which will have the effect of increasing Canadair's research and development, stimulating the development of export markets, and increasing the use of Canadian supplies. Furthermore, Bombardier has committed itself to submitting a plan to increase the level of Canadian content in the Challenger aircraft program.
It is obvious from this long list of sale arrangements that benefits will flow not only to Canadair and its employees, but also to the aerospace industry in Canada and to all Canadians.

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Bombardier will provide Canadair with the kind of innovative management that has made it a leader in the transportation technology sector, both in Canada and on international markets, and thus give Canadair the new direction it needs to compete effectively.

By joining up with Bombardier, Canadair will benefit from a sound management capability for improved performance and growth; through a sound business strategy, efficient operation backed by strong marketing skills; and a sound financial base to finance the extensive capital requirements entailed in new product development.
The Bombardier offer of purchase not only provides the Government with an immediate cash return, but it also provides many benefits and advantages to Canadair. The alliance with Bombardier will reinforce Canada's capacity to develop effectively as a leading aerospace manufacturer.
In sum, the purchase of Canadair by Bombardier creates a merger of Canada's technology and skilled workforce with Bombardier's management expertise and international marketing experience.
This partnership will provide Canadair with the opportunity to improve its ability to compete in global markets, to provide the best possible future for Canadair's employees, and to make a continuing contribution to the Quebec and Canadian economies.
We firmly believe that the return to the private sector of a company like Canadair is in the best interests of the company and its employees. It is private resources which can best be engaged in the business of designing, producing, and marketing aircraft. That is why we propose to privatize Canadair.
It has been a great honour and pleasure for me to begin debate on second reading of Bill C-25. For the good of Canadair, for the good of Canada, for the good of Quebec, for the good of its workers, and for the good of its suppliers, I recommend the unanimous support of all Hon. Members for speedy passage of Bill C-25.


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


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-25, and first of all, I would like to say that we on this side of the House welcome this legislation. In fact, my only criticism would be that the Government has taken so long to bring this Bill to fruition. The Government announced its intentions in October 1984, and subsequently the whole process was left to languish which had a number of adverse effects including that of creating a climate of uncertainty which did not help Canadair. During all this time, there were repeated visits by Canadair's competitors
which did not lead to any subsequent purchase offers, and which may have harmed Canadair commercially in its attempts to sell certain products on foreign markets. I will comment in detail later on, with quotes from a number of business enterprises who tried to use these visits to get ahead of Canadair.
In any event, to get back to the positive side, I can say we are delighted that Bombardier came out the winner in a competition against only one other company in the final stages, namely, Canadian Aerospace Technology, the Dornier Webster group. We are delighted Bombardier won, because first of all, Bombardier is a Canadian company. The Government was careful to avoid its previous mistake when it sold de Havilland to a foreign company, namely Boeing. Bombardier is a Quebec company, it is one of ours, and I am sure that across the country, people appreciate the fact that a Canadian company is purchasing Canadair, and especially in Quebec, in the Montreal area, because Bombardier has proved its mettle in large-scale production. It started with snowmobiles, followed by locomotives, and is now getting involved in the aerospace industry, a sector that is even more important. We want to offer our best wishes to Bombardier, which has the competence and the experience required to manage big projects, and the marketing skills to compete on a world scale. Bombardier is in an excellent position to manage Canadair's operations and to maintain it as a profit-making enterprise.
Bombardier also has a definite advantage because Canadair's technology is going to stay in Canada. And this time, the Government made sure the technology would belong to all Canadians, which represents a considerable improvement over the previous privatization operation involving de Havilland, which was purchased by Boeing. In that case, purely Canadian technology is now in the hands of a company that belongs to investors who reside in the United States. So in fact the Government is correcting a mistake and taking a more enlightened approach in this second aerospace industry major privatization process.
Needless to say Bombardier is striking a good deal as well because Canadair happens to be on solid financial ground. Canadair now reports profits for 1984, 1985 and even for this year, after experiencing serious financial difficulties in recession years 1982 and 1983, as did most other aerospace corporations throughout the world. Indeed Canadair began recovering in 1984 and posted profits of $6 million that year, and $27.6 million the year after. In other words, it turned into a profitable operation. It is still too early to categorically state that in 1986 Canadair operated in the black because the year is not over yet, but Canadair officials are talking in terms of profits of about $23.8 million. So the Government is privatizing a company which is quite healthy, in spite of some Government's mistakes, in my opinion.
As I said earlier, the privatization process took so long that prospective buyers were able to visit Canadair facilities and gain access to what is known as sensitive data in the trade. As a matter of fact, in an attempt to take full advantage of the
December 1, 1986

situation, some firms like Gulfstream wrote to interested Challenger buyers and pointed out that privatization was taking too long and did create an atmosphere of uncertainty.
Madam Speaker, I have here a memo from Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation whose head office is located in Savannah, Georgia, in the United States. On July 23, 1985 Mr. H.L. Humble wrote this to Mel Simon & Associates:

With your involvement in the investment business, I have to ask if your pending purchase of the Canadair CL-601 is really best for you? CDIC's plan to sell Canadair is public knowledge. When that happens, to whom will you look for support? Spares? And what will be the effect on your long term investment in that product?
We can offer new Gulfstream Ill's now and Gulfstream IV's downstream, and we know who will be there to fully support your investment.
I cite the memo to explain that Gulfstream and others had access to confidential and sensitive information about the operations of Canadair, which they later used to their advantage and to the detriment of Canadian workers and Canadian technology. One wonders how Canadair was able to survive and to show profits in 1984-85 despite the fact that other competitors had inside information which they were trying to use to their advantage.
In May 1985, Canadair board directors felt that this way Gulfstream might too easily acquire strategic data and unanimously refused to let Gulfstream have confidential information such as lists of clients, marketing plans, research projects, customer service programs, future projects, in short a host of details which any company dealing with a competitor would rather keep under wraps.
However, CDIC officials in Toronto chose to reject Canadair management objections and forced them to release all this information to their Gulfstream competitor. Armed with this information, Gulfstream did not waste any time and, as early as July, sent Canadair customers a harmful telegram-I just quoted it in English-in which it claimed that Canadair would be unable to offer support services on products and spare parts.
Madam Speaker, the Toronto press does not usually spring to the defence of Montreal business firms, but in this case it did speak up to denounce the situation. But again for the second and third times, as recently as August 1985, CDIC officials directed Canadair to play ball with Gulfstream experts. The rest is history: having laid their hands on all Canadair strategic data, Gulfstream management confirmed the fears of the Canadair board of directors and, finally, last October 4, announced rather contemptuously that they had decided not to buy Canadair. Of course Gulfstream had not really set their sights on Canadair, all they wanted was to obtain trade secrets which might eventually be useful to them.
To come back to the letter of intent between Canadair and Bombardier, even there, everything is not perfect.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the study commissioned from the Salomon Brothers firm, which had been asked to review this agreement and to comment the proposed sale. In particular, Salomon Brothers had been asked to comment, first, the process used by the state and its outside advisors to sell Canadair, and second the adequacy of the Government's assessment of the two bids received by the CDIC.
One of our concerns is that there has been repetition of a mistake made in the de Havilland takeover. Once more, the Canadian public will be responsible for any possible increase in the insurance premiums which Bombardier Canadair Inc. might have to pay.
Indeed, the Salomon Brothers report said the following:
The only important provision in the Bill that neither promotes Crown objectives nor conforms to traditional commercial practice is that which provides for risk sharing should insurance become "economically impracticable to procure". The general notion of this provision results from precedent set in the de Havilland transaction. In de Havilland the Crown was at risk for a portion of insurance cost increases, even if de Havilland could afford to pay them. Here, the Crown is at risk only if the insurance becomes unobtainable at an economically practicable cost.
I do not see why, when the state sells a profitable corporation, as I said earlier, Canadian taxpayers should be asked to pay for increases in an insurance cost which should, from now on, be borne by Bombardier, which has taken over Canadair.
Madam Speaker, Canadair is one of the major employers in the Montreal region, with 4,000 employees at the present time. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions to the Government and the Minister who is sponsoring this Bill.
First, there is the employment issue and the fact that 4,000 workers are worried about their jobs. The Minister was very vague about this earlier when she said that one of the objectives of privatization was to make jobs more secure. However, she gave us very few details. If we look at clause 7 of the letter of intent, on page 4, we find an open door for laying off employees. If I may quote this short paragraph in the letter of intent, it says the following:
Bombardier is committed to maintaining existing levels of employment at Canadair subject to cyclical shifts and sound business practices, and will pursue new programs and opportunities so that the level of employment at Canadair and its suppliers will increase.
We should not be taken in by such a vague paragraph. The phrase "subject to sound business practices" means that there will be a rationalization and that, to increase profitability or to adjust the management practices of Canadair to those of Bombardier, the management could easily decide to lay off some of the employees. Now what is very important in my view is to make sure that those 4,000 people will have a job.
The paragraph included in the Letters of Intent is a speculative commitment to maintaining existing levels of employment, but with two major qualifications, being cyclical changes and sound business pratices. This in the final analysis means that the paragraph is no guarantee at all that the 4,000 people working for Canadair will be kept in their jobs.

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Second, there is the matter of research and development. We on this side of the House believe that research and development should remain in the Montreal area. There again, if one reads the Letter of Intent, this is not clear.
As for the Minister he indicated that Bombardier has agreed to maintain manufacturing facilities and the company Headquarters in Quebec. This is at least something. But, we also happen to know that the place where research and development work is done is also very important. If you go back to page 3 of the Letter of Intent, this is what you will see:
The existing R&D capacity of Canadair will be enhanced to maintain Canadair as a complete aircraft company with ability to compete in commercial and defence markets.
But there is no indication whatsoever as to where specifically those R&D activities will be carried out. This is wishful thinking, some sort of a vague promise that they will try and increase research and development, but without specific details of course.
Another matter of concern to Canadair workers, who will now be transferred to a new employer, Bombardier, has to do with the question of guarantees regarding their pension funds. On that matter the Letter of Intent includes some guarantees in general terms. This is spelt out in two lines only on page 2, Item 5, and reads as follows:
Amounts currently in the Canadair pension plans will be for the sole benefit of Canadair employees.
We could hardly expect anything less. What is not stated, however, because details are lacking, is whether Canadair employees who are to be transferred to Bombardier will have a pension fund that will be as generous as their former one. This is what employees are concerned about. They know the funds will be to their sole benefit, but they do not know what the new provisions will be and how they could be affected upon retirement. Those are questions I am asking the Minister.
In any event, as I said, on this side of the House we will support quick passage of the legislation. We wish Bombardier good luck with that major takeover. It is our hope that privatization will benefit all those involved-Bombardier, the Canadair employees, the Canadian aerospace industry-and that it will also benefit residents of the Montreal area by providing jobs for many years to come, and that finally all Montrealers, who for years have been so proud of Canadair, may now count on Bombardier-Canadair Inc., which will the name of the new company, to continue as one of the major employers in the area and one of the mainstays of the Canadian aerospace industry.
With that in mind, we wish Bill C-25 and Bombardier-Canadair Inc. the best of luck.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to give my first speech as NDP critic for privatization. I see the smiling Minister across the floor. She is the second woman Minister I have been critic
of in this Parliament, the first being the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to the press, both are rising stars. That gives me particular pleasure. It is always more fun being critic of a rising star than the other way around. I hope the Minister's star will continue to rise because, goodness knows, the Cabinet needs to have at least one or two rising stars in a group of generally falling stars.
I know the Minister has to leave soon to give a speech. I guess she will have to read all of my words in Hansard later. I believe the Minister is also responsible for the status of women. I was just wondering if she had considered the irony in that generally the Civil Service and Crown corporations have a better record on employment benefits and all kinds of things for women than those in the private sector. She might look at that and we will come back to it in some future debate. She may have a bit of a conflict there.
We in the NDP are opposed to this Bill for three reasons. First, it has been brought forward for ideological and not for sound economic reasons. The Conservatives original strategy for dealing with the aerospace industry was to combine de Havilland and Canadair into one super aerospace Crown corporation. That was in 1984. Now, in 1986, the strategy is the complete opposite, that of privatization. The Conservatives have been carried away with radical right-wing ideology, something that is out of step with the Canadian tradition.
Second, it is obvious to me that there is no clear plan and goal for privatization. I must tell the Minister that she gave a pretty weak speech on privatization. I hope she will pay more attention to her next one. We heard a lot of rhetoric but not one reason why this Crown corporation should be privatized. Surely the people of Canada, if not the House of Commons, are entitled to reasons for selling these Crown corporations. The Minister might consider the rationale of different Conservative policies. Her Government had Petro-Canada spend $866 million in 1985 to buy 1,800 service stations and four refineries from Gulf Canada. That was expansion of a Crown corporation. Now, if I am to believe what the Minister said, for ideological reasons the Conservatives are privatizing a Crown corporation. On the surface they are inconsistent policies. For example, the policy on Petro-Canada is to increase Canadianization and make it more efficient and effective. I can understand that. However, what policy is the Government following in privatizing this corporation? There was nothing in the Minister's speech. She gave no reason at all. "General public policy" is not a reason.
The nature of the deal itself is the third reason why the NDP opposes the Bill. It is a distress sale. It is like selling one of your Crown jewels for a pittance.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Some jewel.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, considering the Government has put about $2 billion in-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right, some jewel.
December 1, 1986


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -this company and is now giving it away at fire sale prices. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), will analyse this sale in some detail, as will some of my other colleagues. My colleague from Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) will be speaking on how we in the NDP view the use of Crown corporations and the sound and sensible economic reasons for maintaining-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Including white elephants.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Hon. Member should listen and at least come up with a theory, as opposed to mere rhetoric, as to why the Government is selling Crown corporations.
Let me deal with a little bit of the history of Crown corporations. The Government's privatization campaign is not a response to public pressure. Rather, it seems to stem from a neo-Conservative ideology which I think is at odds with Canada's history. Crown corporations go back to the construction of the Lachine Canal in 1921. That was our first public enterprise and it was undertaken by the Government of Lower Canada when a private firm involved failed. We have seen the same pattern throughout Canadian history. Our Crown corporations have been a binding force for a small population in this vast country which is next door to the most powerful country in the world. We have had our reasons for Crown corporations. They have been justified by the need to provide essential services, develop national resources, operate public utilities, bail out private sector firms, or pioneer in new fields. They were established not only for a public presence but also a Canadian presence in areas where the Americans might well have otherwise stepped in. Canadair is an example. I believe it was 1976 when that company was bought from General Dynamics for $48 million to prevent closure of an important plant in Montreal, protect jobs and research and development in the vital aerospace industry.
We have had good reasons for utilizing Crown corporations and the NDP believes there must be equally good reasons for selling Crown corporations. It is incumbent upon the Government to tell us why. It is not in our tradition and the Government has no mandate to sell these Crown corporations. As a matter of fact, research has shown that people with incomes over $50,000 a year in the private sector hate the public corporations and want the Government to sell them. In many cases they want to feather their own nests because they will benefit from the sale.
This is not the Thatcher Government. It is not the Reagan Government. Canada is different. The Crown corporation is part of the Canadian tradition. We have 233 provincial Crown corporations and 464 federal Crown corporations. That includes the two largest non-financial enterprises in Canada, and 37 more are ranked in the top 500 corporations in this country. I think The Toronto Star, in an editorial on July 8, 1986, put it very well, as follows:
There is certainly a case for privatization, but only where a reasonable balance between public purpose, accountability, and flexibility cannot be achieved. But where that balance can be realized, crown corporations should not be sacrificed to an ideology that denies so much of what this country has attained.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
The Minister said nothing in her speech to alleviate these fears. To use a legal term, the onus of proof of the benefit of privatization is on the Government. We in the NDP are not necessarily against privatization. We are not saying in every case we should not privatize; we are saying you have to have sound economic reasons for it. We want to know what they are in this case.
The Conservatives had a strategy for the aerospace industry. That stratey is contained in a news release dated August 27, 1984. It is a statement by the MP for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) on the need to establish a Crown corporation for the aerospace industry. He said:
As taxpayers we have a large investment in Canadair and de Havilland. Our objective is to get our money's worth for this investment, in terms of employment sales and development.
Who could argue with that? He continued:
We will set up a separate Crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland with a mandate for the development of the aerospace industry and not merely financial control. This organization will be responsible for developing in conjunction with the aerospace strategy so that Canadair and de Havilland will become commercially viable and will continue to be so into the next century.
We will increase aerospace expertise in this new corporation so that the management are not merely bureaucratic financial wizards, but people with hands-on experience and a thorough knowledge of the aerospace market. In particular, the Chief Executive Officers of both Canadair and de Havilland will sit on the board.
During the election campaign of 1984 the Member for Etobicoke Centre, who is now the Minister of Finance, was proposing a Conservative policy of amalgamating Canadair and de Havilland into a more efficiently managed super Crown corporation. That was the strategy. However, the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), a right-wing ideologue, took over the portfolio and put the Government on a path of privatization. That goes directly against the policy enunciated by the present Minister of Finance on August 27, 1984.
The goals of privatization have never really been outlined by the Government. The closest I could find is in the budget papers of May, 1985. In those papers at page 26 under Rationalization and Privatization of Crown Corporations and Other Federal Investments there are six points mentioned. I draw to your attention point number four:
Crown corporations will not be sold at distress prices merely to transfer them quickly to the private sector.
A large deficit and normal fiscal prudence dictate that the privatization program should proceed at a measured pace with careful consideration of all the issues, not the least of which is the receipt of a fair and reasonable price for each asset.
In my view this is a distress sale. The Government fattened up Canadair prior to the final sale. At the very moment the CDIC began the bidding process, the Government approved $30.9 million in DIPP assistance for the production of the CL-227 systems and another $20 million for Canadair participation in a joint venture with West Germany on the CL-289 for a total of $50 million. Canadair will be eligible for more DIPP money; $14 million to improve the CL-215 water bomber, $10

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
million for modifications to the Challenger, and $5 million for new equipment. That is approximately $30 million in grants which have not been announced but are assumed.
We are creating a system like that of the Americans which, of course, is what the Government does all the time. We are creating a defence industry which is supposed to be private, but is in fact subsidized by the Government without government control through a number of grants and contracts. Canadair was given the contract for the $1.7 billion F-18 jet fighter instead of the Winnipeg consortium after much debate in the country and this House. That is a guaranteed $50 million per year for 20 years. That is not a bad deal. More important, the Canadian taxpayer will continue to assume Canadair's long term $1.2 billion debt, the annual interest payments on which exceed the cash price of $120 million which the Government is getting from the sale.
I will review those figures, combardier is paying $120 million which is less than the $300 million liquidation value or the $224 million book value or the $300 million to $400 million estimated technology value, in addition to getting $50 million in federal grants in January, $30 million to come, unspecified export financing, a $1.7 million defence contract, no financial obligation related to Canadair's debt or outstanding liabilities, plus profits of $20 million in 1985 and $2.8 million in the first quarter of 1986. That is not bad for a $120 million investment and the equivalent of $20 million in royalty payments.
That is why I say the Government of Canada is giving this company away, that this is a distress sale. What kind of economic policy is that? That is why I say this is an ideological policy. Economic good sense has been clouded.
We are concerned as well about jobs. Mr. Normand Cherry and the workers in the machinists union fought hard to preserve jobs in their industry in Montreal. However, we are still not happy with the job guarantees in the memorandum of understanding because we do not believe they have any legal force. With regard to research and development, the Government has worked out a system whereby Bombardier stays honest by way of special shares, but no such guarantee exists for jobs. The job statement reads as follows:
Bombardier is committed to maintaining existing levels of employment at Canadair subject to cyclical shifts and sound business practices, and will pursue new programs and opportunities so that the level of employment at Canadair and its suppliers will increase.
As ever, Madam Speaker, this statement is only as good as the paper it is written on and Bombardier's record as a good corporate citizen. We will have to ensure that the jobs stay in Montreal.
I would like to speak about privatization, as the Minister should have. She owes this House a statement about the Government's goals on privatization. There has been much confusion and rhetoric on privatization. There has not been much public support, except perhaps from the Financial Post and a few other sectors which support privatization. A number of people are lining up at the trough for a piece of the new
privatization action. I will not comment in detail, but I await the report of the inquiry into the affairs of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion with respect to the dollar-a-year people who are advising the Government about privatization and then having involvement in the companies which are buying these crown corporations at distress prices. That will be worthy of debate later. We will have to await that report.
There are side issues related to privatization. Contracting out is tied in with privatization and is an issue across the country. Another issue is deregulation, which is itself a form of privatization. This will increasingly become an issue. To some people privatization means the sale of all shares of a government corporation. To others it means selling only a portion of the shares, and others would give the shares away. In any case, I think we need more definition from the Government. We need to approach the big question. Why should a government-owned corporation be privatized anyway? The Minister says that it is for the good of Canada, but that is not enough. What are the reasons?
I suggest that the Minister should read a speech given by Professor John Langford to the Institute for Research on Public Policy at its conference on privatization. Professor Langford is Professor of Public Administration at the University of Victoria. He attempted to analyse the reasons for advocating privatization.
One belief is that privatization will remove the state enterprise threat to the mixed economy. The premise is that governments now own too much of the economy. How much state enterprise in some industrial sectors is significant or insignificant? The fact is that state enterprise accounts for only about 12 per cent of the economic activity in Canada. This is not out of line with the situation prevailing in a number of other successful industrialized countries. That refutes the argument that there is too much state enterprise.
Another reason given in support of privatization is that it will create new jobs, new investment, a renewed economy and a rationalized private sector. While that may sound promising, there is not much historical evidence in this area. The experience in my Province of British Columbia with privatization suggests that it will not lead to any economic miracle. There was no economic miracle as a result of privatizing the BCRIC shares in British Columbia. In fact, it might lead to a series of corporate takeovers in which private giants swallow public giants. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "I have yet to see a takeover that created a single job-except for lawyers and accountants". Privatization could simply lead to further corporate concentration.
Another thought is that Crown corporations demoralize or damage the private sector by draining off available capital and competing unfairly. Let us consider the special prerogatives of some Crown corporations. They have access to capital at government rates, legal and tax immunities, closer access to the policy process, and ability to avoid paying dividends. While
December 1, 1986

those are advantages, what about the disadvantages? Crown corporations must pursue money-losing national interest objectives, sometimes carry heavy debt loads, and deal with a complex and bureaucratized shareholder, namely, the Government of Canada or the provincial Government. In this instance, the argument is balanced and it is difficult to tell which is better.
It is suggested that privatization will lead to enhanced competition. How will this happen? In the case of de Havilland and Canadair, there is no real competition. Some of the candidates for privatization will be sold to monopolies.
It is suggested that public corporations do not make as efficient use of the factors of production as private firms. I could stand here and say that Dome Petroleum, Massey-Ferguson, and Maislin Trucking are examples of bad private sector corporations, just as there are bad corporations in the public sector. It depends upon which corporations one focuses to see winners and losers.
Another argument in support of privatization is that it will have a positive impact on Government. First, privatization can be used to get rid of the public corporations whose mandates are irrelevant to wider policy objectives. In this case, instead of arguing that Crown corporations are inefficient, the line is that they are ineffective. However, how do we decide if the mandates of public corporations are irrelevant if we cannot find a clear mandate statement for them? Perhaps they should be given a clear mandate and be made publicly accountable. Perhaps they should be reformed rather than eliminated, per se.
Professor Langford says that the most pronounced hostility to public corporations and the most pronounced support for privatization comes from people in managerial and supervisory positions making more than $50,000 per annum.
This is essentially the first debate on privatization that we have held in the House. The Minister gave a very disappointing speech today because she did not deal with some of those issues.


Mr. Mantha:: Yours is beautiful.


An Hon. Member:: She is a rising star.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is a difference between giving a public relations speech by reading the notes from bureaucrats, and actually showing some understanding of the issue. This issue needs to be debated in Canada. We should not try to focus on the neo-Conservative ideology behind this issue, but on the economic realities. This applies to my Party as well as the Liberal Party. We cannot oppose the sale of all Crown corporations, but we can, as responsible politicians and political parties, say that we want to know why the Government supports privatization. Is it to protect jobs in Montreal, in this case? If so, job protection is weak. Is it to gain money for the Government? As I have pointed out, this is practically a distressed sale. Is it a matter of economic planning or future development in the aerospace industry? Previously, the
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Conservatives wanted a super Crown corporation by combining de Havilland and Canadair. Now they have sold de Havilland to an American corporation. Where is the planning?
While it may be more beneficial to sell to a Canadian corporation in this case, than to an American corporation, where is the expertise in Bombardier? It is a good corporation, but where is the expertise in international marketing of aircraft and aerospace parts? The Government gave that expertise for the rationalization of the sale of de Havilland to Boeing. The Government's policy is riddled with inconsistencies.
We are opposing the Bill for three reasons. First, the Bill is based on ideological and non-economic grounds. Second, there are no clear goals for privatization of this Crown corporation, indeed for any other privatizations proposed by the Government. Third, the nature of the deal itself is a distressed sale of a fattened Crown corporation, practically given away to the private sector with inadequate job guarantees for the workers. That is why we oppose this Bill.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me today to deal in this House with the privatization of the Canadair Corporation and its sale to the Quebec-based Bombardier Corporation. I am pleased also to see that the Liberal Party is supporting this sale as well as this Government bill. I am not surprised to see that the New Democratic Party is against it, for its position is well known: it is always against any legislation which is not biased in favour of the unions. No wonder, therefore, that it is against this particular bill.
Madam Speaker, any Quebecer worthy of the name-I know several-can only rejoice when he realizes that the only Quebec airplane manufacturer will remain in Quebec, that it will employ a skilled workforce from Quebec, that it will keep its technology in Quebec while selling its production on the international market.
Let anyone propose a better arrangement than this and I am willing to analyze it. Although those who oppose the economic development of Quebec may say that the Government made a political decision when it selected Bombardier as buyer for Canadair, the fact remains that Quebec is and will always be interested in its technological development, and the private sector, together with its government partners, will do everything it can to achieve this aim.
Madam Speaker, we should not forget that Montreal and its metropolitan area has always been recognized as Canada's aeronautic and aerospace hub. That does not mean that there are no similar activities elsewhere in Canada. Quite the contrary: Canada is well-known the world over as being at the forefront of the aeronautic development. However, one should remember that over 50 per cent of all the jobs in the aeronautic industry are in Quebec, and more specifically in the Montreal region.
Why Montreal, Madam Speaker? Because the Montreal region has the airports and infrastructure necessary for

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
increasing the economic activities in this area. Moreover, foreign corporations have opened shop there because they have faith in the capacity of the Quebec labour force and the opportunities offered to them. Indeed, it should be recognized that over many decades, successive Governments have contributed to the aeronautic development of Canada. But we should not overlook the fact that the present Conservative Government is making every effort to maintain this momentum and open up new markets abroad.
Madam Speaker, the Quebec people are proud people. They are proud of their roots, proud of their aspirations and especially proud of its Government which respects its ability to pay. It is important for the Government of Canada that the Quebec people should preserve their pride. It is important for the Government of Canada that the Quebec people should be treated with the same interest as other Canadians elsewhere in this country. It is especially important that the national wealth should be shared equally throughout Canada. However, the most important point remains the respect which the Federal Government should have for all regions in the areas of investments and transfer of technology.
Much too often we have seen in the past the setting up of industries in locations based on the mere recommendation of a Minister acting under the pressure of influential businessmen groups.
Quebecers still remember being conned when the contract was awarded to build F-18 airplanes. They will remember it for a very long time.
Madam Speaker, I should like to come back for a moment on the privatization as such. In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance had indicated his intention to privatize a number of Crown corporations with the sole purpose of eliminating the competition in which the State was involved through these corporations with the private sector. I suggest this decision must have been a good one, for the provinces as well as the Government of the United States are planning to do likewise.
Even though the Opposition is trying to prove otherwise, the Canadair Corporation is not being privatized to make up for the financial mistakes of the past. It is returned to the private sector for the sole purpose of creating the best possible future for the corporation and its employees.
While not taking into account past mistakes, it is nevertheless important to remind the House that the Canadair Corporation was bought from General Dynamics in 1976 for $46 million. It operated at a loss every year until the spring of 1984, when the Government of the time decided to soak up its $2.4 billion deficit with the money of Canadian taxpayers. From that date on, it has shown signs of recovery and declared a profit of $16.8 million in 1985 on sales of some $227 million. During that same period, from 1976 to 1984, the number of jobs went from 7,200 to 4,800, for a net loss of 2,400 jobs,
demonstrating again that in the private sector, small and medium-size businesses create more jobs than the public sector.
Now, Madam Speaker, you will ask me: Why sell a company which has finally come around to making profits? The answer is simple. Canadair is a company that manufactures aerospace equipment, a high tech business selling sophisticated products on the international markets. The sale is consistent with the privatization policy of the Government. One of the objectives of that policy is to improve the management of all Crown corporations and to privatize those in which the Government no longer needs to be involved in order for the objectives of our public policy to be reached. This pragmatic approach enables the Government to improve its financial management and to create within the nation a stable climate favourable to private entreprise.
I would also like, Madam Speaker, to speak briefly about the process used by the Government to privatize Canadair. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) said earlier that selling the corporation took a long time. However, let me explain the process used by the Government.
As soon as it was asked to privatize Canadair, the Canada Development Investments Corporation (CDIC) went through the following steps:
In co-operation with the management of Canadair and officials of the DRIE, two different levels of information were collected. A public information kit was made available to all parties concerned and a privileged information kit containing further details was provided to potential buyers who had to prove their financial capacity and sign a statement of confidentiality.
The CDIC hired the services of a consortium made up of the firms Burns Fry Limited (Canada), Merrill Lynch Capital Makets (United States) and S.G. Warburg & Co. Limited (U.K.) which was entrusted with the mandate of financial adviser for the purpose of selling Canadair.
The financial advisers prepared other information kits and in co-operation with CDIC contacted some 150 interested parties around the world.
Approximately 25 applicants did show sufficient interest for proceedings to be continued. Some of them visited the plant and discussed matters with the management of Canadair.
By the end of January 1986, six groups had stated their interest and negotiations were launched with each one of them.
On June 6th, the CDIC board of directors met and each of the interested groups which had filed proposals made its submission. Later on, the board of directors asked CDIC to further negotiate with two of those groups, Bombardier Inc. and Canadian Aerospace Technologies Limited because in the board's opinion their offers were well above the others.
Discussions were held later with representatives of Bombardier and Canadian Aerospace Technologies Limited to set aside the items considered unacceptable to CDIC and to have
December 1, 1986

both groups improve on their respective offers. The revised offers were received on June 17.
On June 20, three days later, the board of directors met once more and, after hearing explanations from Burns Fry's officials on behalf of the DRIE's financial advisers and officials, the board recommended that the Government accept Bombardier's offer. That is how the offers were considered, Madam Speaker. Nothing was hidden, no tricks-complete straightforwardness and integrity prevailed throughout those negotiations.
Approximately a year and a half elapsed between the Minister's announcement and the sale of Canadair. This is a far cry from the actions of the previous Government, which supported it for eight years.
Aside from that, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the House what were this Government's concerns with respect to the offers to purchase.
During the negotiations, the Canadian Government has required more than a checkbook to hand over ownership of Canadair. The Government demanded that the transaction ensure a good balance between the priorities of the state and the initiatives of the private sector.
The Government assessed the bids of potential buyers based on three criteria:
A healthy management capacity;
A solid financial basis; and
Contribution to the maintenance and development of a viable and dynamic manufacturing aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada.
Why was the Bombardier bid given preference, Madam Speaker? Simply because it was the best, both economically and technically. The price of the sale includes many important components:
The Canadian Government will receive a cash payment exceeding $120 million for the Canadair shares.
The Government will remain the owner of the Challenger technology and grant a usage permit for this technology in exchange for future annual royalties which Bombardier has evaluated at $173 million. This is a major point, Madam Speaker.
The third point is that the Cartierville airport grounds will be sold at their market value, which has been assessed at $11.5 million.
The Government will also receive special shares worth $100 million and other special shares worth $50 million to promote an increase in research, development, export and Canadian contents.
Finally, the Government will receive a special dividend of $3 million as well as part of the amount paid to Canadair once its dispute with one of its suppliers has been settled.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Madam Speaker, that is an outline of the contents of that transaction. It is not as bad as some doomsayers have hinted. On the contrary, we believe that it is a very good deal, for Canadair and Bombardier also have made the commitment to meet the following sales conditions: Bombardier will maximize the Canadian content in the Canadair products; the present research and development capacity of Canadair will be increased to make Canadair a real aircraft manufacturing company able to sustain the competition of commercial markets and the defence equipment market; and to answer the question raised earlier by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, Canadair employees will be eligible to participate in the Bombardier employee share purchase plan. There are more conditions, but I just wanted to mention those, Madam Speaker.
That is what the Government and the Bombardier company have committed themselves to. Contrary to what some people have been suggesting, we had no intentions to stab anybody in the back.
Madam Speaker, when some Opposition Members use scare tactics in linking this privatization with the CF-18 maintenance contract with possible layoffs and a technology transfer, this is all I can say: You know just as well as 1 do, that the CF-18 maintenance contract is totally unrelated with the sale of Canadair. You know that it was awarded on the basis of merit to industrial bidders, and that it makes up for the disgraceful action by the previous Government with respect to the spinoff of the CF-18 manufacturing contract.
As to the loss of jobs and the technology transfer, Madam Speaker, let me remind you of the scare tactics used by some Members, and especially the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), during the debate on the sale of de Havilland. Believe me, I am very much in a position to know. In 1986, de Havilland had record sales, as a group of Canadian carriers ordered 42 Dash-8 for a total value of $400 million, bringing the company's firm orders and purchase options to a combined total of 132 aircrafts. This means two and a half years of work. Here is, ladies and gentlemen of the opposition, what the sale of de Havilland has meant. You scared the population without cause and I wonder why you did it.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this transfer of a Crown corporation to the private sector proves, beyond any doubt, that the Conservative Governement is committed to giving this sector of our economy the place it should have. It wants to eliminate the competitive imbalance between the private and the public sectors and to encourage the private sector to demonstrate its initiative and ability to invest in advanced technology, and research and development.
Madam Speaker, my speech would not be complete without some quotes from people affected by this transaction. Patrice Bleau, a Canadair employee: "We must develop new markets, and I think this sale will help." From Laurent Beaudoin, President of Bombardier: "We are very proud of this transaction, because it fits in with Bombardier's development plans." From Normand Cherry, of the aerospace workers union, who

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
unlike the young Member of the New Democratic Party in his comment earlier, said: "This augurs well." And he is the union president. From Jean-Luc Belanger, a Canadair employee: "I think it means the jobs are going to stay here. I trust Bombardier." From John Turner, the Leader of the Official Opposition:

-"In general terms, we favour the deal".

And finally, Mr. Speaker, one last quote: "If they say that the City of Montreal has pride of place, then the Government led by the master hand of Brian Mulroney stands for equality and common sense". That quote, Madam Speaker, is mine.


Mr. Kaplan:: Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the subject. I have a great interest in the Government's privatization program. I do not accept as a principle of ideology that privatization is always good or preferable.
I regret very much that the Government is so dominated by the philosophy of privatization that even the administration of the parole service is being turned over, not to professionals but to volunteers in the private sector. I believe it is a big mistake to approach social problems or economic issues with an ideological prejudice that prevents us from examining the advantages and disadvantages of various forms of ownership.
During the last election campaign the Opposition, as it was, came up with a very attractive proposition for the aerospace sector. The Government, as are the Governments of many other countries, was involved in the aerospace sector and owned de Havilland Corporation in Toronto, a company which manufactures propeller aircraft, and Canadair in Montreal, a company which manufactures jet aircraft.
The Canadian people were promised that if the Conservatives formed the Government, a company called the National Aerospace Company, if I recall correctly, would be formed. This company would be offered to Canadians as shareholders in three categories. Some of the shares of the company would be offered to the industrial sector so that it could be taken over by corporations like Bombardier which is a very good corporation. It would be possible as well for a miniority position to be taken by an excellent aircraft company from the United States, like the Boeing Corporation. Another bloc of shares in this company were to be offered to employees of the corporations that were being taken over by the new venture and the third group would be offered to the public. That was an excellent idea. It was attractive politically and made a lot of sense.
I think there has been an incredible betrayal of the Canadian people. The Conservatives had an excellent and popular concept, one which I myself would have supported, as would
my colleague who sits beside me. When he was President of the Treasury Board, he also discussed in a very positive way an evolution of the ownership of Crown corporations. Instead of making the slightest effort to get that project going, the Government immediately announced that these corporations were for sale to the highest bidder on a distress basis. In other words, the Government said that a willing purchaser would not have to give fair market value for the corporations because the Government was desperate to sell. As the months went by, it showed more and more desperation so-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that he seems to be getting into debate. Other Hon. Members are seeking the floor to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard). The Hon. Member may wish to put an end to his speech at this time.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. I thought that I had been recognized for debate. I would intend to seek the floor, and perhaps the normal time allotted for questions and comments might be given back to the Hon. Member. I had not intended to fill his 10 minutes that way.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard). My first one is: Why is there a difference between what the Government said about de Havilland and what it said here about Canadair? In the case of de Havilland, they said it was necessary to have a company that would help de Havilland with its marketing problems. They also said they had to find a company that could provide de Havilland with the technology. But now, it seems there is something different. There is a suggestion that the sale to Bombardier is supposed to help Canadair complete and that their technology is supposed to help Canadair. Aside from those considerations, is it a successful deal? That is my first question.
My second question is about what the Hon. Member failed to mention about the price. We as Members of this House must be able to evaluate the issues, and specifically the price factor. However, there was nothing in what the Hon. Member said to enlighten us. I would like to know whether the Hon. Member believes that the price, which is much lower than the assessed value indicated in the company's report. .. Should we as Members see that as a problem?


Guy Ricard: Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for asking these two questions. He asked about the difference in the position taken by the Government in the case of the de Havilland and Canadair transactions. I do not think that there was any difference in our approach to these two transactions. In the case of de Havilland, we had an airplane manufacturer which was unable to sell its products, and Boeing was the best choice as purchaser since it both manufactured and sold airplanes.
December 1, 1986

In the case of Canadair, it was successful in selling its products, but it no longer needed the support of the federal Government and was in direct competition with the private sector. It was therefore decided that both Crown corporations should be privatized.
I do not believe that there were any differences in views, strategies or procedures in the case of de Havilland and Canadair. Both transactions comply with the comprehensive policy developed by the Canadian Government since our coming to power, and we are going to respect this policy. We are going to keep the technology in Canada. In the case of de Havilland, if we look at sales to date and those anticipated for the next four years, I do not believe that there can be any talk of any loss of employment or lack of technological transfers since we are keeping both jobs and technology in Canada.
The same is true for Canadair. Bombardier has made a commitment to maintain the number of jobs at Canadair. It has also made a commitment to invest in research and development and to keep its technology in Canada. To my mind, all this is very coherent and easy to understand.
The other question asked by the Hon. Member dealt with the price for which Canadair will be sold compared with its book value based on the evaluation of those responsible for analyzing the balance sheet of Canadair.
When we call for tenders to sell something and invite 150 companies to bid on a project of this magnitude, it is obvious that all of the 150 bidders are not stupid. Although similar bids may be submitted, we must admit that these people analyzed the financial standing of the company, met with officials and looked at the corporate books, all of which told them how much the company may have been worth and just where it stood in terms of goodwill. Having weighed all such factors and compared prices, they made an offer which was accepted by the Government. Therefore I fail to see why we should be concerned only with the price issue since both Government and CDIC officials found the offer acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: I will not debate at length, but I would like to make a few points with respect to this sale, and a few points with respect to privatization as seen from my perspective, and I think the perspective of most of my colleagues on this side of the House.
I remind Hon. Members that when Canadair was acquired in the mid-1970s, the Liberal Minister of the day said that it was the intention of the Government to return Canadair to the private sector at some appropriate time in the future. That philosophy and that policy had never been abandoned by the Liberal Government. In fact, in 1980 when I was President of the Treasury Board, the then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, gave me the privatization mandate.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
One of the companies that we looked at at the time was Canadair. Studies had been done with respect to Canadair and other corporations. But as history has now shown with such clarity, it is pretty difficult to embark upon any type of sensible privatization, especially during a period of economic decline such as we had experienced in the early 1980s.
Madam Speaker, colleagues, and fellow Members, the overriding principles of any privatization scheme are that it is in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer; that it is a sensible commercial transaction pursuant to which Crown corporations are disposed of; that there is no longer, for example, a national interest which would require that such corporations be retained by the Crown. Those are the type of principles which guided me in my thinking as I looked at the privatization mandate.
I have never been ideologically driven with respect to Government intervention through Crown corporations. Crown corporations have and continue to serve very important needs of this country, both at the provincial and federal level.
Need I only remind some of our Conservative friends from western Canada of the extent to which the then considered right wing Government in Alberta intervened in many sectors of the economy through Crown corporations. So there should be no ideology in this debate. We should look at this as hardheaded politicians trying to do our very best for the Canadian taxpayer. How will technology be preserved? How will jobs be maintained? How will highly skilled jobs be increased in number? What effective return will be realized by Canadian taxpayers?
I have looked at certain parts of the transaction, and there is one in particular to which I should like to refer.

It is right there under our noses, if you will, and I am referring to the risk which will remain for at least roughly fifteen years, if I have the correct dates here. Madam Speaker, this may turn out to be an extra load on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers.

I am speaking about the issue of product liability. I have noted that, at the request of the Government, Salomon Brothers was apparently assigned the task of evaluating the extent to which Bombardier's offer for Canadair complied with generally recognized business practices. I understand that Salomon Brothers concluded that the form of risk sharing in respect of insurance premiums did not comply with such business practices. In fact, I have here what Salomon Brothers allegedly reported, that the only important provision in the letter of intent of Bombardier that neither promotes Crown objectives nor conforms to traditional commercial practice is that which provides for risk sharing should insurance become economically impracticable to procure. The general notion of this provision results from precedents set in the de Havilland

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
transaction. Of course Canadian taxpayers would like to know the potential cost of this provision.
Under the product liability provisions of the particular transaction we see that if insurance becomes impracticable to procure, Canadair and the Crown-and the Crown means taxpayers of the country-will share cost in the following proportion: years one to five, Canadair 10 per cent and the Crown 90 per cent; years six to ten, Canadair 40 per cent and the Crown 60 per cent; and years eleven to fifteen, Canadair 70 per cent and the Crown 30 per cent. Only after year fifteen will the potential liability of Canadian taxpayers be eliminated.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the fact that our Conservative friends and the Conservative Government are taking an approach dictated by ideological principles more than by trade considerations and criteria. There lies the difference I want to emphasize in our approach-when we were in Government and responsible for privatization-and that of the present administration.
Madam Speaker, we have every reason to be quite worried because there are other Crown corporations which the Government would like to put on the block. More important still, the critical question is this: Are these sales really and basically in the interest of Canadians?

That is the point to which I return. I have always believed that when a corporation has served its purpose in terms of national interest, indeed it should be a candidate for privatization. The ownership of it can then be with those Canadian shareholders who truly want to participate directly in the activities, in the future, and in the profits of the corporation. We must bear in mind that when a company is privatized, Governments remain substantial partners in any case through the operation of the income tax system. We, the taxpayers of Canada, are always there with an interest in every profitable corporation.
Let us not let ideology dictate which companies should be sold and the terms and conditions of those sales. Let it be common sense and the interests of Canadian taxpayers which guide our thinking in that regard. That is the message I should like to leave with the Government today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Lion. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) dealing with product liability insurance. He will note, in going over the documentation, that Canadair is required to pay all insurance costs except if insurance becomes unobtainable. Then the risk is split on a declining basis over 15 years. He will know that the Government, as owner of the corporation, presently has to carry all insurance risk. When there is a very difficult time with product liability insurance, obviously the effect of his suggestion would be that the Government would
have to take over all companies to cover their insurance. He knows that that is not practical. The real question is, would he say that the position for his Party is that because of the possible insurance risk the deal is a bad deal and that Canadair should not be privatized?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I usually find that my friend speaks with somewhat more clarity and more lucidity than that comment. I heard him say that I am suggesting the Crown should assume product liability for all corporations. That is what I heard the Hon. Member attribute to me. There was no such suggestion at all.
When a company is disposed of in a normal commercial transaction indeed it is rare, as the Salomon Brothers pointed out, that the vendor should continue to assume the insurance cost on product liability if it becomes impracticable for the purchaser to obtain that kind of coverage for a period of 15 years. Certainly it is understandable that the vendor should be prepared to assume responsibility in respect of certain contingent liabilities which exist by reason of events that precede the sale. Here we have a continuing obligation on the taxpayers of Canada to assume a risk for a period of up to 15 years. At least that is how I understand the comments of Salomon Brothers.
If my friend has some additional details which can satisfy us that that is not the case, then I should very much like him to bring them forward. If he can cite other precedents in the private sector where major takeovers of this kind have occurred and the vendor has continued to guarantee the availability of insurance on a profitable basis to the purchaser, I should like to have those precedents as well. If he were able to produce them, I might be more satisfied that there is some commercial precedent in the private sector for such transactions.


Mr. Thacker:: Madam Speaker, the position of the Liberal Party in respect of the privatization of Canadair is not clear. We know that members of the NDP will vote against it. They would rather see taxpayers throwing in another $1.4 billion to $2 billion, as they already have. It will be fun campaigning; they want taxpayers to continue pumping billions of dollars into the company rather than privatizing it which would cut their losses. What is the position of the Liberal Party? Is it in favour of the privatization or not?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) was in the House when I made my comments. I thought I explained that in fact when Canadair was acquired the Government or the Minister of the day said that it would hopefully be returned one day to the private sector. That policy never changed. Canadair was transferred to the investment holding company created by the Crown in order to facilitate privatization upon the right terms and conditions at the appropriate time.
December 1, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, at its convention over the weekend the Liberal Party took strong positions for nuclear disarmament and arms control. In Priority Resolution No. 11, the Liberal Party asked Canada to seek a multilateral, verifiable disarmament treaty together with a policy of non-interference by superpowers in the internal affairs of other nations. In Priority Resolution No. 12, we resolved that the Canadian Government should stop testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. In Priority Resolution No. 34 we resolved that the Canadian Government should move immediately to make Canada a nuclear-free zone, to support a comprehensive test ban treaty, and to oppose completely the star wars proposal.
Considering the recent willingness of the superpowers to examine these proposals seriously in Geneva and Iceland, now is the time for our Government to take a more committed and aggressive position on these issues.

Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced the allocation of $175 million for the rehabilitation of the Welland Canal. This demonstrates the federal Government's commitment to one of the most important transportation systems in the world, namely, the St. Lawrence Seaway, of which the Welland Canal is a central component. The Seaway has played a vital role in the development of Canada's economy, particularly with respect to the transportation of western grain.
Last year the Welland Canal faced a crisis situation with the unexpected blow-out at Lock 7. I have spoken often in this
House on the need for upgrading the Canal. The Government has responded. Hundreds of new jobs will be created in the Niagara Peninsula. The Minister of Transport's announcement clearly indicates the Government's commitment to the future.



UNITED NATIONS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations will be voting this week on a resolution which could lead to the independence of New Caledonia. Past Liberal Governments and the present Conservative Government have failed to support this move toward creating a self-governing nation. Canada must change its vote. It is not enough to abstain. We must vote yes.
New Caledonia has been fighting the French colonial presence since 1853. Without a peaceful settlement in sight, it is now clearer than ever that Canada must take an active role in urging France to decolonize. Canada's close sisters in the Commonwealth, Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji are taking the lead in promoting independence for New Caledonia. Canada should join with those and other nations in this effort. We can start by voting yes at the United Nations.



WINTER OLYMPICS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Olympic Park is beautiful to behold. Created specifically for the 1988 Calgary Olympics, I am sure it will thrill every Canadian and every participant from other countries.
It was my pleasure last Saturday to represent the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) at the first pre-Olympic ski-jumping competition held in the park. As I watched the skiers start their run, momentarily disappear and then suddenly reappear, flying high in the sky like huge eagles and landing beautifully on the slope, I was proud of the Canadians who designed and built this splendid facility. As I presented the unique Canadian trophies to the top three skiers representing East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Norway, I could see in the future a Canadian standing on the top podium receiving the first place trophy because Canadian youth, when they have equal facilities, stand shoulder to shoulder with the best athletes in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, the Canadian Government, the Calgary Olympic Committee, and the Canadian people for this beautiful park.

December 1, 1986
1636___________________________



S.O. 21 SPORTS CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-GREY CUP WON BY HAMILTON TIGER-CATS

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I know that you would not want me to break the Standing Orders, nor would the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), nor would the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), by congratulating the Tiger-Cats. I will not break the Standing Orders.
It was a great weekend for Liberals. It was a great weekend for Canadians. Most of all, it was a great weekend for the people of Hamilton.
I just happen to have a hat which I will not wear in the House because it is again a violation of the Standing Orders. However, I plan to deliver it personally on a red Liberal platter to the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) who has promised to eat it as his part of losing our bet. The weekend shows Canadians that the greatest team in football is the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and the greatest come-back team in politics is the John Turner Liberal team.
Oskee wee wee.
Oskee wa wa.
Holy Mackinaw
Tigers and Turner eat 'em raw!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members will understand, as Speaker, and being from the west, that I had to get this over with.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



THE SENATE


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for Senate reform. Canadians from all regions are tired of an appointed Senate being able to block the legislation of those elected to represent them in Ottawa, the Hon. Members of this House of Commons.
Canada being a confederation of provinces, regional interests must be represented effectively in Ottawa on an equal basis. Therefore, Senate reform which would include elected Senators equal in number from each province would remedy
the feeling of alienation that eastern and western Canadians have toward Ottawa. Only then would they become equal partners in the decision-making process taking place in Ottawa. I urge the Government to seize the opportunity for constitutional negotiations with the provinces and bring in an elected, equal, and effective Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the courts in Newfoundland have chosen to jail Peter Fenwick, the provincial Leader of the NDP, for two months. His crime was to walk a picket line with workers in Newfoundland.
Members of the Legislature, like Members of Parliament, are elected in a free and democratic process by Canadians who put their trust in them. The duty of elected leaders is to challenge society to make changes seen to be in the best interest of the men, women and children they represent. In our society judges are appointed by the Government in power. The police who lay the charges and the Crown attorneys who prosecute them are directed to do so by the Government in power. Courts are held in respect only so long as justice is done and seen to be done.
Peter Fenwick walked the picket line for 15 minutes before his arrest. For that he will spend two months in jail. Surely this is unjust in a free and democratic-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members will realize that it is often the obligation of Members to criticize a law, but it is equally an obligation not to attack the-
[And the Leader of the Opposition having entered the Chamber.]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has just entered the Chamber and received a courteous and warm response which the Speaker joins in extending to him.
As I was saying a moment ago to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), it is often the obligation of Members of Parliament to criticize a law. However, Members also realize it is not their place to castigate a court or judge or the decision rendered under a law. The Hon. Member has made his point.
December 1, 1986



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, at this time last year, I was advised by CN officials that we would be losing jobs in Campbellton, in my constituency. This year, CN is doing away with 20 more jobs in New Brunswick, 11 of which will directly involve people from Campbellton. CN is not even trying to save those jobs, and I rise in this House today to publicly condemn CN management for the incompetence and lack of concern shown in announcing right before Christmas this piece of bad news to the heads of those 20 families. Such an announcement will certainly shatter the holiday spirit and the joy that usually prevails in families at this time of the year.
I am outraged at that kind of action and I certainly hope that CN, as an arm's length corporation, will do something to end without delay such an unacceptable and unbearable situation.



FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the Government implemented its disastrous policy on the abolition of footwear import quotas.
Men's footwear imports have jumped by nearly 50 per cent since then. Footwear imports from Southeast Asia in particular have gone up from 63,000 to 213,000 pairs, 38 per cent more. Last year the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada did predict that serious unemployment would be the result of Government abolition of footwear imports. The Government got away with it by claiming, and I quote: "This decision would lead to savings of half a billion dollars for Canadian consumers".
Canadians are now facing the truth. More than 1,000 jobs have disappeared in this sector, and one of the three industries in my riding, Alexandria Footwear, had to lay off two-thirds of its workers.
Four times since last July members of the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada have been denied the privilege of a meeting with the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She claims that she does not have time.
If the Government keeps on refusing to meet with these manufacturers, we will lose the remaining 20,000 jobs in this industry.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Recently, Mr. Speaker, the nearly 200,000 elderly people who belong to the Federation de I'age d'or du Quebec voiced their unqualified support for Bill C-22 concerning drug patents. In their letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), these citizens expressed their view that the adoption of Bill C-22 would greatly spur research on a number of still uncurable diseases which strike the elderly in particular.
Elderly residents of my riding and of Quebec can no longer stand being manipulated. They did not believe the silly predictions of Opposition Members who, without ever referring to the purpose of the Bill, have been brandishing the spectre of higher drug prices. Older Canadians know that the new legislation will be a boon to drug research and that very soon they will benefit from discoveries to be made by this revitalized industry.




Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to share with Members of this House the views expressed by one of my constituents on a very important issue to be dealt with here. She says:
I am a senior citizen 76 years of age and I am taking life-giving medication every day (15 pills) totalling a cost of approximately $400 per month. I am told I am to be on these drugs for the rest of my life. So needless to say my pension cheque goes almost entirely on keeping me alive on pills let alone food, which now becomes secondary.
Even with the Pharmacare program in effect, this would not alleviate the problem. It takes 6-8 weeks to process the rebate-
Time and time again the elderly and the struggling families with children or even young people who must take drugs are the ones that this federal Government has put the burden on. Maybe it's time to change the make-up of the federal Government quickly. 1 sincerely trust you voice my feelings along with the many others on this serious issue.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the recent agreement reached by our Government with the provinces which has successfully halted the flow of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States. As a Member from northern Ontario, I feel it is vital for the Canadian Government to correct the injustices of our established trade system and realistically approach the protectionist

December 1, 1986
Oral Questions
forces to the south of our border. The Conservative Government is committed to this end.
In light of the contradictions aired within the Liberal Party this past weekend on the issue of trade with the United States, no Member across the way can criticize the Government for its steady and consistent trade initiatives.
The people of northern Ontario want firm action. They do not want the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. The 15 per cent punitive duty placed on softwood lumber imports by the United States would cripple the forest industry. Northern Ontarians and the Government realize that. We will continue to act for the betterment of the industry and the country.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important than a powerful idea whose time has come. Last weekend, rank and file members of the Liberal Party from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, passed important resolutions calling on Canada to put an end to Cruise missile testing and to declare Canada a nuclear-free zone. In so doing, our Party sent a clear message not only to our fellow Canadians, but to the world. Peace and nuclear disarmament are too important to be left to the superpowers, and the survival of the planet is more important than Canada's commitment to NATO.
As more and more people are coming to realize, it is sheer madness to contribute to the nuclear arms race. As a middle power, Canada has a significant role to play. We have an unique opportunity to show some leadership and independence in the fight for peace. It is neither responsible nor necessary for us to follow the United States in a lock-step down the road to Armageddon.
The Liberal Party spoke last weekend and the message was eloquent. We owe peace to the children of Canada.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) announced the final payment of S279 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Act for the 1985-86 crop year.
Close to 80 per cent of prairie grain farmers participate in this voluntary program which they fund jointly with the federal Government and which assists them when net cash flow from grain and oil seeds falls below the past five-year average.
This spring an interim payment of $580 million was made. Together with the final payment, this means farmers will receive a total of $859 million, the largest pay-out in history.
This is another in a long line of federal government initiatives to help Canadian agriculture. It is further evidence that this Government will spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada's farming community in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practices conducted beyond our borders.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all I can say
in response to Hon. Members is thank you, but I do not really recommend the experience.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Canadian Consumers' Association, senior citizen groups right across the country, provincial Governments, and indeed even Doctor Eastman himself are all concerned that with the present legislation before the House, drug prices will rise in Canada. Surely he must realize that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are having trouble paying drug prices at their current rate, without his Government bringing in legislation that will prompt higher prices. Will he do something about that?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all government colleagues and I believe all Members of the House, may I convey to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition our genuine congratulations on his achievement over the weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In regard to the question raised by my right hon. friend, the Government's legislation is designed to accommodate that concern and to generate new capital for research and development. We believe the Government has put forward a balanced and thoughtful approach.
December 1, 1986


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is trying to lure me into a different tone, but I do appreciate the generosity.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said recently on the CBC radio program, Sunday Morning, the following:
There has been pressure on Canada since 1969 to change that law and it costs us a lot. Because when you go down to talk about anything, acid rain, you know, lumber, talk about anything and this has been going on a long time, this is raised.
Why would the Prime Minister make drug prices and the pharmaceutical industry part of the bargain with the United States? Why would he knuckle under to American interests and inflict higher prices on our pensioners, our older people and our sick?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no knuckling under. There is no inflicting of higher prices on anyone. I think my right hon. friend knows that. As I have said, it is a balanced and, we think, progressive package consistent with the requirements of an industrialized country in competition with other countries around the world and desirous of establishing our share of that research and development industry here.
I have not read the transcript to which the hon. gentleman refers, but the Minister has given, in other circumstances, assurances in regard to prices that I hope will satisfy my hon. friend. They are intended to ensure that the less well-off in our society do not in any way suffer and that the prices will not rise to affect them.


John V. Nunziata: We don't trust you.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT WITHDRAW LEGISLATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's opening comments were most generous and I appreciate that.
Perhaps he could be as generous to the ill and the aged in Canada. In the circumstances, could he ask his Minister to withdraw the Bill that will affect the price of drugs?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman must recognize that the manner in which he puts his question does not cover the full aspect of the matter having to do with the very best and newest drugs in Canada and that Canadians can also have access to and research in those drugs.
I want to indicate to the Hon. Member as well that it is not quite as clear in terms of senior citizens. The Federation de
Oral Questions
I'Age d'Or du Quebec has come out strongly in favour of the Government's legislation. I think we should recognize that as well.


POSITION OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not true that the major reason the U.S. Government pressured the Canadian Government to change the Patent Act with respect to pharmaceuticals is that U.S. multinationals fear that other industrialized countries will adopt the Canadian system forcing generic competition as the model legislation in the world?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, it is not only the United States. It includes France, Britain, and other countries in Europe especially. I say to the hon. gentleman that we want the very best health care system, inclusive of technology, and one of the major technologies is with respect to new drugs. We as Canadians expect the very best, and we should have the very best.
If I were to ask the Hon. Member to name a drug developed in Canada over the past 50 years from inception he could not give me one.


An Hon. Member:: Insulin


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Insulin was developed 64 years ago, which is proof of the reason why we have to change this Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare can answer this question. Why is it that his Government has totally disregarded every one of the major recommendations of the Eastman Report and has gone far and beyond the recommendations in that report, and you have succumbed, you have knuckled under-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.
The question I want to ask, which is the more important one is this. Why is it that the Government has knuckled under to the interests of foreign-dominated multinationals without any concern for the interest of Canadian workers and consumers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, none of the charges is correct. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has just announced a $70 million program in Dalhousie and Memorial Universities. It is that type of research we want at Dalhousie, in Montreal, in

December 1, 1986
Oral Questions
Ontario, and in the West. There are young Canadians who want to do that research.
Let us look at the example of cyclosporin. We all applaud when a successful transplant operation takes place. Other people have developed this technology and I am saying that we, as Canadians, can develop some of those drugs as well. It is about time that we recognize that, stand up and take some credit for what we do.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF COST IMPACT STUDIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, but before I ask it, please excuse me. I have sent my personal congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to say now, on behalf of all my colleagues, that we do congratulate him most sincerely on coming through a tough personal experience of which all political leaders know something. We wish him well, and I am sure he will understand if we say that we wish that all his future happiness be strictly personal.
On to other matters. I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the change in the drug legislation being contemplated by the Government. I met with senior citizens and druggists in Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor on the weekend. Without exception, they urged the Government to withdraw the present legislation. Given that, will the Prime Minister produce the studies that provide evidence of the reduced costs described by the Minister in the press release that was sent out on the weekend? Will the Government at least come clean and provide those studies so that the House may look at them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that was asked of me in writing by the NDP health critic and we responded at that time. It is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has said very clearly that he would like to get this matter into committee because that is where the discussions should take place and the facts should be assessed. Let us allow the parliamentary process to work. Bring the matter to committee so that the Hon. Member may get results.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ALL STUDIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has said is not the case. He has refused to produce the studies, saying that they are cabinet documents. I am referring to a new set of studies. I am directing my question to the Prime Minister who preached open government. Considering that the Minister has refused to produce the earlier studies done on the impact of this Bill and that he put out a press release on Friday referring to additional studies, will the Government please come clean, be honest with the people of Canada and give us all the studies now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is being honest. The Government has looked at this matter very clearly. In the health care system there is always a balance between the ability to pay and the ability to have the very best and the very newest.
Day after day I hear Members saying in the House that we need more money for universities and more opportunities for our young people to do research. This is one way we can do that. Surely the best way to look at the details of this, as all Hon. Members with experience in the House know, is to take this matter to committee where these studies or other facts as the Hon. Member likes to portray them can in fact be investigated and examined.


REQUEST THAT MINISTERIAL STUDIES BE MADE PUBLIC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who promised the Canadian people open government.
Last week, the Minister refused to publish the departmental studies. This is another example of departmental studies being withheld.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Does the Government intend to disclose these studies for the benefit of the public? Where is this open government?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it's the same question, and the same answer applies. I can only ask the Hon. Member to do the thing that every parliamentarian understands. When a matter has been debated in the House, it goes to committee for full examination.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the national blitz to inspect thousands of superboxes last Monday and Tuesday, and the repair of over 300. Today we have another national blitz. It is called a security retrofit of all the superboxes across Canada, although last week in the House the Minister assured us the mail was safe. I ask the Minister if he has any estimate of what it is costing to transport the technicians to every corner of the country, pay for their hotel rooms, their labour, and so on for the second time in a week to repair those supermailboxes? Would the Minister agree that it would be much cheaper to restore door-to-door mail delivery?
December 1, 1986


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the Government has asked Canada Post to become selfsufficient by 1987-88 while at the same time improving service. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the Corporation has submitted a corporate plan. We have analyzed the plan, and it does indeed meet these two objectives. We are satisfied with the decision made by Canada Post.


LOCK AND KEY COMBINATIONS
George Baker: Last week a superbox could be opened without a key. The Government says that it has corrected that. We now learn today that a key will open a whole bunch of superboxes. Superboxes become Pandora's boxes for this Government. Can the Minister confirm that because there was only a limited number of lock and key combinations purchased for superboxes, Canada Post will now have to change all the locks on every superbox in the country? Is it not cheaper to restore door-to-door mail delivery?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am told that in certain regions it takes a crowbar to open these supermailboxes, so that certainly represents security, Mr. Speaker.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will know that this morning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs circulated a very partisan press release to all Members of Parliament linking the names of Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo, and Rick Hansen with the Government's Bill changing the Patent Act. Does the Prime Minister of Canada believe that linking these three outstanding Canadians to a Bill that the Government is introducing is an appropriate use of their names?


An Hon. Member:: Did you get their permission?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, all of us applaud the work of those three Canadians who, in their various ways, have advanced medical research. What I think is important in the area of health is that Canadians want and expect to have the very best of health care. We have a choice to make as Canadians, and that is we either purchase almost entirely new technology from abroad, or develop some of it in Canada. I am suggesting to the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member that that balance is important. I am absolutely convinced that Canadian research can lead-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


USE OF INDIVIDUALS' NAMES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate to use the names of great Canadians like Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo, and Rick Hansen in support of the initiative of this Government which will result in a significant increase in prescription drug prices? Does the Prime Minister believe it is appropriate that these individuals who have pursued fund raising for medical research are now having their names used in support of this government legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the document to which my hon. friend refers. I will be happy to look at it, because there would be no intention of associating anyone with a proposal or a piece of legislation without his or her authorization, so I will examine it very carefully, and I will reply to my hon. friend.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. In her absence, I will direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Over the weekend an External Affairs official in a briefing arranged by the Minister himself was reported to say that the federal Government no longer believes that it can win its lumber case against the Americans. Therefore, it has abandoned its decision to fight through every possible legal channel. Is this defeatist position now the official position of the Government? Have we indeed abandoned the recourse that we have through the American tribunals and the international tribunals to fight against the softwood lumber case?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member is misquoting the official he is purporting to report. Perhaps when he rises again he might indicate to us whether, as the official spokesman on trade matters for the Liberal Party, he speaks for the position they adopted on Saturday morning, or the different position they adopted on Saturday afternoon, or the different position they adopted on Sunday morning.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Minister is seeking information, I will advise him that I speak for the position on the resolutions that I proposed and were passed at the convention.

December 1, 1986
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Where were you at Cabinet, Lloyd?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask that all Hon. Members refrain from extending the enthusiasm of the weekend throughout the entire Question Period.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister. Can the Minister explain to the House why the Government is not scheduled to make representations to the Commerce Department's public hearings which begin this week on the softwood lumber case? Has the Government indeed abandoned its position? Why is it not appearing before the public hearings when all other parties to this bid will be appearing there and the case will be judged based upon these representations? Why are we not in front of that tribunal making the case for Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada supported by the vast majority of the provinces, and certainly very actively by the spokesmen of the labour union involved in this issue, is to try to seek an arrangement that will bring stability to the Canadian forest industry and stop the possibility of our losing literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Insofar as public debates and hearings are concerned, I am quite prepared to arrange immediately a public hearing so that we can learn the views of the Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount on the position put forward on trade by the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During the period when the Government was considering the deindexation of old age pensions the Prime Minister met with senior citizens, to the benefit of his edification and the withdrawal of that legislation. My question to him is simply this. There are some retirees coming from Windsor and other cities who would like to discuss the Patent Act with him. Will he meet with them tomorrow?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has met with various groups that have views on this Bill.


David Orlikow: Like the drug companies?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not only the drug companies. 1 have met with senior citizens. I have met with the drug companies and senior citizens, and I have met with others. So I say to the Member for Winnipeg North Centre, yes, we will meet with those groups, and we are willing to have discussions with them as well. There is always a balance between trying to protect the ability to have access to drug plans, as well as the balance on the other side for research and development, so that Canada can be at the leading edge of health technology.


POSITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some mistake. My question was directed to the Prime Minister. Will he meet with retirees and senior citizens, or should we have a little old lady guard the front door of the House to accost him as he was accosted last time to have the Government consider the interest of Canadians, rather than constant obsequiousness in the face of American pressure?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that kind of proposition is preposterous and is very dangerous because people of all ages expect the best health care. I have letters from people who want new drugs. New drugs help to save lives. Let us get on with it and start having some optimism about ourselves, our country, and our future.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Some time ago I made representations to the Minister on behalf of the volunteer fire departments of Canada. It had been proposed by her Department that volunteer fire departments be required to pay individual licensing fees for their two-way radios. This would have added substantial costs to the operations of the volunteer fire departments. Has the Minister been able to resolve the matter and continue the previous practice of charging one licensing fee?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for South West Nova for his representations on this issue. Indeed, I have received representations on the issue from a number of other Members. I should like to advise him and the House that I have decided to defer for the time being any changes to the regulations as they apply to radio licence fees for municipalities and volunteer fire departments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 1, 1986


Flora Isabel MacDonald: These changes are quite separate and distinct from those included in Bill C-3 which applied to federal and provincial agencies and Crown corporations. They will be proceeded with. However, the changes as they affect municipalities and volunteer fire departments will not be proceeded with.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Thursday I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the cruise missile tests and the SALT II Treaty. In response, he stated that the Prime Minister had advised President Reagan that it would be better for the world if the United States met the commitments it made under SALT II. Mr. Speaker, the President does not seem to have heeded this wise counsel. Could the Prime Minister advise President Reagan that Canada does not intend to proceed with the cruise missile tests until the U.S. Government decides to meet its obligations under the SALT II Treaty and the ABM Treaty?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): This question was asked and I answered it on Thursday afternoon. Canada believes it was a mistake on the part of the United States not to observe the SALT II Treaty. We have advised them accordingly several times, most recently in a personal letter from the Prime Minister to President Reagan. However, we have NATO commitments in connection with the cruise missile tests, and we intend to respect those commitments. I deeply regret the fact that on the weekend, the Liberal Party rejected the commitment signed by Mr. Trudeau and also rejected Canada's membership in NATO.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the testing of the Cruise missile comes under a bilateral agreement of February, 1983, with the United States. Paragraph 23c of the undertaking reads:
Either Government shall reserve the right to cancel, suspend, postpone or terminate any specific test and evaluation project, if in its opinion, any unforeseen imperative circumstances should so warrant.
Surely the breach by the Americans of their obligations under SALT II would constitute such an eventuality if the Government so elected to stop testing the Cruise missile.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest and dismay the position of the Liberal Party on the weekend in respect of our
Oral Questions
capacity as a country to fulfil our obligations to NATO as it regards-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is not a NATO agreement.


James Ross Fulton: You need another briefing, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to hear the Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: I was dismayed at the agreement of the Liberal Party with regard to its vote on a nuclear free zone to reject Canada's obligations under NATO in so far as the protection of Canada is concerned against some 300 Soviet submarines in our waters. I also regret the concern-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: In whose waters?


Mr. Ouellet:: Where are they?


Charles Joseph Clark: I also regret the action of the Liberal Party now in suggesting that we have no obligation to contribute to the collective defence of NATO, an obligation which we have accepted. Unhappily the nuclear deterrent remains a reality in the world. This country cannot opt out of our obligations. This Government does not intend to walk away.


REQUEST FOR HALT TO CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be reading the briefing books of the past Liberal Government. Would he just answer one or two straightforward questions on the issue? Does the Government yet recognize that there is a link between the breaching of the SALT II limits and air-launched Cruise missiles? Does it see the link about which we are talking? If so, why does it not do the honourable thing and dissociate us from the breach of the SALT II limits and cancel air-launched Cruise missile testing?


Charles Joseph Clark: There is an area of profound disagreement between the New Democratic Party and now the Liberal Party which has joined it, and the Progressive Conservative Government. Somehow or other the Liberals and New Democrats believe it is honourable to break agreements and to say that other people should defend freedom but we will only talk about it, and then back away from the obligations which those involvements entail.


Pauline Jewett: The Minister is apologizing for the American breach of the SALT II treaty; that is what he is doing. His own colleague, the Minister of Communications, when she was External Affairs critic, pointed out that it was not a breach of NATO-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put her question.

December 1, 1986
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to recognize that growing numbers of Canadians oppose Cruise missile tests, are alarmed at the breach of arms control agreements, and want Canada to be a nuclear weapons free zone? Does he recognize those facts?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a great deal of concern in Canada about the inherent danger of living in a nuclear world. That is why Canada is doing everything we can to encourage arms control agreements which would move toward a reduction of that nuclear danger. One way to stop arms control agreements would be for a prominent member of the Western Alliance to turn its back on the Alliance, to turn its back on Europe, and to turn its back on the United States. That is what Mr. Gorbachev would like to see happen. That is not what this Government would like to see happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There is growing evidence that under the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program women seeking equality in the workplace are being let down. As a matter of fact, women who want to train for non-traditional work are not being covered. Under the Re-entry Program, 76 per cent of the female participants are being trained for traditional low paying jobs, and thousands of others do not qualify at all. Would the Minister recognize this deficiency in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program and re-introduce the 30 per cent priority which was for women training for non-traditional work, which priority his Government abolished earlier this year?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is 42 per cent.


Benoît Bouchard: As 1 see it, Mr. Speaker, the jobs strategy results prove that we have achieved some of our objectives. More than 350,000 of the 610,000 jobs created in this country in the last two years were for women.
It is obvious that, through the various elements of the Jobs Strategy Program, the Government seeks to give women more opportunities to secure employment elsewhere than in what we traditionally refer to as low paying jobs.
However we cannot at the same time deny women the opportunity to look for jobs which, less well paid though they may often be, are open to Canadians generally.
Similarly, our employment strategy is to give women more opportunities to land better paying jobs.
First and foremost jobs are our concern, and it stands to reason that we will not prevent women from taking such jobs.


PRIVATE SECTOR TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered my question. I was asking about women who want to train for nontraditional work. The movement is backwards with respect to these women. Only a very small percentage are able to qualify for training programs for non-traditional work under that program.
Would the Minister reconsider the Government's preference for training in the private sector as opposed to training in the institutional sector which, likewise, discriminates against women who want to train for non-traditional work? Would the Minister consider that?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am trying to understand when the Hon. Member claims that we put more emphasis on private sector than on institutional training. Such is not the case at all.
I would suggest that the Government still invests 90 per cent of the funds in the institutional sector. I never gave instructions under which indirect purchases are to be made outside the institutional sector.
According to our agreements, institutions in some of the provinces take full responsibility for training. Of course, we intend to abide by these agreements.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In reading the Forget Commission Report recommendations- and I understand the Minister had his copy on Friday-I have noticed that two particular recommendations, the annualization of the calculation of entitlements and the elimination of regional extended benefits, will cost Newfoundland $240 million in direct payments; Nova Scotia $140 million; New
December 1, 1986

Brunswick $230 million; Quebec $1 billion and B.C. $370 million.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: One disaster to another.


John R. Rodriguez: Will the Minister confirm these figures, and will he give us the assurance that these cruel and harsh recommendations will not be implemented?


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive a copy of the Forget report last Friday. On that day I also indicated that I would make a statement in the House on Wednesday.
I should think that my colleague and I will probably have lots of opportunities to discuss the Forget report. Just to set the record straight at the outset, may I say it would be unrealistic to think that I might answer any question whatever about the Forget report recommendations before Wednesday afternoon.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister has read the report-I have a copy of the report and I have read it-I am asking him to confirm the Figures. If he is doing his job, he would confirm them. Will he confirm these figures now and give us the assurance that these cruel recommendations will not be put into effect?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer was quite clear: I will not comment on the Forget report recommendations before Wednesday afternoon.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the Government's decision to give the Hongkong Bank $200 million to buy assets of the Bank of B.C. including its shares valued at $63 million. Will the Minister explain why the Government made a precedent-setting decision to use the Canada Deposit Insurance Company to protect shareholders when its mandate is to protect depositors?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is precisely the reason that the CDIC did what it did. CDIC recognized that there was value in the bank at the time the decision was taken. It also recognized that the life of
Oral Questions
the Bank would not be very long without some action similar to what took place with the Hongkong Bank. In providing some support to the ongoing bank through the purchase by the Hongkong Bank, CDIC saved a considerably greater loss which would have ensued had the bank gone bankrupt or been liquidated. That is the basis for the decision by the CDIC.


SHAREHOLDERS' RISK
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has confirmed that this $200 million payment is a grant, not a loan. I repeat: why is $63 million of it going to shareholders who knew when they bought those shares that they were taking a risk?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member and I would agree that it was important to see the ownership of the Bank of British Columbia transferred to new owners. To do that required the CDIC giving some assurance to the new owner to protect the owner against losses that were potentially in the bank.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is what you call free enterprise.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Had the Bank of B.C. not being taken over by the Hongkong Bank, it is likely that it could have gone under, in which case the CDIC would have incurred much greater losses. The Hon. Member knows that the CDIC is empowered under its mandate to put in money to alleviate losses.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Always protect the bankers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the anger in Winnipeg, the city where the CF-18 contract should have gone, about reports that Canadair is advertising abroad for engineers. Why in the response the Minister issued on Friday, presumably to these reports because he refers to recent press reports, did he not deal with the CF-18 contract in particular? Why is there no mention of the CF-18 contract in the Minister's response to those reports?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the F-18 matter. That is very clear. The authority to advertise or request services from abroad is open to everyone.
One thing is clear, the Department of Employment and Immigration to date has never authorized Canadair to recruit
1646

December 1, 1986
Oral Questions
foreign workers, and where we are convinced that all those jobs of whatever nature pertaining to the F-18, the CL-215 or whatever, can be filled by Canadians, there is no question of authorizing foreign workers to enter this country.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF CONTRACT DECISION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell the House whether he has looked into the matter of why Canadair would need to advertise abroad? Was that matter looked into when the contract decision was being made? Can he give assurances to this House now that if Canadair does arrive at that position that this entire process will be looked into once again ?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is hypothetical. Anything can be raised, anything can be suggested. It is easy to make that kind of suggestions to try and raise a non-existing problem. No foreign worker is authorized to work in this country for Canadair at this moment.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Western Canadian lamb producers and processors are being seriously affected by increased shipments of chilled lamb air-freighted from Australia and New Zealand. Is the Minister able to do something about it? In particular, can he approach the Governments of those countries and request voluntary restrictions on the amounts being shipped?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, we have, Mr. Speaker, but the Hon. Member will know that, given our obligations under GATT and existing legislation, there is no unilateral action we can take. Imports from Australia and New Zealand appear to be up about 77 per cent. However, on the brighter side, imports from the U.S. seem to be down about 35 per cent. The Canadian sheep industry is currently considering whether or not to launch a countervailing duty action. If the industry decides to do so, then of course we will assist them in the same way we assisted the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pasta Association, and most recently the Canadian corn producers.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration. It concerns his Department's refusal to save the life of the 25-year old Iranian who will soon be deported by the U.S. to Iran. David Drysdale, of the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, has just confirmed that Ottawa has refused to offer refugee status to this man. Why did the Minister's Department block the initiative taken by Canadians from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to sponsor this man? Is he not somewhat ashamed that recent department decisions have rewarded questionable candidates while people facing death have received the cold shoulder?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Minister of State (Immigration) was very clear on that matter last week. The young Iranian the Hon. Member is referring to has been living in the United States for eight years. The issue involves the U.S. Government and this applicant has not been deemed eligible to immigrant status under Canadian law. This question, therefore, should be addressed to the American Government. We have no business raising the question. He is not qualified to enter Canada as a refugee.


REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF MINISTERIAL PERMIT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has the power to issue a ministerial permit for this man. It is not an American issue. Canadians have asked to sponsor this man and I would like to know, as would other Canadians, why he refuses to save this man's life? The ability to do so is vested in his Department. He has the authority. Will he not, with humanity and compassion, reach out and bring this individual to Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as we have told Hon. Members opposite on three occasions last week-and I have just done so once again-that individual has now been in the United States seven or eight years, and his case is still under review in the United States-he has not been deported from the United States to my knowledge-and he does not qualify. Besides, it is my view that the Minister's first obligation is to require or make sure that the case is acceptable under Canadian rather than American law.
December 1, 1986


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Over this past weekend the Liberal Party adopted as policy the declaration of Canada as a nuclear-free zone and the banning of Cruise missile testing. Would the Minister advise the House if policies of that sort would weaken Canada's commitment to NATO and NORAD-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: -and ultimately cause the withdrawal of Canada from NATO and NORAD?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Some questions are more leading than others. Perhaps the Minister would like to respond.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to see the resolutions passed on the weekend-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -because it is very clear that anything which substantially weakens Canada's commitment to NATO would indeed weaken the Western Alliance and not contribute to the fulfillment of peace. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition who said, when he was Prime Minister, that if we are going to have any influence in working towards world peace we must first of all fulfil our commitments to our NATO allies.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre that I have his notice of a question of privilege and will hear it shortly.
I would also advise the Hon. Member for Swift Current- Maple Creek that I have notice of his question of privilege and will deal with that in a few minutes as well.
I also might advise the Hon. Member for Skeena that I understand he has a point of order and I will get to that as well.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to report to the House on a matter of some importance concerning petitions introducing laws, and I will read the ruling.

An entry in the Votes and Proceedings of November 17 recorded the presentation of a petition whose petitioners requested the tabling of a Private Bill. The entry indicated that
Privilege-Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
the petition was presented pursuant to Standing Order 132, which provides a time limit for receiving petitions for Private Bills.

The Standing Orders relating to petitions were recently changed. However, no account was taken of the implications of those changes in relation to private Bills. The present Standing Orders dealing with petitions are Standing Order 106 and Standing Order 106(2)(g). They provide that a petition must contain at least 25 signatures. No distinction is made between petitions seeking redress of grievances and those requesting private Bills. On the face of it, therefore, the requirement of 25 signatures applies to all petitions including those relating to private Bills. It was for that reason that the petition in question was shown as having been presented pursuant to Standing Order 132 instead of Standing Order 106.

However, I feel the petition should have been presented pursuant to Standing Order 106, despite the requirement for twenty-five signatures. I suppose the fact that petitions for Private Bills are not exempted from this requirement is merely an oversight.

I do not believe it was the intention of the House to deny any individual or group the right to petition for a private Bill by reason of the failure to obtain 25 signatures. I am therefore ruling, until such time as the House decides otherwise, that the requirement of 25 signatures does not apply to petitions for private Bills, but that the other provisions of Standing Order 106 do apply. Presentation of all petitions will thus continue to be governed by Standing Order 106.

I suggest that the Standing committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure examine this problem in the course of its business and recommend amendments to the Standing Orders as appropriate.


PRIVILEGES
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege rising out of Question Period on Tuesday last. My concern is that my action as a Member in presenting a petition on behalf of some of my constituents was the subject of misrepresentation by another Member in this House, specifically the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).
The gist of what went on during my absence was that the Hon. Member for Beaches misled this House, and indeed

December 1, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Cassidy
anyone observing the proceedings, as to my stand on Bill C-22, the amendments to the Patent Act. Indeed, others were misled and that is quite clear from a headline in Le Droit of the next day which read to this effect:

"Patent Act: three Tory Members joined the dissenters."
It is pretty clear that my name is being used in vain. I want to assure the House that I stand fully behind Bill C-22. I am perturbed that the Hon. Member, who I believe should know better, misrepresented my simple act of filing a petition on behalf of constituents. I believe there is a clear understanding in this House that Members have a duty to present petitions on behalf of their constituents. However, the fact that he presents a petition does not imply that he agrees with the contents in any way.
That is the point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker. I feel that my rights as a Member of Parliament have been abused by this process. I suggest that the Member for Beaches ought to issue a clarification and extend an apology to me and to the Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell) who was likewise affected.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm what the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) has just said. I was included in this misrepresentation. I consider it a responsibility to file petitions for my constituents. I do not accumulate petitions to try to hold up action in the House. I do as I should, and I believe that I, too, deserve an apology and retraction from that Member.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) is not here. He is on a nation-wide tour drumming up opposition to Bill C-22.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I believe that in the Member's presentation he followed the rules of the House. He mentioned that he had in his possession a letter from a Member of Parliament indicating that he opposed the legislation. He had the right to mention that in the House of Commons, as he did. He also had the right to mention that two Conservative MPs had received petitions and presented them on behalf of their constituents. Those petitions protested the legislation to change the Patent Act. I believe the Member for Beaches acted in accordance with the rules of the House and did not breach the privilege of any Member. If Members are upset that their actions were mentioned in the House of Commons, that may be something for them to worry about, but it is certainly nothing for us to worry about.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if what the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) says is correct, we should all be dreadfully concerned about the operation of this place. It is quite clear that during Oral
Questions on Tuesday last a misrepresentation occurred. It is evident that the misrepresentation was heard widely because it was responded to by journalists. Journalists other than from Le Droit, which I mentioned, at least had the decency to call and seek clarification.
However, as a result of the misrepresentation by the Member for Beaches, which I trust was accidental, a headline was issued across the country suggesting that my stand was something it is not. I suppose that was an attempt to embarrass the Government. I suggest it was done in a sly and sneaky way to try to create an innuendo that I was somehow opposed to this legislation when, in fact, I am not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the representations of the Hon. Member for Swift Current- Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). The matter arose some days ago. I think Hon. Members will recall that the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) rose and pointed out that Hon. Members often present, on behalf of their constituents, petitions of which they may not necessarily approve. The Chair is certainly not going to impute motives to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), but it is clear that what the Hon. Member for Beaches said on that day caused a misunderstanding and that that misunderstanding has been picked up by the media to the embarrassment of Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell) has also made his position clear. I listened with care to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) whose interventions are, of course, always helpful.
I believe the proper ruling in this case is to point out that there is a difference between a question of privilege and a grievance. Hon. Members here have heard a grievance. Hon. Members have indicated that they hope the cause of that grievance was not intentional, and that, of course, would be the hope of the Chair as well. This perhaps gives an indication of how careful all Members ought to be in saying anything which could leave a suggestion that an Hon. Member's position is different than what it is in fact.
Therefore, the Chair must rule that this is not a question of privilege. It is a grievance. I thank all Members for their interventions. I hope Hon. Members will be careful not to create a situation which will necessitate the Chair hearing such representations as these in the near future.


ALLEGED WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION-SALE OF BANK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege concerning my rights as a Member of Parliament which arises out of discussions we had in this House last Wednesday and Thursday about the Government's Bill relative to the takeover of the Bank of British Columbia by the Hongkong Bank. This is the earliest opportunity I have had to raise this question. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is here. I am sorry that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), who was involved in the passage of the Bill, is not, but I am sure my comments will be relayed to him.
December 1, 1986

I intend to raise this issue with the Committee on Privileges and Elections because I think it raises very serious questions about information which Members of the House of Commons had on which to make a decision on that Bill.
At the request of the Government the Opposition Parties agreed that that Bill would be passed in two days, and an order of the House was given unanimous consent which effected a deadline for the passage of that Bill, whether or not we were satisfied with the information made available.
In the House the Minister of State repeatedly insisted that this was basically a private deal, that the Government was simply passing a Bill to facilitate the sale. He stated: "It was not the Government that was involved in these discussions. It was the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation". He called it "a private transaction". He said that the CDIC was making "some prudential decisions relative to the bank". He suggested that certain questions which we had should be put before the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the British Columbia Government or the Bank of British Columbia which, of course, was not open to us because of the limited time to which we had agreed. He referred to this as a private transaction. When asked directly for an estimate of the losses if the bank had been liquidated he stated: "No one knows that", and did not respond to questions about how much the potential loss had been calculated to be.
I am raising this question of privilege because I read in The Globe and Mail the next day a detailed report of answers to many of the questions I and other Members of the House of Commons had put in this House to which we had been unable to get satisfactory answers during committee stage the previous day. At the very time that we were raising questions with the Minister of State for Finance substantial answers to those questions were being given to the Senate Banking Committee. I have been unable as yet to get a transcript of that committee hearing, although I requested it last Friday, but according to press accounts the Department of Finance was aware as long ago as October of 1985 that there were a significant number of problem loans in this particular bank.
The information we had, which was public, was that the bank was deemed to be sound at that time. While we were told that the Finance Department of the Government was a facilitator of this issue, the Senate was being told that the six chartered bank presidents had been called to a secret meeting with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, of which the Department of Finance was surely aware, and that the Department of Finance had been involved in two frantic weeks of negotiations and work in British Columbia in order to pull the deal together. While we were denied any detailed report on the bank's financial situation, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was giving an estimate, again of which the Government was surely aware, that the losses would have been $600 million had liquidation gone forward.
Privilege-Mr. Cassidy
We sought documentation with respect to the Government's judgment that the Hongkong Bank was the best and only deal. Information was promised privately but was not forthcoming in any way, yet the evidence reported in the press indicates that that information does exist and portions of it were put to the Senate Banking Committee while we were here in Committee of the Whole being stonewalled by the Minister of State for Finance.
We asked about the information the Government had and we were not informed that there were at least three further inspections by the Inspector General of Banks between October, 1985 and the time that the Hongkong Bank transaction was finally underway. We asked in the House when the Government learned that the Bank of British Columbia was not sound. The Minister of State for Finance made no mention of misgivings that arose in 1985 or of those three further inspections, nor of the meeting with the six chartered bank presidents.
If this Bill had come forward in the normal course of events and had taken several weeks or months to work its way through the House, it would have been at least possible for the Opposition Parties to have sought some of that information from the street, from relevant parties and so on. We did not have the time to do so. We acted in good faith in accepting the Government's request that the Bill be adopted at the earliest opportunity. I do not believe that we were treated in good faith, when information was being given to the Senate that was being denied to us both in response to private requests and in response to questions in the House of Commons.
I point out that in its message back to the House, as appears in Votes and Proceedings for November 27, the Senate reported that the Committee's examination left partly unanswered the question of why the shareholders of the Bank of British Columbia are to receive $63.5 million plus additional recoveries which may raise the total compensation to nearly $100 million, when the Bank of British Columbia, as evidenced by the CDIC advance to its purchaser, was not viable. That question was very much on our minds, but we were given very vague and general answers.
I suggest that if the Government is asking Members on all sides of the House to co-operate on a matter of urgency, it has an obligation to share all the available and relevant information. That was not done in this case. Had this Bill gone forward in the normal way, it is the right of the Government under our parliamentary system-deplorably so-to refuse to impart that information. However, if it seeks special cooperation from the Opposition Parties I think it has a special responsibility to be fully co-operative. It was not in this particular case.
That is why I believe this matter should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I intend to bring it before that committee and I would seek your co-operation, Mr. Speaker, in supporting a referral of the matter to the Standing

December 1, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Cassidy
Committee on Privileges and Elections. I believe that my rights as a Member, as well as the rights of all Members, particularly those in the Opposition, have been impaired by the actions and omissions on the part of the Government with respect to this particular piece of legislation.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments. I am sorry that he feels this way. But let me say to him that at no time have I tried to withhold from him information on this particular deal. As he knows, he and his colleague, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and I met for some time last Wednesday morning. I was not in attendance during Committee of the Whole last Thursday afternoon when questions were asked, so I cannot comment on that specifically. However, I draw to his attention that the purpose of the Bill was not to discuss the remuneration, the role of CDIC or anything like that. The purpose of the Bill was to discuss the amendments to the Bank Act which affect the position of the shareholders under this particular transaction.
I believe that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) has indicated to Opposition Members that he is prepared to meet with the Finance Committee and discuss this particul ir transaction and any elements relating to it.
I listened to the questions that the Hon. Member said were not answered. I do not recall not answering those questions- perhaps they were not put. There were committee meetings in the other place that were arranged by the Senate Finance Committee, so that obviously more questions would be asked during the course of the day as a result of that committee meeting. However, I do not believe that this is a question of withholding information in any way. That was not the attitude or the way in which the Government dealt with this matter.
I repeat that the Minister of State for Finance has agreed to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to respond to any questions that Hon. Members wish to put on the broader element of the transaction with the Bank of British Columbia and the Hongkong Bank of Canada. However, I believe that every question addressed to us on the specific nature of the Bill was answered.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. Many of us in the House are not always familiar with all the procedures of the House. When we receive a report back from the Senate, as we did on Thursday, why are the observations on that Bill made by the Senate not read into the record of the House at that time? We had to go back to Votes and Proceedings on the next day or days following to find out what the Senate had to say about Bill C-27. Is this a custom or tradition? Why do Members of the House have to wait until we see Votes and Proceedings the next day to find out what the Senate said about a certain Bill?


Mr. Speaker:: We will return to the question of privilege in a moment. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier
(Mr. Gauthier) that the Chair will look into that matter and report back.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe our position was properly covered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but I want to add two points. First, it seems to me from listening to the question of privilege by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that he is concerned about matters of debate concerning whether or not he and his Party were satisfied with answers they received to questions they put.
Second, while I do not want to nitpick or in any way prevent a Member from raising a question of privilege, I want to reiterate that while I believe the use of a question of privilege is a form of safety valve in the House, I believe that if a Member lays a complaint of a breach of privilege it should conform to Citation 81 (2) of Beauchesne which states:
A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action.
After all, Mr. Speaker, that is what you are deciding, whether there is a prima facie case. In other words, has a prima facie case been made of a question of privilege which would, by and in itself, be proper to put before the House? While the Minister, who is not here, can review the Member's comments, in order for him to respond properly the Minister must have an actual motion so that we know exactly what privilege the Member is claiming has been breached.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, first I want to respond to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I believe he made that complaint a number of weeks ago in relation to another question of privilege. I do not believe it is necessary for a Member who raises a question of privilege to indicate a willingness to move such a motion at the end of his remarks. I do not believe that is a requirement with respect to a question of privilege. If I am correct, I believe Your Honour has indicated that in the past. Regardless of that-and you will of course deal with that in your response-the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) indicated in his presentation that he wanted the support of the Speaker and was quite willing to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. I believe that we do have a bona fide case.
At the same time that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, as reported in Hansard of last Thursday at pages 1600 to 1602 inclusive, was asking questions of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and was being told that such information was not available, the Senate was receiving such information. I argue that the privileges of the House will be breached if the Government is willing to provide information to one House but not to the other. As the elected representatives of Canadians, we are certainly entitled to any information that the Government deems can be made public, information which
December 1, 1986

it deems it can give to the Senate and information which in fact it is denying the elected Members of the House of Commons.
In closing, I would ask Your Honour to look at the records of both Houses as well as those of the Senate Banking Committee to see if there is information which was being denied to us which was being asked for by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. If that is the case, then I believe there has been a real breach, not only of the privileges of this House but certainly of the whole idea of parliamentary accountability.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to indicate to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that the Chair has probably heard enough on this point. However, if the Hon. Member wishes to say a few more words then the Chair will hear him.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Of course, if you wish me to move a motion then I will do so.
Perhaps I can just bring to Your Honour's attention a couple of the specifics and the contrasts in what was being reported about what took place in the Senate at that time. I asked the following question:
Did the Government have specific information on the quality of the loan to the Bank of British Columbia that led it to judge that the expenditure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair suggests to the Hon. Member that the point he is now addressing may very well be pertinent. Would the Hon. Member be satisfied to send this information to the Chair through the Table Officers? The Chair has the points and has heard sufficient argument to deal with the matter. I will deal with it carefully and seriously and report back as soon as I can.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to do that.


POINTS OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification from the Chair regarding a motion from which I was reading during Statements by Members.
As Your Honour is aware, before I was elected to this place I was an officer of the court in British Columbia. One of the roles that I had as an officer of the court was to make recommendations in relation to sentence. In speaking today about the sentencing of Peter Fenwick, who is the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland, I was not referring to the judgment of the court or of the learned judge. What I was referring to was Canadian tradition generally in terms of jail sentences. There are certain criteria in all the courts of
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton
Canada-provincial, federal and territorial-with respect to certain matters which should be taken into account when one is sentencing someone to jail. Certainly, the person has to be some kind of danger to society, or there must be the potential for considerable negative effect on individuals or on groups within society, if he is to be given a jail term. Jail is not a place generally in which Members of the Legislature or Members of this House are taken as a result of attending public functions, public duties, or, in this case, a picket line, where there are large numbers of their own constituents. In this case, Mr. Fenwick was on a picket line for just a few moments and was selectively chosen from the crowd and then selectively prosecuted. That is to what I was referring in my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raises a matter, of course, which the Chair views as one of concern. The difficulty that the Chair is in in this case, and in others, is that the Hon. Member was making a statement and that the Chair is not always able to know exactly what will come in a statement. The Chair is concerned about the distinction between Hon. Members being critical of the law and cognizant that the Chair has an obligation-and it is a tradition-to constrain Members whose comments may in fact be an attack or a criticism of a judgment exercised by a court. That is the dilemma that all of us as Hon. Members have to find our way through.
As I think I said to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) some days ago, there is a distinction between criticism of the judge and a court and criticism of the law under which that judge or court may be mandated to act.
The other difficulty is that the Hon. Member is really now into an explanation of why the Hon. Member, and no doubt others, as has been reported-and the Chair is cognizant of that-may feel that a sentence meted out by a court under particular circumstances was not appropriate. The difficulty here is that the court is presumed to have all of the relevant information upon which it acts. All of that information is not here before us in this Chamber which, as some people have said and which has been historically considered, is the highest court of the land. As a consequence, it puts judges and courts in a very difficult position indeed if Hon. Members are in effect second-guessing the judgment of that court. I know that the Hon. Member did not intend to do that. However, I also know and take cognizance of the fact that the Hon. Member is not happy with what happened. That of course is the Hon. Member's right. However, the Chair feels in this case that perhaps it is enough to accept the intervention of the Hon. Member, and I made it very clear to the Hon. Member that I would hear him out at this time.
I would ask all Hon. Members to bear with the Chair in this difficult distinction between the undoubted right of Members of Parliament to criticize laws and the right that those who have to administer the laws not be subjected to attack for exercising what they are in fact mandated to do. I ask the Hon. Member to accept the sincerity of the Chair in this matter. I have taken note of it. I shall be, as I try to be, very

December 1, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead)
careful before 1 interrupt a statement of any Hon. Member, but there are times that the Chair can be in some difficulty. In this respect, if an Hon. Member has a statement which he or she wishes to make which may come close to giving the Chair some difficulty, then perhaps the Hon. Member could exercise greater care indeed.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on the same point of order. I have listened with care to your remarks. Are we to take it then that as Members of Parliament in this assembly gathered we cannot stand up on our own two feet and criticize the judgment of a judge or that we cannot criticize a sentence handed down by any judge in any federal or provincial court in the land?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the response of the Chair is that there may be appropriate cases by notice and motion, or by other procedures, whereby such a procedure or such a criticism may be effected. Clearly, the Chair has to say that it is not the place to do it in Statements by Members. As I say, I am not in any way suggesting to Members that they should be limited in criticizing a law. However, I think Hon. Members can see the difficulty that the Chair is in because there are only a relatively few seconds for the Chair to determine whether the statement is within the rules or outside the rules.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I seek clarity. I understand you to be saying that a Member of Parliament cannot in this House criticize sentencing, whether it be too lax or too tough, a right which every Canadian exercises. Are we in this place then to have less rights than an ordinary citizen? What happens when legislation comes before the House designed to deal with sentencing? Are we to be restricted to the particular letter of the law? I would like some clarification on this issue. It sounds to me as though you are saying that we cannot criticize sentences handed down by courts.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) is repeating the difficulty the Chair and all Hon. Members have. The Chair is not ruling that there may never be a circumstance when a sentence or some other thing connected with a court ought to be criticized. The Chair is saying that during 60-second statements, Hon. Members would, I hope, be very careful not to trespass against the admonition which is traditional and historical and is contained in Citation 321 of Beauchesne's, which reads:
All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.
The Hon. Member will know that the Chair did not treat the remarks of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) as being any serious breach of order at all, but the Chair is drawing to the attention of all Hon. Members the difficulty the Chair is in in these cases. There may well be other appropriate ways to raise the concerns of the Hon. Members for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), Skeena, and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) who may very well feel the need to raise them at another occasion. I think that deals with the matter as well as the Chair can deal with it at this point.


CORRECTION TO STATEMENT MADE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record. During Question Period, I said that there were some 300 Soviet submarines in our waters. I had intended to say that there were 375 Soviet submarines capable of entering our waters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m., there were five minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue the question and comment period. However, the Hon. Member is not here. I recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, on May 6 this year, I rose in the House to call attention to the expansion and growth experienced by de Havilland following its sale to Boeing. At that time, I pointed out that during the debate, the hue and cry and outrage voiced by opposition Members led many to believe that the days of de Havilland were numbered. This has been proven to be so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. Just as the hue and cry with respect to de Havilland did not produce the dying gasp of a company about to go belly up, the argument then with respect to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the Hon. Member but I understand that the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) entered the Chamber just as it was indicated to me that he was not here. He is in the Chamber and if it would be the disposition of the House, I think it would be appropriate to allow questions and comments if there is consent to do so, and we will hear the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) in a few moments. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 1, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said that it was the policy of the Government when it purchased Canadair to turn it back eventually to the private sector. He was asked earlier today if he thought that this was a good deal and that now was the appropriate time to turn Canadair back to the private sector. I wonder if he could give us his advice, as a former President of the Treasury Board, a key spokesman for his Party with respect to this matter and a Member from the Montreal area. Could he tell us if he feels that Canadair should at this point be turned back to the private sector or if he feels that we should continue to carry Canadair on as a Crown corporation.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I said very specifically that with the right terms and conditions, the previous Government had agreed that Canadair would be returned to the private sector. It was not an ideologically-driven sale. It was a sale which was intended to preserve jobs, technology and Canadian ownership and effectively to allow the company to perform in the private sector and fulfil its original destiny as a major player in the Canadian aerospace sector.
I might add that the Hon. Member has now asked us on this side of the House for our advice as to whether this is a good deal or not after the horse has left the barn. I would be happy to accept that challenge as would my colleagues. We would be happy to be consulted about the deals that are done before they are delivered half baked before the House.
That being said, I raised a very specific point and I have not yet heard an answer from the Hon. Member. As I understand the comment of the Salomon Brothers, there is a contingent obligation on the people of Canada for product liability which lasts for 15 years and it lasts if the purchasing company is not able to obtain adequate or practical insurance coverage. Salomon Brothers have said that that is not normal in a commercial transaction. In my experience, it is certainly not normal. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has yet to tell us whether or not he thinks it is normal, notwithstanding the fact that I asked him to comment on that specific point.
Having looked at the documentation that has been made available to me, I put it to the Hon. Member that we are not talking about product liability for aircraft or parts manufactured while the company was a Crown corporation, we are talking about future liabilities which may be incurred while the company is in the hands of the purchaser. I would ask my colleagues if that is normal in a commercial transaction. That liability which diminishes over time does not disappear until 15 years have gone by.
I know the Hon. Member is not honour-bound to answer my question. However, knowing the Hon. Member and his willingness to express his candid views, I look forward to hearing from him.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I like the way the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount bounces around and is afraid to come clean. Let us talk about insurance. At one time, the Hon. Member was a member of the Finance Committee which was studying financial institutions, and he knows the problems involved with liability and product insurance. He knows the concerns manufacturers have, particularly with a deal like this where $173 million more is at stake if planes cannot be sold and land has to be given back for the amount it was purchased for if planes cannot be sold for 20 years. Obviously, the buyer has to have some assurance from the Government that the Government will make sure that public liability insurance is available at realistic costs. That is the type of deal it is. Let us point out and make it clear that the buyer pays the cost of insurance. All that is happening here is that the Government is making sure that the insurance is available. Even if it is not available, there is a shared cost arrangement. So obviously, this deal cannot go forward. We cannot manufacture airplanes if we cannot insure them. We cannot be an exporter and developer of aircraft unless we can insure it. That is the type of responsibility that this Government is prepared to face, and face nose on.
I am surprised at the Member shilly-shallying around and afraid to come out clean and say whether or not he approves the deal. Would he rather keep it in the control of the Government, or would he rather sell it? Would he rather get on with the business of making aircraft, or does he want to keep on with socialism, more socialism, and more socialism?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Do I have the consent of the House to extend the time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald James Johnston: First of all, Madam Speaker, I have answered the question many times that this Government, my Government, and previous Liberal Governments, have never been ideologically bound to either retain or dispose of Crown corporations. That point has been there. Canadair was one of the companies which was on the privatization list. But it seems to me that the Hon. Member has announced a new interventionist policy of his Government that states it is prepared to take responsibility for providing product liability insurance to the aircraft sector. This is a company now qui traite a distance. That means that the future products of this company will be insured by the Government of Canada, if it cannot be obtained elsewhere. I presume from that that the Government is probably entertaining doing this for other manufacturers as well, because the same principle would apply. In any high technology risk field, product liability is a problem. If it is going to be extended to Canadair, I presume the Government is also entertaining the notion of extending it throughout the industrial sector. We look forward to seeing the program when it is tabled in the House.

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I will digress from the speech that I was going to make, and I will start off by alluding to the conversations and debate that have just taken place. I believe that the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was alluding to a letter of August 11 from Salomon Brothers, the last paragraph on page 3 which states as follows:
The only important provision in the LOI that neither promotes Crown objectives nor conforms to traditional commercial practice-
What he failed to go on and mention is that in the bottom of the paragraph it states:
Here, the Crown is at risk only if insurance becomes unobtainable at economically practicable cost.
In addition to that, he failed to mention other correspondence, which undoubtedly is in his possession, from Marsh & McLennan. This is a letter of June 24 to Mr. R. A. Del-vecchio, Director, Aerospace Directorate, which states:
Dear Mr. Delvecchio:
RE: Product Liability Insurance - Bombardier/CAT Proposal
After reviewing the proposals as related to the product liability insurance we would comment as follows:
1. Bombardier Inc.
They have agreed to purchase insurance without any participation of premiums by the government. In the event the insurance may not be available they propose to share the cost of the claims with the government for a 15 year period on a sliding scale.
It goes on to state:


CONCLUSION
[Stage Direction]
It is obvious from the foregoing that the Bombardier proposal is clearly superior in that it relieves the government of any on-going premium involvement or financial participation in deductibles. We feel there will always be insurance available in some form and therefore the proposals made by Bombardier and CAT in the event insurance becomes unavailable are academic.
The letter was signed by Mr. Dave F. Taylor, Senior VicePresident.
On May 6 of this year in the House I called attention to the expansion in growth experienced by de Havilland following its sale to Boeing. At that time I pointed out that during the debate the hue and cry and outrage voiced by the opposition Members led many to believe that the days of de Havilland were numbered. When this was proven to be far from the truth, I find it ridiculous that we are sitting here today listening to the same type of argument.
Just as the hue and cry with respect to de Havilland did not produce the dying gasp of a company about to go belly up, this argument with respect to the sale of Canadair does not hold water either. Privatizing Canadair will not make it close down. Rather, the opposite will happen, as happened in the case of de Havilland. Canadair will now have at its disposal the resources to be innovative and competitive in the market-place. Research and development is always the key to the success of any business venture in today's changing world markets. This will now be possible for Canadair under its new ownership
arrangement. Jobs will not be lost. In fact, as previous experience should have taught the Opposition, jobs will be secured.
I wish to examine for a few moments the success of the sale of de Havilland. Since Boeing assumed control of de Havilland in January of this year, the turnaround of de Havilland has been resoundingly evident. On April 30 a major facilities improvement program at de Havilland was announced. The first phase investment was valued at $25 million. How's that for strength of commitment on Boeing's part? Boeing has given the go ahead to develop the new Dash-8 series 300. This is a major development program which will not only broaden the market potential of the Dash-8, but, what is most important, will generate more jobs in Canada. Boeing is further adding to de Havilland's family of aircraft by offering an additional 14 seats to the Dash-8-100 series. Since Boeing assumed ownership of this company, orders for the aircraft have increased so significantly that a launch market for this new aircraft has been provided.
In May of this year Boeing announced that its Winnipeg plant will produce fairings for the 747 super jet. The result is annual sales of $11 million in Canada over this move. But this is not all. Two hundred and fifty new jobs is the significant result. Forty per cent of this work will be subcontracted in Canada with de Havilland being one of the prime candidates for receiving a good portion of this work.
Although de Havilland is not suffering from a lack of significant work, because it certainly has a lot, record sales were made in June of this year. The company now has orders and options on hand for another 132 aircraft. These 132 aircraft represent about two and a half years of production as forecasted at the current production rates.
As I stated in the House in May of last year, no matter how far I stretch my mind, this record does not seem to me to be one that is the last gasp of a dying company. Through the transfer of ownership of de Havilland jobs have been secured and private initiative in this short space of time has turned de Havilland into a growing and innovative company. The strength of Boeing's commitment to de Havilland has been proven time and time again. When Boeing assumed control, announcements were made indicating substantial investments in de Havilland and increased employment opportunities at de Havilland as a result of the anticipated subcontract work for Boeing.
The facts speak for themselves. Boeing has honoured its commitment fully. We must applaud the Government for the initiative it undertook to find the best possible purchaser for the de Havilland plant. Given the same success of past sales, can we not assume that this Government is committed to finding and approving the best possible buyer for Canadair? Why does it always seem so difficult for the Opposition to accept the fact that this Government is committed to improving and strengthening the economy, and to providing new jobs for those Canadians who are unemployed, while at the same time assisting however possible in the acquisition of job
December 1, 1986
[Stage Direction]
security? To my mind, the best source of job security is through private ownership and initiative.
The combination of management expertise and private sector initiative worked for de Havilland, and it will work for Canadair. Under continued Government ownership Canadair will become a very competitive enterprise. Given our serious attempts to reduce the federal deficit, Government can no longer justify or rationalize investing huge amounts of money into enterprises which can be better protected and developed through the private sector. Government cannot provide Canadair with sufficient funds for initiatives in research and development that are needed.
With the injection of private sector management and funds into Canadair, the company will enlarge and expand just as the de Havilland example has proven. The Government must be satisfied, though, in all respects that the purchaser is bringing to the transfer of ownership more than just money. The Government must be convinced that there is a workable combination which joins together Government priorities and private sector initiative. There are three main aspects of any potential purchaser which must be satisfied, or there will be no sale.
First, the purchasing company must exhibit a sound management capability. It must indicate an ability to help protect the company and to improve growth and performance with a sound business strategy, efficient operations, and solid marketing skills. Through the track record exhibited by Bombardier, it clearly has the ability and experience in management and marketing to fulfil this important role. Undoubtedly Bombardier can bring the drive and direction necessary to make Canadair a winner in this highly competitive industry.
Second, the purchaser must prove a strong enough financial base to handle not only the initial acquisition but also to finance the extensive capital requirements needed for product development. Once again Bombardier came out on top. According to the team of financial analysts-Burns Fry Limited, Merrill Lynch, Capital Markets and S. G. Warburgs and Company-which assessed the submissions for the purchase of Canadair, Bombardier exhibited the strongest attributes financially. Their report to CDIC indicated that Bombardier was in a superior financial position.
The third and final aspect which must be proven is the potential of the purchaser to make a major contribution to the maintenance and development of a viable and dynamic aerospace manufacturing sector. The purchase of Canadair by Bombardier creates an alliance of Canadair's technology and skilled workforce with Bombardier's management expertise and international marketing experience.
It is only logical and sound public policy for Crown corporations to be well managed. However, in cases such as de Havilland and Canadair, Government does not have the
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
resources to make the firms as competitive as they should be. In many respects our continued ownership handicapped these companies for a number of years. We were unable to assist them in keeping up with the fast moving and highly competitive aerospace industry. It is imperative that Canadair make some important strategic decisions on programs like the Challenger and the water bomber. Selling to Bombardier at this time will nearly ensure their successes. At the very least the sale will ensure that the decisions will be commercially based and responsive to the demands of the market-place.
We are not looking just to increase our Government coffers with the sale. We are also looking for a method by which we can provide the most social and economic benefits for the country as a whole. This is not an abrupt or rash decision. The process involved is not only time lengthy but also intensive and very extensive. The terms of the sale are complex and not easily understood, I am sure. The terms of sale were arrived at only after months of negotiations by a large number of expert financial advisers to the Government. Obviously their suggestions, recommendations, and advice were carefully considered by Ministers in the decision-making process. As I have already stated, the CDIC employed the services of three independent investment firms to act as the main Financial advisers in the sale.
The process of negotiation was conducted in an equitable and business-like fashion. However, clearly this business-like conduct must ensure that the Government of Canada pay heed to the shareholders-the Canadian people. CDIC and its financial advisers put the word out in 1985 that Canadair was being considered for sale. Some 150 potential purchasers were contacted, and interest was generated in the company by many of them.
The list of prospective interested and suitable purchasers was narrowed down to the six who submitted proposals for the purchase of Canadair. Based upon an extensive study to which I referred earlier, CDIC recommended to the Government the submission of Bombardier.
The six bidders submitted proposals, at which time prospective buyers were narrowed to two, one being Bombardier. Finally the proposals and the CDIC recommendation came before Government. After conducting its own review of the proposal and conducting its own financial assessment, the ministerial task force on privatization determined that its best option would be to support the Bombardier proposal.
Given the expert advice it received and the consideration put into the proposal, the Government whole-heartedly selected Bombardier. There is no mystery or closed doors surrounding the selection of Bombardier. When the sale was announced last August, the Government released an extensively detailed set of documents which described the entire transaction. Similarly, when Bill C-25 was given first reading, the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) released details of all competing bids for Canadair. We as a Government are not seeking privatization to recoup our financial losses. There is no possible sale which could replace the moneys invested in
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Canadair from the government coffers. Since the Government of the day purchased Canadair in 1976, a total of about $2.4 billion has been invested in loans and equity. Additionally, the original purchase price of $46 million was topped up with $120 million in DIPP payments.
Our primary motive is to ensure the best possible working environment and security of jobs for the employees of Canadair. This is our first and foremost consideration. Closing Canadair will not achieve this, nor will the continued infusion of limited government capital into the company produce job security or expansion. What is needed is the financial discipline, management expertise, and international marketing skills of Bombardier. These will ensure a secure and stable future for Canadair and its employees. Hon. Members must remember that it was always intended that Canadair and de Havilland be sold back to the private sector. Former Prime Minister Trudeau considered privatization. During his campaign, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) used Canadair and de Havilland as examples of what can go wrong when Government tries to interfere in areas in which the private sector has a wealth of experience and initiative. He might be wishing he had not said that, after this weekend.
We must accept that the sale of Canadair to Bombardier is the best possible solution to the problems which plague the company. Canadair, under the directioan of Bombardier's experienced management, will be given the potential to develop as a leading aerospace manufacturer.
Also major benefits for the country will be realized through the sale. Bombardier has committed to assigning Canadair with its world product mandate for its main product lines. This will be invaluable in promoting a strong Canadian aerospace capability. Similarly, Bombardier will ensure maximum Canadian content in all existing and future products of Canadair.
The infusion of capital and experience into Canadair will enhance research and development to ensure its growth as an integrated aircraft manufacturer which can participate in major Canadian and international defence and commercial projects. This sale truly represents another example of the commitment of the Canadian Government to work hand in hand with the private sector for the betterment and security of all Canadians.
In closing, I should like to bring to the attention of the House a statement made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) earlier today. He made mention of the fact that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) now the Minister of Finance made a statement in 1984 to the effect that the Government would set up a separate Crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland with a mandate for the development of the aerospace industry. It appears that the Member has taken the statement out of context as was the case on January 16, 1986, in a regional development committee meeting when the same statement was brought up out of context by another Member
of the New Democratic Party. In 1984, the Member said essentially that there could be a more suitable way to run de Havilland and Canadair if they continued under government ownership, not that they were going to continue.
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend as a member of the Government. I have a question that many Manitobans are asking. Was the awarding of the CF-18 contract by his Government to Canadair not a part of the original deal for the sale of Canadair to Bombardier? In other words, was the CF-18 contract used as a means to ensure the success of the Government's privatization policy? Otherwise, how else does the Member explain the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair, particularly in light of the fact that Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg won the bidding process and has access to something like $30 million worth of technology which Canadair appears to need to fulfil the contract? We now have the example of Canadair advertising abroad for engineers. What I would like to know from the Member, who is a representative of the Government, is whether or not the CF-18 contract was a part of the original deal to sell Canadair to Bombardier. If he claims that it was not, will the Government table all of the documents relating to the original sale so that any objective observer could evaluate the original deal to see whether the CF-18 contract was part of the original deal?


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, in response to the question put by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), the decision to award the CF-18 contract, as he knows, was made on its own merits and was completely independent of the decision announced in connection with Canadair being sold to Bombardier.
The Member did not mention this, but there was an offer of a royalty payment by Bombardier in its bid to purchase Canadair. That was not considered and it was made public by the Government that it was not considered and would not be considered. There were never any promises made to Bombardier. I do not think there have been any voluntary statements by anybody to that effect. I am sure we all understand why the question is being raised, but that is the case and I have no objective statements by anybody of anything different. I hope that answers the Member's question.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, my question relates to the issue that I raised during my brief comments earlier. I would like my hon. friend to tell me, if he would, whether he thinks there is a role for Government generally in supporting the costs of product liability insurance for those Canadian manufacturers who find it impractical or unduly burdensome to obtain such insurance in the market-place? I would like him in thinking about that also to reflect on the fact that in this contract, as I understand it, the Government of Canada or the Crown will remain responsible on a diminishing basis for a period of up to 15 years, and that this could include products introduced into Canadair by the new owners which are not currently manufactured by Canadair and will, of course, be
December 1, 1986

obviously new products. Could the Hon. Member tell us whether generally he thinks that is an appropriate response of the Government to the manufacturing sector, and if he does not, what justifies a provision of this kind in this particular contract?


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was listening when I read the letter from Marsh & McLellan, the most noted and experienced people in the insurance business. I will restate Marsh & McLellan's reaction. As the Hon. Member knows, there is a provision in the sale that there will be participation by the Government if insurance becomes unobtainable at an economically practical cost. Marsh & McLellan did say that it was a definite improvement from other agreements that Marsh & McLellan have examined because it only becomes unobtainable. We all know this has arisen because of the concern of liability insurance of insurance companies accepting insurance and then finding it at a somewhat inequitable cost. It raises concern and probably was of concern in finalizing the sale. I must go back and make reference again to Mr. Taylor's letter in which he said:
It is obvious from the foregoing that the Bombardier proposal is clearly superior in that it relieves the government of any on-going premium involvement or financial participation in deductibles. We feel there will always be insurance available in some form-
This is again from Marsh & McLellan who are recognized by the Hon. Member and all of us as being experts in the field. They said:
We feel there will always be insurance available in some form and therefore the proposals made by Bombardier and CAT in the event insurance becomes unavailable are academic.
Marsh & McLellan pointed it out as being academic.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I was interested that this very sophisticated contract has academic provisions in it. It seems to me that our time would be better spent dealing with concrete provisions that are likely to have application. I must say that I would be of the view that it is a very important provision in the contract. It raises a number of questions that I do not think the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) even attempted to address, namely, if he and I want to go into a high technology manufacturing business in Canada, aircraft, ground transportation, advanced technology, any area where there is a product which might give rise to product liability, and if the burden of insurance for product liability becomes so great, is the Government of Canada prepared to be the insurer of last resort? That effectively is what is being said in this contract, as I understand it. Does the Member think that a good idea? The Member very skillfully avoided answering that question but I would like to give him another opportunity to answer it.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, under the agreement the Crown is to share insurance exposure if insurance is unavailable. People a lot more knowledgeable about the business than
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
I am are saying that it is really academic. Whether the Hon. Member wants to dispute if it is academic or not, that is what Marsh McLennan is saying. The agreement also records that the insurance would be on a sliding scale basis, 90 per cent over the first five years, 60 per cent for the next five years, and 30 per cent for the last five years. As was pointed out, this is a lot more favourable to the Government than having to accept all the liability of Crown corporations it owned previously. If that ever did happen, although it is noted as being academic, that is certainly an awful lot better than the $2.4 billion which my hon. friend's Government made available to Canadair in the form of loans and equity investments after buying the company. I guess I can appreciate his concern about the spending of taxpayer's money, but I would also be interested in knowing about his great concern for those dollars being spent on Canadair when he was President of the Treasury Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will allow one short question from the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, my intervention is by way of clarification. The Hon. Member suggested that the representations by our Party were taken out of context when referring to the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) then known simply as the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre. The press release is dated August 27, 1984, and says nothing about divesting. The press release says:
We will set up a separate crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland with a mandate for development of the aerospace industry and not merely financial control. This organization will be responsible for developing in conjunction with the Aerospace strategy so that Canadair and de Havilland will become commercially viable and will continue to be so into the next century.
That was a commitment made by the present Minister of Finance on August 27, 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) with a short answer, please.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to be brief but it was kind of a long question or statement or whatever it was. In the committee hearing of January 16, 1986-


Stanley J. Hovdebo: After the election.


Kenneth Albert James: -the then Minister said this:
The reference you have there, Mr. Cassidy, is something that I think with all due respect you would have to admit has been taken out of context. It was made in connection with a much bigger, if you like, comment on the part of Mr. Wilson.
He then went on to say:
No, I am saying, Mr. Cassidy, you have taken something out of context and I think you will find that it was in the context-I do not want to put words into Mr. Wilson's mouth-where he was saying a more suitable way to run de Havilland and Canadair, if they are to continue in government ownership, would be under one entity, as opposed to two separate entities.

December 1, 1986
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Co-operatives-Task	force	report-Government
reponse. (b) Encouragement for co-operatives; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Insurance-Liability insurance-Request reinsurance market be organized; the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Agriculture-Assistance for grain producers, (b) Provision of funds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it seems that each time Christmas arrives the Conservative Government wants to give evidence of its munificence to the corporate sector. Last year there was the tremendous giveaway of de Havilland. This year, in what is almost a repeat performance in celebration of the start of the Christmas season, we have before us this tremendous gift package for our approval. As much as I am in favour of Christmas, there are some more deserving candidates than Bombardier and Boeing Corporation. In looking at those two instances of what is frankly a gross sell-out of assets belonging to the people of Canada, it seems to me completely different arguments are being used to justify the two sales.
I would like to do something that I have yet to see done in this House by paying a tribute to Canadair, its management and workers. They succeeded in what was a very difficult situation. General Dynamics had sold them out. They faced a very difficult period of time in developing a new and important product, the Challenger, at great cost. They succeeded in carrying that plane through to successful development. That is a great example of the research and development we have to support, albeit at a lesser cost in the future.
Besides the Challenger, which is typically associated with Canadair, there is a tremendous amount of work, much of it highly sophisticated and very successful, which has taken place on pilotless reconnaissance planes. So much so that throughout
the Western Alliance, Canadair is recognized as one of the leading producers of pilotless drones. In fact, shortly before the company was sold, it signed with the Federal Republic of Germany and with France a Memorandum of Understanding to proceed jointly with the pre-production phase of the Canadair CL-289 pilotless airborne reconnaissance system. This is just one example of the tremendous success which the engineers, technicians and working people at Canadair have succeeded in achieving over the difficult past 11 years.
I would now like to deal with the fundamental inconsistency in the argument made initially with respect to de Havilland and now with respect to Canadair. I am sure we all recall the compelling argument put forward with extreme force by the previous Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion with regard to de Havilland. The argument was that first we had to have world-wide connections to sell the aerospace products which we were producing in this country. Second, we had to have world-wide input of technology on which we could call in order to be successful in a very difficult high technology industry. The Government of Canada decided that the Boeing Corporation, with its world-wide marketing network and tremendous access to technology, was the best hope for de Havilland. In fact, the previous speaker referred to this at some length and made very much of it.
We now have a quite similar company, Canadair. The first suggestion being made is that there be no company brought in which has a world-wide network of aerospace marketing capacity. Second, there is no suggestion made that we must have technology available to the engineers and technicians at Canadair because they certainly will not get the world-wide capacity to market or the tremendous technological in-put from Bombardier.
I will read you an assessment of Bombardier, not from a trade union source, but from the Canadian Aerospace Corporation. It assesses Bombardier in the following terms:
The management culture (at Bombardier) is also oriented towards the licensed manufacture of ground transport... . The capital intensive demands of aerospace research and development are simply not conducive to the heavy manufacturing culture at Bombardier. Bombardier then, has a tremendous political advantage over the other competing bidders, however they have not yet assembled the aerospace partners or capital required to make Canadair viable in the long term.
That is absolutely diametrically opposed to the argument made in the case of de Havilland. The Government cannot use one piece of logic to deal with one corporation and apply completely contradictory logic to another corporation if it expects the Canadian people to take it seriously.
The Conservative Member who spoke last used a phrase which indicated that the Government was not just looking to increase government coffers. I hope I have that quotation correct. Such a phrase in any speech is a sure tip-off that the taxpayers of the country are somehow getting squeezed, somehow getting skewered, somehow being pushed to pay a cost which should be paid by a private company. When
December 1, 1986

members of the Government say that they are not interested in getting a fair return or in increasing government coffers, that is the best indication that there is embarrassment on the government side about the low price achieved for the sale of this public asset.
I would like to illustrate for back-benchers just exactly what an appalling price they achieved for this asset. This asset did not belong to anyone other than the people of Canada. The poor price received represents a very serious cost to the taxpayers. The book value of this enterprise is undoubtedly much greater now, but at the time of the sale it was $224 million. Its estimated technology value was $300 million to $400 million.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To whom?


Steven W. Langdon: One of the Hon. Members asked "to whom?" I think the case of de Havilland indicates that that was a tremendous giveaway. Now that the giveaway has taken place, de Havilland is making tremendous amounts of money. Precisely the same thing will happen in this case. I remind Members and people across the country that this company is not a basket case. Last year it made profits. According to the Government's own CDIC, the company has prospects this year of making profits close to $30 million. Yet the total price in cash is $120 million. We get a dividend of $3 million and payment for an airport of $6 million. I am not quoting from some kind of left wing magazine, but from the Government's own documents. It states that the deferred cash payments at present value for the royalties are worth $20 million. The contingent payments for possibilities such as the CF-18 royalty amounted to between $8 million and $12 million. At the very most, it is a price which was well under the $150 million for a company which cost the taxpayers of this country over $2 billion to develop and now has a book value of at least $224 million. All of this is before the awarding of the CF-18 contract which of course makes the company tremendously more valuable.
Personally, I cannot believe that one would put a clause in the documents which we received that permitted payment of royalties in the event of the CF-18 contract being awarded while at the same time having absolutely no thought that the CF-18 contract would be awarded. If there was enough uncertainty to put it into the documents in the first place, then the sale should have been postponed until it was possible for the company to be sold as an entity not just with the Challenger, not just with the pilotless reconnaisance planes, but also with this tremendously lucrative CF-18 contract.
I believe the people of Canada have been hosed on this deal. They have certainly given a Christmas gift to Bombardier, a company which I respect, but one that frankly does not have the required technology and has absolutely no background with respect to the marketing of aviation products. It is simply illogical to marry this company and Canadair. It surely makes
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
far more sense to follow the advice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) whereby we would have been able to combine de Havilland and Canadair and create the base in this country on which to have a high-tech, effective, world class aviation company that would be able to market its products world-wide. The question of whether the company was in the public sector, private sector or a melange of the two was far less important than the question of getting the right deal for Canadian taxpayers, and far less important than getting a potential enterprise in this country that would give us a role in aerospace in the future.
While the question of price is absolutely crucial, there are two further points we must consider. First, I suggest to Members of Parliament from Montreal in particular that there is no serious guarantee of jobs in this agreement. Second, and perhaps even worse, there is no guarantee that this company will not be sold by Bombardier. That irresponsibility, combined with the price for irresponsibility, makes this perhaps an even greater Christmas gift than the de Havilland gift that was given last year.


Mr. Gerin:: By way of a comment, Madam Speaker, I should like to suggest to the Hon, Member who has just spoken that he should have his speech printed and distributed in the Eastern Townships, in Quebec, where I am sure people would be delighted to read it and continue to do what they have done repeatedly over the past few elections, namely, to reject the New Democratic Party outright, because it is essentially a party which is against workers, against Quebec. What my hon. friend has just done is extremely unfortunate. He has just spoken against a region which needed and still needs this investment.
I just cannot understand his attitude. On the one hand, there are a number of members of this party, especially the other one from Ottawa who is sitting over there-who visit the province of Quebec and say: This is fine and dandy: we are going to do marvels in Quebec.
On the other hand, when they are called upon to support a Bill which would help a Quebec firm, they will not. You wonder what they would do if they were in power. What would Quebec get? What would you give to Quebecers? You speak on both sides of your mouth. I suggest this is not right. You should be honest with yourselves. But if you just cannot be honest, I will. I will see to it that your speech is published everywhere in Quebec and that the people keep it in mind until the next election. This way, you will be rejected in Quebec just as you have always been.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, since I have just been quoted by the Hon. Member, I will offer my friend the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I think it would be right if the House will allow me to permit the

December 1, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) to answer the question.
[ Translation]


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is a fine comment the Hon. Member has just made but it is also beside the point. He listened to what I had to say, but he forgot the most important things. For instance, what I suggested was that we should make sure that Canadians from coast to coast get a fair price for that corporation. It is a corporation in which all Canadians, those from my riding, from Quebec and from Western Canada have invested a lot of money; and now we have discovered that the Government has decided to give this corporation away as a Christmas gift. I, for one, feel that this is not something Canadians generally and Quebecers in particular want.
My second remark is that our country must have an aerospace industry which can sell its production everywhere in the world. We must have an aerospace corporation with the necessary technology to do that. There are two possibilities. We could give away a Christmas gift. That is a possibility. But the other possibility would be to set up a corporation made up of de Havilland and Canadair which could be a leader with all these technology advances which are so important in the aerospace industry today. We feel that is the most important thing. Personally, I think it would create more jobs. If the Hon. Member thinks-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member knows that other Members have risen to ask questions. He may want to answer some of those. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, will the Hon. Member tell us which of the 434 federal Crown corporations, if any, his Party would consider privatizing if his Party were ever to come into office?


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, we would not take an ideological position on this question, unlike the position of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: The Government has come into power with a single-minded pursuit of selling companies just for the sake of selling them. When we come to power, and I hope it will be soon, it will be with the purpose of getting the economy back on the rails again-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -creating regional fairness and establishing an industrial base right across the country. To achieve that end Crown corporations can help. We might find that some would not help-


Charles Joseph Clark: Which ones?


Steven W. Langdon: -and we would be quite pleased to sell them. However, that would not be our preoccupation. Our preoccupation would be to build the economy, which should be the preoccupation of any Member of this House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have just a short question which relates directly to building our national economy. A debate has been raised in our caucus with respect to whether or not the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is driven to work in a Honda, which is a foreign-made automobile, in an effort to avoid embarrassment to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), who drives to work in a Mazda RX-7. Both cars are built outside the country. Can the Hon. Member tell us how he is furthering our national economy by taking such actions?


David Kilgour: You're blushing, Steve!


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has sunk very low, I must say, to ask this type of question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: That is not my car. It is not a car in which I have any share. It happens to belong to someone who happens to drive me to work.
If Hon. Members would like to see the cars which I do own, I will point them to a 1976 Comet and a 1983 Mustang.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about Jepson's car? How many Tories drive foreign cars? Let us conduct a census.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you a two-car Member of Parliament?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My Ford Mercury is parked in the parking lot. Madam Speaker, will you direct the Whips of all three Parties, and particularly the Whip of the government Party, to provide for the House, on the record, the results of a census to be taken with respect to all foreign cars driven by Conservatives to and from the House of Commons?


Mr. Fennell:: That's a good idea.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point is that the New Democratic Party does not appear to be sanctimoniously representing workers by driving foreign cars.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Members should know that these are not points of order, nor are they interventions on debate.
December 1, 1986


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a question or comment, Madam Speaker.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) first. I will then hear the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has the floor.


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, my point of order is more serious. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil- Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), who should be the next to speak, is ready to rise. However, since there are only about two minutes left before 5 o'clock, could we have the consent of the House to call it 5 o'clock so that her speech will not be interrupted and she will not have to speak two minutes now and go on later?
I think that all Hon. Members would agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must hear the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor first. I will then come back to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, if 1 am not mistaken, questions of privilege are to take precedence over points of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair had already recognized the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. The Chair has recognized and is now hearing the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. If he has a question of privilege, then I will gladly listen to it.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the last intervention has raised a level of personal attack which is best left outside the House. It seems to me that if we are to continue to follow this course then the privilege of Members of this House will be very badly abused in the future.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: If that is to be the case, then, first, I want to express my regrets. Second, I wish to appeal to the Hon. Member to withdraw the comments which he has made.
OO)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will tell the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) that the Chair does not think that this is a question of privilege. Nevertheless, I completely agree with the Hon. Member that this was not
Equality Rights
the type of language that should be used in the House, and it did not relate at all to the Bill that was being debated. At times, Hon. Members want to show that they have a sense of humour and they want to have fun. Unfortunately, they sometimes hurt other people's feelings. I am sure that this is not what was meant.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EQUALITY RIGHTS PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should implement the recommendations of the sub-committee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament:
(1)	That the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination to the other grounds, which are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
(2)	That the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP bring their employment practices into conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act as amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
(3)	That the federal government security clearance guidelines covering employees and contractors not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
(4)	That the Criminal Code be amended to ensure that the minimum age or ages at which private consensual sexual activity is lawful be made uniform without distinction based on sexual orientation.
He said: Madam Speaker, on October 25, 1985, the special committee of the House on Equality Rights unanimously recommended to the Government that change to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Canada was long overdue.

The Committee had this to say: "We were shocked by a number of the experiences of unfair treatment related to us by homosexuals in different parts of the country. We heard about the harassment of and violence committed against homosexuals. We were told in graphic detail about physical abuse and psychological oppression suffered by homosexuals. In several cities, private social clubs serving a homosexual clientele were damaged and the members harassed. Hate propaganda directed at homosexuals has been found in some parts of Canada. We were told of the severe employment and housing problems suffered by homosexuals." Indeed, many of the individuals who appeared before us expressed the fear that their participation would jeopardize their jobs.

December 1, 1986
Equality Rights
Madam Speaker, the social and legal affairs task force of the United Church of Canada said this in its presentation to the Committee: "Elomosexual persons should not be excluded from the protection granted to all other citizens because the Government has neglected or omitted to extend the legislation which would provide such protection. Banning a group of citizens from society is a serious precedent. In a democracy, it is just as dangerous to let the public decide whether to include or exclude from recognition of their human rights any distinct group, whatever the time in history."
Madam Speaker, I wish to point out that the recommendations of the Committee were unanimous, which means that the five Conservative members, the Liberal member and myself, who had the honour of representing the New Democratic Party, shared unanimous views about these recommendations.

The Government responded to the unanimous recommendations made by the committee on March of this year. In its response, the Government took a courageous and forwardlooking approach. It said:
The Government believes that one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether one can perform a job or use a service or facility. The Department of Jutice is of the view that the courts will find that sexual orientation is encompassed by the guarantees in section 15 of the Charter. The Government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
The motion which is before the House today calls upon the Government to make that commitment a reality. It calls upon the Government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
I emphasize that this motion does not seek special rights for any group in society. We are not talking about special rights, we are talking about equal rights. There are those who say that these changes are not necessary in our society. I would like to use the brief time I have to mention a couple of examples of why indeed it is necessary.
I received a letter from the parents of a young woman who live in Priddis, Alberta. That letter reads in part:
Our 24 year old daughter is gay. She is a person of extremely high morals, a beautiful Christian woman-a person who cares greatly about her fellow man. She is currently working in a home for the handicapped ... but will be returning home in two months to resume studies at the University of Victoria... All we are asking of our government is the dignity of including homosexuals under basic human rights protection.
In a further letter submitted to me, these parents said:
Our daughter has been brought up as a moral and responsible Christian woman. The omission in our laws of a protective category for sexual orientation seems to leave her and any other homosexual person in Canada no alternative but to lie about their orientation, or to tell the truth and face the loss of jobs and many other psychological stresses. As parents we see this situation as a grave injustice. We also see the exclusion of sexual orientation as a protected area as a condoning of the present discriminatory attitudes and practices.
That is an important point. It is not only changes in laws which are essential in society but it is changes as well in the
attitudes and values which lead to discrimination and intolerance.
In Toronto recently, a young, deeply respected school librarian was brutally murdered by five teenagers in a park. A psychiatrist who testified at the trial of these teenagers stated that one of the factors that led to that violence was the subtle social permission to victimize homosexuals. This contributed to these people acting like a gang of predators the night the young man was murdered.
Similar social pressures are mounting in some quarters against persons with AIDS. It is important that we as a society and we as a Parliament say clearly that equality must be a reality for all and not just for some.
The Special Committee on Equality Rights heard from an 18-year veteran of the RCMP who told us that he did not have the courage to appear openly before the committee but he wanted the committee to recognize the impact of the present laws which held that a man of distinction who had served his country for many years could lose his job solely on the basis of his sexual orientation. This weekend, I met with a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who told me that he is deeply concerned that the Armed Forces will not in fact move forward to implement the recommendations of the Government and that it will use the excuse of operational effectiveness to deny equality to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The Armed Forces itself estimates that there are 4 per cent of the members of the forces who are gay or lesbian. How can we tolerate the kind of pain and oppression to which they are being subjected as a result of the current policies? The impact in very real and personal terms of this denial of equality is a stark reality for too many Canadians.
I have received a letter from a young man who wanted to join the Armed Forces. He has pointed out the discrimination to which he was subjected. The letter in part states:
To all those people who oppose Bill C-225 this is who you are killing, not child molesters or prostitutes, but some of our nation's brightest, talented youth. How many more lives? What a shame, what a tragic loss. We are all responsible for their fear and despair.
Being condemned for something I have no choice in is just as evil as discrimination of the basis of colour.
I underline that point as well, Madam Speaker. We are not dealing here with a matter of choice. Some say that these people choose their orientation, therefore, they must not be protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The evidence shows clearly and beyond a shadow of doubt that that is not in fact the case at all.
Because my time is limited, and because I know that other Members wish to participate in this debate, I am going to close by calling upon Members to recognize the fundamental importance of equality for all in our society, including equality for gays and lesbians.
I wish to close with some lyrics from a very beautiful song by a song writer and poet named Ferron:
December 1, 1986

We are the children in the rafters,
We are the babies in the park;
We are the lovers at the movies,
We are candles in the dark.
We are changes in the weather,
We are snowflakes in July;
We are women grown together,
We are men who easily cry.
We are words not quickly spoken,
We are the deeper side of try;
We are dreamers in the making,
We are not afraid of why.
The time has come for equality for all.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to Bill C-212, I am breaching a taboo subject. The word taboo was brought back from Polynesia by Captain Cook in 1777-


An Hon. Member:: It was Captain Bonhomme!


Charles-André Hamelin: And the word taboo meant sacred, forbidden, and so forth. At this point I would like to quote an old friend of mine-it seems he was a homosexual-whose name was Seneca. He always said: "We all run away from ourselves".
1 think there are some taboo subjects, Madam Speaker, which must be addressed directly today.
The purpose of today's Bill, which refers to sexual orientation, is to amend Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation, although it already refers to equal opportunity without discrimination on the basis of race, national ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, and so forth. And now they want us to add sexual orientation.
Madam Speaker, like most of the Members of this party, I believe that in Canada we must show the greatest possible tolerance and respect for differing views, but I would qualify this by saying positive views. In our society, we have passed so many laws that it has become a veritable disease. Our laws are merely a crutch for the freedom of mankind. Normally, we would not need laws. All the laws adopted by Parliament in the past, the laws we are adopting today and those we will adopt tomorrow, have been, are and probably will be, so many crutches to support the expression of our human freedom. We have a country where, unfortunately, although perhaps to a lesser degree than in other countries, the rights of the aggressor have overpowered the rights of the victim, where protecting the criminal has become more important than protecting the victim, where millions of dollars are being spent on criminals and nothing on their victims, because as far as justice is concerned, for instance, it is said that pain cannot be be quantified, and where allowing rapists their rights means that the victim is publicly humiliated and made to suffer in our courts. And today, we have another piece of legislation, an amendment which this time concerns sexual orientation. Now
Equality Rights
I think we have to speak out, in spite of our great respect for positive differences. Personally, I am afraid our society is becoming ultra-permissive. Sure, let sodomites, pederasts and proponents of bestiality become the custodians of our children! Why not? We are modern. We aren't afraid of taboos. Go right ahead! Let any idiot indulging in his unbridled sexuality get into the police force-we saw that in Quebec-and have fun with our children. Why not? It's a free country. We are a permissive society. Let's go! Let's be cool!
Madam Speaker, I want to say in the House today that Bill C-212, despite its virtuous appearances and good intentions, will not do. And it will not do because as it says in the text: - compatible with their duties and commitments to society. I do not believe that sexual preference has anything to do with rights and duties, at least as this would imply.
If we were to agree to this Bill tomorrow, any sexual pervert could use the provisions of the Act to defend the way he is and what he has already done or could do in the future in our society. I should say that I have a lot of respect for lesbians and homosexuals. I respect them. I have friends among them. I respect them as individuals and respect their situation, which can be difficult, but I am not ready, and I believe that a lot of people share my views, to take action which would give us a piece of legislation which could lead to the worst of abuses.
We also hold myths such as that of the honourable thief. Some may smile, but it is rare in society to find thieves who are also honourable. It is quite rare. It is very difficult to find a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor in the mob. Such ideas might sound wonderful, and the same is true about the notion, which sounds theoritically very easy to defend, that you cannot stop someone from working because of his sexual preference. What does this mean finally? What does this involve legally as far as our rights are concerned? It involves many things. I think that we should stop and no longer accept just about anything on the excuse that society is changing. I do not believe that we should do so now. Personally, I do not think that we should ever do so, or at least not now.
We should therefore show the greatest tolerance and respect for our differences, but by this I mean the positive differences which make Canada what it is because we, the Conservatives, want to protect what are our most precious assets. We want to be progressive, of course, but without destroying everything that was done before, and forgetting our traditional values. This is what it means to be a Progressive Conservative.
To conserve means to improve and to keep what we have best and to do so with tolerance, with the respect of our differences, but not with unbridled laxity, which only creates chaos and makes it difficult to teach our basic values.
Madam Speaker, at the risk of being taken for a dinosaur, I am going to vote against this Bill and I hope that no one will support it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I have just arrived, and I was somewhat surprised at the high pitch of the remarks made by the Hon. Member who has just spoken to

December 1, 1986
Equality Rights
this motion which is rather significant from a standpoint of equality.
Whenever we are debating human rights and equality issues, I fail to understand why we always drift towards the somewhat homophobic argument that we are seeking to extend rights to certain people like pederasts, for example, or others who profess their sexual deviations. Indeed, although I did appreciate the question pertaining to research on equality, it was the past Minister of Justice himself who publicly stated that no discriminatory provision related to sex ought to be included in our legislation, including sexual orientation. Still according to the former Minister of Justice, if we can believe him, all Canadians, both men and women, have the right to work, the right to gain access to public services, the right to all kinds of things regardless of their sexual preferences and orientations.
So the motion introduced today is just another way of setting the record straight once and for all with respect to the whole issue of sexual orientation, because the former Minister of Justice claimed that people whose sexual orientation differs from that of the majority are protected under existing laws, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which does cover sexual matters.
To anyone who takes time to look into legal precedents it becomes quite obvious that under the existing legislation an employee can be dismissed on grounds of sexual orientation alone, even though such sexual orientation may not in any way prevent the employee from satisfactorily performing his or her duties.
I am always amazed when this question comes up-and I have received telegrams about the Bill which is in the Ontario Legislature at the moment-that the argument against providing equality to each and every Canadian man and woman, regardless of sexual orientation, is countered by those who talk in a very homophobic fashion about things like pederasty and other sexual deviations which are not exclusive to anyone of a homosexual orientation.
It seems to me that what we are discussing here is a followup to statements which were made by the former Minister of Justice. In preparing his response to the equality report, the past Minister of Justice told the House of Commons and the people of Canada that in today's day and age no Canadian, regardless of sex and sexual orientation, should be fired from his or her job or denied access to public services simply because of sexual orientation. What is being proposed in this Private Member's Bill is an attempt to ensure by further amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that sexual orientation, most specifically, be a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Any reasonable Canadian man or woman recognizes that we are not talking about according special rights to any group of persons or person. We are not talking about special status. We
as Canadians are talking about a law which provides equally for all persons to have access to earning a decent living, to have a job, and to live in a community in an apartment or house of their choice, regardless of whether or not they happen to be homosexual or heterosexual. Surely there is no Canadian in Canada, in 1986, who believes that people should be fired from their jobs simply because they happen to be homosexual. I do not think anyone believes that people should be barred from a job simply because they happen to be homosexual.
We must recognize, notwithstanding the statements and commitments of the former Minister of Justice in the House vis-a-vis implementation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that the cold reality in 1986 is that if persons are homosexual they can be legally fired from their jobs without recourse. We have seen the argument taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, a former employee of the Ontario Racing Commission was fired from a job after many long years of service. He had not been selling sexual favours on the job and had not been in any way utilizing his own sexual orientation. Someone found out that he was a gay man, and he was fired from his job. He pursued the route suggested by the former Minister of Justice, that is the common law route, to redress the injustice. The court said that the current law-the Ontario Human Rights Code in that case and specifically the Canadian Human Rights Act in other cases-did not protect homosexuals from being fired because they were not specified in the legislation.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) told the House that every Canadian should have the right to a job and to equal opportunities. If we are to believe him, then surely the proposal of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is simply an attempt to clarify further in legislation what the Minister of Justice claimed de facto was the law.
Sometimes I think politicians tend to live in the Dark Ages vis-a-vis their constituents. I remember struggling with this question when I was a member of the Opposition in the Ontario Legislature back in 1981. We were involved with drafting a new Ontario Human Rights Code. As labour critic, I had to come to grips with whether I would move an amendment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I discussed it with many people. It was called Bill 7 at the time. It was the first time I had carried a Bill through the Legislature. Frankly I was frightened. I wondered what kind of backlash there would be in my community if I introduced such a piece of legislation. After talking with a number of people, I decided I had to move a motion which was in accord with my conscience, and I did.
I should like to refer to what happened. There was no backlash in my riding of Hamilton East, a riding of steelworkers, the most industrial riding in Canada. When they realized that I was not talking about special rights or special status, they believed in and supported it. I was talking about affording protection to homosexuals, or to heterosexuals for that matter, who were being discriminated against simply on the basis of
December 1, 1986

sexual orientation when it had no relationship to or did not interfere with their ability to do a job.
Why is it that our politicians always seem to be light years behind what the public believes and thinks? The public is not talking about special status for homosexuals. People in Canada are saying, if you can do a job you should have the right to do the job regardless of sexual orientation. Our former Prime Minister once said that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. I think the current Government through the former Minister of Justice basically reinforced that very notion. This Private Member's Motion is simply to clarify the law as the majority of Canadians would support it. I urge all Members to consider it. We are not talking about special status, we are talking about equality for every Canadian across the board. I think it is a supportable Liberal principle.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I rise very unhappy and very disturbed today mostly because the equality report stemmed from the Progressive Conservative Party. I am very deeply hurt by that fact and hope that Bill C-212 will never see the light of day in this House of Commons.
I cannot be genteel when discussing particularly the amendment in subparagraph (1) in which the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) tries to purport that there would be no special rights for gays. What a joke, Madam Speaker. That is exactly what gays want. Already the paragraph covers sex. This is not an amendment on sexual orientation. This is an amendment on sexual deviation. Homosexual is anti-biological. It is anti-medical, anti-biblical, and I quote: "Go ye forth and multiply". It is anti-family and it is anti-social. It is pro-deviate and it is absolutely disgusting to most Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members to be careful and realize that we are not debating Bill C-212 today. We are debating Motion No. 11. I know the subjects are quite similar but I think we should be careful in our debate so that we do remain closer to what Motion No. 11 is about.


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, I just referred to subparagraph (1). I am putting my case forward that it does have special rights. Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby actually talking of his own sexual ideas or does he espouse the complete doctrine of the New Democratic Party, or both? It would be interesting to know.
Sexual orientation, which this is all about, or in my view sexual deviation, is learned. It is a learned response. The toleration of the so-called gay lifestyle by some people in Canada is being advanced in our public schools, through movies and TV. Is that really what we want? Do we really want an amendment such as this to give special rights to that form of lifestyle?
Equality Rights
I know first hand only too cruelly of a case in my own riding of a school teacher who took his sexual deviation, his sexual orientation, and foisted it upon many members of his class. In my view, our children must be protected.
The New Democratic Party is calling for the elimination of smoking but it champions homosexual acts by this very amendment. You cannot get around that. It makes about as much sense as taking us out of NATO.
As I mentioned, homosexualism is anti-biological. It is committing biological suicide. It is anti-medical, it is hygienic insanity. It is a crime against humanity whether medical or moral. All of us know what is happening with AIDS, that dread disease, for which there is no cure. How is it spread? AIDS is overwhelmingly a homosexual disease in every western country in which AIDS has been reported. Gays are the first persons to be stricken. In time others become infected. AIDS is thought to have started in the U.S., and U.S. homosexuals account for 73 per cent of all AIDS victims. I could go on and on with the statistics of what we are opening up with this bombshell of so-called human rights. It is human suicide.
Disease is disproportionately experienced by homosexuals. They are 14 times more apt to have had syphilis, three times more apt to have had gonorrhea and eight times more apt to have had hepatitis. Think of all the needles of the drug users and what is happening with this scourge of AIDS. Homosexuals are five times more apt to have had scabies. With lesbians they are 19 times more apt to have had syphilis and 29 times more apt to have had an oral infection. Are these the rights that we as Canadians want? Does this go by our religious teachings?
There is a group called ISIS operated by members of the medical, business, theological and legal professions. It is chaired by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. I wish I had the time to read this paper in full because it is very enlightening. It is something that every person in the world should read. It goes on about the abnormality of homosexualism and lesbianism. If we are to have human rights, we must have human protection. Man, if he were a rational animal, would not need laws and I would not need to be standing on my feet today. Unfortunately, we are not. Homosexualism is a sickness that should not be in our society. Let me read a bit of the ISIS position paper until my time runs out:
Viable societies are organized to sustain themselves by producing and educating succeeding generations. Each child is expected to repay society for all he has inherited by creating and nurturing a new generation.
Let me emphasize "a new generation". How does that happen in the homosexual community?
Western society, workers generally receive sufficient income to both sustain themselves and raise a family. Parents partially satisfy their debt by teaching their children that soon it will be their turn to repay.
Homosexuals renounce their social obligation and slavishly devote themselves to self-aggrandizement. They rob society to pleasure themselves. Money remaining after their basic requirements are met is regarded as additional opportunity for personal pleasure rather than a loan to be put into the service of

December 1, 1986
Equality Rights
societal betterment. Getting more by doing less, homosexuals soon come to regard special treatment as their inherent right.
That is what the paragraph in the motion says. It is special treatment by mentioning homosexuals and not the word sex:
Those who are rewarded for leeching soon come to regard society with contempt, deserving destruction.
Homosexuals often spend their "extra" disposable income roaming the world in search of sexual adventure.
I might add that according to statistics it is estimated that a homosexual has from 20 to 106 partners per year. Think of that in terms of AIDS alone, Madam Speaker:
Because of their promiscuity and incredible unsanitary sexual practices-
I have reams and reams of documented medical evidence here of how terrible that is:
-pathogens once localized in a given geographic region are rapidly being spread throughout the world. AIDS is a first fruit of this process and many more plagues stemming from homosexual behaviour are bound to occur. Homosexuals have already compromised the nation's blood supply and are straining the resources of the medical community.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker on another occasion when language used was deemed to be deeply offensive to many Members of this House called the Member in question to order and suggested that his language might indeed give rise to a situation of disorder. I suggest that this kind of pathological homophobic attack which is being made by the Member falls into precisely the same category of language, particularly when it is his own Government, his own colleagues, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the former Minister of Justice whom he is accusing of being anti-biblical because they have adopted the principles included in this motion. I would ask that you, Madam Speaker, recognize that the language is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Gerin) rises on a point of order.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, it is because we are in a situation where we have to use such expressions which, under other circumstances, might not be appropriate. But because of the very nature of the motion moved by the Hon. Member, we have to use these terms.
I suggest it was the choice of the Hon. Member who moved this motion to force the House to use these terms which my hon. friend has just used.
Under the circumstances, I suggest we should allow the Hon. Member to continue.


Mr. St. Germain:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was merely pointing out the statistical facts produced by the medical profession and other organizations. It was no more than that. It was not a question of attacking any group or
segment of society. He was merely laying the facts on the table as seen by certain people in the medical profession.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At this point the Chair thinks this is really a point of debate. It is not a matter of being offensive and it does not relate at all to a ruling given by Mr. Speaker a short while ago. I ask the Hon. Member to conclude within a minute, please.


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, if I were to read some of the statistics and some of the homosexual acts recorded here, perhaps the Hon. Member opposite would have something to complain about.
Homosexual activity, combined with modern modes of transportation, ensures that the world's medical problems become both our risk and our financial burden. It goes on to talk about drug addicts, but I shall conclude by saying that the last thing we as Canadians need is to listen to moralizing by someone who does not believe or march in step with most of the people whom I believe and march in step with. I can remember when "gay" meant "happy". That is the last thing it means today. If we allow something like this to happen in Canada, God help us in the future.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Because it is reflected in-party policy it also has the support of the NDP. Our practice in conventions is to pass policy which then becomes the policy of the Party rather than pass motions which are advisory to the Leader of the Party.
I have to say that if some Members wished to oppose this resolution and did so in a measured way, I might have accepted that. However, I am appalled by the language and approach taken by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) and the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) in their interventions. I remind Hon. Members that this proposal was considered at great length by the Subcommittee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. It is now encompassed in a proposal accepted by the Government.
Both the Canadian and the American Psychiatric Associations, whose members have a great deal of knowledge of psychiatric disorders, have for more than a decade taken the view that homosexuality is not a disease. It is an orientation taken by a significant proportion of our population, both male and female. By all accounts it is not chosen, it happens. People grow up with it and it affects both men and women. There are homosexuals in the Government of Canada, the Armed Forces, our police forces and the RCMP. They work in the Department of External Affairs. They are undoubtedly Members of Parliament. Homosexuals are to be found among teachers, the clergy, doctors, lawyers, factory and shop workers, indeed among most walks of life in our society. That does not create a problem except to the extent that people become victimized because of their sexual orientation or because of fear of what
December 1, 1986

would happen if they are found out. As a result they stay in the closet. That means a tremendous cost in personal happiness and tragic consequences at times given what happens to some people if their sexual orientation becomes a matter of public record.
I have a friend who is mildly homosexual. He is also happily married with one or two children. He was fired from his job as a teacher because the police decided to crack down. They were surveying a particular washroom in a city in Ontario and he was one of the people charged with a very minor offence. However, it was enough to have him fired from his job and virtually destroy his personal life over a substantial number of years.
If people are concerned about the well-being of young people in our schools and the danger of their being accosted by teachers, then let us talk about the fact that this occurs from time to time with male teachers who molest or interfere with young female students. It is just as indefensible when it is done by a heterosexual teacher as when it is done by a homosexual teacher. In either case, everyone agrees it is not acceptable behaviour. However, what we are talking about here is people who have a job or who wish to rent an apartment or do business with a particular company. They should not be prevented from doing so because they happen to be homosexual. That is what the proposed amendment in this resolution would do. Nothing more. It would mean that homosexuals would no longer have to fear their career can be brought to an end because of discrimination not for what they do but because they may have that orientation.
The present situation leads people to lie. If they admit to being homosexual when applying for a job, they can now quite legally be denied a job. If found out after many years of successful and productive work, they can be fired with no regard at all to whether or not they ever did anything improper.
The question we are dealing with here is that of people being victimized solely by reason of their sexual orientation. I can speak from personal experience. Nine and a half years ago I hired a riding assistant. He was the former President of the Gays of Ottawa, a homosexual organization active in this city for some 20 years. He was an activist, therefore, in the gay community. I have to confess I had a certain trepidation about that. However, he was the best applicant for the job. Recently he moved upwards in his career and took another job. I pay tribute to him for being one of the finest riding assistants any provincial Member of Parliament has had. I would also point out that in all of those years, in a riding with a substantial Catholic, Italian, French and West Indian population, groups who might share some of the concerns expressed here, that concern has not been expressed. At most, perhaps once in those nine or ten years. There was no problem at all except in the minds of certain Members of Parliament. I call on those Members of Parliament to take heed of their Government and the subcommittee.
Equality Rights
What is being asked is that we simply acknowledge the fact that whether or not one approves of other people being homosexual, other people are homosexuals. They did not make the choice but it has happened to them. They should not suffer discrimination in their economic or social lives because of their sexual orientation. That is all that is being proposed here and I call on Hon. Members to allow this matter to come to a vote before six o'clock.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-Ia-Madeleine):: Like some of my hon. friends who have spoken tonight, Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words about Bill C-212 or even amendment No. 11. I should like first of all to indicate that I am married and the father of four children. For us, and I mean our society, our churches, what really matters is our children and those who will come after us. I suggest this is something the House should always take into account when dealing with any legislation.
With all due respect for the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) and the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), I should like to add something. If the House is going to adopt legislation to allow exceptions in our society, where is it going to stop?
When debating an issue such as the one before us this evening we must look at it very clearly. A few moments ago the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the country. I accept that premise. However, we are not talking about being in the bedrooms of the country. We are talking about being in the RCMP and the Armed Forces. We are talking about people who are saying, "You have to let me in because I am homosexual, because I am a woman and want to sleep with a woman or I am a man and want to sleep with a man". That is not the issue.
Whether we are NDP, Liberal or Progressive Conservative we must respect the laws of our society. If we go along with homosexuality we will become like the African tribe that believed in castration. Within one generation they became extinct. We cannot do that, Madam Speaker. As the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicated, the former Minister of Justice said that there is justice for all. We stated that. We are committed to the principle that all Canadians should have an equal opportunity to participate as fully as possible in our society. I agree 100 per cent with that. However, if I want to apply to the RCMP, the Army, the Air Force, or the Navy, I should not be able to say that I must be hired because I am homosexual. We hire people in these forces to protect society, and we must continue to do that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: No homosexuals need apply.

December 1, 1986
Equality Rights


Darryl L. Gray: The
condition for employment is not whether you are homosexual, Liberal or Conservative.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Exactly.


Darryl L. Gray: It is a
question of whether you can do the job.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's what the motion says.


Darryl L. Gray: However, to legislate that homosexuals are entitled to 5 per cent of the employment is a crock of cow dung from the Gaspe. The Canadian population is not iooking to its Government to protect a homosexual society because it is going nowhere. We will allow homosexuals in the bedrooms of the nation, but let us never allow them into our Armed Forces or the RCMP. We will work with them so that they can remain silent.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight on this amendment, and since the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) knows our rules, he knows I will make sure that I kill the motion. What the Hon. Member for Burnaby is asking actually is that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the Canadian Human Rights Act is undergoing a complete review, the results of which should be known very soon. We are all willing to recognize, I am sure, that the Act offers complete human rights protection in the areas of federal jurisdiction. This issue is among those being looked at in the review process. I feel that we should wait for the results of that review before we consider the steps that this motion would force us to take.
This Government has always been concerned with human rights, and before I resume my comments on the motion, I would like to refer to the commendable role played historically by the Progressive Conservative Party in that area, and this should be pointed out in the present context. Some 25 years ago, when the Hon. John G. Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, the enacting of the Canadian Human Rights Bill was a major step in the history of human rights in Canada, being the first attempt by a Canadian Government to consolidate and guarantee the basic rights of all Canadians. Since then, the Progressive Conservative Party has supported the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Liberties, both of which are in line with our tradition of protecting the basic human rights in Canada. However, none of those documents that are so important in this country's history was prepared or enacted overnight. They all had to go through a process of in-depth examination before they could be voted on, so they would offer the most effective and appropriate means of attaining each and every major objective set for Canadians. The same applies to the matter at hand.
The Government already has defined its position in Toward Equality, which is this Government's response to the 85 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights and its report entitled Equality for All. It is stated in Towards Equality that "the Government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction". That commitment is in perfect harmony with this Government's established policy on equality and social justice. The present Government is firmly resolved to guarantee equality and social justice for all Canadians so that each and everyone will be able to fully realize his or her unique and personal potential.
Madam Speaker, although the present Government has not been in power for very long, it has made remarkable progress in the field of human rights, equality and social justice. The Government of Canada recently adopted amending legislation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was the culmination of a review of over 1,000 federal Acts made for the purpose of ensuring their conformity with the Charter. More than 50 Acts were amended to make them compatible with the Charter. Under this particular legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to improve mechanisms for protecting human rights. There is no doubt that this Government is determined to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Commission in order to further minimize and attempt to eliminate discrimination in the areas mentioned in the Act.
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether this is the right time to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in response to the motion presented today, since the Government is currently examining this question as part of a full review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Couldn't we wait for the results of this review before determining whether we should add separately any prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Act?
Madam Speaker, the present Government has made a commitment to ensure that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited ground of discrimination in all areas under federal jurisdiction, and it has reiterated its commitment with respect to equality and social justice. The Government firmly believes in the principle of equal opportunity, and it continues to demonstrate that belief. The merit principle continues to govern access to employment in the federal public service. Thus, sexual orientation usually is not a job criterion.
The present Government has recognized that the application of this principle should be expanded and that sexual orientation has no connection with a person's ability to perform his or her duties or to use services or facilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I am sorry but I have to interrupt the Hon. Member. The hour allotted to the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item will be dropped from the Order Paper.
December 1, 1986