1986-05-01

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the following fourteen petitions: 331-249, 331-250, 331-251, 331-253, 331-284, 331-285, 331287, 331-336, 331-357, 331-358, 331-359, 331-385, 331-390 and 331-427.



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with established practice, I wish to deposit with you, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), summaries of the Orders in Council passed from April to December, 1985.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the Committee requests a comprehensive response to this report. Mr. Speaker, the report Alcohol Additives concludes that the use of methanol and ethanol as octane enhancers would be of considerable benefit to Canada.



STRIKING-THIRTY-SECOND AND THIRTY-THIRD REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Mr. Speaker, I am sure you cannot imagine what this petition is about. On behalf of the constituents residing in the federal riding of Westmorland-Kent and Moncton, I am pleased to present this petition to the House of Commons. The petition has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It relates to the current assessment being conducted by Canadian National on the shop capacity in Canada. It points out the concerns which are rampant in the greater Moncton area and urges Members of Parliament to do everything possible to prevent the downgrading of that facility.']
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Thirty-Second and Thirty-Third Reports of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition signed by some citizens from the City of Toronto who are concerned about the administration of Section 251 of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present two petitions signed by several dozen people living in the asbestos mining area. These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, sincerely believe that the efforts being made to upgrade asbestos may prove to have no effect at all, if the Government fails to encourage broader and more intensive use of this natural resource across Canada.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 48 citizens from my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The petitioners state their belief that capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada for first degree murder. They pray and call upon Parliament to vote at the earliest possible date to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder. This petition has been certified in order, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

May 1, 1986
Petitions


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a large number of people who live on the coast of British Columbia. It concerns the Government's decision to decommission lighthouses. They point out in their petition that this will cause serious problems with safety and will diminish the ability for accurate weather reporting and communications in an area where it is dangerous to travel. They pray that the Government will abandon its efforts to decommission those lighthouses and leave the safety system intact on the coast of British Columbia.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 350 young people from Windsor and Winnipeg who continue to express their concern about the cancellation of Katimavik and the general policy of the Government concerning the needs of youth.
[DOT] (UlO)


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to this House a petition signed by citizens of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan within my constituency of The Battlefords- Meadow Lake. The petition details their many difficulties in obtaining access to CBC television service. The petitioners represent the communities of Fond du Lac, Uranium City, Camsell Portage and Stony Rapids. The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to provide assistance for a suitable resolution of the difficulty with CBC programming in the Athabasca region.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you cannot imagine what this petition is about. On behalf of the constituents residing in the federal riding of Westmorland-Kent and Moncton, I am pleased to present this petition to the House of Commons. The petition has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It relates to the current assessment being conducted by Canadian National on the shop capacity in Canada. It points out the concerns which are rampant in the greater Moncton area and urges Members of Parliament to do everything possible to prevent the downgrading of that facility.



UNITED NATIONS FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS CONVENTION ACT


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-107, an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STRIKING


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis, that the Thirty-Third Report of the Striking Committee presented earlier today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 543.


Mr. Henderson: In (a) 1983 (ft) 1984 (c) 1985 how many seasonally employed persons had a net income of over (i) $20,000 (ii) $35,080 (iii) $50,000?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: The Department of National Revenue does not collect the information necessary to determine whether a person is seasonally employed.


May 1, 1986


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a very brief point of order with respect to the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which was tabled yesterday. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of order. It is not a long one. I would just seek some direction from the Chair.
The Committee has asked for a Government response to a recommendation on page 3 of its report pursuant to Standing Order 99(2). We have reviewed the Standing Order and it would be our thinking and feeling that the Committee only has the power to ask for a response to the Committee Report in total. The Government side is actually just seeking direction from the Chair as to whether or not it is in order for a committee to ask for a Government response to a portion of a report rather than the entire report.
Perhaps the Table and yourself can take this under advisement and give us some direction at a later date. It is certainly not an urgent point at this time.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. We are dealing with two distinct legal persons; one is an agent of Parliament, the reference of this Commission, which has been the witness before the commmittee and which has been asked to table reports in writing by September 30; the other is the Government's response to the cut-backs in the Public Service and an update every three months of how we are doing with the cutbacks. Standing Order 99(2) applies to the Government's action, that is, Treasury Board's implementation of the policy of the Government. The other one applies to an agent of Parliament which, through the Secretary of State, answers to us in the House.
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
I would ask Your Honour to possibly see the difference between a report of a committee reporting on an agent of Parliament, that is, the Public Service Commission, and the same report requesting the Government to tell us what is happening on one of its Department's actions in regard to its program of cut-backs in the Public Service. There is a distinction.
I understand the point which is being made. However, I do think the Committee was right in asking the Government for its response as separate from the other request made of the Commission for it to table in writing with the Committee by September 30, if I remember correctly, some of the update on its appointment methods and how it is going to improve the auditing of those appointments. I think there is a request here that is possibly bona fide and in order.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make an unusual request, that an opportunity be given at a later time to make submissions on this point of order, given that it could well have far reaching consequences? It appears to take on some technical questions which really require some research before any intelligent intervention could be made. I would seek from you, Sir, that perhaps no ruling be made at the moment and an opportunity be provided later for an intervention, at least by myself, after I have had an opportunity to review the matter in its entirety.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the comments of my hon. collegue make a good deal of sense. Our point was not as to substance but as to form. Standing Order 99(2) states;
Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
We are simply seeking direction so we know exactly what we are being asked to respond to in the future. As my colleague states, this the first time we have had this particular situation arise and I think we would all like to set a good precedent which could be followed with ease by all Members of the House in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, I will reserve. Perhaps I might ask Hon. Members who would like to make further submissions would Monday be suitable?


Ian Deans: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is Monday at eleven o'clock a good time?


Ian Deans: That would be excellent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am happy to reserve. May I ask those who are going to intervene to consider a matter which the Chair will have to consider, that is, would the effect of what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is saying be that committees would in effect be required to submit reports clause by clause? I would like that point addressed, if that is possible.

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 30, consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 (Mr. Angus, p. 12764).
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were debating motions put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11. These are proposed amendments to Clause 4 of the Canada Shipping Act.
Hon. Members must realize that Clause 4 of the Bill will provide the Government with the authority to recover the cost of providing Coast Guard services. This is certainly a departure from the prior practice. In the past, these services were not charged for. There was no user fee for Coast Guard services. In Clause 4 the Government proposes to impose such charges. Indeed, under the legislation the Minister will have the authority to set the fee, not only for Coast Guard services, but fees for ice-breaking, navigational aids, dredging services, soundings and search and rescue. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what such a move will do to the East Coast, not only to fishermen but to farmers? Can Your Honour imagine what it will do to the economy of the East Coast of Canada? Do Members opposite from Atlantic Canada not realize the drastic affect this measure will have on the livelihoods of their constituents, since all these charges will have to be passed on down the line to the consumer?
We all know the statistics with respect to Atlantic Canada today. There are enough Tory Members sitting in the back benches, silent Tory Members-


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Some of them.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not want to tangle with the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay). He is the middleweight champion of the House of Commons, and I do not want to tangle with him. He has a wicked left hook. He is a tough customer, just ask his riding association president. I don't want to fuss with that guy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) on a point of order.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, certain lapses may be acceptable, but I would suggest that personal remarks concerning an individual are out of order in the House.
Admittedly, Hon. Members do enjoy immunity in the House, but I respectfully submit that ethical standards should prevail.
In my opinion, the comments of my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) were clearly related to the private life of a Member. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would urge him to apologize.


Mr. Tobin:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit to the Speaker that there is no point of order whatsoever. The Hon. Member has referred to none of the rules of the House of Commons. He simply pointed out that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in his usual oratorical flare has indicated some measure of respect for the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is delighted to be called a tough customer, judging by the grin on his face. Can we proceed with the excellent speech of the Hon. Member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I fully appreciate the representations of the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay)-[DOT]

However, the Chair does not believe that there has been a breach of order or unparliamentary language used by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. I would ask the Hon. Member to get to the point of the debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think that I should at least have the right to respond to what was said by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Crosby:: Tell us about your defeat in 1980.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I did not cast any reflection on the Hon. Member. All I did was repeat what was in the press and what is on the public record. I paid him a compliment. I said that he was a tough customer. I said that he was the middleweight champion of the House of Commons.


Maurice Tremblay: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) on a point of order.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise a moment ago when the Liberal Member of the Official Opposition-


An Hon. Member:: The only one in the House.


Maurice Tremblay: Again, indeed. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we heard certain insinuations and innuendos which, to my mind, are a serious breach of ethical conduct in the House.
May 1, 1986

Mr. Speaker, I have to rise because the comments were made voluntarily and, I suggest, maliciously by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who referred to various press reports to attack the private lives of individuals or Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to a minimum of decorum, and it is a shame that I should be forced to rise to denounce these attempts to make people laugh at others.
That being said, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have some order, please? I would ask the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt to please get back to either one of the Motions Nos. 5, 6 or 11, whichever one he chooses to debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would much prefer to hear debate on the amendments; but if the Speaker is going to allow a long speech on a non-point of order which bears no relevance to the Standing Orders of the House then the Speaker should at least rule that it is or is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: None of the three points I have heard thus far fall into the category of a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt on debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would always want to conform with what Your Honour suggests I should do. Just like Tommy Douglas, who was a former featherweight champion when he was in the House, I wish to make sure that I fulfil what Your Honour has requested.
I was saying: Where are the back-bench Conservative Members from Atlantic Canada? Clause 4 will have very drastic effects on fishermen, farmers and consumers in Atlantic Canada. Surely those back-bench Members from Atlantic Canada know that the area suffers from one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. We know that economically the area does not enjoy the same level of activity as does central Canada and some parts of western Canada. I am aggrieved that Conservative back-benchers who talk big when they are in their ridings about how they will fight the Government and how they will be tough on issues are just tabby cats when they come here to the House of Commons. They just sit in their places and say absolutely nothing when measures such as those envisioned in Clause 4 are put on the record.
My colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan has proposed three very reasonable amendments. Recognizing that the Government will use force to push through Clause 4, he says, first, that if the Minister is to be given the authority to implement fees for Coast Guard and all sorts of other services on the East Coast then there ought to be a review process. The
Canada Shipping Act
review process being recommended is that on the written request of 20 Members of Parliament the matter could be referred to the Transport Committee. It seems to me to be important that that kind of safeguard be attached to that clause. In other measures which are before the House, we can have other references on the request of 20 Members. I think it makes eminent sense that we should be able to do that.
In Motion No. 6, the Member has suggested that there be an automatic review of the charges by the Transport Committee every two years. This review would be to look at the economic impact of those charges on the East Coast economy. I would hope that the Government would accept that. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding. Is that a yes or is he just bobbing and weaving?


Mr. Forrestall:: Bobbing and weaving to the tremendous blows.


John R. Rodriguez: I know we are landing them. If I can get a nod-


J. Michael Forrestall: You got a nod.


John R. Rodriguez: We got a nod.
Motion No. 11 suggests that this clause not come into effect before January 1, 1988. We understand that it will come into effect on January 1, 1987. We proposed Motion No. 11 because we think there should be a phasing-in period. People have to get ready for this.


J. Michael Forrestall: We have already provided for that.


John R. Rodriguez: I see another nod. Is that more bobbing and weaving or is the Parliamentary Secretary just punchy? I know we are making some very logical arguments and I see that we are convincing the Parliamentary Secretary. We are getting another nod from him.


J. Michael Forrestall: What you have to do is get your fist off that piece of paper, stop reading and come out swinging.


John R. Rodriguez: Now that we have a nod from the Parliamentary Secretary, that amendment could very well be put into effect.
I would now like to turn to the matter of Government Members who come from Atlantic Canada. It seems to me that when this Bill was being drafted, it must have gone at some point to the Atlantic caucus. It is unfortunate that Government Members from Atlantic Canada did not see fit to indicate their concern about the ill effects of Clause 4 of the Bill.
The Transport Committee held extensive hearings on this particular Bill. Opposition to Clause 4 was overwhelming. The opposition came from labour unions, Inuit groups, grain exporters, farmers, fishermen, pleasure boat operators, vessel

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
owners and shipping companies. For example, the St. Lawrence Shipowners Association objected to cost recovery. Representatives of that association are quoted as saying the following in committee:
-we do not agree that we should give the government a blank cheque, which would allow it to set up a fee system about which we know nothing at the present time.
The Dominion Marine Association said the following:
-this could amount to an additional $1.65 per tonne for every tonne that moved through the Seaway last year. Given the fact that traffic was down 20 per cent from 1984, this cost could have a dramatic impact on future traffic patterns.
The Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board also objected to the clause. That was one of the reasons given for the fall of the Conservative Government in Prince Edward Island. It is Clause 4, this plot by the federal Conservative Government to implement user fees, that will adversely affect Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Angus:: They got the message.


John R. Rodriguez: The message was delivered to them. The Conservatives only got 11 seats in the whole province.
The Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board had this to say about the clause:
All of the moneys expended for upgrading this shipping port (Summerside) over the years will be lost if dredging costs are passed on to the user because there just will not be any shipping.
Finally, the former Minister of Fisheries of the Province of Prince Edward Island, a Tory, said the following:
Fishermen, through the Fisheries Act pay for right of access to the common property resource which they harvest through personal and vessel licence fees. It is my view that it is the responsibility of the licensing authority, namely, the Government of Canada, to provide access to the resources for which fishermen are licensed.
He said that before his defeat and the Conservatives got the message. They were defeated.
I say to Conservative Hon. Members who represent Atlantic Canada that now is the time to repent. Now is the time to do it. If they do not back off on Clause 4, they will all go down the tubes at the next federal election. Let this be a message to them.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to these motions in order to ask for common sense in the deliberation of Bills that are supposed to be in the best interests of all the citizens of Canada, and, in particular, in this case, the citizens who live in the Province of Quebec where the Great St. Lawerence Seaway is found. That Seaway is a very vital link to the lives and the economy of our province. I think it would be irresponsible, to say the least, and even unfair to increase the costs to fishermen in this way.
As we all know, the fishing industry is a depressed industry at this time. Fishermen have asked for a degree of relief. There have been some serious problems in that industry. I would suggest that we are making a very reasonable request. We are asking for a delay. Rather than simply opposing for the sake of
opposing, we are recommending a delay so that we can study from an intelligent perspective the potential negative impact of Clause 4 of Bill C-75.
I think that the Minister would be most disconcerted if we were to allow this Bill to go ahead. I think we are saving him a great deal of heartache. The Minister of Employment and Immigration would have been quite thrilled if we had asked for a delay until the report of the Forget Commission came in. If we had, she would not have found herself so embarrassed today with respect to the reaction to unemployment insurance benefits and severance pay.
In a sense, Clause 4 gives the Minister the authority to charge but does not tell people what they are being charged for. It gives the Minister the authority to determine what he is going to do with the lives of people without letting those people know what he is going to do with their lives. How will that impact on the quality of their lives? I would like to recommend that we take cognizance of the growing discomfort of many groups in society and give heed to what they have to say.
The Government prides itself on having developed a very good rapport with our good neighbour to the South and has been negotiating for an open ear and an open mind. If this is to be the case, I would strongly recommend that the Government listen to our American friends and neighbours and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) take heed of a letter he received on April 14 so that American-Canadian relations may improve all along the way. The Seaway does not belong only to Canada; it is a shared waterway. What we do here has an impact upon the American side of the border.
I should like to refer to a letter signed by a number of American Senators and dated April 14, 1986. It was directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister from the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission. It reads:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The Great Lakes Commission is deeply concerned about proposed Bill C-75, which would authorize the imposition of cost recovery for Canadian Coast Guard services.
The Commission respects Canada's need to raise additional revenues. The Commission also accepts Canada's choice of user fees as one vehicle to accomplish that end. However, the Commission, as the only co-ordinating and advocacy agency established by the States and approved by Congress to provide a collective voice for the eight Great Lakes states on water resource and related issues, would be remiss if it did not express opposition to the current language of Bill C-75.
The Commission has monitored the progress of C-75 in Parliament and participated in regional discussions about potential impacts of the Coast Guard cost recovery provision, Clause 4. Commission testimony was presented to the legislative committee in Ottawa on February 13,1986.
It is too bad it was not listened to. The letter continues:
The Commission emphasized four points believed to be necessary before navigation cost recovery legislation can be successfully implemented:
This is one of the reasons we are asking for the delay. It continues:
May 1, 1986

1.	Federal user fees should be uniform in application from seaport to seaport and from coastal range to coastal range. (Uniformity maintains the current competitive relationship among ports.)
2.	There must be a clear determination of the purposes for which fees are to be collected and the activities to which they are to be applied. (This is critical to the ultimate acceptability of any system adopted.)
If they do not know what it is for, why apply it? The letter continues:
3.	Any fee system, as it may affect the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system, should be co-ordinated with United States' cost recovery programs and should give due consideration to total elimination of existing St. Lawrence Seaway system tolls.
4.	Any user fee proposal should involve thorough public consultations with all user groups which should take place before initial application of fees and before any subsequent changes in levels of fees.
Ambassador Gotlieb's presence at the Commission's semi-annual meeting in Washington, D.C. March 12 was sincerely appreciated. In his remarks about Bill C-75 to the Commission, the Ambassador stated: "There is no doubt that your interests as a vitally affected party will not be ignored in the development of any user fee program.'' These are positive words, but Final language from the legislative committee virtually mandates a segment charge (unequal between ports and port ranges) which could be devastating to Canadian and U.S. Great Lakes maritime and water transport dependent industries, leading to loss of maritime, industrial and agricultural jobs.
The Great Lakes Commission's views with respect to Clause 4 in Bill C-75 are supported by the Great Lakes Congressional delegation and regional maritime interests. A March 25 letter to Transport Minister Mazankowski from several Great Lakes Congressmen and a March 7 letter from Great Lakes Senators to Ambassador Gotlieb are attached for your reference.
The Commission believes that binational co-ordination regarding the future of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence transportation system is imperative now, more than ever before. The Great Lakes Commission along with the Great Lakes Senators and Representatives, is ready and willing to work with Canadian federal, provincial and private sector interests to see that our unique and shared Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River resource is maintained and improved for the benefit of our two countries and the world.
Sincerely,
James Fish Executive Director
In light of the very serious implications of the Bill, in light of the loss of confidence we have already suffered in the St. Lawrence Seaway system as a result of unfortunate damage resulting in diminished traffic, and in light of the changes which are being suggested, I wonder what the Province of Quebec would have to say. As a last measure to plead for the delay we have proposed, I should like to read a letter which was directed to our Washington Ambassador, and I think our word should be honoured. It reads:
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
We wish to thank you for your recent letter concerning legislative action on Clause 4 of Bill C-75 currently pending before the Canadian Parliament. It was reassuring to us to learn that Bill C-75 was before a special legislative committee of Parliament for detailed analysis and that the Minister of Transport would be establishing a committee to consider the views of all affected parties prior to any decision to implement Coast Guard user fees.
The Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission, Mr. James Fish, has informed us of his testimony on this issue before the legislative committee on February 13, 1986. We commend the Canadian Government for sponsoring hearings on this important legislation and view such hearings as a most constructive process. However, we, along with Mr. Fish, remain concerned about
Introduction of Bills
the potential damage to Canadian and U.S. shipping and related activities stemming from imposition of a Coast Guard user fee in addition to the current seaway tolls.
These tolls have already been increased. It continues:
While the United States Government is currently considering user fee legislation for navigation projects, proposed parallel provisions in this legislation would provide for a rebate of or credit toward seaway tolls paid by shippers to the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Such complementary provisions are important in preserving and preferably increasing the use of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway navigation system.
This communication is signed by U.S. Senators Alan J. Dixon; John H. Glenn, Jr.; Carl M. Levin; Rudy Boschwitz; Dan Quayle; William Proxmire; David Durenberger; Richard G. Lugar; Donald W. Riegle, Jr.; Bob Kasten, Jr.; Howard M. Metzenbaum; and Paul Simon. It is crucial that we maintain the confidence and goodwill of these important Senators, respect our word as a government if we are to move into the area of suicidal free trade rather than negotiate for freer trade by sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Bills so that we can take care of a piece of housekeeping at this time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in fact a discussion took place, but I simply want to say that I hope the Minister will attempt to organize his affairs a little better in the future and not impose upon the House in this way all the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Bills?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-108, an Act relating to commercial arbitration.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
May 1, 1986
12822_____________________________________
Canada Shipping Act


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 (Mr. Angus, p.12764).
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment or two to talk about the whole concept of user fees, particularly as they apply to the Coast Guard. I do so with the. benefit of some knowledge of matters such as this. I do a bit of sailing and I have a certain amount of knowledge-I do not pretend to be an expert by any means-of what happens, the way people view the Coast Guard, and the way in which it is used out of necessity by small craft owners.
Let us take a look at the Coast Guard and what it is. Basically it performs two functions. One function is the policing of boundaries, which it does in an exemplary way. The other function is a safety one. It performs a safety function for people who require assistance from time to time when they are on the water. I want to address myself to that aspect for a few moments.
I should like to draw an analogy between persons travelling by automobile down a highway who have problems with their automobiles. They are able to call for the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, or the local constabulary and obtain assistance. There is no charge. The assistance is offered and given; whatever is required to be done is done. That person is able to go on his way and continue to operate as he anticipated he would. The same basic service must be available on the water, and the same principle must prevail. A person, whether or not he can afford to dig into his pocket and pay, must be able to call for and get help from the Coast Guard if that person deems it necessary in the circumstances.
The difficulty in the user fee concept, and this is where we have a problem, is that no one knows at this point whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a user fee for such an event. What you will have happening, I think, having watched boaters for a number of years, is that people will be reluctant to call for the assistance they need when they need it if there is a fee attached to getting that assistance.
Let me give an example. You are in a narrows where the water is a little rough but it is protected reasonably well from wind. You have trouble with the motor of your boat. You can get it going but it won't keep going. At this point what you do is radio ship to shore and seek the assistance of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard comes out and will do one of a
number of things. They will either give you assistance in the form of gasoline if that is your problem, they may arrange to have you towed to a safe harbour or they may arrange to simply watch over you while you do the work to make sure that nothing untoward occurs, either by virtue of you being in a shipping lane and unable to get out of it or perhaps by virtue of the tide itself taking you into danger.
I have seen many boaters who have temporary problems with motors of their boats. I have seen them on many occasions call for assistance, but between the time they make the call and the assistance arrives they are able to correct the problem. They wait to notify the Coast Guard when they arrive, but then the boaters move on under their own power. If the person out on the boat knows there is going to be a charge levied against him for asking for that service, there will be a delay, I predict, in requesting the assistance needed. Boaters will spend more time monkeying around trying to solve the problem before making the call. As a result, rather than a safer system on the water, we will have a less safe system on the water. I suggest that it does not take a genius to see this.
I invite any Member of the House of Commons to spend a few days this coming summer on the St. Lawrence River, which is close by, or even on the Ottawa River, and I don't personally boat there-it doesn't happen on the Ottawa River as it turns out-and see the numbers of times on the St. Lawrence River that the Coast Guard is requested to provide assistance. If people are reluctant to seek that assistance by virtue of the cost attendant upon getting it, potential dangers will result. For the tiny financial benefit to the coffers of the Government of Canada by virtue of the imposition of a user fee in situations such as that, the risks of delays will far outweigh them.
I am pleading, I suppose, for some understanding of human nature. That is all. If your car is coughing and sputtering on the highway, all you need to do is pull over, walk and get assistance. You can if you wish, if you have the means, get assistance from local police forces. On the water, however, it is an entirely different and much more difficult situation. There should be no impediment put in the way of a person on the water being able to call for and get assistance. I suggest small though the user fee may be, it will become an impediment and, therefore, will in itself create a more hazardous situation than previously existed, and I consider that to be folly on the part of Government.
I can well appreciate the Government's concern over finances. I can well understand that the Government wants to find ways to levy the cost out a little more equitably-I am not sure that is the right term in this circumstance-but in this particular instance safety is far more important than the minimal dollar return. Since we are encouraging people to utilize the waters surrounding Canada, and we are encouraging people to vacation and use those facilities in Canada, we should be prepared to provide the necessary policing force required to meet the potential dangers that will exist.
May 1, 1986

I listened yesterday to one of my colleagues who made a point, perhaps a little facetiously but nevertheless a valid one. The imposition of a user fee for Coast Guard use is a little bit like imposing the user fee for calling the police or the fire department. If you stop to think about it, it is ludicrous. It would be outrageous if we were to start now to impose user fees if you happen to need the assistance of the police. What if you made the call and they came, stood at your door and said: "We will give you a hand but there is a user fee". That would be ridiculous. I do not think anyone would contemplate it.
Mir. Rodriguez: What happens if you say you can't afford it?


Ian Deans: As my colleague suggests, if you say you can't afford it, they won't give you help. I do not know whether that would be the case or not, but no one would ever contemplate such a stupid thing, not even Conservatives. Yet that is what is being suggested. We are suggesting that the police on the water can charge you for calling for their assistance while the police on the land in similar circumstances do not, and would never consider it.
I suggest that, if for no other reason than the reason I mentioned, this particular part of this Bill should be withdrawn. We should try to get some sanity into the debate and some understanding of the potential consequences. This is not a big item, this is not an item that requires a great deal of deliberation or something the Government requires to keep the coffers full. This will not make substantial difference to the over-all fiscal or financial affairs of the country, but it will make a difference in my judgment, and my judgment is based on experience of what the likely consequences will be with regard to safety on the waters of Canada that are currently under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. I ask that the Government withdraw this part of the Bill, show some common sense and recognize the potential hazard it is about to create.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-
75.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that although this is a subject that does not directly concern my riding, I have been listening to the debate in the House for some time, and I think a few comments are in order.
Bill C-75 bears the following title: "An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof."
Mr. Speaker, upon reading this Bill, I think we cannot but agree, and support most if not all of the provisions of this legislation. When it is a matter of improving safety and protecting the environment, and when provision is made to update the Canada Shipping Act, and finally, the reference to
Canada Shipping Act
implementing a whole series of international conventions within a reasonable timeframe, I think it stands to reason that we should agree with the objectives and goals and in fact with everything provided under Bill C-75.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is Clause 4, and I think this is the basic and main reason why so many Members have reacted to this Bill. Whether or not we are affected by the consequences or impact of this Bill, I feel that after a careful look at the provisions of Clause 4, we have a duty to rise and protest most emphatically against a provision that I see as an insult to democracy, as a totally undemocratic gesture, as a weapon the Minister wants to keep in reserve in order to have absolute control over this very important sector. I think the amendments could have been approved so that this institution, so that we as Members of Parliament, in our democratic system, would be involved in a review or any future changes concerning the fee schedule.
When I decided to speak on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I tried to get hold of some testimony, some briefs that were presented when the Bill was considered in Committee, and in my humble opinion, the one I have here, that was presented by the Association des operateurs de navires du Saint-Laurent clearly and succinctly identifies the problem and the dramatic and extremely tragic consequences of the provisions of Clause 4. For instance, we can read the following on page 2 of the brief presented by the Association des operateurs de navires du Saint-Laurent on January 29, 1986: We reached the following conclusion. We agree with most of the provisions of this Bill- and that is exactly what my colleagues have been saying in the House-but there is one major objection concerning Clause 4: it should be the subject of legislation after due consultation with the interested parties, not before as is the case now.
Still at the bottom of page 2, they go on to say this: However, we think that Clause 4 should not have been smuggled in with the Bill, and such a radical change in the operations of the Coast Guard should not have been made without first discussing the matter with the interested parties. What stands out most in this exercise is the antidemocratic approach, so these people went to the trouble of raising a series of questions about Clause 4.
Just to show that my remarks are relevant, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to mention some of the questions raised about Clause 4. For example, they ask: Which services will have to be paid for? Will it be navigational aids? Will it be environmental protection, dredging, de-icing, training schools, search and rescue operations, or all such services as a whole? On what criteria will operations be based? Will it be tonnage, the value of the goods, the size of the ship, the number of times a ship crosses imaginary lines in the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, or the Arctic gulf? When he was queried about this, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) said that his department planned to recover 15 per cent of the costs. Does that mean costs across Canada? In other words, will each area have to cover a specified percentage

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
of the expenditures incurred in regionalizing the Canadian Coast Guard?
Mr. Speaker, I could go on like this for a good ten minutes merely listing the issues raised by Clause 4. But in conclusion, I will give you a final instance in which it seems extremely complex and disquieting, even shocking to leave such an important matter to the discretion of the minister, with no way for this House, for us, Members of Parliament, to participate and defend the interests they are representing. The following example is given: Admittedly, a major part of winter expenses of the Canadian Coast Guard on the St. Lawrence River goes to environment protection-opening up the channel for the water to flow faster and without ice jams. Certainly, the movement of large container and other ships also makes a major contribution to de-icing the St. Lawrence River. The daily traffic of large ships contributes to and is in itself a deicing operation. Will they be refunded that part for which they contributed to that vital work, or will the Canadian Coast Guard benefit from the work that is in effect done by the large carriers?
All those questions remain unanswered, Mr. Speaker. All are concerns for those interested in transportation, all are also matters that are very disquieting for fishermen and a large part of our population, for these men and women living in Northern Canada, Northern Quebec, who depend on water transportation for food supplies. Clearly, if the charge is to be increased to the point where it becomes a major component, this will lead to substantial increases in the price of goods that are transported along the Seaway, and accordingly Canadian men and women in those areas will have to pay the greater part of the costs.
Another matter that seems important to me is that in the area of shipping, as in transportation in general, operators usually run on one-, two-, three-, or five-year contracts. Here is the situation. Once a company has obtained a two-, or three-year contract for shipping goods from one point to another, His Highness the minister suddenly decides from high above that he will increase the rates, after consulting a few officials who know nothing about the problem. Have you thought for a minute of the various consequences? In my view, this might very well disrupt an industry which is already very much affected and which does not need such confusion and complexity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit it is really sad that a significant number of good aspects of Bill C-75 are spoiled by such provisions that are both unreasonable and unacceptable as far as elementary democracy is concerned.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively, as I always do, to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He made some good points but he did not carry his analogies far enough. He said that a person involved in an automobile accident might expect the
police to provide certain emergency or safety services without charge. If you were in a car accident, the car was on fire and you were trapped inside, the police might be expected to extinguish the fire and extricate you from the vehicle. They might be expected to provide traffic directions around the scene of the accident. They do all all this at public expense and no expense to the person involved in the accident.
There are certain things that might be undertaken for which you would expect to pay. You would expect to pay, for example, the ambulance charges if you had to go to a hospital. You would not expect the police or some public body to pay for the towing charge of your car to be taken to the garage. You certainly would not expect any repairs on the car to be done at public expense.
We have the same types of concepts involved in what we are debating with respect to Coast Guard services here today. The Government obviously has no intention of levying a charge for those immediate emergency and safety services. What the Government might want to make a charge for is certain commercial types of services rendered by the Coast Guard. This is where the Opposition fails to make that distinction.
Charges for ice-breaking, towing, sounding, in many cases make eminent good sense. I have had occasion in the past to contract with a navigation company to go into areas that were not sounded. They have to sound the channel and they make an extra charge for that. The vessels have to slow down to get into that area and they have to take soundings as they go along. It makes sense that they should charge extra for that service. It would not make sense for me to be able to call up the Coast Guard and say, "Go and sound that channel", and the public is going to pay for it, as it is a commercial undertaking on my part. I am the one that is going to benefit from the shipping that takes place and nobody else. It would make eminent sense in that circumstance if the Coast Guard were to provide that service that I should have to pay for it.
The same can be said for certain ice-breaking services. If you accidently get stuck in an ice-pack, you want to be able to call the Coast Guard to come to break the ice and get you out of there. That is an emergency type of undertaking. If you know that you want to ship out a cargo of goods, or get some merchandise out of a location that is ice-bound and you know of this in advance you can either contract with a privately-owned ice-breaker to go in and escort your cargo-carrying vessel, or maybe you can get the Coast Guard to do it. If the Coast Guard does it, why should it be done at public expense? Of course it should not. It should be paid for by the person who reaps the commercial advantage. That is all that has been said in the provisions that have been presented here by the Government. In circumstances like that where it is a commercial-type service that has been rendered by the Coast Guard then there ought to be a schedule of fees. It ought not to be done at the expense of the taxpayer. The person who receives
May 1, 1986

the commercial advantages ought to pay a user fee for that service.
All the arguments that have been presented today by the Opposition when speaking of commercial-type services does not make sense. I will certainly vote against the proposed amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member to amend Clause 4 of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the people in Ottawa-Vanier might wonder what argument their Member of Parliament can make about this Bill and why he is interested in this matter.


Iain Francis Angus: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Just on a point of order, I wonder if the Hon. Member would give permission for my colleague to speak. He has another function he must attend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on the same point of order.


Mr. Baker:: A Liberal spoke and then a Conservative spoke and I thought it would have gone back to the NDP.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate is correct. It was my mistake. I should have recognized the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I did not, I recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is up to the Member for Ottawa-Vanier now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In a spirit of co-operation with my friend from Winnipeg North, and also recognizing that you will reserve my position to debate later, I will give the Hon. Member from Winnipeg North the floor.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I listened with consternation and amazement to the comments by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). If there are any area, because of their geographic position and isolation, which get hit in the worst possible way by this concept of user-pay, they are those isolated areas like the Northwest Territories. Whether you look at transportation or anything else, the costs to the people who live there are much higher than everybody else. They would have to pay for the things that they get, which is what user-pay principle means I cannot understand how a Member who represents an area like that could take the very narrow,
Canada Shipping Act
"business is the only thing that counts", attitude he took. He seems to be living in an era of 50 years ago. If we applied the user-pay principle to the person who got sick and had to see a doctor, or a person who had to go to hospital, or a person who had to depend on his own ability to provide for a pension after she or he retires, those people would be in a terrible situation.
I want to say a few words about this Bill and the concept of user-pay for transportation and shipping in the St. Lawrence Seaway. I want to put on the record that the opposition to that principle is not just opposition by our political Party. Let me put on the record the views expressed by the Minister of Highways and Transportation for the Province of Saskatchewan. I am sure the Hon. Member from Western Arctic knows that they have a Conservative Government. He said the following:
Any increase in costs to users of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system will result in producers looking for transport services which are cheaper. As a result, some traffic may be diverted to the U.S. transportation system causing loss of Canadian jobs.
I have recently written to the Hon. Don Mazankowski-and advised him that the imposition of charges to defray the costs of the Coast Guard are ill advised-
We have the Western Regional Advisory Council, Alberta Economic Development, another Conservative province. They say the following:
The introduction of any regulation which will create an additional cost to the port and port users must not militate against the use of Canadian ports. We are most concerned that Clause 4 of the act which deals with cost recovery will impact negatively on Canada's international competitive position, by forcing business away.
Let me quote from the Minister of Highways and Transportation of my own province, who says the following:
If this clause in the Bill is allowed to remain, it will lead to efforts towards full cost recovery which is beyond the limited financial capabilities of grain producers and other shippers and consumers.
The continued pursuit of the "user pay" philosophy without regard for the ability of shippers and consumers to pay will inevitably cripple the flow of the nation's commerce.
The National Farmers' Union said:
In its preoccupation to trim the federal deficit, the Government is in effect telling farmers through this bill that the national interest can best be served by still further increasing farm costs at a time when farmers are in very serious financial straits.
We regard the St. Lawrence Seaway as a national asset that should be maintained in the national interest. It does not make good economic sense to raise rates in the face of declining demand.
There is no question an additional charge in any way placed on transportation at this time will in fact mean disaster to more producers. It will mean producers going broke.
I represent an urban constituency which has a very small number of farmers. However, I do represent many railway workers. There have been major lay-offs at CPR and CNR, the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s. The prime reason for these lay-offs is that the shipment of grain has decreased dramatically.
Canadian wheat producers are facing very unfair competition from the United States and the European community,

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
both of which are subsidizing their grain farmers to a tremendous extent. These factors make it more difficult for farmers to sell their grain, which means that less grain will be shipped. As a result, the railway workers in my constituency will have a more difficult time holding their jobs with CNR and CPR, where there have already been too many lay-offs.
The policies of the Government as outlined in this Bill will inevitably lead to more lay-offs and that is why I oppose it and support the amendment.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who consented to my intervention at this time. He recognizes that while this matter is of great importance to him, as a Member from Atlantic Canada it is indeed of greater importance to me.
That is why I am rather amazed that Members opposite, particularly Members from Atlantic Canada such as the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), support the thrust of this legislation which will cause additional costs. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) supports the Government in its attempt to add additional costs to fishermen for navigational aids, sounding, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking services and marine aid. I am very appalled that those Members would want to promote user fees for those types of services used by our primary producers.
It is likely that this legislation will be proclaimed by the Government of Canada and become the law with which people in my Province of Nova Scotia and other provinces will have to comply. It will be a great impediment to those who seek to make their living from the sea and by other means. For instance, this legislation will have a traumatic effect on the Prince Edward Island potato industry. That industry submitted a brief to the legislative committee that was studying Bill C-75 and the various amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Given the recent events in Prince Edward Island, I would have thought that Members opposite who have a short time left to represent that province in the Parliament of Canada, would take heed of the message given by the people of Prince Edward Island to the provincial Conservative Party that they do not like this sort of action by the Government of Canada. User fees for these very important services will affect them in a very dramatic way.
The Prince Edward Island potato industry states in their brief that they are vigorously opposed to the introduction of charges relating to navigational services until an impact study on the potato industry's export business has been conducted. That industry knows that these user fees will have an extremely negative impact on their industry. Has the Government or have the Conservative Members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island provided that impact study? Have they provided the information that would address that issue? No. They support the Bill as it stands. One could conclude as a result of their lack of action and concern on behalf of the people whom they represent that they want to see that
particular industry decline even further than it has. I would hope that the message given to former Premier Lee of Prince Edward Island would be sufficient to make Members opposite cognizant that this legislation is discriminatory and unfair to the primary producers in Canada so much so that they would stand in their places and reject this legislation.
Not only do potato farmers find this legislation destructive to their industry, that sentiment is shared by the primary producers in the fishing industry. I am talking about those individuals who must rise early in the morning, set out to catch the fish and return to have their catch processed. There seems to be a myth that these primary producers are making large sums of money. However, we are not talking about National Sea, we are referring to that small independent fisherman who must go out on his boat on a daily basis to try to make sufficient money to earn a livelihood for his family. The Government is telling those fishermen that they may continue to do that, but they will not only pay personal income taxes, there will now be a charge for dredging services and navigational services. If that is not enough, the Government will charge for ice-breaking services and any marine aid that may be necessary.
The Government has singled out those small individual primary producers in our country and introduced discriminatory legislation that will affect them in a very negative way. That is very unlike what the Government has done for other sectors of the economy. I suggest that Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada visit the wharfs and bays of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to explain to the people there how the Government can provide $500,000 in capital gains tax provisions, provide millions of dollars in bail-outs to banks in western Canada, or provide special unrestricted income to the oil and gas industry in this country, yet the small independent primary producers in this country must pay more. Where is the fairness? Where is the equality of opportunity?
Unfortunately, the Prince Edward Island election has not come home true to the Cabinet or Members opposite. However, it will come true in the succeeding elections, both provincially and federally. The Conservative Party will be thrown out of the Province of New Brunswick and the Government will learn directly what these measures mean to the people of Atlantic Canada. I cannot believe that Members of Parliament with fishing ports and villages in their constituencies in Atlantic Canada could support such regressive measures. Of course, Hon. Members opposite will say: "We have to have user fees". That is like saying that if one drives on the highway one ought to be paying for the snowplough-


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


David Charles Dingwall: -and there should be a toll gate. Hon. Members from Ontario would agree with that one. But our Party does not agree with charging fishermen additional expense because what they are paying now is too much.
May 1, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: What did you do when you were in power? You socked it to them.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister of Justice is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to support for the inshore fishermen. That has been demonstrated time and time again in his support for the factory freezer trawlers. It has been demonstrated here with his support for Bill C-75 which includes discriminatory charges against the inshore fishermen. The paragon of the little guy, the Minister of Justice, has walked away from them all. He does not want anything to do with them because his career, which was in blossom years ago, is now starting to wind down. It is fading before our eyes.


John Carnell Crosbie: No judicial appointment for you.


David Charles Dingwall: As reported in Atlantic Insight, his credibility and importance in the Mulroney Government and Cabinet have never been lower.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is melting like the snow in spring.


David Charles Dingwall: Shame on the Minister of Justice to suggest for one moment that we on this side are against the inshore fishermen. We stand solidly behind them. We appeal to the fairness and goodness of all Hon. Members to stand in their place and reject these user fees which affect the small primary producers in Atlantic Canada.
Let me say in conclusion that I challenge the Minister of Justice to go into the ports of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and say to the fishermen: "You have to pay for navigational aids and dredging but at the same time we're going to give a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption to the rich people". He should try to explain that one. Perhaps he can in his own constituency at the Board of Trade, but he will never be able to do it at the ports in Atlantic Canada where the fishermen earn their living.


Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and participate in this debate today. I believe this Bill is an important Bill which certainly affects producers in Atlantic Canada. Many of the points raised by Hon. Members of the Opposition might leave the wrong impression with a lot of people, particularly with inshore fishermen and potato producers, the people who depend on Atlantic waters to export their products.
I would like to point out that this Bill affects Canada shipping and services provided by the Coast Guard. That is important because many of the services provided in Atlantic Canada to fishermen are not provided by the Coast Guard. In fact, if one looks at the dredging services in our small craft harbours, one will find that those dredging services are provided by the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in fact contracts with the Department of Public Works to have dredging carried out. So the dredging services provided in most ports in Atlantic Canada have no involvement with the Coast Guard. I think it is unfortunate that Hon.
Canada Shipping Act
Members opposite have left the House with the impression that dredging services are going to be charged to the fishermen through the Coast Guard. In fact, that cannot happen because the Coast Guard does not provide that service to inshore fishermen in 99 per cent of harbours in Atlantic Canada. That is an important fact and I am concerned that the wrong impression might be left.
The suggestion has been made that if an inshore fisherman is out at sea and his boat breaks down, or perhaps he encounters heavy seas, his boat is swamped and he has to call for Coast Guard services for rescue of himself and perhaps his crew members, he will be hit with a major bill from the Coast Guard. We can assure this House that such would not be the case. I know this matter was discussed extensively in committee and assurances have been given that where safety of life and so on is involved, there would not be a charge back to the fisherman. I think I can stand here and assure fishermen in Atlantic Canada that if they are faced with an emergency, with a potential situation which involves lives, they will not be charged back for that service.
Certainly Hon. Members on this side of the House would not tolerate such a thing happening because safety of life is something about which we are all concerned. We would not let the Governor in Council, or whoever it may be, charge for that kind of thing, but the impression has been left that there would be a charge in that circumstance.
The Bill states that certain services "may" be charged for. Of course, there is a big difference between "may" and "will". They are two different words. This matter has been raised not only in the House of Commons committee but, as I understand it, in the Senate committee as well. Assurances have been given that no fishermen should hesitate to call for service. He is not going to be charged for that service which would be provided by the Coast Guard.
It has been suggested that we would be prepared to let our potato industry die because of services provided by the Coast Guard and so on. Again, I think it is absolutely incredible after the measures the Government has taken, even in recent months, that Opposition Members could suggest that we would let the kinds of fees be applied against the potato industry which would jeopardize that industry. In fact, just in the last few weeks potato producers in Prince Edward Island were assisted to the tune of $6 million from the federal Treasury to help them in a difficult period when potato prices were depressed. The Government had to come to the rescue in order to restore some market confidence. It had to take the potatoes out of the market so that market forces would prevail, supply and demand would raise prices, and that is exactly what has happened. Not only was help given in Prince Edward Island but I believe there has been $3 million worth of assistance given to the potato industry in New Brunswick. Therefore, the initiatives which have been taken and which are being taken daily suggests this Government's commitment to the primary producer, to the potato grower, to the fisherman and so on.

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
I could go on at length. It was only yesterday that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made major announcements in regard to the agricultural industry. It was announced that effective May 1, fuel and excise taxes on farm equipment would be removed. That is a substantial contribution to the agricultural economy, to the potato industry and to our agricultural producers in Atlantic Canada.
The suggestion that we would use the word "may" in the provisions under the Coast Guard to bring in new fees for service which would jeopardize these very important industries just does not add up in the context of what the Government has been doing over the last number of months.
The Minister has already indicated in relation to these provisions, where cost recovery might be considered a consultation processs will be engaged in. It has already been engaged in through the Committee on Transport which travelled extensively to receive input. The Minister is allowing up to two years. That will give the user groups of the services the opportunity to sit down with Government and discuss these services and what kinds of things should apply to those user groups in order to ensure that the services are adequate and available and that there is no cost applied to those services which would jeopardize the primary industries. I think such a consultation process was probably unheard of under the former Government. I am not aware of that Government ever taking the initiative to go out and talk to producers about guaranteeing services to ensure that they are effective for our primary producers. We are a long way from making the final decisions. We will have two years, just in terms of consultation, before that occurs.
There is really not a great deal more I would like to say except that I do not want the primary producers in Atlantic Canada, or anywhere else in the country, to believe the kinds of things that members of the Opposition are saying will happen. They just will not happen. Members on this side of the House would not allow such things to happen. It is certainly not the intent of the Government to allow such things to happen.
With those words I am stating that, as far as I am concerned as a Member from Atlantic Canada, I can pretty well guarantee that my colleagues in the Government would not take such backward steps so as to jepoardize the primary industries. That is why we have engaged in the consultation process. One cannot blame the Coast Guard for all of the things Hon. Members opposite are suggesting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my comments by reminding the House that I am dealing with the amendment proposed to Clause 4. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we of the Liberal Party would have preferred Clause 4 to be eliminated completely from this Bill and the Government to listen to reason as concerns this issue of user fees.

I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) that I am informed that his speech is the same one he made during the election campaign to the P.E.I. potato farmers. I do not think it went over very well at that time. As a matter of fact, with respect to the speech he just made, I am informed by my friends that the Premier of the Province lost his seat on the same buddy-buddy line: "I'll get to the Ottawa guys because I'm one of them". That did not carry very much weight in the minds of the P.E.I. electorate. The Hon. Member should revise his lines and try to come to grips with the issues and, indeed, the impact which Bill C-75 will have on potato farmers in P.E.I. After all, they do use boats and they do need assistance in terms of navigational aids, dredging and other such matters. If the Hon. Member has information which we do not have and knowledge as to why, how and when these user fees will be imposed, which is not set out in the Bill, then perhaps he should get up and share that information with us soon.


Howard Edward Crosby: If you do not know the difference between the Atlantic Ocean and the Rideau Canal then we can't help you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Hon. Member who just spoke wants to get up and make a speech on the Rideau Canal, I suppose he would be more than welcome to do so. He can enter into debate after I have finished my remarks.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been invited by my colleague opposite to speak to this matter. I will gladly accept his invitation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He has already yielded the floor once this morning. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member will have a chance before one o'clock to make a speech on this clause. We will be listening to the Hon. Member attentively, in due course.
I wish again to ask Members of the House to consider how unfair and unjust-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Brutal and callous.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: My colleague says that it is brutal and callous. I have not used those words yet, because I have not gotten to the substance of the clause. However, when I am finished it will probably be my judgment also that it is brutal and callous to infringe upon people's revenues and incomes. It is unfair to add to the financial obligations of fishermen by taxing them. They are already broke. God knows, we have been told that enough times in this House. To impose another fee on them for ice-breaking, for example, or for other services which should be rendered by the community, gives me some fear that, indeed, the Government is unresponsive and is lacking in its entire comprehension of the problem.
I wish to remind Members of the House that we compiled a list of Tory promises made during the last election campaign. I
May 1, 1986

wish to read one in particular because it impacts on the debate today. It states that the Tory Government was to:
Recognize and respond to the special needs of the Atlantic region for better transportation facilities to strengthen the economic base of the entire area and provide jobs both with the transportation sector and in those other sectors which rely on an efficient transportation system to make their products competitive.
How does one square user fees for fishermen and for transporters when the cost of such a fee will be passed on to consumers and render the fishermen and transporters less competitive than they already are? God knows that we have to encourage competitiveness, but we must also be very sensitive to the market at hand and to the difficulties our farmers are experiencing.
I wish to read another promise made by the Tories during the last election campaign. It will be the last one I read because there are some 338 of them and they have not kept a damn one of them. It states:
Upgrade navigational aids and systems to ensure increased marine safety.
There has been no upgrading, at least none of which I am aware. There has been absolutely nothing done to improve navigational aids. Yet the Government wants to charge more for the use of these services. I do not understand the logic of a Government which does not do anything to improve the situation but wants to charge to recover costs on services upon which it has not improved.

Mr. Speaker, we would have liked to eliminate Clause 4. This is what we suggested in committee. Of course, because of its substantial majority, the Government was able to retain Clause 4 at the committee stage. We would have liked to propose the same amendment in the House at the report stage, but, unfortunately for us, the Chair ruled our amendment out of order.
Since we cannot go all the way, we shall therefore support this motion whose effect would be to restrict and reduce the powers of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and ministerial discretion, because we have to remember that the additional charges will not in fact be imposed by the Minister of Transport, but will be set by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). As everyone knows, the Minister of Finance is looking for money. He is the one who taxes Canadians. He is the one who gets the funds, and if there is one way for him to get them, it is probably by charging for the services provided in the seaway and the ports and by the Coast Guard.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the other Members, I would like to read the comments of some people who really know what they are talking about. I am thinking especially about the letters sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

This is a letter sent by the Great Lakes Commission, which is a joint commission. The commission is formed of people who look after the Great Lakes transportation problems. It is a letter dated April 14, 1986, signed by James Fish. The letter states in part:
Canada Shipping Act
The Great Lakes Commission is deeply concerned about proposed Bill C-75, which would authorize the imposition of cost recovery for Canadian Coast Guard services.
It is interesting to note that the interested parties are concerned and, indeed, worried. In a paragraph on page 2 it states:
The Great Lakes Commission's views with respect to Clause 4 in Bill C-75 are supported by the Great Lakes Congressional delegation and regional maritime interests. A March 25 letter to Transport Minister Mazankowski from several Great Lakes Congressmen and a March 7 letter from Great Lakes Senators to Ambassador Gotlieb are attached for your reference.
This letter sent by Congressmen of the United States and dated March 7, 1986, states in part:
However, we, along with Mr. Fish, remain concerned about the potential damage to Canadian and U.S. shipping and related activities stemming from imposition of a Coast Guard user fee in addition to the current seaway tolls.
We all know that the current Seaway tolls are discouraging traffic on the Seaway. We all know that we have difficulty keeping the traffic on the Seaway up to par. We all know the economic difficulties that are being faced, yet the Government is going to impose user fees on those users making it more difficult and costly for them to operate.
ULS International Inc. sent a letter to the Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It is addressed to "Dear Brian" so I suppose they know him. It reads as follows:
I would like to draw your attention to our concern over Clause 4 of Bill C-75. In its present form the authority it provides this and future governments to charge for Coast Guard services is virtually unconstrained. As a result, the potential for economic dislocation, to the detriment of Lakes-St. Lawrence trafffic, is open-ended.
The letter goes on to say:
Clause 4 requires a great deal of revision before it is ready to be passed into legislation-In the meantime, Clause 4 should be removed from Bill C-75.
We tried that. It did not work. Now there is an amendment before us. Now that we have Government Members interested, I take it that they will participate in the debate on this amendment and indeed support such an amendment.
The amendment provides for any regulation under subsection (1) to be referred to a committee of the House for review. We are working in the spirit of reform so we should agree that review is appropriate. It also provides that the clause not come into effect until January 1, 1988. I take it that most Hon. Members, being in favour of review, would support this amendment. We also want to see a House of Commons committee appraise the results and effects of Clause 4 on the users.
I would like to make several other comments. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my time is almost up. I would like to talk about the charges for icebreaking that will possibly be imposed on users. A lot of icebreaking is done for flood control.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Much of the icebreaking on the St. Lawrence is done for flood control. The Hon. Member opposite laughs.


Howard Edward Crosby: Do you believe that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the truth of the matter and it is a fact of life. Icebreaking on the St. Lawrence is done many times to prevent flooding along the St. Lawrence. That cost will, from now on, possibly be passed on to the users. We do not know that because the Government did not tell us how it is going to make that program operate. It did not tell us what the fees are going to be and it did not tell us why we should be paying these fees. Until it has answered the how, the why and the what of Clause 4, we will vote against it.


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member during his remarks because he was having some difficulty keeping his train of thought as it was. However, my point is that I did not in fact make a speech to the PEI potato producers on Bill C-75 during the election campaign, but I think I will in the near future in order to straighten out the many false suggestions that are being made by opposition Members.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It just occurred to me that the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) certainly would not have dared to bring up Bill C-75 in Prince Edward Island during the election campaign. The election was already lost very seriously by all, including the Premier. If the Hon. Member had raised this matter it is probable that they would not have gotten any seats. I think the Hon. Member should keep that in mind.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I am not simply rising at the invitation of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to speak on Bill C-75.1 think other of his colleagues and his friends in the New Democratic Party provoked me sufficiently, through their presentations to the House of Commons, to cause me to speak.
I should begin with this statement. I sympathize greatly with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), whose involvement in marine transportation goes back for at least the 30 years I have been associated with him, and he is intimately knowledgeable in this area. To see a Bill containing amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which relate to marine transportation in Canada and internationally, a Bill designed to protect seamen on the oceans governed by Canada, a Bill designed to protect the marine transportation industry being confused by Members of the Opposition with one item, cost recovery in relation to certain services, is a shame.
Rather than address the House of Commons I would prefer to vote on this Bill and see it go forward so that the seamen of the world may benefit from these provisions. I hope the Hon. Members who speak of elections and of the results that flow to Members who obstruct progress in the House of Commons and elsewhere are warned to be aware of those people outside this
Chamber who seek the enactment of this Bill. There are those who wish it to go forward for the good it contains. Obstructionism produces dire results but it also presents misrepresentations with which we must deal.
I have indicated very clearly that this is a Bill dealing with marine transportation, the Canada Shipping Act. It has very little to do with the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada, although it might, in some obtuse way, affect a fisherman or a fishing vessel from time to time. That is the price to be paid for travelling on the seaways and I think every fisherman in Atlantic Canada knows and respects that fact.
I want to point out to Hon. Members who may not be aware of it that in Atlantic Canada, and particularly in the Port of Halifax, contrary to the statements made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), there is great support for this Clause 4 that has caused so much concern to Hon. Members opposite. The Halifax-Darmouth Port Commission came before the legislative committee to say: "Please enact Clause 4. We are sick of being discriminated against in the marine transportation field".
I can understand the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) rising to say that we should do away with Clause 4 which amends Section 3 of the Canada Shipping Act because it might have an adverse effect on shipments through the Port of Montreal. I can understand her position and I appreciate that she is right to represent her constituents. However, when Hon. Members from Atlantic Canada rise and tell us not to enact the changes to Section 3 of the Canada Shipping Act, then I know they do not know from whence they come or of what they speak.
I can, however, forgive the intervention made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt who, from that perspective, purports to know what is happening or what ought to happen in Atlantic Canada, and particularly in the Port of Halifax. However, that may well account for the reason there are no members of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons from Atlantic Canada. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be any in the many, many years to come for those kinds of reasons.
Can I forgive the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who looks at the Port of Halifax from the perspective of the Rideau Canal? He wants to say that in Halifax one can simply put a dock 100 feet out into the harbour and accommodate, just through that method, the largest ocean liner floating on the seas of the world; that the largest third-generation container ship can come into the Port of Halifax and tie up to a dock that is simply made of rocks and mortar. He compares that to the Rideau Canal. He thinks ships should not be charged any more to come into the Port of Halifax than to go through the Rideau Canal. If we have to build walkways and laneways and pick out the ice with an ice-pick, that does not matter, do not charge for any of that. Let those people in the Port of Halifax pay for all the costs.
May 1, 1986
The people from the Port of Halifax, and I am sure the people from the Port of Saint John, are saying it is time to take a realistic view of the matter of how to charge back to the users the costs of providing services. The idiocy of the remarks made by Members opposite is to pretend to the people of Canada that they are not being charged for these services, that they are coming from some kind of mysterious money-tree. If we do not charge fees for services they are paid for in some other way.
I am going to continue my remarks after lunch when I will have another chance to talk about the Port of Halifax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock today.
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, on this May 1 let us recall that the struggle for workers' rights in Canada is not over.
Last August the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council made a report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) entitled "Older Workers-An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market". The report pointed out that more than 300,000 workers between the ages of 45 and 64 were unemployed in Canada and that the trend was getting worse. The report also pointed out that older workers remain unemployed longer than the average for all workers.
In order to assist the federal Government in addressing these problems, the advisory council made several recommendations regarding unemployment insurance, pension reform, training, hiring incentives, job creation, and job counselling. Nothing has been done to implement these recommendations.
On this May 1, I urge the Government to get on with the job.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on this May 1, the men and women of the John Inglis washing-machine plant in Toronto have been forced to strike for several weeks. Their owner, the Whirlpool Corporation in the United States, demands real wage cuts and a three-year wage freeze, although United States wages are $2 per hour higher than Canadian wages in that plant, considering the exchange rate. United States labour cost is higher, but Whirlpool has put in $165 million to modernize U.S. plant equipment, and zero into the aged Canadian plant.
Free trade will not help but in fact will hasten shut-down and the unemployment of these workers. The question is: what will the Government do to defend the jobs of Canadians at John Inglis against an American multinational?
[DOT] * *



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the situation of the elderly in Canada. In my riding there are dozens of people who come and complain that cuts have been made in their pensions, the pensions for the elderly. I want to draw the attention of all Members to this incredible state of affairs. I don't know where the problem lies. Perhaps it is the bureaucracy or maybe it is being done on purpose, but there is something wrong somewhere. I hope that our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) will do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, it is a major problem in my riding and in many other ridings in Canada and I urge all Members of this House to make representations as soon as possible.



TOURISM


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a great summer for tourism in Canada. Visitors to our country have already increased by nearly 20 per cent, and Expo has not even begun.
Tourism is a multibillion dollar industry which involves each and every Canadian. We can easily attract visitors with our

12832

May 1, 1986
cities, sites, and scenery. However, it is our warmth and hospitality which will make their stay truly memorable.
Economists cannot put a price on a friendly smile or a happy hello, but the value is enormous. We cannot buy the kind of advertising which a simple good word from a visitor on returning home offers.
Let us make this the best summer ever for our visitors, from the moment they arrive until the second they leave. If we do, we will be benefiting both them and ourselves.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Leu Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, at Pickering, Ontario, there are eight CANDU reactors. In addition to the very extensive safety features which have been built into them, there is a containment building made of concrete which would capture any radiation that might escape from a reactor. The Canadian CANDU reactor has proven to be the safest reactor in the world.
In 1985, 42 per cent of all electricity produced by Ontario Hydro was generated by CANDU reactors. It is safe to say that over a third of the industry located in the Province of Ontario is powered by electricity which is generated by CANDU reactors.
Let us compare hydro rates. In Ontario, where we rely heavily upon cheap nuclear generated energy, in January, 1986, hydro rates stood at 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour. However, in New York State the rate was 20 cents per kilowatt hour because it is using outdated equipment. We not only have the cheapest hydro rate with our CANDU reactors, Mr. Speaker, but we have the safest nuclear reactor in the world, CANDU.



TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL-IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, although National Organ Donor Awareness Week has ended, the spirit lives on. Dow Chemical Canada Incorporated, the head office of which is located in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, has committed a quarter of a million dollars over a three year period to Transplant International.
This money is to be used for public education aimed at increasing the awareness of the country of the need and importance of organ donations. Dow has produced a video
show which has gone across Canada to be shown to all of the company's Canadian employees, and is available on loan to other organizations from Dow. The video encourages citizens to discuss organ donation with their families, as well as reminding them to sign the consent form.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this program launched by Dow will further encourage employees to go out into their communities and spread the word that organ donations are desperately needed. It is hoped that the word will spread and that more people will consider the gift of life they give by donating their organs.
In addition to the generous financial contribution made by Dow Chemical, I would also like to inform Members of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.



EXPO 86 AN INVITATION TO VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in its April addition Air Canada's in-flight magazine, En Route, has an Expo 86 update which tells some of the exciting things to do and see in Vancouver this summer when it hosts the world fair.
Unfortunately, Air Canada's magazine refers to Vancouver as the capital of British Columbia. Vancouver, one of the great cities of the world, has never been the capital of British Columbia. I join with other British Columbians in inviting people from all over Canada and the world to visit Expo 86 in Vancouver this summer. I also invite them to visit our capital city which is called Victoria.
Victoria is located on beautiful Vancouver Island, a 20 minute flight from Vancouver, or a wonderful one and one-half hour scenic cruise through the Gulf Islands.
Come to Expo 86 at Vancouver this summer. Stay a while and enjoy the rest of British Columbia. Welcome world.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) announcement of the new western initiative is yet another signal that western Canada is important to the Government. It recognizes and provides measures to assist in meeting the severe problems facing western farmers and the energy sector.
May 1, 1986

Last year our Government provided $160 million in drought assistance. Already this year we have made a record interim grain stabilization payment. The new western initiatives for farmers provide a further fuel tax rebate and a higher domestic wheat price. Farmers are not the only beneficiaries of the western initiative. Small and medium oil and gas producers will benefit from reductions in the PGRT, and 45 of the hardest hit small companies will be relieved entirely from paying this tax. The tax relief for synthetic producers is another important measure to protect jobs and the economy in western Canada.
The biggest advantage of the western initiative is that it will stimulate the economy of western Canada, and that is good for business and for all of us. My congratulations to the Prime Minister for once again demonstrating strong leadership and concern for western Canada, which he pledged to deliver.


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




Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, only a few minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced a further one third of one per cent drop in the bank rate.
Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will recall, when the Liberals left us with their runaway Budget deficit and a national debt of $200 billion, the central bank rate was 12.38 per cent.
Today's bank rate of 8.97 per cent is very encouraging, both to consumers and producers. A drop of nearly 4 per cent in the bank rate can, in some cases, bring about an even more significant reduction by our financial institutions. A 4 per cent drop, Mr. Speaker, means $2,000 per year less in interest on a family mortgage of $50,000.
Canadian consumers benefit from this situation, while the business sector has started to expand, to take advantage of the lower interest rates made possible by the Conservative Government.



HUMAN RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN BY INSTITUT CANADIEN-FRAN£AIS D'OTTAWA
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to draw the attention of the House to the discrimination against women as practiced by Ottawa's Institut canadien-frangais.
Established in 1852 as a cultural club for Ottawa Francophones, the Institut requests applicants to speak fluent French, be Catholics, have a good reputation, and be male.
When asked why women are not accepted as members, the president told us he had never thought about it and that, besides, there are very few female applicants.
The way women are welcome, I can easily understand why they are not queuing up at the door.
Mr. Speaker, the Institut canadien-franfais should behave in accordance with standards of the eighties. Discrimination based on sex is illegal, and so is dicrimination based on religious beliefs.
So the Institut is guilty on two counts. I hope this free publicity will prompt it to operate in keeping with the reality.
[DOT] * [DOT]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has always stood by the Canadian farmer. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a series of initiatives which will provide immediate relief for hard-pressed Canadian food producers. The maximum allowable domestic price level of wheat has been raised to $11 per bushel. Effective today all federal taxes will be effectively eliminated on off-highway use of farm fuels. Farm debt review panel legislation will be dealt with on a priority basis.
These measures are very welcome news to western Canadian farmers and provide much needed assistance as they prepare for spring seeding. However, the long-term solutions for the farm economy lie in improved international trade. To that end the Prime Minister is meeting today with farm leaders in Vancouver to seek their advice and support before he leaves for the Tokyo Economic Summit. In Tokyo he will aggressively pursue the interests of Canadian farmers. The farmers of western Canada are getting the assistance they so urgently need, and the Government will continue to act on their behalf.




Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to apologize for having inadvertently misled the House yesterday when I congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for having removed the sales and excise taxes

May 1, 1986
on farm fuels, and for his decision to allow domestic wheat prices to rise to $11 per bushel. Upon checking with officials, I have discovered that the Government is not removing sales and excise taxes, but is simply providing rebates to farmers of most, but not all, of those taxes. Neither are we getting $11 per bushel for domestic wheat. The price remains at about $7 and will only move up within the announced range of $6 to $ 11 after some future announcement.
I was not alone in making this error. Many others, including the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig), and the Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) also assumed that the Prime Minister's words would fit the forthcoming action. I regret that Prime Ministerial statements are not more specific and direct, and that I have contributed to the spreading of information which was not as factual as it first appeared.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the current situation facing the Canadian wine industry. The industry is suffering and jobs are being lost for a number of reasons, primarily, however, as a result of the flood of subsidized European imports. This is unfortunate because the industry now produces an outstanding product.
Members of Parliament and members of the Public Service can help. The people of Canada now pay tens of millions of dollars to transport MPs and members of the Public Service across the country. When flying at public expense it would be very helpful if, when ordering wine, we insisted that it be Canadian. This would be a tremendous boost to the industry, both financially and psychologically.
I think it is only reasonable and fair to assume that, if the people of Canada are paying for our flights, we should be ordering products made by the people of Canada.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, Jews the world over have been celebrating Passover, the festival of freedom and hope. We speak out for freedom for all who are so deprived. We speak particularly to the sad case of Soviet Jews deprived of their right to practise ancient traditions, learn about their own heritage, speak and write their own language
as others are permitted to do, and join their families here in the West.
We speak of Benjamin Bogomolny and his wife Tanya awaiting Soviet permission to emigrate from Moscow in order to join his sister in Montreal. The courage and tenacity displayed by this man during his 20-year struggle to rejoin his family in the free world is a symbol for all people who believe that the principle of family rejoinder agreed to as part of the Helsinki Accord should be respected.
In Berne a conference on family reunification is currently under way. I urge the Canadian Government, through Ambassador Bauer, to press most vigorously for the reunification of the Bogomolny family and of other such families with members in Soviet bloc countries who wish to join their families here.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and is about the fitness of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to remain in Cabinet. Based on the obvious conclusion from answers he has given, the Prime Minister based his entire judgment about the Minister concerned on a report from an official. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister not recognize that the guidelines that have been put forward call for more judgment and more inquiry by the Prime Minister than simply relying on the analysis, faulty and inadequate as it was, of some official?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the impression the Hon. Member attempts to leave is totally inaccurate. I have been answering questions, as has the Prime Minister, for three days in a row, to try to explain to him that the requirement is to ensure that Ministers of the Crown comply with the Code of Conduct which was tabled in this House last September 9. Compliance by that Minister has been met. If he does not believe that, the Hon. Member is free to make his own inquiries. If he does not wish to follow that course and he thinks something dishonourable or criminal has been done by the Minister, he has, if he chooses to exercise the courage to do so, an option open to him, and the procedures and processes available to any Member of this House.


APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY-TERMS OF LOAN
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that under the guidelines
May 1, 1986

the appearance of propriety is as important as propriety itself. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he does not agree that the spectacle of the wife of a Minister getting an interest-free loan of $2.6 million at the very same time as the company concerned was seeking and obtaining a loan for $62.5 million looks, from the point of view of appearances, like nothing more than a kickback.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, with no disrespect intended to the occupant of the chair, uses the Question Period not for a legitimate purpose of asking questions and seeking information, but for the purpose of smuggling his version of certain events on to the record of this House. It is unworthy of him, and it is rubbish that should not be tolerated in the House of Commons.


OFFICIAL'S INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is making it appear that a full inquiry has been conducted. Is he satisfied and does he feel that the guideline requirements are met by nothing more than an inquiry by an official? Does that cover conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest? What has the Government done to investigate that?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know what the role and responsibility of the Prime Minister and of myself, as Deputy Prime Minister, and of the Government, are in ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct that was tabled in this House last September 9. He knows, or should know, if he should choose to have the courage to do so that there are procedures and processes available to him if he chooses to make a charge of dishonour or some criminal action on the part of the Minister. Let him do that.


INCORPORATION OF COMPANY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the numbered company that was used to channel the $2.6 million to the Minister's corporation. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the numbered company was incorporated in April, 1985, and the $2.6 million loan was made in May, 1985, less than a month later. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the anonymous numbered company was incorporated solely for the purpose of laundering money to the Minister's company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for me to find the question of the company to be a ministerial responsibility. Does the Hon. Member have another question?


John V. Nunziata: May I rephrase my first question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.
Oral Questions COMPANY DIRECTOR


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he has conducted an investigation into this whole matter. I would like to pose another question to the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General confirm that the sole director of the numbered company was under investigation by the RCMP at the time of his unfortunate and premature death last November?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that falls within my responsibility because the subject matter that the Hon. Member is obviously raising is an unfounded accusation of conflict of interest. He commences his question by a totally false assertion. I repeat to him that there are procedures and processes available to him and any other Member who have the courage to stand and charge any Minister of the Crown with dishonourable conduct or criminal activity.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-INFORMATION KIT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs recently provided all Members of Parliament and Senators with a publicly financed propaganda kit on the question of free trade, a decision about which has not yet been made by the Parliament of Canada. When the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were on this side of the House, the Secretary of State described the use of such funds in advance of a decision of Parliament as constituting an improper manipulation of public money. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that it is wrong. We know that it is wrong. Will he do the right thing and send the bill for that kit to the Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. On one hand he is saying: "Give us information. Involve us and let us know what is going to happen in this debate." We give them the information and now they are complaining. Which way do you want it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The whole country knows, the press knows, and Members of Parliament know that the Government has refused to give the studies that would make our debate about this issue relevant and not dependent on propaganda. The Minister knows that.

May 1, 1986
Oral Questions


POLITICAL PROPAGANDA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly repeat my question to the Minister who answers for the Government.
Political parties are responsible for their propaganda. Why does the Conservative Party not pay for this propaganda?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is the same question, only this time it was given in French. I can only say that you cannot have it both ways. This was information that was released to all Members of Parliament and all Senators to inform them better and assist them in their dialogue with their constituents. That is the proper function of this Government. That is what we are doing. Don't complain that you are not getting information from us.


CONTENT OF KIT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the only politicians whose voices are used in this propaganda are those of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister himself and, believe it or not, President Reagan. There is not an opposition politician or a Premier of Canada. Will the Minister produce the studies that would make a debate relevant, and/or produce a package that is fair-minded? That is what we want.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I examined this material long before its distribution and I found it to be an excellent kit. I think it is extremely informative and very fair-minded. I am sure it will assist you in the debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Ms. Copps:: Let him answer. We want the Minister to answer.


Erik Nielsen: -the matter raised by the hon. gentleman falls within the responsibility of the Prime Minister and by delegation in these circumstances to me. I repeat to the Hon. Member the answer I have given to other Hon. Members repeatedly over three days. If he wishes to make allegations of dishonour or criminal activity against any Minister of the Crown, he is free to do so-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's just a question. Answer it and sit down.


Erik Nielsen: -and there are procedures and processes in place which, if the Hon. Member does not know about them, I am sure his researchers will help him discover.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the question of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, not the Minister of cover-up for this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. McDermid:: Next question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has a question, please, immediately.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister kow he can possibly continue so blindly to protect a colleague who has ignored his own Prime Minister's guidelines, which I have right here? How can he tolerate such interference?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In a letter last September 9, the Prime Minister made the following rule: "I wish it to be understood clearly by all Members that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including those that may arise from activities of their spouse." Will the Minister tell the House if he informed his spouse of this rule and, if so, why was the rule broken?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility, as I have said repeatedly for three days, of the Prime Minister to ensure there has been compliance with the Code of Conduct governing the activities of public officials. I have satisfied myself through the appropriate officials and have so reported to the Prime Minister that that compliance has been had.
The Hon. Member may choose not to believe that. That is his option. There are also available to him procedures and processes which he can invoke if he has the courage to make specific allegations of criminal activity or dishonourable activity by any Minister of the Crown.

May 1, 1986


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF STUDIES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. Given that the Minister released with other documents this document I hold up which was released earlier this year, in February, prior to the most recent publication which has been given out, will he give for the purposes of public debate copies of all of the studies it was indicated were available as background information but which, to this point in time, have neither been made available to Members of the House of Commons nor to anyone in the press? In fact the press has had to go to court to try to get those studies.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself are presently reviewing all the studies which have been made available to us. Studies which will not in any way jeopardize in whole or in part our negotiating position with the Americans-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, right.


James Francis Kelleher: -of course we are prepared to release in order to engender a better and more informed-


John Edward Broadbent: Do you have any negative stats?


James Francis Kelleher: -debate in this House.


Ian Deans: One might have thought that the two Ministers would have reviewed those studies before they made their decision to proceed with free trade.


CONTENT OF INFORMATION KIT
Ian Deans: Why does the Minister believe it is appropriate to give to the public of Canada selected information chosen from among those Government Members who have made statements in support of free trade, but refuses consistently to reveal what those who think free trade might do harm to Canada have been saying about what the effect will be in their areas? Why will the Government not now make available the studies it did, upon which it apparently based its decisions, rather than make available a whole lot of propaganda nonsense?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that all the statistics involved in the video, which I think is an excellent one, are all based-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh?
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: One moment. All the conclusions and facts contained in that video are all contained in the recommendations and reports done for the Macdonald Royal Commission.


Mr. Blaikie:: Let's see them.


John R. Rodriguez: Let's see the study by the CLC.


James Francis Kelleher: And what I would like to see are the reports and studies-


John Edward Broadbent: Release your studies. You've got the studies.


James Francis Kelleher: -which substantiate the statements made by the CLC and the Ontario Federation of Labour.


Ian Deans: But they paid for their own. They paid for their own material. You are using taxpayers' dollars.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I hope he takes this chance to speak for himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Was the Minister aware, when he asked CDIC to find a buyer for Canadair, that his appointee to the CDIC, Mr. Frank Stronach, was also planning to bid on Canadair through his own company, Magna International Inc.?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question relates to the subject matter of conflict of interest-


Mr. Johnston:: Come on!


Erik Nielsen: -which is my responsibility in the absence of the Prime Minister. My response to the Hon. Member is the same as it was yesterday.
Quite apart from repeating, once again, the fact of the Minister's full compliance with the Code of Conduct, I draw her attention to my answer yesterday with respect to the process through which privatization is proceeding through a ministerial task force under the chairmanship of the President of the Treasury Board, and not under the chairmanship of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


CHAIRMAN OF BURNS FRY INVESTMENT DEALERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, at the Deputy Prime Minister's invitation I will refer to his answer of yesterday in which he stated that the decisions surrounding Canadair will include a review under Burns Fry Investment

May 1, 1986
Oral Questions
Dealers. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that the Chairman of Burns Fry Investment Dealers also happens to be a director of Magna International?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where that leads us. However, in the off chance that it has to do with the subject matter of a conflict, which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and, by delegation, of myself in these circumstances, if the Hon. Member will read carefully what I said yesterday she will see that I said that Burns Fry, among other Firms, was retained by the board of CDIC in order to review the five-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Self-dealing at its worst!


Erik Nielsen: -candidates with respect to their adherence to the criteria established in the privatization-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


FREE TRADE-ALLEGED BENEFITS FOR ALL REGIONS OF CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, one of the critical studies now in the news is the Quebec study that has demonstrated that 12 out of 18 Quebec industries would suffer negative effects as a result of free trade. Is the Government prepared to admit that saying all regions in this country, as it says here, will benefit from free trade is sheer propaganda?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the information contained in the video and the statistics which accompany it are all to be found in the report of the Macdonald Royal Commission and in the appendices attached thereto which were tabled in the House last September. I would commend the Hon. Member to sit down and read it.


Ian Deans: But they're not right.


CONTENT OF VIDEO PRESENTATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have read it. It states, as I have pointed out to the Minister, more studies were needed before any decision should be made. Does the Government not admit that to put out a high-tech piece of gimmickry such as this, with only Conservatives speaking in it, is the worst form of Goebbels-like propaganda that this country has seen for years?


An Hon. Member:: Look who's talking about propaganda!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and his Party should realize that today video tapes are not something new. They should bring their Party into the 20th century like this Party has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: So it's a party matter and not a government matter?


J. Michael Forrestall: You're a bunch of aging dinosaurs!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the Hon. Member that I have very carefully reviewed the literature put out by the CLC, the United Auto Workers, and the OFL, and I do not see any Conservative speakers in-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: They paid for their own.


THE ADMINISTRATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I remind him that a breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines does not necessitate the laying of a criminal charge; it necesitates a resignation. This is a question of ethics.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House what was the purpose of the Prime Minister's letter of September 9, 1985? Are Ministers to follow the contents of the letter, or are they to ignore it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question is one to which the answer is absolutely obvious.
However, I would take this opportunity to remind the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister wrote to his Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, on September 9, 1985, with respect to this whole question-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is not a Minister!


Erik Nielsen: -of conflict, inviting the input of both opposition Parties with respect to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Distort, distort, distort!
May 1, 1986


Erik Nielsen: -any improvements which could be obtained to the Code of Conduct.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stick to the facts. You're distorting the whole damn thing and you know it. It talks about MPs and not Ministers. Don't be such a distorting son-of-a-gun. You're a hypocrite.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister is still waiting for a response-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not true. You're distorting everything.


Mr. Cassidy:: It's not true, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's distorting the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will come to order. Supplementary question.


MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INQUIRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He won't answer it!


David Charles Dingwall: Notwithstanding the $64.2 million which has been provided to Magna International, will the Minister inform the House with respect to what other loan guarantees, interest-free loans or grants have been provided to Magna International by his Department since May of 1985?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Rossi:: That's his Department!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let's hear from the Minister.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It has nothing to do with his responsibility.


Mr. Caccia:: What are you hiding there?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously, under any camouflage which might describe that question, it is still one falling within my present responsibility-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let the crook speak for himself.


Erik Nielsen: -and no one else's in this House on behalf of the Government. I can continue to answer, as I have before, that Ministers of the Crown are required to comply with the Code of Conduct which was tabled in September of 1985. The Hon. Member has heard me state time and time again for the last three days-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cut him off!
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: -that I have satisfied myself that that compliance has been had. If the Hon. Member does not think so, procedures and processes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CONTENT OF VIDEO RELEASE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Canada geese are flying again, only this time it's the Conservatives who are goosing the public and circumventing Parliament, instead of the Liberals on the Constitution.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. Why, in the name of co-operative federalism, did the Progressive Conservative Party choose to use pictures of Premiers Peterson and Pawley in a way which suggests they support the Government when he knows that they do not?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Now he's a defender of Peterson!


An Hon. Member:: Let Erik answer the question.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: There is only evil in the mind of the beholder.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: What we depicted-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: -in that film-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Is there a textile industry in Nova Scotia? Mr. Nystrom: I think it's in the ear of that beholder.


An Hon. Member:: What are you beholding these days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question. PREMIERS DEPICTED


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, as bad as it is, the Minister should stick with trade and not go into books of quotations.

May 1, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Just a question, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Did he seek the permission of Premiers Peterson and Pawley before the Progressive Conservative Party chose to use them in this way, a way which is obviously a piece of propaganda which should not be financed by Canadian taxpayers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the video depicts the Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada in consultation, trying to repair the federal-provincial relations that were destroyed by the former Government. Surely the Hon. Member's Party is not against consultation. Surely they want reconciliation between the federal Government and the Provinces of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. One of the segments of our economy to be most affected by the proposed trade talks is Canada's mining industry. Would the Minister advise the House of the effects of the trade initiatives on this industry?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, based on the representations which we have had from the mining industry, I can assure the House that the mining industry of Canada is fully supportive of the initiatives being taken by the Government. If I may add, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. Hon. Members are just costing themselves time.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, George Albino, the chairman of one of the major corporations in Canada, said the following at the corporation's annual meeting:
The facts dearly indicate that the only option available for Canada to improve its economy is to reach a bilateral trade agreement with the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister invited Members of the House to bring the matter of conflict of interest which we believe exists involving the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to the floor of the House. Will the Government agree to an Order of the House summoning before the Bar of the House Noreen Stevens, wife of the Minister, and Mr. Czapka who loaned the $2.6 million, to be questioned by the House as provided in its long-standing precedents? Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to that?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition has been a Member long enough to know, and by virtue of his own position of House Leader of the Official Opposition should know, the procedures available to him if he wishes to make a charge against any Minister of the Crown. The procedures are quite independent of any agreement that may be sought and, in any event, as the Hon. Member knows or should know, tradition with respect to Business of the House is to discuss that with the Government House Leader and the other House Leaders.


PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, quite aside from the fact that it is not necessary to make a charge in order to ask a question about the conduct of a Minister and his responsibilities, if the Deputy Prime Minister does not agree to apply the precedents for an Order of the House to have these individuals summoned before the Bar of the House to be questioned, then let him tell us which procedures are acceptable to him and the Government.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my responsibility to conduct a seminar on the procedures of the House or to convey to him what the House Leader of the Official Opposition should know by virtue of the very fact that he occupies that position. He should know the procedures that are available to him.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STUDIES OF IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. Unlike the Conservative Party, the farmers of Canada have paid to have their own studies done on free trade. Poultry and grain farmers
May 1, 1986

are concerned about the impact of free trade on their marketing boards. Will the Government now release the studies on the impact of free trade on agriculture rather than just releasing more Tory propaganda films?


James Francis Kelleher: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Crosbie@: You only have one question between the whole lot of you today. What's the matter with you? We want Rodriguez.


John R. Rodriguez: Dry up, Crosbie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister might be allowed to answer the question.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the House today, and will advise the Hon. Member again, that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I, are reviewing all of the studies, and any studies that will not in any way jeopardize our negotiating position with the United States will in fact be released.


MARKETING BOARDS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my riding are concerned about the impact of free trade on their marketing boards. What right does the Minister have to withhold that information from the farmers of my riding? Why does he not come clean?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Hon. Member took note of the benefit package that the Prime Minister and the Government brought in for the farmers yesterday.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


James Francis Kelleher: The farmers of Canada have always been well served by this Party, and will continue to be well served under the negotiations that we are going to undertake with the United States.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Canada Day is a day for Canadians to enjoy and to participate in celebration. For the second year in a row the NCC has contracted a Belgian company to do children's face painting at Confederation Square on Canada Day, while denying this contract to a company of young Canadians from right here in Ottawa. Does the Minister think that this action is appropriate and a good use of government
Oral Questions
funding? If not, will he make his wishes known to the National Capital Commission?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their applause. I know why they want to emphasize my return to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to you, sir, and to this House that I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his interest in Canadian artists. As for his particular question, it is true that this year, the National Capital Commission will give a Belgian company another opportunity to demonstrate its skills in Canada. At the same time I can inform the Hon. Member that the National Capital Commission has also retained the services of a company from Montreal, La Masquinerie, which will also have make-up workshops. I think this decision to allow us to compare foreign artists with Canadians should make for a better show for Canadians, which is of course the whole point of the exercise.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In the 1984 Progressive Conservative election pamphlet on defence entitled "Honour the Commitment", copies of which were sent to all members of the Armed Forces and a copy of which I have here, the Conservatives promised to "review completely our defence policy and issue a new White Paper within months of taking office". Why has the Minister, 20 months later, not honoured this commitment? He has made the commitment on subsequent occasions and has not honoured it. Why should anyone believe the Minister or the Prime Minister that a White Paper on Defence will ever be produced by the Government?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the last White Paper was produced in 1970, and for 15 years there was neglect and indeed downright destruction of the Canadian Armed Forces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: While in opposition we did not realize how much repair work was necessary and how long it was going to take to straighten out the mess. However, we are working on it and the promise of a White Paper will be kept.

May 1, 1986
Oral Questions DEFENCE BUDGET


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Government has broken its promise to produce a White Paper. Why have the Minister and the Prime Minister added insult to injury by breaking the promise of a 3 per cent real increase in Canada's defence budget to which they committed themselves? Furthermore, why have they broken their election promise of a 6 per cent real increase in defence spending? The Liberal Government met that commitment every year it was in office from 1979 onward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think we would not be having this debate if in fact the Liberal Government had not nearly destroyed our military capabilities during those 15 years. The fact is that the deficit has been brought down by the excellent work of the Minister of Finance. Despite all the cuts which have been made, the Department of National Defence has in fact received a real increase of 2.75 per cent. This was not forecast by the Liberal Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, who forecast zero. We found new money and still brought the deficit down.


AIR TRANSPORT
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. In the wake of the Soviet nuclear accident, Canadians planning trips to the Soviet Union and eastern European countries are understandably concerned about the safety of such visits. The Soviet travel service, Intourist, is advising Canadian tour operators that all is well and that no refunds for cancellations will be offered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must require a question.


Pauline Browes: What advice can the Minister give Canadians who do not now want to visit those countries but are unable to obtain a refund on their air fares?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that discussions have been held with Intourist, the Soviet travel agency. It is prepared to make adjustments and alternate arrangements for people who have made travel arrangements into that particular area. However, it is not prepared to agree to the cancellation of trips already scheduled.


PROSPECTIVE TRAVELLERS TO POLAND
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister for International Trade or for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will either Minister take up with Polish airlines the cause of people who have to leave tomorrow but only have flight insurance which provides that their flights can only be cancelled on the basis of medical grounds? They are healthy here, but they do not want to get sick there. Will they take up the matter with Polish airlines and other airlines serving eastern Europe to arrange for a refund, a cancellation, or a delay of their trips?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. As the Minister for International Trade mentioned, there have been discussions. It is a very difficult situation wherein airlines have been willing to refund money but Intourist has not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am talking about Polish airlines.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will get to that in a minute. In relation to Poland, I will be making a statement today at three o'clock which I believe will clarify the Polish situation. However, I indicate to the Hon. Member that at the present time there is not a health risk for travellers to Poland in terms of radiation effects from the nuclear disaster in the U.S.S.R.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ABSENCE OF P.E.I. FROM MAP-COLOUR OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the kit which he distributed containing propaganda on free trade. I reviewed the kit very carefully, and I noticed on its map that Prince Edward Island is nowhere to be found, that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is empty, and that Newfoundland is painted the same colour as the United States. What did Canada receive in return for giving away Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in these free trade talks?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised by my colleague, the Hon. John Crosbie, that he doesn't mind, but in any event-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Let's trade Crosbie.


James Francis Kelleher: -I would like to advise the Hon. Member, and indeed all Members of the House, that we do not intend to give away anything in these talks which will be detrimental to
May 1, 1986

Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION
best interests and all regions of Canada. You can rest assured of that.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Mr. Crosbie may not be pissed off, but I am.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the first week I have ever seen with three Wednesdays in it. The Hon. Member will have to withdraw the comment-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, he must, and he knows it.


George Roland Henderson: I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


REQUEST THAT VIDEO TAPE BE SHELVED
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister agree to shelve this stupid tape and produce one which includes Prince Edward Island and retrieves Newfoundland immediately?


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are part of Canada.


Charles L. Caccia: They are part of Canada until they sell them.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, certainly no insult or slight is intended in any way whatsoever-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It bloody well is an insult.


James Francis Kelleher: -to two such excellent parts of our country, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. There are excellent Members from those areas on all sides of the House.


John V. Nunziata: You don't understand Atlantic Canada.


James Francis Kelleher: We also think that the tape contains excellent information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St.-Barbe, the Hon. Minister of Justice, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My goodness. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-BID TO PURCHASE CANADAIR
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I have now learned that when Canada Development Investment Corporation solicited proposals to purchase Canadair to be made to CDIC, the proposal made by Magna International was instead submitted through the office of the Minister. I have also learned that the Minister was directly involved in resolving the Department's arrangements for a $64 million financing package for Magna's investments in Cape Breton. Does the Minister consider that these arrangements are an appropriate way to proceed, in view of the benefit of some $300,000 which the Minister and his wife have received through a loan that was arranged with the assistance of the Chairman of Magna International?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously that question falls within my responsibilities-


Some Hon. Members:: Not at all.


Erik Nielsen: -as shallowly as the Hon. Member attempts to disguise it. What he is doing is indirectly dealing with the matter of conflict of interest which falls within the Code of Conduct that at the moment falls under my jurisdiction. I repeat to him what I have already repeated several times for three days now, that the Minister has fully complied with the Code of Conduct.


John V. Nunziata: Let him answer for himself. Why have you muzzled the Minister?


Erik Nielsen: I hear the Hon. Member for York South- Weston, who is not in his seat, shouting across the aisle why do I not let the Minister answer. The simple answer to that is that it is my responsibility, not the Minister's, when it comes to conflict of interest.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE MEETING
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He may be satisfied that the Minister has fully complied, but the press increasingly is not satisfied that the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question only, immediately?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for the Commons Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to hear the Minister out and to satisfy itself on whether or not there has been conflict of interest, particularly

May 1, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Tobin
since Mr. Stronach of Magna International is eager to attend before that committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation, but it is not the Minister's responsibility.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism I will direct my question to the Acting Minister. Recent media reports suggest that a proposal concerning the issue of Japanese Canadian redress is imminent. However, that community has simply been kept on the outside looking in, and the Government has broken a negotiating promise. Even at this eleventh hour will the Acting Minister assure the House that the Government will enter immediately into full and meaningful negotiations with the National Association of Japanese Canadians to ensure that history does not repeat itself in 1986?


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Physical Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the dossier is now before Cabinet, and the Hon. Member will be advised of all the details as soon as Cabinet makes its official announcement, and not before.


PRIVILEGE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, during the course of Question Period, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) quoting the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) gave the impression that the people of Newfoundland do not mind being part of the United States in the Minister's propaganda tape. I want to tell him-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Throw the bum out.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Hon. Member from Sudbury (Mr. Frith) in thanking the Minister for making use of this procedure in the House of Commons. It is a good practice and I hope it will be followed more often. I would also like to thank him for the advance copy. I would like to go through it perhaps on a concern-by-concern basis.\nOn page one he says the following:\nThe first results from the daily monitoring are available from two sites in Canada-Vancouver and Ottawa. They show normal levels of radioactivity.\nIs any provision being made for monitoring radioactivity levels in northern Canada because of our proximity to the Soviet Union over the Arctic Circle? Would the Minister look into that and make information available to the House?\nRegarding the Federal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan the Minister referred to, I have requested a copy of the plan from the Minister's office and I am told that we may be able to receive it. I wonder, in advance of receiving it, if the plan includes evacuation plans and other measures if, unfortunately, we had a similar accident here in Canada? I am aware of the superiority of Canadian nuclear technology, and I do not quarrel with that, even though I quarrel with nuclear power in general, but the fact is that no technology is perfect. In the event of that imperfection catching up with us, resulting in an accident, I wonder whether we have actually thought things through that far, or whether we have as a country rested too easy on the assurances given us by Ontario Hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada and the nuclear industry in general, that this kind of thing cannot happen here. If we do not have such plans already, I would hope that this incident will result in contingency plans being developed by the Canadian Government.\nI hope the Minister will clarify how Canadians can get information about travel plans which they may have for as early as tomorrow. Some people will have to make a decision within the next 24 hours about whether they will follow through with their travel plans. There was a news story the other night about higher than normal radioactivity levels in", "May 1, 1986\n12850_____________________________________\nStatements by Ministers\nVienna, which is not an eastern European city, at least in the ideological sense. It does not border on Russia.\nIn any event, people are asking questions about travel plans and I hope they do not have to rely on the hot line. Yesterday, I phoned that hot line myself but the information I received was very unclear. Perhaps it has improved since then, but people on that phone did not know it was a hot line and simply replied that they would get back to me. I hope that service has been improved.\nPerhaps the Minister can be excused for not addressing the very important point raised by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). However, the Government should address this question because it must be made perfectly clear to the Soviet Union that if it wants to be regarded as a responsible member of the international community, the secrecy, lack of communication and lack of information that has surrounded this event is totally unacceptable by everyone's standards.\nWe live on a very small planet and no matter on what side of the Iron Curtain we live, no one has any less responsibility for being accountable to his fellow human beings for the kind of poisons-radioactive materials in this case-that are let loose upon an ecosphere that we hold in common. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Soviet Union that this was a grand opportunity for them to live up to some of the rhetoric we have often heard from them about the international community. So far, the Soviet Union has failed miserably in living up to that rhetoric. I hope they will take the opportunity to improve their reputation in the days ahead because we will be responding to this crisis for some time to come. I hope that what little we have to say in the House of Commons might encourage the Soviet Union to be more responsible about giving information than it has been in the last few days.\nFinally, Members who have been here for some time know that since I came to the House in 1979 I have been asking the Canadian Government through every means I have had at my disposal to reconsider Canada's commitment to the nuclear energy option. With all due respect to my Liberal colleagues, that option was imposed on us by successive Liberal Governments that consistently refused to do anything other than conduct internal departmental reviews of the nuclear energy option here in Canada. We have a responsibility to look into our own back yard and conduct an inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party promised to do that in 1979, but after some 18 months in office it has not lived up to that commitment.\nIn conclusion, I am sorry if it seems as if I were ending my remarks on a partisan note. However, that is not the case. The question of nuclear energy crosses many ideological boundaries as shown by the commitment to nuclear power of both the Soviet Union and the United States. They are taking chances with the world's environment for the sake of short term industrial and economic goals. They are taking an incredible risk with humanity and I believe it is time that Canada gave second thought to the impetus and encouragement it has given to the proliferation of nuclear reactors all over the world."]
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
May 1, 1986
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald E. Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 1st day of May, 1986, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A.P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary to the Governor General
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) may want to stay in the Chamber. I will be ruling in a minute.



Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A practice is developing in the House of Commons over the course of the last few days that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) rises and answers questions that are put to other Ministers.
I draw your attention, Sir, to Citation 359 of Beauchesne which reads:
A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the Government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order.
In Sub-section 6 it reads:
May 1, 1986

A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
Why is it that questions about actions taken by the Minister for Trade in his present portfolio are being answered by the Deputy Prime Minister? Why is it that, with the Minister in his seat, questions directed to him about his administrative responsibility, not about extraneous matters, are being allowed to be answered by the Deputy Prime Minister?


An Hon. Member:: It is not the Minister of Trade but Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a comment on the Minister, it is a comment on the Chair. The Chair has listened to the questions and answers and has heard an assertion made by the Deputy Prime Minister. He asserts to the Chair that he has the responsibility for that matter, that that is within his ministerial responsibility. Is the Hon. Member arguing that that is not the case?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, a question was put today about a decision taken by the Minister in his office with regard to a transaction within the responsibility of his ministry.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is wrong.


Ian Deans: That was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister who claimed he had the administrative responsibility for that. Quite clearly, it was a question clearly within the competence of the Minister himself and the Deputy Prime Minister had absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand why the Minister is sitting here and not answering the questions that fall within his responsibilities.


Mr. Ouellet:: Cover-up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, might I just point out two very serious and glaring errors in the proposition put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
First, the questions were related to a transaction which was not, I repeat, not under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was explained. If the Opposition would listen to the answers, they would not be raising spurious and specious points of order. It was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that the matter was under the jurisdiction of a cabinet committee, chaired by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). That is the first proposition. Second, the matters to which the questions are related, relate to alleged and unfounded allegations of a conflict of interest.


Ian Deans: No. That was not the question asked.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is no question about that whole area not being in the responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members listened to the other presentation. I think it is only fair that Hon. Members listen to this one as well. Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply repeat, because I think I was interrupted by the Opposition, that in a matter of the enforcement of the rules with respect to conflict they are prerogatives of the Prime Minister.


Ian Deans: I agree.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Finally, questions in Question Period are directed to the Government. You have said that on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that the Government then is in a position to answer. It is not imperative upon a Minister to stand up and respond to questions with respect to activities, alleged activities, unfounded activities alleged by the Opposition with respect to our spouses or with respect to ourselves. They have no relationship to our ministerial responsibilities.


Ian Deans: I agree.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply make those points to put this in perspective because I think all the questions placed have been answered in the true spirit of ministerial responsibilty by the Deputy Prime Minister-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was not the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and he has given good and adequate answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the same point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: During the Question Period, I recall a question being put to the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) as to what loans or grants were made by his Department to Magna. If that does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Minister, then what does? Yet, in spite of that question being asked, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) got up and alleged that that had something to do with conflict of interest.
Second, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am happy to hear a procedural argument on this matter, which is the way it started, as opposed to an argument about the substance of Question Period. But if the Member is asking me to check the blues on the answer, I heard the answer from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has referred to with regard to the question

May 1, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
which the Hon. Member is now raising. I did hear it. Does the Hon. Member want to continue on a procedural ground?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I also recall another question relating to the Canada Development Investment Corporation for which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion answers to this House. If the Deputy Prime Minister-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Acting Prime Minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and Acting Prime Minister can answer any and all questions in the House in the guise that it relates to the matter of conflict of interest, then he will be able to achieve his velcro lips purpose of shutting down one of the major ways Parliament has to hold the Government to account. I invite you, on behalf of the people of Canada, to put a stop to this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I will be happy to read Hansard tomorrow or the blues later and determine whether there is any substance to the point of order.


Ian Deans: May I rise only to clarify my question very briefly, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Ian Deans: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you simply, when you review, to look at the question posed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) which was the question about which I was speaking. I do apologize that I had the Minister's title incorrectly. I was referring to the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), not Minister for Trade.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No. Arising out of Question Period on a separate point of order?


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a separate point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a separate point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you in reviewing your decision with respect to this measure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has just indicated to me that she has a different point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I indicated nothing of the kind.


Mr. Speaker:: She gets up to ask me-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member says she has a different point of order and gets up to say something-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I didn't-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please listen?
Order, please! Does the Hon. Member have a different point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rose on a point of order. The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) indicated he had a different point of order. I rose on a point of order. If the Speaker will give me a chance, I will be very brief. I would ask him to review the question specifically-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I specifically asked if the Hon. Member was rising on a different point of order. If she is not, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How do you know she isn't?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let us try this again. Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) rising on a different, separate, and distinct point of order? She will not mention the one we have just dealt with.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The point that I would like to raise is obviously subject to your interpretation, as you interpret everything. I would ask you to consider, in the context of Ministerial responsibility, whether my specific question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, which dealt with an appointment for which he was responsible to the CDIC, was in fact within his responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! What did I say to the House a minute ago? I said I would review the point of order and that I would review the "blues" out of today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a different question.


Mr. Speaker:: I just said a minute ago that I will review the "blues" out of today with regard to the point of order the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) raised which was with regard to the-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was a different question.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please listen. The point of order was raised-


Charles L. Caccia: Listen to her.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) listen as well. The question was raised with regard to Ministerial accountability and answers in Question Period generally by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. That is what he said.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are the Speaker. Leave it at that.


Mr. Speaker:: I said I would review that whole question.


André Ouellet: Including her question.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot review Question Period without reviewing the Hon. Member's question. It is impossible not to do that. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES-STATEMENT BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be very brief. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) may have inadvertently misled the House. I want to bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns business which is currently before a committee of the House.
In Question Period today the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government was still awaiting a reply to the Prime Minister's letter of September 9 to the Leader of my Party with respect to the possibility of conflict of interest rules for Parliamentarians. That matter has, in fact, been discussed by the House Leaders and referred to the Committee on Management and Members' Services. There has in fact been the reply called for, contrary to the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has submitted a detailed presentation to me on the matter which she has already raised in the House. May I take this opportunity of commending the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on the manner in which she presented her written submission to me as it does provide all the information on which she seeks to base her case.
Before ruling, however, I should like to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. The Hon. Member first raised this question on the assumption that it was a matter arising out of the Question Period. Although the matter was referred to during the Question Period, there was no allegation that a breach of privilege had actually occurred during the Question Period. In such cases, a written notice of the kind which the Hon. Member has prepared is the proper method of giving the Chair notice of the question of privilege which is desired to be raised and which does not, therefore, arise directly from proceedings in the House. Contrary to some views, there are in fact no grounds for assuming that the question cannot be handled openly only because the submission is in writing.
With regard to the issue itself, the Hon. Member asserts that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has improperly monitored communications between Members of Parliament and the Assistant Deputy Registrar General with the intention of interfering in the exercise of their duties and attempting to intimidate them. She bases her complaint on the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister had informed himself that communications had taken place between certain Members and the
Business of the House
Assistant Deputy Registrar General and on the fact that the latter had informed another Hon. Member that it was not the policy of his office to tell third parties who has consulted him. The Chair must decide whether these facts constitute prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege.
The precedents quoted by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East relate to the invasion of a Member's privacy within the precincts of Parliament, the interception of private communications including mail, electronic eavesdropping on a caucus meeting, and the unauthorized interrogation of a Member and her staff by the police. I must say that I can find nothing in the acts complained of which bear any relevance to the precedents she has quoted.
The fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has inquired whether Members of Parliament have been in communication with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General does not seem to me to constitute an interception of those communications. The fact that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General made a statement with regard to the policy of his office does not constitute evidence of a prima facie breach of privilege either.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East includes in her submission a quotation from Erskine May's 19th Edition to the effect that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes a Member in the performance of his or her functions may be treated as a contempt of the House. Here we have the essence of the matter. If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I cannot see that the Hon. Member's ability to perform her parliamentary functions have been impaired in any way. I am, therefore, unable to accord this matter precedence over other business.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties. The House Leaders were provided with a draft order and I think you will find that there would be unanimous consent to adopt the following motion without debate:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the House immediately revert to Statements by Ministers for the purpose of receiving a statement by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare; and
Provided that Standing Order 19(6) shall be deemed to be in force for the purpose of this Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is refusing unanimous consent.

May 1, 1986
Statements by Ministers


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am just asking for clarification of the motion just read by the Minister. The last sentence says: "Provided that Standing Order 19(6) shall be deemed to be in force for the purpose of this order". Would he please add (a) to 19 so there will be no additional time added on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to have this done on government time as opposed to extending the hours. I know the Hon. Member will take that into account with respect to the length of speeches this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DISASTERS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: obtained all the information that we need to make a comprehensive assessment of the health hazard. We are also seeking from them any necessary assistance for Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and this House, and indeed, all Canadians, that the Government will continue to closely monitor the situation, take appropriate action, and keep the House informed. Thank you.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for using this vehicle, Parliament, in the form of a statement in order to allow all three political Parties to respond to the same crisis in the international world caused by the accident at the nuclear reactor in the Soviet Union. I would like to applaud him for the efforts he has used to make sure the health of Canadians involved in the immediate vicinity will be monitored.
I feel the Canadian Government should be taking this one step forward. I have talked to a number of Canadians since the incident occurred and their concern is that we now live in a very interdependent world and that Russia, simply by the fact that it has had such a massive campaign of switching over their energy supplies to the nuclear field, has a responsibility that goes beyond the borders of the Soviet Union.
We, as a Canadian Government, because of our past involvement with United Nations agencies, should be taking a more positive step forward. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take it one step further and ask the Canadian Government to push the UN agencies in Vienna so that in the future there would be a much better response by the international community to the problems that occurred as a result of the crisis in the Soviet Union. The fact that it took several days after the accident before the rest of the world was informed of this crisis says something for the system by which we monitor atomic reactors throughout the world, whether it is behind the Iron Curtain or in the free world.
As the Minister knows, Canadian technology in this field has put us in the position of being a leader in this area of technology. I would hope that the Minister would instruct the task force he has set up internally to go beyond simply monitoring and assisting Canadians who were in the vicinity of the accident. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity to instruct the task force to review and tighten the regulations here in Canada, and perhaps look at the preventive measures that are in place.
The one thing that is going to be a fall out, if you will-and it is a play on words-from the nuclear accident in Russia will be the request by the Canadian public that we make sure our agencies which exist here in Canada can do an effective monitoring job, can enforce proper preventive care so we can prevent this kind of accident from occurring, not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world.
That is why I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will instruct the task force to not only do an internal
Statements by Ministers
review of the way in which we react here in Canada but, more importantly, to use our traditional role on the world stage to ensure that the United Nations takes a major role in preventing this kind of occurrence from happening again in the future so that we will never again have to rely on sporadic news reports from other parts of the world to determine our own health and safety.
There should be presentations made to the Russian Government, not only here in Canada but through our United Nations agencies, outlining our concerns about the way in which they reacted to this accident. Canadians deserve, as do world citizens, to know more about what is happening to their health and safety as a result of this accident than what the Soviet Union has exhibited to date.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Hon. Member from Sudbury (Mr. Frith) in thanking the Minister for making use of this procedure in the House of Commons. It is a good practice and I hope it will be followed more often. I would also like to thank him for the advance copy. I would like to go through it perhaps on a concern-by-concern basis.
On page one he says the following:
The first results from the daily monitoring are available from two sites in Canada-Vancouver and Ottawa. They show normal levels of radioactivity.
Is any provision being made for monitoring radioactivity levels in northern Canada because of our proximity to the Soviet Union over the Arctic Circle? Would the Minister look into that and make information available to the House?
Regarding the Federal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan the Minister referred to, I have requested a copy of the plan from the Minister's office and I am told that we may be able to receive it. I wonder, in advance of receiving it, if the plan includes evacuation plans and other measures if, unfortunately, we had a similar accident here in Canada? I am aware of the superiority of Canadian nuclear technology, and I do not quarrel with that, even though I quarrel with nuclear power in general, but the fact is that no technology is perfect. In the event of that imperfection catching up with us, resulting in an accident, I wonder whether we have actually thought things through that far, or whether we have as a country rested too easy on the assurances given us by Ontario Hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada and the nuclear industry in general, that this kind of thing cannot happen here. If we do not have such plans already, I would hope that this incident will result in contingency plans being developed by the Canadian Government.
I hope the Minister will clarify how Canadians can get information about travel plans which they may have for as early as tomorrow. Some people will have to make a decision within the next 24 hours about whether they will follow through with their travel plans. There was a news story the other night about higher than normal radioactivity levels in

May 1, 1986
12850_____________________________________
Statements by Ministers
Vienna, which is not an eastern European city, at least in the ideological sense. It does not border on Russia.
In any event, people are asking questions about travel plans and I hope they do not have to rely on the hot line. Yesterday, I phoned that hot line myself but the information I received was very unclear. Perhaps it has improved since then, but people on that phone did not know it was a hot line and simply replied that they would get back to me. I hope that service has been improved.
Perhaps the Minister can be excused for not addressing the very important point raised by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). However, the Government should address this question because it must be made perfectly clear to the Soviet Union that if it wants to be regarded as a responsible member of the international community, the secrecy, lack of communication and lack of information that has surrounded this event is totally unacceptable by everyone's standards.
We live on a very small planet and no matter on what side of the Iron Curtain we live, no one has any less responsibility for being accountable to his fellow human beings for the kind of poisons-radioactive materials in this case-that are let loose upon an ecosphere that we hold in common. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Soviet Union that this was a grand opportunity for them to live up to some of the rhetoric we have often heard from them about the international community. So far, the Soviet Union has failed miserably in living up to that rhetoric. I hope they will take the opportunity to improve their reputation in the days ahead because we will be responding to this crisis for some time to come. I hope that what little we have to say in the House of Commons might encourage the Soviet Union to be more responsible about giving information than it has been in the last few days.
Finally, Members who have been here for some time know that since I came to the House in 1979 I have been asking the Canadian Government through every means I have had at my disposal to reconsider Canada's commitment to the nuclear energy option. With all due respect to my Liberal colleagues, that option was imposed on us by successive Liberal Governments that consistently refused to do anything other than conduct internal departmental reviews of the nuclear energy option here in Canada. We have a responsibility to look into our own back yard and conduct an inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party promised to do that in 1979, but after some 18 months in office it has not lived up to that commitment.
In conclusion, I am sorry if it seems as if I were ending my remarks on a partisan note. However, that is not the case. The question of nuclear energy crosses many ideological boundaries as shown by the commitment to nuclear power of both the Soviet Union and the United States. They are taking chances with the world's environment for the sake of short term industrial and economic goals. They are taking an incredible risk with humanity and I believe it is time that Canada gave second thought to the impetus and encouragement it has given to the proliferation of nuclear reactors all over the world.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion Nos. 5, 6 and 11 (Mr. Angus) (p.12764).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Halifax West had five minutes remaining in his speech.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by repeating the thrust of my earlier remarks in the debate on Clause 4 of Bill C-75. Members will know that Clause 4 enacts a new section, Section 3.1, to the Canada Shipping Act and provides for charges related to the navigational services by the Canadian Coast Guard.
The point that I wanted to make in my earlier remarks is that Clause 4, new Section 3.1 of the Canada Shipping Act, relates to marine transportation. In fact, the whole thesis of the Canadian Shipping Act is marine transportation. It only incidentally and indirectly involves the coastal fisheries.
Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party would have Canadians believe that the whole thrust and purpose of this provision is to impose fees and charges on the fishermen of Canada, particularly those in the Atlantic area. That really is an illusion created by the Opposition. The purpose of the Canada Shipping Act and the amendments thereto are to ensure safety and fair competition on the oceans in relation to marine transportation.
I want to reiterate that because I do not want people to be misled by the remarks of opposition Members who try to portray and characterize these new provisions as having an adverse effect on those who travel the seaways in ships and vessels. That is absolutely not the purpose of this legislation. Canadians can put their minds to rest. Let them not listen to the arcane development of ideas and processes by members of the Opposition. We are here to increase safety on the oceans. We are here to advance the cause of marine transportation for Canada and Canadians.
It was interesting to listen to representations by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in Ontario and by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who represents an area of the Rideau Canal. I can understand their lack of knowledge as well as the frustration of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), when those Members talk about marine transportation in the narrow context in which they view this international activity that brings millions of dollars of revenue into Canada and employs thousands of Canadians on the East and
May 1, 1986

West Coast. Marine transportation is a major source of employment in the City of Halifax.
It grieves me to hear a Member, whose constituency includes the Rideau Canal, talk in serious terms about marine transportation. I can understand why the Member for Nickel Belt confuses this enormous subject of marine transportation with vague remarks about its effect on the fishery.
Let me enlighten those Members by referring to a presentation made by the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission when it appeared before the legislative committee. This is what it said in support of Clause 4 of Bill C-75:
Since 1964, when the St. Lawrence River was opened to year-round shipping activity, the Federal Government has spent considerable amounts of taxpayers' dollars to keep the river navigable.
Shipping lines serving inland Canadian markets via St. Lawrence River ports, benefit from the free provision of navigational services.
At the same time, competing shipping lines serving Halifax require extensive rail service to the same inland markets and have to pay the full inland cost by rail at compensatory rates.
Do we hear the Member for Nickel Belt complaining about that? Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier argue against that? No.
As the Ports Commission says, we are talking about the subsidization of the all-water route to Montreal in competition with the inland rail route from Halifax which is user pay. The fact that the Port of Halifax has to pay the full cost represents a government-created economic distortion between Halifax and Montreal. The purpose of this Bill is to address that distortion. I defy any Member from Atlantic Canada, including the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), to stand in the House and say that Atlantic Canada and the Port of Halifax do not benefit from this kind of provision. Our fear is that it will not be acted upon because of the misrepresentations made by Hon. Members from central Canada, aided and abetted by unknowing Hon. Members from Atlantic Canada. They seize the opportunity to distort the provisions of this Bill and try to fool the fishing industry. In that way they distort the whole process and do a disservice to Atlantic Canada and to all its residents.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the comments made by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). He seems to be taking the attitude that Hon. Members on this side of the House somehow or other oppose this Bill when in fact we on this side have supported the Bill in every way and have expedited its passage.
The only clause on which there has been a great difference of opinion is Clause 4. Clause 4 seeks to impose fees for all kinds of services which are rightfully provided by the Government of Canada, that is, the Coast Guard service, navigational aids and so on. I would point out to the Hon. Member for Halifax West that we are very conscious that Halifax is a major port. However, he should, by the same token, be
Canada Shipping Act
conscious that the Seaway is very important to my constituency of Algoma. We have the St. Mary's River and more tonnage goes through that river every year, which requires ice breaking and navigational services, than is trans-shipped through the Port of Halifax. I am not in any way putting down the massive responsibility of the Port of Halifax, but the Hon. Member seems to be trying to say that no one should talk about this subject but Members of Parliament from Halifax. It is very important to my constituency of Algoma. We need a lot of navigational aid and a lot of assistance from the Coast Guard. If the Government is going to take on to itself the power to impose charges for all kinds of things for which it has never charged in the past, members of the Opposition have every right to object.
I was interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns). It seemed to me he took the same kind of approach as the Hon. Member for Halifax West. He seemed to be saying: "Look. As long as I am there, you don't have to worry about the Minister of Transport imposing those charges". I am sure that if the potato producers in Prince Edward Island were asked their opinion they would say: "Yes, that is what you told us last year, but then the Government imposed service charges for inspection of our potato crops". The people in Prince Edward Island showed just how much they were ready to trust the Government, both federally and provincially, in the last provincial election.
I would like to refer to some comments made by the National Farmers Union when it appeared before the committee on February 13.1 quote from its submission as follows:
Nonetheless farmers face in Section 4 of Bill C-75 proposals for further indirect taxation of their income already seriously battered by high production costs, rising interest rates, declining world prices, poor crops in some areas and protective trading and farm policies in many parts of the world, particularly in the U.S.
In its preoccupation to trim the federal deficit the Government is, in effect, telling farmers that the national interest can best be served by still further increasing farm costs at a time when the Farm Credit Corporation estimates that one in every four, or about 40,000 farmers in Canada with $20,000 or more in gross annual farm sales is in severe financial distress. The added costs to farmers implied by the new cost recovery proposals in Bill C-75 will provide nothing to enhance service in the movement of farm products that is not now offered and will only further impoverish farmers.
That is the kind of expression of concern we are hearing from the National Farmers Union. The Potato Marketing Board, on behalf of the Prince Edward Island potato industry, submitted its position paper on Clause 4 on February 13. The board in its submission stated, and I quote:
The P.E.I. potato industry supports the federal Government's policy on encouraging international trade. Thus we are vigorously opposed to the introduction of charges relating to navigational services until an impact study on the potato industry's export business is conducted.
I do not feel that the two members of the Government, who are obviously trying to cover up what powers the Government is taking onto itself, really do themselves much credit when we look at the briefs which were presented by their local organizations. We can certainly see that there is a great deal of concern. That is why we would like to see Clause 4 removed or at least made available for review in two years' time. The

May 1, 1986
Adjournment Motion
clause is totally sweeping. It is an enabling legislation which will allow the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to charge user fees for ice breaking services and navigational aids. When he asks for these powers he does not say how they will be used. There is no schedule to show what the charges will be, when they will be used and to whom they will apply.
In many parts of the shipping industry we see higher levies, but at the same time we see a decrease in the use of the Seaway. The additional charges which will be imposed under Clause 4 will discourage just that much more the use of this most important inland waterway. I think Clause 4 really requires a great deal of further consideration.
We are not only talking about services for the commercial vessels which go through the Seaway or ply the coasts of Canada, we are as well looking at the internal waterways of this country. In my constituency fishing is a relatively important industry. We are situated on the shores of Lake Superior and on the north shore of Lake Huron and Manitoulin Island. Our fishermen certainly require the services of the Coast Guard and navigational aids and assistance. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, their position is not such that they can pay for additional services. That is why we are urging the Government to withdraw this clause.
We agree with the Bill. We realize the legislation is out of date and needs to be updated. We want to see it passed, but without Clause 4 which is totally unacceptable to the Opposition and I suspect to many of the government back-benchers in the quiet and privacy of their caucus room. Here on the floor of the House of Commons they have to knuckle under the pressure put on them by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), who always steps on the back-benchers. He does not allow them to bring forth their own ideas and prevents them from speaking honestly and fairly. They should be allowed to express the concerns of the potato producers and fishermen in the small craft harbours throughout the Great Lakes and on both coasts. Clause 4 is totally unacceptable and must be withdrawn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer)-External Relations- Size of Polish consulate in Etobicoke-Lakeshore; the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Trade- Threatened use of subsidies to sell United States wheat to Syria, (b) Minister's position; and the Hon. Member for York
West (Mr. Marchi)-Immigration-Unscrupulous immigration consultants.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 (Mr. Angus) (p. 12764).
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), with regard to the deficiencies in Bill C-75. I see very serious problems for shippers and small ports in eastern Canada in terms of this Bill. I am rather disturbed and upset by the fact that we do not have any draft copies of the regulations as yet.


J. Michael Forrestall: Good God, man, what are you talking about?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to have seen them attached to the Bill. I wish to see what this leniency being given by the Minister will mean to the shipping industry. It is a travesty that the gaping holes in Clause 4 have not been closed.


J. Michael Forrestall: In 20 years in the House you never let us look at a regulation before a Bill was passed. What are you talking about?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to consider one aspect of the Bill in particular. Clause 4(2) states:
Charges may be imposed pursuant to subsection (1) in relation to any ship, regardless of whether the Canadian Coast Guard actually provides a service to that particular ship, but-
The clause then goes on to make two exclusions. Thus what we will have in a city, port or river which requires ice-breaking services is that an ice-breaker will come into the area in November or December-although it will come in before the actual ice season-and sit there.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't even know about your own harbour.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The cost of the ice-breaker will be allocated to the port or to particular shippers through the whole winter season. That is not fair. It is not fair to a small port which cannot afford this type of charge. What it would do is literally bankrupt a harbours board or a particular industry because of the cost of maintaining a ship with a crew for a whole winter.
May 1, 1986


J. Michael Forrestall: You are stretching credibility.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There is also the possibility that this icebreaker might not be used all winter long. There is the possibility for an appeal to the Minister. What does that mean? What does that have to involve for some poor shippers? The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) told us that we do not have worry about fishermen. He has said that members of the Opposition are causing undue alarm. We are not causing undue alarm because there is enough alarm already in place without have to fabricate any more. Potentially, this is a very dangerous clause for all shippers and ports in eastern Canada, with the exception of ports such as Halifax, which is ice free. The Port of Halifax has a great deal of traffic and can provide a great many services. However, other areas in Atlantic Canada and on the St. Lawrence face a serious problem in terms of this clause.
Why is this measure being undertaken? Why is this cost-recovery measure being put forward to the detriment of small ports, shippers and people involved in navigation? There is no allocation, for instance, levied against truckers for snowplow services on the highways. The provinces are not undertaking any such move. How will shippers be able to compete when they have to bear the burden of all these costs under the guise of cost recovery? Truckers are able to roll across the highways without having to worry about paying for the cost of the repairs to the roads. They do not have to pay for snowplow services. This measure is just not fair. Yet members of the Government talk about equality and fairness.
Where is the fairness in the Department of Transport giving a subsidy to Atlantic Container for instance, to compete against the government-owned Crown corporation CN Marine? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the fairness in the lay-off of employees at Crown corporations who have worked for 20 years with CN Marine and other companies in the CN chain and who have no hope of finding other jobs?
There is a great deal to be taken into consideration here. I would ask the Government to reconsider a good deal of what it has put into the Bill, particularly with respect to Clause 4. As the Hon. Member for Algoma said, there are not many of us on this side of the House who quarrel with most of the provisions in the Bill. A great many of the provisions are necessary and will be helpful. However, I think that the thrust of Clause 4 is misdirected and it will be very harmful. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with this point, but it all relates back to the regulations which we have not seen and on which we cannot rely.
This is something which will have to be examined, regardless of what the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) said with respect to not allowing any abuses. The Hon. Member for Cardigan, or for that matter any other member of the Government, will not be able to control abuses if the Government wishes to abuse these provisions.
I ask the Government to reconsider Clause 4 of the Bill in the interests of shippers and people involved in navigation in
Canada Shipping Act
eastern Canada, particularly harbours which require icebreaking services.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government knew when this Bill was introduced that it would have problems with this particular clause. In speaking to the legislative committee which dealt with this Bill the Minister tried to say in one breath that the Government wanted to have the principle contained in the Bill. Then, in another breath he tried to say that we need to recover 15 per cent of the cost of operating the Coast Guard, navigational aids and ice-breakers. I imagine that an average ice-breaker would cost about $10,000 an hour, the Sir Humphrey Gilbert would.


J. Michael Forrestall: Good God, come back to relevancy.


George Baker: That is the fact. So it would probably cost about $1,000 to break out a typical iced-in harbour in the months of February or March on the coast of Newfoundland.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know very much about iced-in harbours on his coastline.


J. Michael Forrestall: Get your chain-saw going.


George Baker: He knows the difficulties fishermen have. He is saying: "Get your chain-saw going." He is right and now I know it. He knows something about it. What will have to happen if the ice-breaker is to be charged to the fishermen in those bays is that they will have to get their chain-saws out and their dynamite out in order to get their boats out in the spring. The Parliamentary Secretary knows what I am talking about. He knows that even now when an ice-breaker is ordered for certain sections of the coastline the draft is such that it cannot get right into the harbour. Of course, then the fishermen have to saw the passageway out with chain saws and dynamite in order to get the boats out for the early spring fishery. This happens maybe every second spring along most of the northern and northeastern coast of Newfoundland. It is not good enough for the Government to say that it wants to recover approximately 15 per cent of the costs of operating these services.
There is another danger here. People who use small boats call on the Coast Guard from time to time to be towed into port or for any number of services. If that person in a boat believes he is going to be charged for that service, then he will hesitate in making the call. There is a danger inherent in this clause just as there was when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) announced that he was going to charge for telephone calls to the weather office. Of course, the element of danger is that one hesitates to make that telephone call.
The principle in this Bill to which I strongly object is a principle that seems to be prevalent in every action the Government takes. It is called user pay. I can recall a time

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) rose day after day complaining about user pay while the former Government was in power. I do not see him now. What is he doing now? He is piloting the Bill through the House. He gets very angry and impatient with Hon. Members because they are not allowing this Bill through in a very quick fashion.
Today, May 1, is a very important day for user pay in Atlantic Canada. Today, for the first time in the history of Newfoundland since 1497, a fisherman has to pay to tie his boat to a government wharf.


J. Michael Forrestall: You've got three minutes left.


George Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary says that I only have three minutes left. The same policy that is being followed in Newfoundland has been extended to the whole coastline of Quebec. That is carrying user pay to the extreme. I believe it also violates the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland signed in 1949. Nowhere in those terms does it say that there could be a charge for tying a boat up to a government wharf.
On the coastline of Quebec, up in the Prime Minister's riding, beginning today the same principle of user pay goes into effect on wharfs that were never charged for before. Letters went out to boat owners and fishermen who were regulated because of their licences. All pleasure boat owners will be charged and so will fishermen with boats of 45 feet and longer. Members of the House have objected to the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). The principle of user pay contained in this particular Bill carries right throughout the government services.
The Government did an amazing thing in the way it will be trying to collect the money beginning today. The Government will tell a local community man that he can have 70 per cent of what he collects from the user-pay charges. The Bill that is being piloted through the House on behalf of the Minister of Transport has a principle of user pay built right into it. On top of that, today is the first day that these same fishermen who may be charged for their icebreaker, for navigational aids or for any number of things by the Government are being charged to tie boats up to a government wharf owned either by Small Craft Harbours, the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works.
The only thing the user-pay principle will do in smaller communities is to create incredible divisions within those communities. The Government turns around and says: "Well, the charge is not very much. It is only $ 1 a day if you have a 45-foot boat". A dollar a day three months in advance is $100. Who is this money to be collected by? It will be collected by someone on social assistance or on unemployment insurance who is told that he can keep 70 per cent of what he collects on the first $1,000, and then the formula goes down. That is the way government policy is translated into action in a great many coastal communities.
Apart from this particular clause, the Bill has other deficiencies which I am sure we will be addressing over the coming days and weeks and perhaps months. We will be addressing them until the Parliamentary Secretary does what he probably wants to do, and that is, bring in closure.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, just now, our attention was drawn to specific aspects of this Bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof.
What particularly intrigued me was the insertion of Clause 4 within a very substantial Bill. I think I should explain to Canadians who are watching us today that this Bill is more than 100 pages long, 111 to be exact. Something new has now been added, namely that is the principle of recovering the cost of some of the services rendered.
Mr. Speaker, what also intrigued me was the impressive list of people who made representations that were not accepted.

The Great Lakes Waterways Development Association is certainly well known as being a very serious organization. Allow me to put on the record for the understanding of those who may be following the debate its membership list: the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Algoma Central Railway, the Algoma Steel Corporation, Limited, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, the Canada Steamship Lines Inc., the Carghill Grain Company Limited, the Carryore Limited, the Continental Grain Company (Canada) Ltd., Dofasco, Gulf Canada Products Limited and the Hamilton & District Chamber of Commerce. The membership list continues as follows: Iron Ore Company of Canada, Labrador Mining & Exploration Co. Ltd., Lakehead Terminal Elevators Association, Les Elevateurs des Trois-Rivieres, Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Maple Leaf Mills Limited, Marsh Engineering Limited, and Ogilvie Mills Limited.

I am sure a number of Members have shares in this company.
Also it includes: Ontario Hydro, Ontario Paper Company Limited, P & H Shipping, Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, Port Colborne Chamber of Commerce, St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Stelco, Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Ultramar Canada Inc., and United Grain Growers Limited.

Mr. Speaker, as members of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, those people got together through
May 1, 1986

the Association's Chairman of the Board, Mr. Runciman, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), in which he said: Dear Prime Minister-and, among other things:

In part it reads:
-in the opinion of our members, the Government does not need all the power it is seeking via Clause 4 to achieve its announced objective. The excess power has the potential of inflicting serious damage on industries using the Great Lakes if misapplied in the years to come-In the meantime, we recommend it be removed from Bill C-75 prior to enactment.
I should like to refer to a brief entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act-Presentation to the Special Legislative Committee Examining Bill C-75", which was presented by Mr. C. R. Lunn on behalf of the Canadian Harbour Commission Ports. In part it reads:
Since the new Clause 4 allows for the possibility of Coast Guard recovering 100 per cent of the cost of its services, there is the potential for the cost of doing business in Canada to escalate to the point of being non-competitive. The ports are currently negotiating the guidelines for a user-pay dredging policy with Coast Guard-the option of the port authorities to pass these charges on does not exist if we are to avoid losing cargo to the United States.

He therefore humbly asks that this House, that Hon. Members with more expertise than I have, that is pretty obvious, would consider the representations that have been made. There were many witnesses who said that Clause 4 should not be included in this very substantial piece of legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister decided to maintain a new Clause 4 in this new Bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned, not that we are any less Canadian because we are proud Quebecers, but we are well aware of the struggle that has been going on for years to be able to keep our ports open year-round.
I am thinking about us Montrealers. If we had to begin charging for this service to keep the Montreal harbour and surrounding waters ice-free all year round, and I mean charging what it would really cost, well it stands to reason that it would give a definite advantage to certain other sea ports which remain operational throughout the year.
Surely the Members who represent the Halifax area will understand that we too want to put up a strong defence on behalf of the ridings we represent.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill introduces a new concept whereby the federal Government will be expected to recover the full costs of the services it has to offer.
I agree that the principle in itself is justifiable, particularly in times of economic hardships when all Governments- provincial, municipal and federal alike-are strapped for cash. So the Government wants to boost its revenues as much as possible.
But must this be considered as being fair to all classes of society? A moment ago my colleague the Hon. Member from the Province of Newfoundland told us that beginning today . ..
Canada Shipping Act
what a surprise, May 1, usually the occasion to celebrate workers the world over. Well if we consider that fishermen are workers, this is their celebration and on that very occasion we are told that, beginning today, even in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), any fisherman who wants to use a federal pier to moor his boat will have to pay, if I understood correctly what my colleague said. He is indignant because there had never been any question about that since his province joined the rest of Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few fishermen in eastern Canada. I do not like to talk about Quebec all the time.

It is not a question of saying that we are in Quebec. I would rather say eastern Canada, because then we would have a lot more in common. If we talk about eastern Canada, of course we include the Province of Quebec and the Atlantic or Maritime provinces as well. As I said earlier in French, they received a shock today. Today, being workers' day around the world, fishermen are among the people who should be celebrating as workers. However, they are being hit by a new indirect tax of which they were unaware. It is called a user fee.
I do not really understand the attitude of the Government. I think the Government could get this very imposing Bill through, but it is stubborn and will not accept the suggested changes to Clause 4, which is only a small part of the immense effort that has gone into the Bill. If these amendments were accepted, the Bill would go through. However, the Government has insisted upon including Clause 4, and insisted that we must accept or reject the Bill as a whole. That is sad. Much of what is contained in the Bill is acceptable, but the Government is being stubborn and wants to include Clause 4, the one dealing with user fees, even after many protests by the Great Lakes Waters Development Association and its membership, as well as many representations from the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and others. The Government still insists upon including it and refuses to see the exact cost of doing so.
The Minister wants to be given a blank cheque. I do not think my Party or the NDP want to give the Minister a blank cheque so that user fees can be charged. We are totally unaware of the cost of these user fees. However, I gather that we have a number of speakers in the two Parties who are interested in participating in the debate. If the Minister wants to get the Bill through, he should rethink his position and say: "If I can get the Bill through without Clause 4 and a couple of other clauses, I may as well take what I can now and come back later on the user fees".


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is disposition for us to move to the vote on my grouping of amendments at this point and proceed with the Liberal amendments thereafter.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Is it correct that the Royal Assent is scheduled for some point this afternoon?

May 1, 1986
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Royal Assent is scheduled for some point this afternoon, but I cannot tell the Hon. Member the exact minute.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely upfront about what we are doing. I believe there might well be a disposition on the part of everyone to complete the report stage of Bill C-75 by five o'clock today. In order to accommodate that, we would have the deferred vote taken, if you allow, or the necessary formalities gone through and then go to the Liberal amendments. In return for that we will hold third reading on this Bill until a subsequent date after the committee has returned from its travels.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have just been some consultations on this matter. On the advice of our critics in the Official Opposition, we are disposed to allow report stage to be completed this afternoon on the understanding that the Bill will not be called for debate at third reading until the Transport Committee comes back from a trip it has undertaken to carry out some hearings outside of the city.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of the two gentlemen who have just spoken. Would either of the opposition House Leaders be able to give me some indication as to whether or not there was an undertaking in those consultations as to how long third reading stage would last?


Ian Deans: There was no discussion on that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I happened to have heard the very worth-while suggestion made by the House Leader for the Official Opposition and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). That suggestion seems to be reasonable. We understand that we will call third reading debate on the return of the standing committee.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House may I now ask the traditional Thursday question on House business. I did not raise it earlier because we wanted to have certain consultations. If there is disposition of the House it may be timely to do it now since all three House leaders are here.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have had the benefit of some discussions and consultations with opposition House Leaders. On the basis that we will be voting on report stage on Bill C-75 later this afternoon, it is my intention to call Bill C-96, the EPF
legislation for tomorrow. There is a Ways and Means motion on the Order Paper with respect to the scientific research provisions of the Income Tax Act. I would ask that we consider concurrence of that motion on Monday morning next. We would then proceed with Bill C-96, if that is not concluded tomorrow, followed by Bill C-92, followed by the legislation with respect to the Ways and Means motion for which we will be asking concurrence on Monday. That is the sequence for next week. As usual, we will continue to monitor the progress of legislation and announcements will be made if there is any change to that sequence or order of business should that be decided upon.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT AND RELATED ACTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 (Mr. Angus) (p. 12764).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11 have been grouped for debate but will be voted on separately. The first question will be on Motion No. 5. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 19 to 37 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor;
"(3) A copy of each regulation of Governor in Council proposes to make under subsection (1) shall be laid before either House of Parliament.
(4)	Where, within twenty sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (3), fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, by notice in writing addressed to the Speaker, request that the proposed regulation be referred to a committee, the proposed regulation shall stand deferred to the standing committee of the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, that deals with transportation matters, or to such other committee as the Senate or House of Commons may order.
(5)	A committee to which a proposed regulation is referred under subsection
(4)	shall forthwith consider the proposed regulation and report thereon to the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, within thirty sitting days after the referral is made.
(6)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is referred to a committee of either or each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) within six months after the committee that reports or last reports, as the case may be, has reported under subsection (5).
(7)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is not referred to a committee of either House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) on the expiration of the time limit set out in subsection (4) in
May 1, 1986

respect of the House of Parliament before which the proposed regulation referred to in that subsection was last laid."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Angus moved:
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 6 the following:
"(10) Two years after the coming into force of section 3.1 and every two years thereafter, the Minister shall refer section 3.1 to the Standing Committee on Transport for the purpose of reviewing its economic impact on users of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard and the committees shall report not later than the sixtieth sitting day of the House, following the request for review."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Angus moved:
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 87 by striking out line 32 at page 111 and substituting the following therefor:
"by proclamation, with the exception of Section 4 which shall come into force on or after January 1, 1988.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed with Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) to move Motions 7, 8 and 9 for the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Baker: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 10 to 21 at page 9.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 52.1 by striking out lines 4 to 18 at page
34.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 18 to 26 at page 58.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say concerning the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). The amendments arise from the report on the Ocean Ranger disaster and the actions of the Government to date regarding those recommendations. When one examines the actual amendments, one discovers that the main points raised in the amenments have to do with the jurisdiction of the federal Government over drilling rigs in one way or the other. In other words, as things presently exist on the drilling rigs offshore, there are at least two jurisdictions as far as safety is concerned: first, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney); second, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski); and we could add a third jurisdiction, that being a provincial authority. In the case of the Province of Newfoundland, perhaps there could be an agreement between both Governments to have joint jurisdiction, but certainly we should have provincial regulations set down by the provincial petroleum authority. There is perhaps a fourth jurisdiction involved, and that is the international code or the building standards from which the rig originates or where the rig was built.
Under this Bill certainly, safety standards are tightened up as far as the construction of vessels or oil drilling rigs in Canada is concerned, but it does not address the question of an oil rig from the United States, from some part of Europe or from some other part of the world that is presently drilling just

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
outside the 200 mile limit, say in Hibernia. It does not cover those particular oil drilling rigs.
That opens up perhaps another question relevant to these amendments, and that is the extension of jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act to cover areas outside of the present jurisdiction of 200 miles. It also raises the question, as was raised in the Ocean Ranger report, of who is in charge of a vessel. Under the Canada Shipping Act, it is the captain. If you visit an oil rig, you will find that there is perhaps a mixed jurisdiction between the so-called captain and the tool pusher, who is in charge of the drilling that actually takes place on that rig. That is the foundation for the three amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
When one reads the report on the Ocean Ranger one can see why the Hon. Member from Newfoundland is so concerned about these amendments. One could not read the report without wondering what is wrong with our present system of monitoring activities and allocating jurisdictions with regard to safety aboard these drilling rigs on Canada's offshore. One wonders why none of the 20 to 30 people, who were alive in the water and threw a line aboard a rescue ship, were saved, especially with helicopters on site. A line was thrown aboard the so-called stand-by vessel which was supposed to be carrying out search and rescue activities as part of its operation as a stand-by supply vessel. One wonders how a line could be thrown aboard that ship from the people in the boat without those people being saved.
That is the foundation of the amendments moved by the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. The basic question asked by the Hon. Member in this Chamber through these amendments goes unanswered. It has not been responded to by the Government of Canada. The Royal commission report and the follow-up reports explained exactly what went wrong. All of the recommendations were submitted after the present Government took office. The Government of Canada can say that it has instituted 85 per cent of the recommendations made in the royal commission report. That does not, however, address the basic question of who has jurisdiction in the offshore. It cannot be divided between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Transport, the Provincial Petroleum Directorate, and the United States Shipping Standards.


An Hon. Member:: Sure you can.


George Baker: Indeed you cannot. The Hon. Member is saying you can. That cannot be done in a safe fashion. There cannot be, aboard a boat, a group of people who claim to be in charge who are going to make a decision when a disaster happens when no one knows who is actually in charge. Is it the man representing the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? Is it the tool pusher? Is the captain in charge? The
three amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe tried to answer the question of who has jurisdiction. This is a very, very serious matter. It did not help matters when the Government of Canada did not act as it should have in the aftermath of this disaster.
Another matter is that of the settlements awarded to the surviving families in this case. That is another law which must be changed. Something must be done about that by the Department of Justice. The settlements ranged from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. A great many Newfoundlanders suffered the embarrassment of having the question referred to a public forum. The settlements certainly reflected what is right with the U.S. law and what is wrong with the Canadian law.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the amendments moved by the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe address a very important question which has not yet been addressed by the Government of Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) has assured us on a couple of occasions that proper amendments will be introduced, perhaps sometime in the near future, to extend jurisdiction under the Canada Shipping Act. We look forward to that. In the meantime, we will vote in favour of these amendments and against the existing Bill in relation to these subjects.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate on the amendments moved by the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). The amendments before the House are identical in purpose to those moved in committee by me. These amendments would clearly outline that the responsibility for the safety of people who work on mobile offshore drilling units is in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). I give the Government credit for moving on the interpretation of the area of responsibility. If my memory is correct, we moved from strict jurisdiction by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources to jurisdiction split between the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Ministry of Transport.
Unlike the debate on Clause 4, through which we tried to restrict the powers of the Minister of Transport, through this amendment moved by the Liberal Party we want to increase the powers of that Minister. We do so out of recognition that with regard to matters dealing with a vessel, which for all intents and purposes a mobile offshore drilling unit is, it should be under the strict control of the master of that vessel. The jurisdiction should not be shared with the person who has knowledge of how to extract resources from the sea but, rather, should be the sole responsibility of the person who knows the ocean, the currents, and the seaworthiness of the drilling unit of which he or she is in charge.
This issue arises out of the very unfortunate sinking of the Ocean Ranger. I would like to quote briefly from that report as it relates to the issue at hand. It reads:
May 1, 1986

It is instructive to note, however, the general trend towards a lead agency, if not a "single window", for regulatory purposes.
The United Kingdom has adopted the single agency approach in allocating full responsibility to the Department of Energy, and Norway has initiated the process of moving full responsibility to the Petroleum Directorate... .In Canada the principle of a single window approach was adopted by the establishment of the Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration (COGLA). It is recommended:
86.	That Canada maintain the approach of a single regulatory agency, in concept and in practice, in exercising regulatory control over MODUs and the varied aspects of their drilling operations including the standby role of vessels and the rescue role of helicopters under contract to industry.
A device common to all jurisdictions under review to ameliorate jurisdictional jealousies, administrative overlaps and lack of co-ordination is the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the lead agency or single window agency and another department or agency-In Canada, the Memorandum of Understanding has been used for transferring powers in the reverse direction, as, for example, the empowering of the Canadian Coast Guard, through delegation from COGLA, to undertake certain functions that would otherwise be outside their jurisdiction.
It is suggested that this practice be reversed. If the single regulatory agency referred to in Recommendation 86 is to have the authority and capability to exercise fully the responsibilities envisaged for it in Recommendation 80, then powers, and in some cases personnel, will need to be transferred to it. It is recommended:
87.	That powers and, where necessary, personnel be transferred by Memoranda of Understanding to the single regulatory agency from other line departments and government agencies so that it can exercise fully and effectively its responsibility for safety of MODUs and the varied aspects of their drilling operations including the standby role of vessels and the rescue role of helicopters under contract to industry.
While the presentations made to the legislative committee with this matter were very small relative to the number that were made on the matter of Clause 4, the cost recovery clause, there was consistency throughout. Everyone who came before us said that there should be one agency. They said quite clearly that it should be the Minister of Transport who is responsible ultimately. Therefore, it would be the master on the MODU who would have responsibility in a time of crisis to make the decisions as to the safety of staying where they were, or whether, in fact, they should pull up their anchor and the pipes and get to an area of the ocean that is safe for both the people on the equipment and the equipment itself. The company of Master Mariners of Canada in a letter to the Minister of Transport wrote the following:
The Sea is an exacting mistress and Safety at Sea will be severely compromised should the use of uncertified and probably inexperienced personnel be allowed to take charge of Drilling rigs and Offshore supply vessels. There is no substitute for an experienced and well qualified seaman.
I think that sums it up. It makes the point that we should give the Minister of Transport the power to have jurisdiction. He should not have to negotiate with the Minister of Energy. He should have the power and ability to decide what is needed for the safety and the protection of those people on the rigs. I would encourage the Government to move that one more step and to accept this amendment.


George Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall), I believe, rose and wanted to say a few words.
Canada Shipping Act


J. Michael Forrestall: May I deal at third reading with the very good points raised by the Official Opposition and the NDP. There is a rationale for this and I thank them for their contributions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions will be taken separately on Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9. The first one is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Baker (for Mr. Tobin) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 10 to 21 at page
9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Tobin moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 52.1 by striking out lines 4 to 18 at page 34.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Tobin moved:

May 1, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 18 to 26 at page 58.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 19 to 37 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor;
"(3) A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under subsection (1) shall be laid before either House of Parliament.
(4)	Where, within twenty sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Pariament under subsection (3), fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, by notice in writing addressed to the Speaker, request that the proposed regulation be referred to a committee, the proposed regulation shall stand referred to the standing committee of the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, that deals with transportation matters, or to such other committee as the Senate or House of Commons may order.
(5)	A committee to which a proposed regulation is referred under subsection (4) shall forthwith consider the proposed regulation and report thereon to the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within thirty sitting days after the referral is made.
(6)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is referred to a committee of either or each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) within six months after the committee that reports or last reports, as the case may be, has reported under subsection (5).
(7)	Where a proposed regulation relating to any particular subject-matter is not referred to a committee of either House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a regulation relating to that subject-matter may be made under subsection (1) on the expiration of the time limit set out in subsection (4) in respect of the House of Parliament before which the proposed regulation referred to in that subsection was last laid."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I sense that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is rising to suggest that the same vote be applied to Motion No. 6.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I am suggesting that the same vote be applied to all of the remaining motions and that on the concurrence motion the same vote be applied but in the reverse.
May 1, 1986


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was unexpectedly detained. I have decided to vote with the government side on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) and the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) are rising to indicate that they are voting in the negative on this motion.
Therefore, the next question is on Motion No. 6. The vote on this motion will be recorded in the same way in which it was recorded previously but with the votes of the Hon. Members for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and Gatineau counted in the negative.
Leblanc Lesick Lewis Mailly Malone Marin McCain McCrossan McCuish McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McMillan Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen
Canada Shipping Act
Members
O'Neil
Pietz
Plamondon
Plourde
Price
Ravis
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sparrow
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Qufcbec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbini&re)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
V6zina
Vincent
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Winegard-88.
Therefore, the next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 6 the following:
"(10) Two years after the coming into force of section 4 and every two years thereafter, the Minister shall refer section 4 to the Standing Committee on Transport for the purpose of reviewing its economic impact on users of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard and the committee shall report not later than the sixtieth sitting day of the House, following the request for review."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Tobin moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 10 to 21 at page 9.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Tobin moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 52.1 by striking out lines 4 to 18 at page 34.
Vankoughnet	White	Winegard-88.
Vezina	Wilson
Vincent	(Swift Current-
Weiner	Maple Creek)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Brian Tobin moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 18 to 26 at page
58.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-75, be amended in Clause 87 by striking out line 32 at page 111 and substituting the following therefor:
"by proclamation, with the exception of section 4 which shall come into force on or after January 1, 1988."


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the motion shall carry on the same recorded vote but in the reverse.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


An Hon. Member:: At the next sitting of the House.
80181 - 14

May 1, 1986
Grand Canal Project


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit that, indeed, the Private Members' Hour be 60 minutes from the time the first Member starts to speak and that in the event that all of the 60 minutes are not used up with debate, there be no vote taken regardless of the time at which the actual debate ends.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like a reasonable proposition. To put the understanding in straightforward language: there will be 60 minutes of debate on Private Members' Hour and there will be no vote. If the hour is interrupted by Royal Assent-I guess we cannot mention that-but if we were able to mention it, or if we are interrupted for any other purpose, then that time will not be included in the 60-minute calculation. We will also carry on with the "Late Show" proceedings following Private Members' Hour.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Official Opposition are willing to agree to what has just been proposed, provided it is understood that if on a future occasion we ask for the same consideration for one of our Private Members' Bills it will be accorded to us.


Ian Deans: Absolutely.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NATURAL RESOURCES GRAND CANAL WATER DIVERSION PROJECT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That:
Whereas certain Canadian private interest groups are seriously proposing the Grand Canal project, which would involve constructing a dike across Janies Bay and diverting water to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence water basin through a system of canals, dams, underground water tunnels and pumping stations, for sale and redistribution to arid regions of the United States; and
Whereas the Grand Canal project is looked upon favourably by the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of Quebec, Canadian Free Trade Negotiator Simon Reisman and other public officials; and
Whereas concern has been expressed that Canadian fresh water may be included in free trade negotiations with the United States; and
Whereas there has been no consideration given to the impacts of the Grand Canal project on the enviornment and on the native population of the James Bay area whose livelihood depends on this water resource; and
Whereas proposed government studies of the Grand Canal project are contradictory to the goals and objectives of the 1985 Great Lakes Charter and a long-standing Canadian Government policy against mass water exports.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that this House expresses its outrage that the Grand Canal project could be seriously considered by Canadian private interest groups and public officials and opposes any study or further consideration of the proposal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that at any moment we will be faced with the usual interruption from the Senate in order
that we go down to witness Royal Assent in the Senate Chamber. I hope that will happen sometime after I finish my speech and not before.
In any event, I wish to speak about the Grand Canal scheme which is the brain-child of a Newfoundland-based engineer, Thomas Kierens, who proposes to build a dam across James Bay, thereby preventing fresh water from the James Bay watershed from flowing into Hudson Bay, eventually turning James Bay into a huge fresh water lake. This fresh water would then be rediverted south through a system of canals, tunnels and pumping stations to the Great Lakes, and beyond to points in the mid-west and southwest United States. At an estimated cost of $100 billion to $200 billion, the Grand Canal would be the most expensive construction project in Canadian history and would be a truly massive undertaking.
Mass water diversion and export proposals such as the Grand Canal are not new. Diversion schemes involving James Bay date back to the 1930s and several water diversion and export projects in western Canada have also been proposed, most notably the North American Water and Power Alliance or NAWAPA project. In the past, these proposals were considered too bizarre to be accorded much credibility. Lately, however, this situation has apparently changed and the Grand Canal has been given unsettling credibility in certain circles.
Kierens and his company, Grandco, have managed to line up an impressive number of influential people to back the Grand Canal scheme including Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa; Louis Desmarais, a former Liberal MP and brother of Paul Desmarais, the Chairman of Power Corporation; Bechtel Canada, the builders of the James Bay project and a subsidiary of the largest engineering firm in the world; and Canada's free trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, to name but a few. Many of these groups and individuals have been quietly lobbying the Government to support the Grand Canal project and to fund studies of the scheme. Grandco has already received a $30,000 grant from the St. John's office of the National Research Council and the NRC, and other government Departments are currently studying another request for an additional $750,000 for a pre-feasibility study of the scheme.
In the face of this lobbying, not to mention persistent questions by myself and others who are concerned about this issue, the Government has taken a curiously vacillating and inconsistent approach to the whole question. On the one hand, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said recently that any decision on mass water diversion or export schemes would have to await the formulation of a national water policy. He also added that he is personally opposed to the Grand Canal scheme and other inter-basin transfers of water. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not only endorsed the export of water by tanker from his own riding but he was also quoted in Fortune magazine of March of last year
May 1, 1986

as saying something to the effect that he would be willing to consider mass water exports to the United States.
Then last April 19, in response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), the Prime Minister indicated his support for the Grand Canal when he said the following:
I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that I view the prospect with enthusiasm. In fact, I can tell him that I am working on draft terms of reference whereby the federal Government might properly involve itself in co-operation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec in developing these kinds of resources for the benefit of the citizens of those two provinces and Canada.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada speaking in this House, and his comments cannot be misconstrued or attributed to comments made before the last election as the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tried to imply when I asked a question on this matter on January 22.
Tonight, hopefully someone from the government benches will clarify for the House just who, the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment, speaks for the Government on the Grand Canal and on water exports in general. If it is the Prime Minister, perhaps the government spokesperson could also explain what happened to the terms of reference to which the Prime Minister referred last year and why the Government has abandoned a long-standing Canadian policy against water export schemes such as the Grand Canal.
We also need clarification from the Liberal Party. On one hand, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) appears to be genuinely opposed to the Grand Canal and other mass water export schemes. On the other, as I have already noted, at least one influential former Liberal MP, the current Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and the Liberal Premier of Quebec appear to be enthusiastically supportive of the Grand Canal. For his part, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), when I asked him about his position on the Grand Canal, merely said that he thought it should be studied. The Liberals are obviously of two minds on water exports and the Grand Canal just as they are on other issues like free trade and universality.
This leads me to another concern I and others have about the Grand Canal and similar water export schemes. In recent months, Simon Reisman, Canada's free trade negotiator and a vocal proponent of the Grand Canal, has not only said on numerous occasions that Canada's fresh water should be on the free trade negotiating table but has gone as far as to say that allowing American access to Canadian fresh water may, in fact, be a cornerstone of any free trade agreement with the United States. The Secretary of State has said that Canadian water is not on the bargaining table and has even gone as far as to be irritated with me for asking the question more than once. Yet Mr. Reisman voices his personal views with sufficient regularity and the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, is sufficiently vague on water exports that one cannot help but be worried.
Grand Canal Project
Canadian waters are not ours to sell, Mr. Speaker. In this sense, opposition to the Grand Canal and other water export schemes is not to be seen as selfishness but as good stewardship of that which has been entrusted to us. Furthermore, the inclusion of Canadian water in free trade negotiations with the United States would pose serious consequences for Canadian sovereignty. Unlike other resource projects, once something like the Grand Canal is in place, Canada cannot just decide to turn off the tap. No mater what, Canada will be obliged to keep the water flowing. That is the simple, hard fact of the matter. What is more, once one diversion scheme like the Grand Canal is in place, a precedent will be established. Not only might the Americans come to expect ready access to Canadian fresh water but Canadians, particularly under Tory or Liberal Governments, might feel obliged or pressured to deliver. This one precious resource could draw Canadians inextricably into the already stifling embrace of the United States. For those of us who value this country and would like to see Canada pursue independent foreign, domestic and environmental policies, mass water export schemes such as the Grand Canal must be resisted.
What about the social cost, Mr. Speaker? The Grand Canal project would entail a massive disruption and dislocation of northern communities due to a rapid escalation in development. Particularly hard hit would be native Canadians whose traditional lifestyle would be severely compromised. Furthermore, should the grand Canal project go ahead, it would place a multitude of obstacles in the path of equitable Indian land claims settlements and Indian self-government.
We have seen far too often in the past that Indian rights invariably take second place to mega-projects and there is no reason to believe that the Grand Canal would be any different. This is no doubt one of the reasons the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, which represents 42 northern Ontario Indian bands and whose Grand Chief I had the opportunity to meet recently, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Grand Canal.
In a telex objecting to the Grand Canal that the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation and Great Lakes United sent to the Prime Minister on February 10, the Nishnawbi-Aski Nation outlined its concerns clearly when it noted the following:
Your government has brought into question the strength of constitutional guarantees for the Nishnawbe-Aski peoples' aboriginal and treaty rights.
Doubt has been cast on the seriousness with which your government will support Indian self-government initiatives and the future Indian control of resources.
These are legitimate concerns and all of us in the House have an obligation to resist any efforts to further degrade and abuse the rights and land of Canada's aboriginal people.
Finally, there are the environmental consequences of the Grand Canal to consider. The most obvious of these would be the scars on the landscape and environment in general that would result after an army of engineers and construction workers had blasted, hacked and carved their way through the Canadian Shield in building the various dams, canals, tunnels and pumping stations necessary to create a man-made lake at

May 1, 1986
Grand Canal Project
James Bay and to transport the resulting fresh water. Another obvious environmental consequence would be that the Grand Canal would condemn to destruction the entire marine ecosystem in and around James Bay including all the fish, seals, whales, sea birds, vegetation and other living organisms that depend on a saltwater environment to survive.
It is also believed that this project could seriously affect global climatic conditions by blocking the flow of fresh water that flows into James Bay and on into Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean. Scientists fear that the Grand Canal, by shutting off James Bay, would increase salinity levels in Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean thereby melting icebergs and the polar ice cap and increasing temperatures in the Arctic. If this were to happen, weather conditions around the northern hemisphere could be permanently altered, affecting agricultural and other important social and economic activities. What a prospect: if the Grand Canal were to go ahead in the rush to find a quick fix, a technocratic solution to irrigation problems south of the border and economic problems here in Canada, we could in fact destroy countless acres of productive land around the world.
Another aspect of the Grand Canal is one I have raised on numerous occasions, including this afternoon, and that is, nuclear energy. The backers of the Grand Canal are considering using nuclear power to pump water from James Bay down to the Great Lakes. Atomic Energy of Canada admitted recently that it is already studying the feasibility of using nuclear power in connection with the Grand Canal scheme. According to Energy Probe, the Grand Canal Scheme would require 12,500 megawatts of generating capacity, a power demand that equals half the demand of the Province of Ontario at peak hours. To provide this power, one would need more power than is available from the entire James Bay project or, worse, 17 Bruce-sized nuclear reactors.
As one who has long opposed nuclear power and the underhanded nature in which the nuclear industry operates, I am hardly surprised that AECL sees a great opportunity here. AECL is always looking for an excuse to justify its nuclear reactor program. However, as we have seen this week as a result of the tragic nuclear accident in Ukraine-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. Can the Hon. Member conclude very briefly, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief paragraphs to go. We have seen this week the result of a tragic nuclear accident in Ukraine. Nuclear power is a deadly energy option with truly horrific and catastrophic consequences should something go terribly wrong, as just happened in the Soviet Union. To build 17 additional nuclear reactors to service the Grand Canal would virtually double the number of reactors in service or under construction in Canada and would make the Grand Canal even more of a technological and environmental Frankenstein than it already is.
Finally, I should also point out that the Soviets recently decided to go ahead with a massive water diversion scheme of their own that, like the Grand Canal, would divert waters now flowing into the Arctic Ocean southward. The Soviets did not take this decision lightly. In fact, they delayed the project four years for many of the same reasons I have already mentioned in connection with the motion before us. As we have seen this week, the Soviets have hardly had an enviable environmental record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: One more sentence, please.


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the Hon. Member because he has now taken quite a lot more than the 10 minutes he is allowed. I think he knows that and will understand.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) deserves the commendation of the House for bringing a motion of this kind to our attention. It is a timely motion and, if I may say so-and I am not attempting to flatter the Hon. Member-I think he gives meaning to the following phrase in our National Anthem: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee".
The Grand Canal Project is an engineering proposal which has rather frightening aspects to it. When I first came to the House, 1 really cut my teeth on controversial issues by becoming involved at that time in proposals which had been developed between Canada and Ontario on water diversion schemes in northern Ontario. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance on the knock at the door? Should I continue?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has paused, and I will now pause. May I say for his guidance and that of others, it is entirely up to the Hon. Member to decide whether to stop. However, having paused, I think we will take advantage of his pause.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned.
["The hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper."]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy
May 1, 1986

Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
An Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 20.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blaikie:
That:
Whereas certain Canadian private interest groups are seriously proposing the Grand Canal project, which would involve constructing a dike across James Bay and diverting water to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence water basin through a system of canals, dams, underground water tunnels and pumping stations, for sale and redistribution to arid regions of the United States; and
Whereas the Grand Canal project is looked upon favourably by the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of Quebec, Canadian Free Trade Negotiator Simon Reisman and other public officials; and
Whereas concern has been expressed that Canadian fresh water may be included in free trade negotiations with the United States; and
Whereas there has been no consideration given to the impacts of the Grand Canal project on the enviornment and on the native population of the James Bay area whose livelihood depends on this water resource; and
Whereas proposed government studies of the Grand Canal project are contradictory to the goals and objectives of the 1985 Great Lakes Charter and a long-standing Canadian Government policy against mass water exports.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that this House expresses its outrage that the Grand Canal project could be seriously considered by Canadian private interest groups and public officials and opposes any study or further consideration of the proposal.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating to the House that when I first came to Parliament I cut my teeth on controversial issues by opposing a scheme that had been financed by Canada and Ontario to divert a number of northward flowing rivers, rivers like the Albany, the Severn, the Attawaspaskat, to divert those magnificent northward flowing rivers into the Great Lakes system. A great deal of money had been spent by the two levels of Government to consider its feasibility. Eventually the plan was rejected, but in the meantime while the study was going on it created anxiety and concern throughout northern Ontario and most particularly among the Indian people, the aboriginal people who occupy that part of the province.
I want to indicate to the House that what we are talking about today is not a water diversion scheme in that sense. We are talking about a plan or a proposal for the transfer of water from the north to the south. My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill described this process very carefully and effectively. It really staggers the mind to imagine building a dike across the entire northern section of James Bay where James Bay meets Hudson Bay and turn what is now a salt
Grand Canal Project
water body into a fresh water lake. Then, if you can believe it, Sir, they are going to transfer, by means of a series of step reservoirs and pumping stations, fresh water from the north over the height of land where the rivers flow northward to where they begin to flow southward and allow all that fresh water to go into the Great Lakes system. The Great Lakes will then become a great storage basin for water which will be called upon, on demand, to feed the parched areas of North America. It is a mammoth, massive engineering scheme that staggers the imagination.
Let us begin with the costs. My hon. friend from Winnipeg-Birds Hill said it is somewhere between $100 billion and maybe as much as $200 billion. Knowing about cost overruns and the way these projects always seem to get much larger than they are-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa Centre):: Do we hear $300 billion?


B. Keith Penner: -we may as well have an auction because the amount of money will be so enormous that I think we could put the whole debate to bed right now because that amount of money is not available; $100 billion is not available and it never will be, at least in the lifetime of all of us in this House of Commons.
This grandiose scheme to pump water thousands of miles from the north to the south is an engineering project that I do not think we will ever see. Therefore, the question is: does it make good sense at a time when we are trying to save money and watch our expenditures? Every one of us is cognizant of and worried about the deficit, even my friend from Winnipeg-Birds Hill must have had a few sleepless nights about the deficit.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am fiscally conservative. It is my Presbyterian roots.


B. Keith Penner: He is fiscally conservative. Even the new socialist Government in New Zealand has great concern about the deficit and is being very effective in dealing with it.
My hon. friend asks whether the Liberal Party was together on this. I doubt it, I doubt it very much. I am not on the same wave length as the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa. I am not on the same wave length as my former colleague in this House, Mr. Louis Desmarais, a distinguished Member of Parliament who is promoting the project. Simon Reisman once served a Liberal Government. I do not suppose he was ever on side although I have no way of knowing that, but he has provided expert advice on this project. We are not all of us together on this. If that bothers my hon. friend, I want to say that the Liberal Party is not a church. We are a political Party. The great thing about the Liberal Party is that Members do not need to be afraid to think.


Dave Nickerson: They never do.


B. Keith Penner: When they go to a national convention and want to think about how they can change the size of the

May 1, 1986
Grand Canal Project
deficit, that is permissible. We can do that. We have proven to Canadians that we know how to spend money. Now I think we have to prove to the Canadian people that we also know how to be fiscally responsible. That may involve changing a few things, but I will save that for another debate.
To show you that I am at least on side with the environmental critic, let me tell you what the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) the former Minister of the Environment, said about the Grand Canal project. Then you will know that there are at least two of us on the same wave length on this project. He said, writing to Mr. Thomas Kierens:
It is a crackpot idea which for political, social and environmental reasons should never get off the ground.


Dave Nickerson: That is what they said about the CPR.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is still a crackpot idea.


B. Keith Penner: Great Lakes United is an international organization dedicated to conserving and protecting the Great Lakes. It has looked carefully at the Thomas Kierens project from its point of view, and I give a great deal of credence to the arguments that this organization puts forward. It said that the environmental and social impacts of what it calls a $100 billion monster would be severe. That organization goes on to argue as well that it would probably violate the Great Lakes Charter.
For the benefit of Hon. Members who are not aware of the Great Lakes Charter let me say that it was signed in 1985 before Mr. Bourassa was back in office. It was signed by Ontario and Quebec. It was also signed by eight American states, all the American states that are on the Great Lakes system. This Charter is dedicated to protecting the Great Lakes from any severe impacts, either water levels or anything that would have some kind of negative impact on the ecosystem around the Great Lakes.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to put your mind for a moment on this Grand Canal project and imagine using the Great Lakes as a great water storage system. Can you imagine anything that would go contrary to the Charter more than that? I think that Mr. Bourassa had better review the commitment of his province to that Charter. I know it will be done in Queen's Park, but I think that enough has been said on the question of looking at the cost, the Charter and what it would do to the ecosystem. I think all Hon. Members will want to be of one mind on this issue at least and will want to support my friend and recommend to the Government that no more funding of any kind, even a few dollars, should be given to the Grand Canal scheme.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He and I see eye to eye because of our height, and we also see eye to eye on this particular motion.
Large scale water transfer projects, such as we have already seen in Canada, are a technical possibility with sometimes undesirable environmental and social consequences. In the rush to meet increasing water demands for energy, agriculture and other needs, we often tend to forget that the development, management and regulation of our own water heritage must correspond with ecological realities. Technical feasibility and socioeconomic gain can no longer be promoted at the expense of ignoring environmental issues. A planner's perspective must now transcend what is technically and economically feasible, socially and politically acceptable and legally permissible, to include the consideration of ecological constraints and consequences of water resource development. Canadians no longer tolerate ecological naivete, and neither will the Government, especially when it applies to land use for embassies in Ottawa which may impact on the fresh water of the Ottawa River.
Public reaction to such recent domestic water projects as the Slave River Hydro Development, Skagit, Garrison Diversion and others, when they appeared to threaten ecosystem stability, was immediate and vociferous. Public reaction does not stop after flagging the issues. For example, in the case of the James Bay Project, the first environmental impact studies based on new research were undertaken, not by developers but by independent scientists working on behalf of native groups and funded by the federal Government.
Technological advances and a gradual progression northward in search of suitable sites for damning or diversion have led to the recent advocation of megaprojects. Disadvantages of such proposals are often found in the inherent complexity of the projects themselves. Their large size increases the potential interaction between project components and the ecosystem. For these large projects our understanding of all the components and links are often incomplete. Unfortunately, the aspects which are studied are those which address short-term concerns.
It would appear, therefore, that as the magnitude of such projects increases with greater influence on the biosphere, so does the inaccuracy and uncertainty of being able to predict the project's environmental consequences. Also, inadequate lead time for study and research of the project-environment relationship has, on occasion, resulted in a failure to anticipate major ecological changes outside the sphere of influence of the development. Operation of the W.A.C. Bennett damn, for example, resulted in major adverse changes to prime marsh habitat 800 kilometers downstream of the damn site. That is quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker.
It seems, therefore, that the more drastic the changes in the river regime, the more extensive will be the expected disruption to the ecological balance. On occasion, such imbalances have led to direct economic hardships or health concerns as in the case of mercury contamination of commercially important downstream fisheries in the Churchill-Nelson system in Manitoba or reduction of the subsistence fishery in the La Grande River in Quebec.
May 1, 1986

On the other hand, we can rest assured that environmentally significant activities such as large scale water transfers will be subject to the full attention of the federal Government's regulatory apparatus and environmental protection mandate. In addition, guidelines, regulations and legislation protecting wildlife-in which I have a great personal, professional, and political interest-water quality, endangered species, environmentally sensitive regions and heritage rivers come into play in the planning, evaluation and implementation of such activities.
I am reminded that in 1969 I did a paper in the ecology class of Dr. Vaillancourt at the University of Ottawa in cooperation with a classmate, Cathi Campbell. I quote myself from that paper as follows: "The importance of our water resources will become immense before the end of the century".
Specifically, the federal environmental assessment and review process requires federal agencies to administer the process when proposed activities have federal involvement and may significantly affect the environment. An undertaking of such magnitude as water transfer would likely meet one or more of the criteria for federal involvement. If a review were to demonstrate environmental deficiencies in project planning, the construction of a water transfer project would not go forward until appopriate studies were completed and the deficiencies corrected.
Furthermore, should a review demonstrate the potential for major environmental damage, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has the final option, as part of the process, not to approve construction of the project. From this it can be seen that when projects of this magnitude come under government scrutiny, the federal Government retains a firm controlling hand. Environmental assessment in Canada has neither wisely used, nor demanded, post-development audit information for diversion schemes on which to build a predictive base for possible environmental impact assessment. Despite Canada's poor record of post-development auditing, certain general environmental issues can be suggested as requiring attention for water transfers of any consequence. Large scale diversions of northward flowing rivers that are proposed or under way on several continents have certain environmental impact features in common.
Inter-basin water transfers where two or more distinct drainages are involved retain the potential for biotic transfer. Invading fish species may replace more economically desirable ones or introduce parasites to previously isolated populations. Such biological changes may range from beneficial to totally catastrophic. I am reminded of what happened when eels infested our Great Lakes system which created a tremendous problem. A former professor of mine, also at the University of Ottawa, Dr. Vladikov, was instrumental in solving that problem.
When the riverine discharge to the sea is altered in quantity or timing, the resulting changes may cause dramatic shifts in the dynamics of coastal marine processes and organisms. Altering James Bay from salt to fresh water would most
Grand Canal Project
certainly cause complete changes in characteristics of the bay's wildlife with as yet unidentified far-reaching consequences.
Assessing the environmental impact of major diversion of northward flowing rivers is, at the present, speculative at best. Examination of analogous situations in the U.S.S.R. and our own experience with diversions, albeit of smaller magnitude, have raised the level of public and scientific concern. Longterm ecological and climatological effects, particularly major changes in Arctic ice pack formation, atmospheric circulation, temperature, and in precipitation patterns in the northern hemisphere are all within the realm of possibility. Even if we can convince ourselves that one project by itself does not cause measurable impact on such factors, we must look ahead and consider what the impact of separate projects in one country, or projects in several countries, will have.
For the Grand Canal scheme augmentation of existing data bases would be a necessary requirement in order to make realistic predictions of the potential effects of terminating the freshwater flow of James Bay into Hudson Bay. We know that a major ecosystem shift would follow the altering of James Bay from salt to fresh water and include the loss of salt marshes, an estuarine habitat important to a major portion of the North American migratory bird population. The understanding of the dynamics and economic cost of such changes remain, at present, out of reach until engineering scenarios are better defined and biological data bases completed.
The creation of "anti rivers" and hydrological pumping systems to transport the water south may also result in classical environmental problems of erosion, water quality, fish migration problems and habitat loss, etc., already associated with existing, less ambitious water transfer schemes. When reservoirs are introduced into the scheme of things as part of water transfer projects, those impacts normally associated with reservoir construction and operation also add to the projects over-all complexity, degree of environmental disturbance and need for mitigation.
Environmental concerns are no longer a "frill" in the minds of Canadians and must be taken very seriously. The Minister of the Environment has already indicated that more must be learned about the environmental effects of large-scale water diversions before we can proceed with implementation of any such scheme. Massive export and sale of our fresh water is not acceptable. As far as I am concerned it is not now and never should be-and God help us if it ever is-on the bargaining table.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, since this will be my first long speech in French in this House, I intend to use a written speech. I admit the speech was drafted by civil servants, but I trust you will find it both entertaining and edifying.

May 1, 1986
Grand Canal Project
In recent years, Canadians have become increasingly aware of the vital connection between the environment and the economy. As a result of this awareness, we now see a healthy and growing interest in our environmental resources. We know that economic growth and maintaining our economic perspectives require us to have pure air, clean water and good soil conditions. We know that like any prosperous merchant, we must take an inventory of our natural environment. Exhausting our natural resources, as a result of bad management and a thirst for profit, means that we compromise our prospects for the future. In a world that is becoming increasingly competitive, only careful management of our natural resources will give us an edge over our competitors.
Water is undoubtedly one of our most precious resources. In Canada we have become very much aware of our responsibility for maintaining the quantity and improving the quality of the water we have. Canadians understand more than ever before that careful management is essential if we are to transfer this resource intact to future generations.
In Canada, we are lucky to have an abundant supply of hydraulic resources. However, it is clear that vital elements of our economic well-being depend on a delicate balance between the reserves at our disposal and how we use them. In recent years, Western Canada experienced the devastating effects that insufficient precipitation can have on agriculture and forestry, and further east, the Great Lakes region suffered excessive precipitation which caused considerable damage to lakeshore property and serious economic problems. There is also the increasing problem of water pollution, caused either directly by spillage or indirectly by airborne pollution. Thus, even if it is an abundant resource, we cannot take it for granted. The time has come to act quickly to protect both quality and quantity.
This is a task that will have to be shared by all, by the federal Government and the provincial governments, by industry, cities and municipalities, by farmers and by all Canadians. Those who share the benefits must also share the responsibility for managing this resource. This will require a national consensus on the best way to manage and use this resource, while ensuring that it is improved and maintained for future generations of Canadians.
I think a step has already been made in the right direction. The Government is now looking at the findings and recommendations of the Pearse Commission whose mission it was to investigate our federal water policy. The Commission examined every aspect of the situation, from pollution to international agreements on management of international waterways. I think it is important to point out that the Commission examined the various management aspects of the question, while at the same time considering water as a complete and indivisible entity. I believe that in drafting a sound management policy we must continue to look upon this very precious resource as a whole rather than try to deal separately with one or the other aspect of its management.
I have already referred briefly to a number of serious problems facing Canadians with respect to the quality and quantity of available waters. I would suggest that priority will have to be given to a serious examination of the social, economic, intergovernmental, international, technical and environmental impact of current or proposed water uses because all these factors will influence the over-all and coherent management of this resource, and will in turn be influenced by the way it is managed. One of the earlier problems concerning water management was that, although we had the required technical know-how to build dams, hydro lines and waterways, or to develop new chemical products, we simply did not know how to minimize as quickly as possible the unforeseen and undesirable secondary effects such as social upheavals caused by community disruption, loss of a traditional means of survival, or again damages to the environment due to the destruction of spawning grounds, or water losses caused by industrial or agricultural pollution.
Oftentimes in the past the benefits derived from such activities were offset to various degrees by these secondary effects. Efforts were made as well to remedy certain situations, but in a number of cases they gave partial results only, or required much time, energy and money.
In my judgment, part of the problem was and still is our tendency to consider only the positive aspects of any new plan or development. The sound management of our water resources requires us to examine closely all factors which might have a direct or indirect impact on them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley), and anyone else who might rise to speak before the House recesses, that I did not anticipate we would go beyond six o'clock. I made a commitment to be elsewhere at 6.30 p.m. and I apologize for not staying and listening to the Hon. Member.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie): apologies accepted. The Hon. Member's Motion No. 104 deals with a very important issue of concern to many Canadians. I am glad that the Hon. Member has given us the opportunity this day to discuss the issue further.
Last year, the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet empowered the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to act for the Government in formulating a national water policy. Indeed, the Minister has given this matter top priority. The Cabinet has further decided that until this policy is in place, there will be no major inter-basin diversions or large scale exports of water. Even then, any decision for or against water policy will be made in the context of an over-all policy and not on an ad hoc basis.
May 1, 1986

The first step in developing the water policy was the inquiry on federal water policy headed by Dr. Peter Pearse of the University of British Columbia. The Pearse inquiry was established in January, 1984, and reported to the Minister of the Environment in September, 1985.
The mandate of the Pearse inquiry was to consider the nature of emerging issues. These issues included the state of the water resource, future requirements for water, interjurisdictional dimensions and scientific and research expertise with a view to ensuring the enhancement of the health, wellbeing and prosperity of the people of Canada. In conducting its work, the inquiry actively sought the views of provincial, territorial and federal government departments and their agencies, of private citizens and public groups, as well as the input of industry and the academic community in Canada.
Between late September and early December, 1984, 201 presentations were heard at 33 days of hearings in 17 locations across Canada. Over 300 written submissions were received by the inquiry. In addition, the inquiry commissioned 22 separate research papers on special problems. Praise is due to the inquiry members for their wide and effective process of consultation.
Not surprisingly, one of the topics that generated keen interest in all parts of Canada was the issue of water export. Of the 77 briefs on this subject, most were opposed to the idea. Only a few, mainly the promoters of particular projects, regarded exports as a promising economic opportunity.
In its final report entitled Currents of Change, the inquiry made 55 recommendations. Three of these recommendations deal with the subject of water export. The inquiry concluded that:
It would be imprudent for the Federal Government to reject all exports out of hand.
The inquiry members went on to say that any water export policy: "Should clearly set out the conditions that must be met for any proposal to be acceptable", and that there should be: "Clear procedures for assessing export proposals." Therefore, in its conclusions, the inquiry recommended that:
The Federal Government should pass legislation to require anyone who proposes to export water to obtain a licence. This legislation should identify the matters that will be taken into account in considering a licence application.
Small scale export proposals, such as those involving tanker operations, were viewed in a different light than the inter-basin transfers to the United States because of the obvious differences in their impacts and the volumes of water involved. Because diversions for large scale water export to the United States, which would include proposals such as Grand Canal, require very careful scrutiny, the inquiry recommended that:
The Cabinet should determine whether the Government is prepared to consider large-scale diversions of water to the United States and, if so, the criteria that must be met for approval of proposals.
Further, if the Government is going to consider diversions to the United States, the Pearse inquiry recommended that for the purposes of assessing water export proposals having significant environmental, social or economic implications, the
Grand Canal Project
Minister of the Environment should be empowered to appoint a special review panel for each proposal. These panels should consist of members appointed in consultation with the governments of provinces or territories directly affected by the project.
Further, the panels should investigate the full range of matters that the Minister must review in considering an application for an export licence, according to criteria determined by government. Third, these panels should receive information and analysis from relevant governments and agencies, as well as from the proposal's proponents and other interested groups. Fourth, the panels should consider feasible modifications of the proposal in terms of scale, characteristics and time of construction.
Fifth, the panel should hold public hearings where no other suitable provisions are made for the public to review the implications for the interests of all Canadians. Finally, the panels should publicly report their findings, with recommendations about whether the licence should be granted and, if so, what terms and conditions should be attached to the particular licence.
The Pearse inquiry made two additional points on the export of water issue. First, applicants should bear the costs of assembling the information required for assessments, and the Government should not be doing their homework for them. Second, the Government should resist pressures to support any large international diversions, at least until recommended arrangements are in place.
This is exactly what the Government had been attempting to do. The Minister of the Environment has said publicly on many occasions that decisions on water export will not be made until a national water policy is in place.
Developing that water policy is now a top priority of the Government. Within a week of receiving the inquiry's report, the Hon. Minister of the Environment presented it to his provincial colleagues at the meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. He requested their reaction within six months. In November, 1985, the Minister similarly met and discussed the report with about 300 representatives of the environmental, non-government organizations. Following this inquiry, the Minister also established an interdepartmental water policy task force to assist him in developing the new national water policy. The task force will be reviewing the inquiry's recommendations and taking into account the views of the provinces, the non-governmental organizations and the general public. This group will be advising him, this summer, on a course of action.
In developing that portion of a national water policy on large scale water exports, there clearly are a great number of issues that must be considered. For instance, transferring water from one watershed to another or one oceanic basin to another can have uncertain ecological effects. Diversions involve significant changes to the natural environment by interrupting river flows, flooding, the transferral of life forms

May 1, 1986
*

Grand Canal Project
and may even have the potential for changing atmospheric or oceanic conditions. These changes would impinge on land and other uses of natural resources and threaten to dislocate established communities that are dependent on them. Really, their environmental and social impacts must be considered irreversible for all practical purposes.
The question of capital investment must also be considered in such a discussion. It would be enormous and difficult to predict, given long construction periods. Moreover, capital costs could be recouped only over long operational periods. This presents additional uncertainties about cost, benefits and the future direction of technological change.
To aggravate the situation, there are the international dimensions of such large water diversion schemes. How do they fit into international law and established arrangements between Canada and the United States under existing treaties? The recent Great Lakes Charter, a statement of intent among the eight states and two provinces bordering the Great Lakes, is opposed to any diversion schemes. Perhaps the most important factor of which we must take note is the lack of demand at this time for our water. As the Hon. Minister of the Environment said: "The Americans are not beating down our door yet". In fact, we have not had official overtures from the United States or from any other country at this time for our water. The report of the inquiry states that: "Foreign demand on Canadian water is so far a made-in-Canada controversy". U.S. officials have continued to be indifferent to water importation schemes, which is in marked contrast to the heated public debate on this side of our border. This factor can no longer be ignored.
Later this year policy measures which emerged from the inquiry's recommendations, from provincial and public discussions and the task force will be discussed in Cabinet. At that point the position of the federal Government on water export in general, and on such proposals as the Grand Canal in particular, will be made much clearer.
To conclude, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill can rest assured that the federal Government will take no action on the Grand Canal until the national water policy is clearly established and in place. That policy will recognize the very complex and controversial nature of this issue.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a minute or two to speak on this Private Members' Bill. I have always enjoyed Private Members' Hour because we hear different perspectives from Hon. Members who come from different regions of the country. I am always amazed at the official position of the New Democratic Party, which has truly become an entrenched ultraConservative Party. It does not even want to study any question. Rather than being opposed to studying a question, if that Party is convinced something is not good for the country, there is all the more reason to have these studies in order to verify the points they put forth so strongly. It seems to me the
Government has a positive duty to study the issue so that it can be settled.
This country has always relied upon its resources. If we had accepted the position of the New Democratic Party on development, we would have no development. Canada would never have come to exist. We started with fish. That meant fish had to be pulled out of the sea, which made for fewer fish. We then moved on to beaver. We all appreciate what the beaver meant to the early development of Quebec, northern Canada and Ontario. The buffalo had its use for leather in the West. Then there was oil and gas. This country is immensely more rich and our standard of living is higher because we used and developed our resources. It seems incongruous to me that the Socialist Party seems in favour of exporting a reasonable amount of oil and gas, which is a non-renewable resource, yet is opposed to a study with respect to exporting water, which is perpetually renewable. If I had to choose, I would far rather keep our petroleum products in the ground for our grandchildren and great grandchildren than our water, which flows off and is forever lost.
I think we ought not to forget that our life-style, which is very high indeed, depends on the use of our resources. That is not to say that we should exploit those resources and destroy our environment. We very much need to spend our time studying ways in which to use our resources so that they will be available 10 generations down the road. We have much to learn. If we do not develop our resources, we might have to be prepared to see our life-style drop by 50 per cent or 75 per cent. I do not believe people are prepared to let that happen.
I personally-and we all speak personally in Private Members' Hour-see the Grand Canal concept as an enormous opportunity, just as the Lachine Canal has enhanced our standard of living and just as the Rideau Canal provides immense enjoyment for thousands of tourists and has created thousands of jobs. We have the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Just think of what the Grand Canal would mean to those 4,000 unemployed engineers in the city of Calgary alone. Those engineers should be put to use. We have spent billions of dollars in a very expensive educational system, giving our young people a high level of education for which we are not providing jobs.
It strikes me as very worth while to study this project. I would stand four-square behind the study. How are we going to get $12 billion to pay for our old age security if we do not make the investment today? If we do, our children can have the jobs which will create the wealth so that they can look after us when we are old. If there had been no CPR, I for one, as well as I suppose six million other people in the West, would not be here today. When Canada was created in 1867, there were a mere three million people in Ontario and Quebec, primarily on farms. The Government had the wisdom to buy Rupert's land from the Hudson's Bay Company. It then had the wisdom to invest more money to build the CPR so that millions of our ancestors could come in and settle that great western plain.



May 1, 1986

Coming from a semi-desert area, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I know what water can do. A piece of land worth perhaps $20 an acre can increase in value to $2,000 or $3,000 an acre with water. Those things have increased our standard of living so that we can afford old age security for our seniors and university education for our children.
In conclusion, I will say that I generally believe that we as a Government should be prepared to study anything which will put our people to work, which will develop this country so we can maintain a standard of living to which we have become accustomed, and which will provide a future for our children and grandchildren.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nickerson):: The hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the Adjournment Debate. My question follows from a question I directed to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) on April 18. It concerns the whole issue of the refugee determination process with which we as a Parliament and as a Government need to come to terms. Within that framework, the Minister of State for Immigration publicly and in the House has said that he would like to rid the system of phoney refugee applications.
I think there is some degree of unanimity on that score simply because there are a great number of legitimate claims which will certainly be hampered by those which are illegitimate. The backlog is becoming serious and alarming. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, it numbers 21,000 and is rising. We need to maintain a sense of balance. If the Minister wants to rid the system of "phoney refugees", then I believe he has to come to terms with the question of phoney immigration consultants and phoney immigration lawyers. I say "phoney" advisedly. I mean those who prey on innocent individuals. They are so-called immigration lawyers who are charging exorbitant fees for services which are readily available at our immigration offices and through the normal channels here in Canada. They are individual consultants and lawyers who are using fraudulent schemes in terms of advertising in other countries about a system with respect to how people can come to Canada.
Adjournment Debate
Once these people come to Canada, they face a reality which is very different from what it was purported to be. They face deportation. Therefore, what we have is a large number of individuals who claim refugee status based on advice and advertisements which are clearly delineated by the so-called consultants. As a last resort, these people put in a claim for refugee status rather than face deportation. A good number of individuals have given up their lives in the other country. They have sold their homes and properties. They come to Canada with the expectation that what the so-called immigration consultants told them was the truth. Much to their disbelief, they find out that there is a different reality once they come to Canada.
This issue was recently brought to light as a result of the so-called problem facing the Portuguese-Canadian community. There were a large number of individuals from Portugal claiming refugee status based on the grounds of religious persecution. If we are to react, as the Minister has, in terms of a rating system for phoney refugees, then we cannot do that without addressing ourselves to the question of phoney immigration consultants and lawyers. This is why on April 18 I asked if the Minister had the intention of offering some balance into the equation. I asked whether he or his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), intended to prosecute those who are preying on innocent individuals. The Department has specific information about a number of such practices, specifically in Toronto, with regard to the Portuguese-Canadian community. There is inaction on the part of the Government in terms of putting a stop to those individuals who are using fraudulent schemes and who are exacerbating the problem of the refugee backlog.
Another interesting argument is the possibility that the Minister of State, as a result of the increasing number of refugee claimants based on the grounds of religious persecution in Portugal, will clamp visa requirements on Portugal. I raised a question in the House with respect to this matter on another occasion. Today, I submit that that is an incorrect, knee-jerk reaction. If we were to clamp a visa requirement on Portugal, we would be doing a disservice to a European friend and ally. We would be punishing the majority for what is a small minority-type problem. That is to say, of the 21,000 people who make up the backlog, approximately 1,000 of those are from Portugal. If we use the logic of the Minister of State and impose visa requirements on Portugal, which represents
1,000	of the 21,000 backlogged cases, then what are we to do with other countries which have the remainder of refugee claimants?
I am interested today in pursuing this discussion to see what the Minister of State is thinking with regard to the whole question involving the refugee problem and specifically as it relates to the Portuguese dilemma. On the one hand we need to come to grips with these consultants and immigration lawyers who are coming across with tactics which should not be tolerated. If we come to grips with them, then we will be

May 1, 1986
Adjournment Debate
heading in the right direction in terms of solving the problem and in terms of limiting the number of fraudulent refugee claimants from that particular country and, indeed, from other countries. In this way we would be sending out the proper signals that we will not tolerate individuals of that kind.
I am looking for assurance that the Government will not impose visa requirements on Portugal, thereby making it the only country in western Europe with visa requirements. That is not the proper way of addressing the refugee backlog. The proper way would be to bring in a comprehensive refugee determination process that is fair and equitable to everyone and does not specifically target one country with the problem. I see that my time is up, and I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's response.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to expand on the reply given by the Minister of State for Immigration and Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on April 18, 1986.
The Commission tries to investigate all sources of fraud and exploitation, and its representatives are quite willing to receive complaints from persons who feel their interests have been harmed by unscrupulous consultants. I repeat that the Commission is quite willing to hear complaints on the subject. At the local level, volunteer groups and ethnic communities have been approached with a view to setting up consultation services and stopping the exploitation of people claiming refugee status by immigration lawyers and unscrupulous consultants.
Mr. Speaker, we have been asked to press charges against the lawyers and these consultants, and we are seriously considering doing so. Under the provisions of the Immigration Act, and especially paragraph 95(m), persons committing an offence may be charged, and we have asked the help of many of the parties concerned in the hope that we can accumulate the evidence we need to take this route with some measure of success. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the problem often is how to get all the evidence.
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is also proceeding with investigations in this area. We feel this is a very important matter, because it specifically concerns a group of individuals who are free and who want to opt for the freedom of coming to live here in Canada.


TRADE-THREATENED USE OF SUBSIDIES TO SELL UNITED STATES WHEAT TO SYRIA. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I raised in the House the question of the possible sale of wheat by the United States to the country of Syria. On April 8, Syria was offered 700,000 tonnes of American wheat.
No sales have yet been announced, but the Americans decided to use their export enhancement program of the Farm Bill to subsidize the sale of wheat to the great country of Syria.
Syria has been a traditional Canadian customer. When we sell wheat to Syria, we cannot use subsidies under the Canadian Wheat Board. The Government does not subsidize the export of Canadian wheat. My concern is that the Americans will go into Syria with great big subsidies and, since we do not have any subsidies at all, we will not be able to compete. We are going to lose many of our traditional markets in the country of Syria. That is of great concern to farmers right across western Canada and to Canadians in general because if farmers go broke, there will be a loss of jobs right across the country.
I am very concerned about growing protectionism in the United States and about the American Farm Bill that President Reagan signed into law last December, which adds even more export subsidies to American grain exporters and subsidizes to an even greater extent the American farmer.
I would like to put on record how the American export program, the BICEP program, works. In the last five months, there have been 11 separate sales to Algeria by the United States, totalling one million tonnes of U.S. grain. These sales were made at prices as low as $85 American per tonne. That sale occurred on February 28, 1986. In March, a sale was made at $88 American per tonne. On October 23, a sale of $103 American per tonne was made. We can see that their selling price runs from $85 to $103 American. At the same time, their sales are subsidized by anywhere from $23 per tonne to $54 per tonne.
The best example would be the sale which occurred on October 23, 1985. At that time the Americans sold 135,000 tonnes of grain to Algeria. The selling price was $103 per tonne and the subsidy was $54.38 per tonne. What the Americans have really said to the Algerians is that they would sell them two bushels of wheat at $103 per tonne and give them one free. How can we, as Canadians, compete against such a policy?
I know the European Common Market is not any better. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said the other day that it was a little better than the Americans, but not much. We have two big giants, two cowboys fighting it out in a trade war-the Americans and the Europeans. We as Canadians, along with the Argentinians, are caught in the middle.
It is not only Syria and Algeria. I have figures for a number of other countries. I will give a few more examples in the short period of time I have available to me. The Americans have made four sales to Egypt, going back to September, 1985. These sales involved wheat flour, soft red winter wheat, and frozen poultry. In all cases the sales were massively subsidized. For example, in the case of frozen poultry, the Americans sold
8,000	tonnes on December 27, 1985 at $558 per tonne, and the
May 1, 1986

subsidy was $345.46 per tonne. These are official government figures which the Minister has confirmed he has in his possession.
Another example would be the sale of wheat flour by the Americans to Yemen on January 28 and on February 14, Valentine's Day. The sales involved 31,500 tonnes of wheat flour at $166 per tonne, and the subsidy was $123 per tonne. How can we compete for the market of Yemen when the United States provides such a massive subsidy?

And the other country is Morocco, Mr. Speaker. There were five sales of Canadian wheat to Morocco. The price was about the same as for Algeria: $106 per ton, with a subsidy of $20, $22, $24 and $25 per ton. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair at all.

Another example is Turkey. There were six sales to Turkey, going back to November, 1985. The selling price was from $100 to $115 per tonne, and the subsidies were between $18 and $38 American per tonne. Once again, how can we as a country compete?
Another example is the Philippines. Many sales were made and there were large subsidies. In the case of Zaire, there were sales of wheat flour and hard red winter wheat, again with massive subsidies.
Of course there are other countries where sales have not been made, but the Americans are trying to make such sales. One would be Syria, about which I raise a .question this evening. Their sale of 700,000 tonnes to Syria represents the entire Syrian wheat market for one year. Last year I think we had about 45 per cent or 46 per cent of that market, and the Americans only had about 6 per cent or 7 per cent. They are trying to use the same program of subsidies to get into the markets of Iraq, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Benin. That is only the beginning of the list. I am convinced that they will try to use the same subsidies to go into the Soviet Union, China, and perhaps South Korea, other very good traditional Canadian markets.
I want the Government to take a strong stand with the Americans and with the Europeans. It should tell them that this kind of trade war is not right and lodge a complaint with the International Wheat Council in London. It is wrong; it is a violation of the International Wheat Agreement, if not the letter of the law, certainly the spirit of the law. The Government should raise this question at GATT and in Tokyo. It should speak out on the world scene.
Let us not be timid. Let us stand up for Canada. Canada is a great country. Let us take a strong stand for Canada against what the Americans and Europeans are doing. Otherwise, our farmers will go under. They will not survive with $3 per bushel when the Americans are getting $6. Mr. Speaker, you are from the Northwest Territories and I am sure, even though there are no grain farms in your riding, you know exactly what I mean.
Adjournment Debate


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I was afraid he would not show. However, better late than never, and I would like to respond to his comments.
Mr. Speaker, during the 1984-85 harvest year, Syria imported 1.5 million tons of wheat. Canada has 45 per cent of this market, European countries 40 per cent and the United States 9 per cent.
In the past, the United States have always given us the assurance that their export program was not aimed at Canada's traditional markets. It was aimed at subsidized markets such as those of the European Economic Community rather than markets like ours.
We have an excellent reputation as a result of the quality and consistency of Canadian wheat exports. Our fertile soil, our inspection system, an efficient transportation network and recognized trading practices are all factors that have helped to build and strengthen this enviable reputation.
It is thanks to this reputation that we keep our customers. The selling price is one of many arguments that may tip the scales one way or another.
Mr. Speaker, the real problem is not the projected sale of American wheat to Syria, but an escalating subsidy war between the EEC and the United States.
Our Government is reacting on several fronts, Mr. Speaker, both on the international market and in our own country.
The Prime Minister is now on his way to the Tokyo Summit, where Canada has put agricultural trade at the top of its priority list. This step shows how serious this Government is about maintaining our export markets.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with agricultural organization leaders before taking off for Tokyo. He wanted to know their views before discussing, with the summit participants, the escalating war of grants between the EEC and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers just happen to be in the line of fire, and it was precisely to help them that yesterday the Prime Minister unveiled a series of very important measures. This Government has always been a strong supporter of the agricultural community, and yesterday we made another significant contribution. The Government has decided to raise domestic wheat prices, which will now range from $6 to $11 a bushel. A special committee of the House of Commons has just launched a series of hearings on the pricing of domestic wheat. In addition, the Government has decided to freeze the farmers' share of wheat transportation costs during the 1986-87 crop year. This represents savings of $40 million for our wheat growers.

May 1, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is running out, but I would have a lot more to say about this very important question. We have removed all federal excise and sales taxes on diesel and gas used on farms. The federal tax rebate now given to producers for fuel sold to farmers will be increased to 5.5 cents a litre, a measure which entails net savings of $165 million over the next two years. The total 5.5-cents-a-litre rebate will rise to 6.5 cents on January 1, 1987.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
&
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 2, 1986