1986-04-18

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: On
December 2, 1985, Mr. Speaker, the Government announced its decision to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited in Montreal. Established in 1945, this corporation is one of the most profitable agencies of the Government of Canada, with 750 employees in Montreal and 50 more in Saint-Augustin near Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Arsenals employees were completely ignored when the Canadian Government made its decision, for they stand to lose most of their benefits once the corporation has been sold. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the pensions of these employees: a 29-year-old employee with 12 years' seniority will lose $17,213 a year under the new-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired. The Hon. Member for Humbolt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the day with a small puzzle for Members of the House. It is a brain teaser concerning a real life situation. Since I do not know the answer, I will ask the House.
Young people in my constituency who are permanent employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration are regularly hired in the fall as permanent employees, and then receive unemployment insurance in the spring when their jobs are filled by two university students. When those students go back to school in the fall, the permanent employees become members of the Employment and Immigration staff again. The puzzle 1 have for Hon. Members is this. Has that created three
jobs, two jobs, or one job? Those Hon. Members who get the answer have places reserved for them in the line-ups in front of their local Canada Employment Offices.


VANDALISM
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on the evening of April 6 the monument commemorating the memory of millions of Urkainians who died during the famine of 1932-1933 was defaced for the second time outside Edmonton City Hall. The words "Nazi lies" were painted on the monument.
The Ukrainian Canadian Committee and the Jewish Federation of Edmonton stated, and I quote:
This act of vandalism undoubtedly reflects the views of an insignificant sector of our society, yet it serves as a reminder that there are still those who will not accept the reality that the man-made famine of 1932-33 took place.
As a Canadian of Ukrainian racial origin I am outraged at this act of vulgarity against the memory of over six million Ukrainians who were starved at the hands of communism. This monument reminds us of past evils and atrocities committed against Ukrainians. People may deface monuments, but they cannot erase the memory of a people or change the truth of history.

[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment, the Hon. Tom McMillan, publicly stated this week that our Government is prepared to put up a sizeable part of the $150 million needed to build the Rouyn-Noranda industrial depollution plant which, between now and 1990, would recuperate 50 per cent of the 500,000 tons of sulphur dioxide released annually through Noranda smokestacks.
12406

April 18, 1986
According to Government estimates, Mr. Speaker, this project will cost $110 million. The Minister said he thought the least that could be done would be to reach a tripartite shared-cost agreement, which means that the federal Government is prepared to invest a minimum of $36 million.
However, our Minister of Environment acknowledges that the Government of Quebec has to be the key promoter of such an endeavour. Therefore I would urge the Quebec Minister of Environment to expedite negotiations with Noranda so as to get the project under way as soon as possible, for it has long been a major topic of conversation in the region, and it would certainly contribute to improve the quality of life of local residents.

again, since the good news that is coming in practically every day augurs well for the future.
Yesterday, the Bank of Canada announced a further reduction in the bank rate. Successive reductions within the last few weeks have had a positive impact on all sectors of our economy.
According to Statistics Canada, sales reached $11.2 billion in February 1986, an increase of 14.1 per cent over September 1984, and 9.7 per cent over February 1985.
In Quebec, the figures are almost identical: 14.2 per cent compared with September 1984, and 9.2 per cent compared with February 1985.
Mr. Speaker, this is thanks to the sound and effective policies of our Government.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
* *
*
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the failure of the Arab led OPEC consortium to agree on production quotas has caused the price of oil to fall by 60 per cent in the last three months. Yet farmers in the Upper Ottawa Valley who will be on the land very soon are not paying lower prices.
As diesel fuel costs form a significant portion of a farmer's fixed costs, I find the present state of affairs grossly unfair and indicative of the Government's continuing insensitivity to the plight of the farmer. I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to initiate, on an urgent basis, a full and complete inquiry into diesel fuel prices in the Upper Ottawa Valley.
The Minister's own Department of Energy has informed me that diesel fuel prices have dropped five cents per litre in the Kingston area and two cents per litre in Montreal. Yet in the Upper Ottawa Valley prices have not dropped at all. This is an injustice to the farm community and to the forest industry. It is a deplorable situation and needs immediate attention. The Minister says she will not interfere with private enterprise. This is proof that she is not interfering with her friends who have oil interests.


FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT FUNDING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government has turned its back on the unemployed and student youth. The total funding for Summer Employment Experience Development has been reduced from $163 million in 1985 to $127 million in 1986. Some of this money has already been siphoned off to be used only for Expo '86.
What is the result? In my riding of Churchill, despite the fact that youth unemployment remains high and the demand for youth employment programs remains the same, the federal Government has reduced its contribution to the SEED Program from over $700,000 to $409,000. This money is earmarked for municipal, public, and private sector job creation where wage subsidies are required. The Government must act now to provide funds for youth, at least meeting and matching last year's contribution, even if it is not willing to meet the real needs of unemployed youth.

[DOT] (mo)


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians, Quebecers and people in the Gaspe feel confident once


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPORTANCE TO SARNIA-LAMBTON
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government, in co-operation with the American Government, has until next Tuesday to convince the Senate Finance Committee in the U.S. to agree to the positiveness of bilateral trade negotiations. Enhanced trade with the U.S. is no longer an option for the Canadian economy but a necessity.
April 18, 1986

The choice is no longer between freer trade or maintaining the status quo, but between freer trade or closed borders.
My riding of Sarnia-Lambton, with its proximity to the U.S., is extremely interested in having our borders opened. The unemployment rate in my constituency is far above the national average, and the attraction of new businesses and industries is essential to our area.
Earlier this week I attended the opening of an American company which has chosen the Sarnia area as its first Canadian location. On many other occasions we have not been so fortunate. Recently another American firm was deterred from opening in our area because of the high tariffs and duties on goods entering the U.S.
We must make a determined effort to attract new businesses into our country. Opening our borders is very essential.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the results of a recent economic survey of 200 Scarborough business people have now been printed in the March edition of the Scarborough Businessmen's Association Newsletter. The results clearly show confidence in the federal Government's economic and fiscal policies, as well as in the forthcoming trade negotiations with the United States.
For example, with respect to the question of unemployment 57 per cent of the respondents stated that their outlook for the eocnomy was positive; 60 per cent stated that interest rates would decrease; 51 per cent stated unemployment would decrease; 49 per cent stated that, as a whole, the impact of free trade will be positive; and 70 per cent said their company sales will increase-all positive responses clearly indicative of just what is happening with the Canadian economy under a Conservative Government.

[ Translation]


PROSTITUTION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss some of the consequences of the new legislation on soliciting for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
In Vancouver, about two-thirds of the arrests made involved prostitutes and only one-third their clients. We had a glaring example the other day in Vancouver of the difference between the treatment given prostitutes and the treatment given their clients.
A prostitute and a client were both arrested for soliciting, and both cases were heard by the same judge.
The prostitute was fined $150 or five days in jail, and the client was acquitted and put on probation.
This evidence of discrimination proves that the many people who are opposed to this legislation are right. Mr. Speaker, once more I want to voice my objections against this unfair legislation which allows the police and judges to apply a double standard, depending on where their prejudice lies.


INDUSTRY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, B. C. Telephone Company appears to be deliberately terminating jobs for operators, most of whom are women. After decimating jobs for women in Terrace, the company now plans to terminate some 70 jobs in Cranbrook. Since most women operators cannot leave their families to transfer elsewhere, this has resulted in a subtle tactic to reduce operators' jobs by the hundreds.
We do not agree with the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Graham) who has said that this is not a federal issue. We ask the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to ask the CRTC immediately to hold special hearings in Cranbrook, with a one-year moratorium on B.C. Tel job transfers, until service and community implications of this move are established.
We again ask the Minister of Employment and Immigation (Miss MacDonald) to approve the request of TWU for a job maintenance technological change study into B.C. Tel actions.
We ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) to investigate whether B.C. Tel is ignoring its responsibility under the Canada Labour Code-


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, with low commodity prices and increasingly high input costs, Canadian farmers are under an immense amount of financial pressure. Therefore I was very relieved to learn that the Canadian Grain Commission has frozen the amount that grain companies can charge farmers for storing, handling, and cleaning grain. This

April 18, 1986
Oral Questions
decision will mean a saving to Canadian grain producers of an estimated $20 million.
While officials with companies such as UGG and Cargill have agreed that the freeze is a necessary step, Otto Lang, the Vice-President of Pioneer Grain, contends that the freeze is bad economics and a giant step backward. Bearing in mind that the same Otto Lang is a former Liberal Wheat Board Minister, 1 would have expected him to be more knowledgeable about the severity of the financial crisis, and a bit more sympathetic to the plight of western Canadian grain producers. In light of Mr. Lang's previous prominence in Canadian public life, it would be most useful if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would reassure this House that Mr. Lang is no longer an influential member of the Liberal Party.


CENTENNIAL OF CITY OF SAINT-LEONARD INVITATION TO CELEBRATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the City of Saint-Leonard, in the beautiful riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, is about to celebrate its very first centennial, and we want to share our delight in this occasion with all Canadians and invite you all to come and celebrate with us in Saint-Leonard. There is a series of activities that will take place between April 1986 and April 1987, and they are all very exciting. We hope to see you among our enthusiastic crowds. Welcome to Saint-Leonard on the occasion of its 100th birthday!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. By allowing the takeover yesterday by Imasco of Canada Trust, the Government has blatantly flouted the will of Parliament and two successive resolutions passed by the Finance Committee of the House of Commons which unanimously recommended against the takeover, and against the principle of takeover by a non-financial institution of a financial institution. Will the Government announce a policy prohibiting such takeovers and the continuing concentration of economic power in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the rights of Parliament, I might point out that the other place is very much a part of Parliament and it has not yet issued its report which will also deal with this issue. I will certainly respect the rights of Parliament in addressing ownership policy, as I indicated yesterday. We have made a lot of progress in this arrangement we have made with Imasco and Genstar in terms of the conditions we laid down for them.


GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is that the conditions laid down by the Government are practically a farce and not stringent at all, and I repeat my question: Why doesn't the Government take an approach that reflects the almost unanimous will of this House to prevent such takeovers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have recommendations from a House of Commons Committee and we are in the process of developing an ownership policy. We have made considerable strides. As 1 said yesterday in the House and outside the House, we are now in a new era in terms of financial institutions and the quality of our regulations, after years and years of neglect.


REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE RECONVENED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final question is directed to the House Leader in the absence of the Hon. Member who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. Would the House Leader consult over the weekend with that Hon. Member to allow a reconvening of the committee so that Members of Parliament from all sides of the House who have expressed strong views about this issue can have their views reflected on the record, beginning on Monday?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good idea, but it is up to the members of the Committee-

I think the Right Hon. Member will understand that members of the committee, particularly under the new reform rules, are able to make these determinations. Certainly the mere fact that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has made this suggestion will make its way to Westaskiwin where the Chairman of the committee is now speaking on behalf of one of our distinguished Hon. Members.


SELF-DEALING INQUIRY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Finance and also concerns the Imasco takeover. Since this process started last year when
April 18, 1986

the Minister allowed Genstar to take over Canada Trust, can the Minister assure the House that there has been no selfdealing in that situation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we received an undertaking from Genstar at the time of that takeover that there would be no self-dealing. We have much stronger undertakings from Imasco, and we also have undertakings on other things on which we did not have undertakings before.


RESPECT FOR UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY GENSTAR
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that she received an undertaking from Genstar that it would not be involved in self-dealing, but can she confirm that that undertaking was respected?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to check with the Superintendent of Insurance, but no self-dealing incidents have been brought to my attention.


SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance and refers to the Superintendent of Insurance to whom the Minister just referred. When the Superintendent of Insurance, the Minister's chief adviser on trust companies, was asked whether he could provide any compelling evidence that the takeover by Imasco would in fact be in the best interest of the country, he said that he could not provide any compelling evidence that it would be in the best interest of Canada. If her chief adviser said that it was not in the best interest of the country, why did she go against that advice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Superintendent of Insurance did not say that the status quo was necessarily in the best interest of the country either.
Let me explain to the Hon. Member that what we were able to accomplish in the arrangement of which the Government can be very proud was our underlying commitment to allow the market-place to function, provided policy purposes were met. It is fair to depositors. It is fair to the companies involved. It is fair to Hon. Members of the House who expressed concern about some of the matters on which we obtained undertakings. I think that is in the public interest.


GOVERNMENT'S DECISION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. The clear recommendation of the Finance Committee on two occasions was to stop the takeover. It was virtually the opinion of the House of Commons that the takeover should be stopped. The Minister did not do that; the Minister did not stop it. Can she
Oral Questions
identify any Member of the House, or anybody, who says that the decision to go ahead with the takeover is a good idea or a good decision in the interest of Canada and Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think there are Members of the House who think we did a good job on this deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On January 10 the Prime Minister announced a series of economic measures against Libya, but they were far from cutting off all significant economic relations with that country. Would the Government not agree that the situation has become far more serious than it was on January 10? Will the Government, therefore, immediately announce a truly comprehensive package of economic measures against Libya, covering both companies and workers, and thereby set an example for the world community and help encourage Libya to become a more responsible member of the world community?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Liberal House Leader has been over the last few days, because I have certainly been answering those questions. He will be happy to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is taking advantage of the OECD meeting to meet with representatives from France, Japan, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany, and that he now detects a greater momentum for co-operation on terrorism, which is likely to be high on the agenda of the Tokyo Summit.


REPLACEMENT OF AMERICAN WORKERS IN LIBYA BY CANADIAN WORKERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 am surprised the Government does not realize that the situation has changed since January 10. In the January 10 statement the Government urged Canadian companies and workers not to fill gaps when Americans left Libya. Could the Government assure the House today that this has not happened and that Canadian companies and workers are not helping to prop up the Libyan regime and everything connected with it? Could the Government give us that assurance and tell us what steps it is taking, and has taken, to ensure that Canadian workers and companies are not filling gaps left when Americans withdrew from Libya?

April 18, 1986
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. gentleman what steps Canada has taken. The issue which he raises is certainly in the January 10 statement. Any further alternatives which are to be explored are currently being explored by the Government in preparation for discussion of the entire matter of the elimination of the reprehensible and evil scourge of terrorism throughout the world.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of her highly imaginative and highly misleading policy on the Imasco takeover, at the end of next year one Imasco subsidiary, Canada Trust, can make a loan to another Imasco subsidiary, namely, Imperial Tobacco?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking we have is that there will be no self-dealing whatever between Imasco, its associates and affiliates, and Canada Trust. That is in the schedule which was signed by the company.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the policy that was announced, that will hold for only one year. It will be interesting to see all that spelled out at some point in the near future.
Quite apart from the self-dealing aspect of this issue, which was of great concern to members of the House committee and members of my Party, we are also concerned about the alarming rate of mergers in the Canadian economy. Is the Minister aware that in the 1960s some 250 mergers took place each year, that in 1985 there were over 700, and the forecast rate of takeovers this year will exceed 900? Is the Minister aware of this trend and, if so, what does the Government plan to do about it if it really believes in competition?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many of those mergers and takeovers are probably very positive for Canada. There will be some that will not be because of difficulties in one company or another. Any practical experience in the business field would tell the Hon. Member that sometimes these are very beneficial.
Big-sized companies compete internationally and they compete better sometimes than small companies, not always, but sometimes.


COST TO TAXPAYERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would read some of her old speeches and some of the old speeches of the Prime Minister, she would pick up interesting observations about such mergers almost never providing more jobs and almost always reducing the amount of competition.
I have had a list prepared of 21 mergers that have taken place since 1979 which shows that these mergers have cost some $24 billion in the main, without producing more jobs. Also they were mainly financed in some part by tax breaks. If I send the Minister the list of these 21 mergers costing, 1 repeat, some $24 billion, will she provide us, not on a case-bycase basis but totalled together, the net cost to the Canadian taxpayer who has been financing these takeovers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has said in this House, our tax law with regard to the write-off of interest and takeovers and mergers is consistent with other countries'. The Hon. Member may recall an answer given by my colleague, which is inconsistent with what he is asking today, because foreign companies, which the Hon. Member has many times said he does not like, can write off the interest to take over Canadian companies.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He knows that Newfoundlanders have been waiting since last September for a decision on the fate of the Newfoundland Railway. Indeed the Minister in this House, and as recently as last night on CBC television in Newfoundland, confirmed that discussions were ongoing with the Newfoundland Government. Can the Minister indicate today when he expects those discussions and negotiations to draw to a conclusion, and a decision one way or the other on the future of the Newfoundland Railway will be announced?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope those discussions will conclude and a decision be reached very soon. I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern about this. I also recognize the concern of Newfoundlanders and the uncertainty that this matter has created. I apologize for that, but nonetheless we are using our very best efforts to try to put together the best kind of transportation package to meet the needs and services of Newfoundland.
April 18, 1986


PREMIER'S STATEMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that a large part of the reason for the uncertainty is that yesterday in Newfoundland a statement was made by the Minister confirming that negotiations are ongoing, and an absolute denial was made by the Premier of Newfoundland that negotiations actually exist? Can the Minister tell us why that very large contradiction exists between the statement of the Minister, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, and the denial by Premier of Newfoundland? Newfoundlanders have suffered long enough from an uncertainty caused, I suspect, by confederationbuilding in Newfoundland at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a matter of semantics. There have been discussions, and perhaps they could be referred to as negotiations, but I can confirm to the Hon. Member that there have been discussions. Those discussions will continue until such time as an agreement can be reached more or less in principle, after which time we will set out to consult with the people of Newfoundland, the communities, and particularly the workers involved.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Statistics Canada, for which he is responsible, carefully reviews company structures and shareholdings to determine which are foreign controlled. Will the Minister confirm that Statistics Canada, in the latest information under CALURA, which 1 have here, considers Imasco a foreign-controlled company under the effective control of the U.K. owned British American Tobacco Company?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that particular report, but I would be happy to review it and reply to my hon. friend.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest that the Minister might be a bit more on top of his Ministry.


APPROVAL OF GENSTAR TAKEOVER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister responsible for financial institutions. In view of the fact that Imasco is classified as foreign-controlled, has the Minister not in fact approved a back-door increase in foreign control of our financial institutions, something which the country considers quite unacceptable in the banking sector?
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague to my right is very much on top of his Ministry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Imasco is classified as a Canadian company under FIRA and Investment Canada. BAT in Britain is a broadly-held company which does not have control of Imasco's board, even though it is a large shareholder. The board of directors is totally Canadian controlled, and will continue to be so.


RAILWAYS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Transport is being publicly contradicted by the provincial Minister of Transport in Newfoundland, and the federal Minister of Justice, representing Newfoundland, is being publicly contradicted by the Premier of Newfoundland with regard to the future of the Newfoundland Railway. I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport. When are these Governments going to stop playing peek-a-boo with each other and the people of Newfoundland so that the people of Newfoundland will know what is being discussed?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's rhetoric is a bunch of nonsense, and my previous answer stands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLL RESULTS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in an interview in Newfoundland last night the Minister of Transport said: "According to our polls, the Newfoundland people consider the highway as the most important mode of transportation", and that he was going to Cabinet with his proposal.
Is the Minister so naive as to believe that the people's belief that the highway is the most important mode will give justification for doing away with the railway? Through that reasoning the railway could be done away with right across the country. Is that what the Minister wants to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not one-tenth as naive as the Hon. Member who just spoke.

April 18, 1986
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SOFTWOOD EXPORTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. We have known for over a year that the mood of protectionism has been on the rise in the U.S. Congress on everything from fish and hogs to steel and, particularly, wood.
Would the Minister explain why his Government continues to wander around in a daze on this issue when he knows that it is time for this House and the country to start talking tough and put some real lobbying money where our mouth is on the issue of softwood?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong in his assumption that the Canadian industry or the Government has been inactive on this particular issue. We welcomed the delaying of the vote in the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. We think that the President of the United States has given us an indication that the trade talks will start off with a clean launch, and that is what we are hoping for.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, to date the Muldoon belly crawl has brought us quotas and tariffs. Of all members of Cabinet, the Minister should have done something real through the 1986-87 Estimates. All he has brought forward is one-half a person year in order to deal with the very real trade threat from the United States Congress. Is he prepared to explain why he did not do more in the 1986-87 Estimates??


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member ask the industry and the provincial Governments whether this particular Minister has been co-operative with my colleague, the Minister responsible for Trade, on this particular issue.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Will the Minister guarantee the House that in any future proposed takeover of a financial institution by a non financial institution, or in any future attempt by non financial institutions which already control financial institutions to increase
their ownership, she will impose the same or similar restrictions on self-dealing ownership and divestiture as those she imposed on Imasco yesterday?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think we crossed an important watershed with the agreement with Imasco. Certainly in any future reviews we would be considering the same kind of controls and undertakings, giving some thought to individual circumstances. We are very pleased that our review process worked very well. I do not want financial institutions in our country to be traded around like penny stocks.


INSURANCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Self-insurance and group funding are becoming alternative programs for Canadian individuals or institutions which cannot get liability insurance or afford the unlimited increases. Can the Minister tell Canadians if she is encouraging such programs, and when she will table legislation to protect Canadians under this new system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his continued interest in this important issue. Our officials are continuing to study the specific problems and are in the process of developing an approach which we think will be helpful. The industry itself has been helpful in coming up with solutions. I think the worst of our crisis is over. Legislation on property and casualty insurance will be forthcoming shortly.


CASUALTY SELF-INSURANCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Minister that although on January 20, she informed the House that the legislation was practically ready, we have yet to receive it. Is she going to consult with her colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, so that Canadian consumers will be protected under this new casualty self-insurance system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I consult regularly with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1 am very anxious to get this legislation into the House as rapidly as possible. Sometimes I am a little optimistic about timing.
April 18, 1986


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and is with regard to the Imasco takeover of Genstar. Is the Minister aware that, according to The Toronto Star business section of last Sunday, Mr. Angus MacNaughton, Chairman of Genstar, and Mr. Ross Turner, President of Genstar, will each earn $40 million as a result of the Imasco takeover of Genstar? Was the Minister aware of that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have seen those reports in the press, but have not confirmed them with anyone.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister see any problem with the Chairman and President of Genstar personally standing to make so much money from the merger?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that the arrangements between buyers and sellers are their own.


John R. Rodriguez: It's a conflict.


Barbara Jean McDougall: What may seem extravagant to the Hon. Member, and perhaps even to myself, is not necessarily what is going to take place between consenting adults.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We are paying for it, remember that.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women.
One of the recommendations of the Nielsen Report is to stop creating chairs of women's studies. We know that interdisciplinary research is essential to the progress being by women in every way.
I wish the Minister would let us know whether he intends to implement this recommendation in the Nielsen Report.
Oral Questions


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the study teams have made a series of recommendations which are available to the standing committees for discussion. She will also know that study teams have in other places dealt with women's issues, such as the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. They have called for more research and enhanced appointment of women. All in all, some of the recommendations relating to women from the different study teams can be readily accepted, and others need to be discussed.


PROMOTION OF STUDIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about chairs for women's studies, which is quite different from the research that the Advisory Council or other women's organizations can do.
Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister whether he intends to implement the Nielsen Report recommendation, which is not at all like the answer he just gave me. So, is he going to implement this recommendation, and if not, what kind of measures is he going to take to promote research? 1 think that what the Council does and what chairs for women's studies do are two entirely different things.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for her representations. 1 share with her the importance of research into women's studies. As she knows, in the last year there was the completion of five regional chairs set up across the country. The Government has been looking at whether to increase them, and the recommendations are part of the ongoing discussions on how best to enhance research into women's issues.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He knows that CN Route is selling its assets to three Toronto investors. In the negotiations did the Government or the Minister take any steps to guarantee job security for the workers involved?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the CN management and board have agreed in principle to a proposal to sell CN Route. Within the context of that agreement there will be provision for certain job guarantees. Indeed, those details are being worked out at the present

April 18, 1986
Oral Questions
time. Of course, the Hon. Member should be aware that the final package will have to be approved by the Governor-inCouncil and the CTC. Until such time as all of these details can be worked out with the unions and all other parties affected, we are not in a position to say just what the full package will look like.


RETIREMENT PACKAGES INQUIRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, is the Government, and CN through the negotiations, looking at offering retirement packages for those who do not already qualify for early retirement benefits?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the past CN has been very generous in its severance arrangements and early retirement packages. These kinds of arrangements are being negotiated with the unions within the context of the purchase agreement which has been put together.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In a statement made in this House on March 26 I called to the attention of the House the very successful amnesty program in a number of U.S. States to collect delinquent income taxes. Since that time has the Department had an opportunity to look into the feasibility of this program as a means of allowing Canadians who would like to do so to come forward and pay delinquent income taxes?


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister, who is in Vancouver attending the opening of a Canadian Pacific Highway customs post in preparation for Expo 86, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question and interest. Currently in Canada there is a voluntary disclosure program which allows anyone who has failed to file a return, or who has filed an incorrect return, to make a voluntary disclosure subsequently without fear of prosecution. This matter is held in strictest confidence between the taxpayer and Revenue Canada. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I will take his concern as a representation to the Minister.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Minister of Fisheries, which is one of the more important capacities he has. Hundreds of plant workers along the northeast coast of Newfoundland will not have jobs this year because plants like La Scie and Englee do not have an adequate supply of fish. The Government does have a Resource Short Plant Program but it is not working as it should. Is he prepared to review that program and make the necessary changes to ensure an adequate supply of fish to those plants and protect the jobs of those workers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Resource short Plant Program it is my recollection that there are certain objective criteria in place and that a plant like La Scie has not met those criteria. If I understand the hon. gentleman correctly, he is asking the Government to review the program with a view to looking at those objective criteria once again. I do not know where the Minister might be in that review process, but 1 will certainly draw the hon. gentleman's representations to his attention as soon as he returns to the House.


NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT'S MIDDLE-DISTANCE FLEET LICENSING APPLICATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland has applied for licences for a whole new middle-distance fleet which also will have an impact on fish supply. I want to know where those licences stand. Is the Government of Canada going to issue licences to the Government of Newfoundland for that new middle-distance fleet?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect me to have that kind of detail in the House today. I shall certainly bring that matter as well to the attention of the Minister as soon as he returns.


EXPO 86 REFUSAL OF VISITORS' VISAS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of British Columbia has invited the world to come to Expo 86. That is terrific. However, for the Government of Canada that apparently does not include the Third World. Is the Minister of Immigration aware that there are cases of Canadians in my riding with relatives in Chile, Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, India, the Philippines and
April 18, 1986

other countries who have been invited to Expo by Bill Bennett but the Canadian Government will not give them a visitor's visa to get into Canada?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that the Government is aware of the importance of visitors to Expo 86. We are also aware that where there are visitor visa provisions in place, the officers dealing with these cases should be particularly sensitive to the circumstances of Expo 86. I have in fact received representations from a number of Vancouver area Members as recently as yesterday on this matter, and have sent out a telex advising those officers granting visitor visas to be sensitive to the tourist implications, while honouring, obviously, the security needs of the country.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, to inform him of the serious financial problems facing potato producers in Quebec.
I would like to ask someone on the Government side to explain why potato producers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are to receive federal financial assistance totalling $9.8 million, when Quebec potato producers are in great financial difficulty and have received no assistance and no announcement from the federal Government.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the potato producers of eastern Canada were very pleased with the type of assistance we were able to provide. As to the observation about the problems in Quebec, I would be pleased to present that particular position to the Minister who is absent on government duty.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister realizes there is a difficult situation in Quebec, but it seems to me the Government could do more.
Why is it helping only two of the potato producing provinces-not that I disapprove of helping Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick,- but only has words of sympathy for Quebec producers? We would like immediate assistance.
Oral Questions


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, the importance of the potatato producers in those two provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick is very significant. They had very real problems in putting in this year's crop. However, I will take the Hon. Member's representations to the Minister.


FORESTRY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Forestry). On April 30, 1985, our Government signed the Canada-Quebec Agreement on Forestry. Quebec wanted 300 million small plants per year under this Agreement.
Have there been any significant developments in the genetics of small plants, in co-operation with the Quebec private sector, since the Agreement was signed?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that our own Laurentian Research Centre has been working with the Quebec Department of Energy and Resources to develop the new kinds of strains in species that will grow faster and be more productive. I believe that the first run of seeds from that particular strain will be available this year.



Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. It must be his day today. Is he aware that his colleague, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, has called for the creation of a complete Department of Forestry which would be a line Department? Will he tell us when this will come about?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows quite well that that is the kind of change that falls within the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister. If and

April 18, 1986
Oral Questions
when any changes in the machinery or structure of Government are made, it will be announced by the Prime Minister at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place.


INQUIRY OF MINISTER
Pauline Jewett: Perhaps I could ask the Minister of State for Forestry, if the Deputy Prime Minister will allow me, whether he agrees with his colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Forestry, that there should be a full line Department of Forestry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again I can only reiterate my last answer. However, 1 am sure all Members of the House will agree when I tell the Hon. Member that we have a very able, excellent, talented, and gifted Minister of State for Forestry now.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to brighten up his morning and inject some life into it. As the Minister knows, the staff relations board decision to confine tobacco smoke in federal buildings to separately ventilated areas for smokers is being appealed by the federal Government. Will he stop the appeal?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a wonderful morning and I have met very many interesting people. I hope my contribution to the Hon. Member's morning will finally give him some light as well. We are encouraging federal Departments to follow the lead that has been taken, not only in my Department but in a few other agencies and Departments of Government as well, and simply declare workplace areas "smoke free".
With regard to the specific case to which the Hon. Member refers, it is a different approach in which one could only do what was done in Health and Welfare if one also conforms to the physical requirements of that earlier judgment. That created some difficulties-not the principle that we would like to see smoke-free areas throughout the federal Government.


REASONS FOR APPEAL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister means what he has said, particularly in many speeches in the House of Commons which are reproduced in Hansard, why is there an appeal? Why the appeal if he means what he says?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I mean exactly what I said. I just explained it. If the Hon. Member wants to attend at noon when I speak to another group, he will see that I will be saying the same thing.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the Government House Leader. As we know, the Ottawa International Airport is still undergoing considerable renovations and will be for some time, at great inconvenience to its users. When can we expect to see some use of the new facilities at the airport which have been under construction for a very long time?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as they say out at the Ottawa International Airport, Tempus fugit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am pleased to be able to report to the Hon. Member and the House that it is anticipated that the construction on the west wing of the airport will be completed in late April or early May, and that the opening of that great facility will take place then.


Some Hon. Members:: What year?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In 1986, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A communique put out by the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments criticizes the phasing out of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. They go so far as to say that the Committee believes the powers and action of the Minister:
-were not authorized by the-legislation, amounted to an unusal use of the powers granted by Parliament, and infringed the rule of law and the principles of fairness and natural justice.
What will the Minister do about this unanimous report of the committee?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this report has been drawn to my
April 18, 1986

attention. It is my view that it has been based on misleading and inaccurate analyses of the situation. It suggests that these measures were-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is a unanimous report.


Pat Carney: You asked the question, maybe I could answer. It suggests that these measures were announced by press release without cabinet approval. These measures were not announced by me, they were announced by the Minister of Finance on November 8, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board. They were tabled in the House in the Blue Book of that date.
The suggestion that any homeowner lost any benefit that was accruing to him or her is not correct because all applications were treated under the old rules until such time as the Order in Council affecting the announcement was passed. The suggestion that anyone lost a benefit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I am sure that she would not deliberately mislead the House. Earlier I asked her if it was the case that one subsidiary of Imasco- Canada Trust-could make a loan to another Imasco subsidiary, namely, Imperial Tobacco, at the end of next year. The Minister replied that it was not possible because there was an agreement by Imasco not to allow that. Will the Minister confirm that the agreement made by the company expires at the end of next year and therefore the kind of self-dealing measure that I alluded to could in fact take place at the end of next year?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. There is a general clause in the agreement that takes effect at the end of December, 1987. As the House knows, our intent is to put in place laws of general application and, with my optimistic nature, hopefully it will be long before then and will apply in this case.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to be perfectly clear about what is at stake here with this takeover. In terms of existing law, the concerns of committee members on both sides of the House are still going to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I have a question, please?
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That is what the Government is doing.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is no pig and there is no poke. This company has made a real undertaking to conform to our public policy requirements. It did so at our request and we worked very hard to bring about this arrangement. Legislation is forthcoming that will apply to this and other companies as well.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. He has made it public that he is trying to rid the system of phoney refugees. Yet there is growing concern that much of the problem lies with unscrupulous immigration consultants who are scheming fraudulent schemes against innocent individuals. Is the Minister prepared also to rid the system of phony consultants? And is he prepared to ask his colleague, the Solicitor General, to persecute and charge such individuals-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have a persecution complex.


Sergio Marchi: prosecute-some of whom his Department knows about?


Mr. Hees:: Liberals persecute.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising an important question on a matter of concern to all Members of the House and one which I have been addressing seriously. The RCMP at the moment are investigating the matter. I would ask the Hon. Member and others, to provide information which may permit action to be taken.
I also want to say that I have been in touch particularly with the Portuguese community and others to inform them that this particular action is unacceptable and we are seeking whatever scheme is necessary. I might remind the Hon. Member that the previous Government had conducted a study of this matter and was unable to act and he might like to accouaint himself with the report which was tabled by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Sergio Marchi: A short question?


Mr. Speaker:: No.

April 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers Mr. Marchi: Brief? To the point?


Mr. Speaker:: Tomorrow.


An Hon. Member:: Do you feel persecuted? Mr. Speaker: Order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's reponse to the following six petitions: Nos. 331-34, 331-43, 331-96, 331-128, 331-248 and 331-356.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I wish to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, copies of the Government's response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.



ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to alert my fellow Parliamentarians and Canadians that National Organ Donor Awareness Week will begin on Sunday, April 20, and extend to Saturday, April 26.
Recipients of Family Allowance cheques will find with their cheques this month a leaflet on organ donation with a detachable organ donor card. Information kits have been distributed to the media and most Canadian hospitals alerting them to the importance of organ donation and transplantation and providing them with resource items to facilitate their involvement.
I shall officially launch the week at a news conference in Halifax on Monday. I look forward to joining Hon. Members
of the House, representatives of the transplant community, transplant recipients and a donor family at a breakfast meeting sponsored by Transplant International (Canada) on Tuesday, April 22, in the West Block.
Today thousands of Canadians are awaiting a transplant which will improve the quality of their life. For many of these people a transplant offers them the only chance for survival. However, many will not receive that transplant because there are not enough organs and tissues available. I, therefore, urge all Hon. Members to make a personal commitment to organ donation and to do what they can to encourage organ donation in their constituencies. Please sign a donor card or the donor card portion of your driver's licence. Please inform your family and doctor about your wishes. Consider what you can do to make something good happen by giving the most generous gift of all, the gift of life.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Minister promoting organ donations and also to hear his announcement that he will be taking part next week in an organ donation awareness campaign.
I think it is very important to publicize organ donations, because a substantial number of Canadian men and women depend on such donations in order to survive or to substantially improve their quality of life.
The example of Diane Hebert will help to convince people that an organ donation can be a real success. This young woman waited more than two years for a heart-lung transplant. Today, she is asking to have transplants made easier by giving people the option of indicating their desire to make organ donations on their health insurance cards. This month, family allowance cheque recipients will receive a leaflet urging them to make organ donations. I too want to urge them to make organ donations and I would also ask all my colleagues in our three political groups here in the House and everyone in the beautiful riding of Outremont to do likewise. An organ donation is truly a gift of life.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in support of the initiative of the Minister. We congratulate him for the statement he has made in the House today urging all Canadians to participate in the donation of organs for this most valuable reason.
Indeed, it is a wonder of science that enables us to make this ultimate gesture, the giving of life itself. The Minister has identified next week as being National Donor Awareness Week. Perhaps as Members of Parliament we can pledge our own organs next week as a dedication to science and transplantation purposes. Again, we applaud the Minister for this initiative and we will encourage our constituents to follow suit.
April 18, 1986



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) is obliged by the Standing Orders to table a comprehensive response to a report submitted by the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration 120 days ago. He has already violated that obligation once by refusing to submit a comprehensive response to a previous report. He promised then that he would do the two together at this time.
I received a letter from him in which he says he is not ready and will do it later. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will refer this matter to what I believe is a new committee, the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure because this is not the first time that this Minister has breached this Standing Order.
I,	therefore, ask that you, Mr. Speaker, refer this matter to the Committee so we can discuss the value of Standing Order 99(2), when a Minister can apparently simply ignore it by writing a polite little letter saying: "I'm not going to do it because I am not ready to do it". If you wish to reserve on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have your response.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to perhaps address the point of order raised by the Hon. Member, my understanding of the matter is that there has been a response within the time required in each instance referred to by the Hon. Member. He went on to make reference to the quality or content of that particular response. I do not believe that is an appropriate point of order.
The Hon. Member may not be satisfied with the response, but I believe from what the Hon. Member says that the Minister has been fullsome in his praise with respect to the work which has been done by the Committee, but has indicated that he requires to carry out further consultations and will be giving the detailed response which is required on this very important and complex matter.
The point of order, however, is out of order because there has been a compliance and response by the Minister on each of these two occasions. I do not think it is appropriate for us to comment on the quality of these responses.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is already on one point of order. I presume he wants me to finish this one before he raises another.


John R. Rodriguez: On the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the logical course of action is for the Chair to reserve, not having the facts before it on this matter, and to come back to the House after investigating the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
Petitions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On a separate point of order?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No, on the same point of order. I did give you the facts as contained in the letter of the Minister, if a Page will bring it to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, of course, the Hon. Member may send me what he has.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The word "comprehensive" is a joke if this is a comprehensive answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the twenty-ninth and thirtieth reports of the Striking Committee.



PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985 PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the legislative committee report on Bill C-90.
(Editor's Note: For above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to submit a petition signed by a number of citizens of metro Toronto who make strong representations and pray the Government to reinstate, with full funding, the Katimavik Program for the benefit of the young people of Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of several hundred constituents in my riding. It is with respect

April 18, 1986
Order Paper Questions
to the issue of pension funds now being considered as income for unemployment insurance purposes. They call upon the House to encourage the Government to change this unfair and inequitable practice.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr.Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 523, 525 and 526.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Are fruits and vegetables, in Canada, subjected to post-harvest treatment whereby a waxy chemical coating is put on to preserve moisture and freshness and, if so, what are the names and chemical ingredients used?
2.	Are the chemicals, licensed or otherwise regulated by the Government and, if so (a) which agencies regulate which chemicals and under what conditions (b) which chemicals are used but not regulated?
3.	Are toxicity tests conducted on the chemicals in Canada or in the United States and, if so by (a) government (b) private laboratory?
4.	Are the results of toxicity tests available to the public and, if so, how is the public informed of the contents ind hazards of any of the chemicals used?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1.	Fruits and vegetables offered for sale in Canada may be subjected to post-harvest treatment with a "waxy" coating to prevent moisture loss and thus extend the keeping quality, in addition, the "waxy" coating protects against the invasion of spoilage micro-organisms. The chemical substances known to be used for this purpose are the following: mineral oil, petrolatum, paraffin, beeswax, carnauba wax, candelilla wax, shellac, sucrose fatty acid esters, oxidized polyethylene, carboxymethyl chitosan.
2.	(a) and (b) All of these substances fall within the purview of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act and regulations administered by Health and Welfare Canada (HWC).
Mineral oil, petrolatum and paraffin are regulated as food additives under the Food and Drug Regulations. Although the remaining substances are not listed in the Food Additive Tables in the Regulations, they are subject to Section 4(a) of the Food and Drugs Act which states: "No person shall sell an article of food that has in or upon it any poisonous or harmful substance".
In this connection, the Health Protection Branch (HPB) of HWC has evaluated information pertaining to the safety of these chemicals and has determined that the use of these substances according to label directions would not pose a hazard to consumers and thus would not violate Section 4(a) of the Act.
3.	(a) and (b) Various types of toxicological tests have been conducted on all the substances mentioned in (1) above. As a general rule, HPB does not undertake toxicity studies to support the use of chemicals in food but rather evaluates all available data which may have been produced by a variety of sources. In the case of these coatings, toxicity data are available from private laboratories, universities, et cetera in various countries including the United States, Canada and Europe.
4.	Many of the toxicity studies available on these substances are published in the scientific literature and thus are available to the public. In addition, HPB is prepared to offer additional comments on the safety aspects of any of these chemicals. Substances considered to pose a hazard to consumers would not be permitted for use under existing regulatory authority.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	(a) Did the Government make any studies on employment levels in the coal producing areas of southeast British Columbia and, if so, what were they (b) what action did the Government take to reduce the current levels of unemployment in the area?
2.	What actions and/or representations did the Government initiate to encourage the Japanese Government to review coal purchasing policies by Japanese steel companies in British Columbia?
3.	Did the Government make any formal representations to the Prime Minister of Japan when he visited Ottawa in January, 1986, to ensure that the coal mining communities of the Kootenays will not be made to suffer as a result of government-subsidized development of the northeast coal fields in British Columbia?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Employment and Immigration as follows:
1. (a) Some analysis of employment levels in the coal producing areas of southeast B.C. was undertaken as part of the studies conducted by the Manpower and Human Resources subcommittee under terms of the 1977 Canada-British Columbia Subsidiary Agreement to evaluate northeast coal and related developments.
The following studies were published from work undertaken by this subcommittee: Coal Development in Northeastern British Columbia Construction Phase, Manpower Study, March, 1978. Day Care Services in the Proposed New Town, 1976, Development of Manpower Training Programs, 1978. Labour Turnover and Community Stability: Implications for Northeast Coal Development in British Columbia, February, 1978, Manpower Demand and Supply for the Northeast Coal Developments, 1981, Manpower Development and Promotion in the Coal Mining Industry, January, 1978, Migration, 1976, Northeast Coal Employment Survey, 1977 Report of the B.C. Manpower Subcommittee on Northeast Coal Development, November, 1976 Women in Mining - An Exploratory Study, October, 1976.
(b) Webstar Mining Ltd. responding significantly to reduced supply contracts (as much as 50 per cent) Westar was forced
April 18, 1986

into making extensive staff reductions-from its July, 1985, level of 2,000 to approximately 1,500 at this time.
In July, 1985, an initial Industrial Adjustment Service (IAS) Agreement was signed. The joint committee is responsible to seek out employment opportunities for more than 80 senior staff members (managers, administrators, professionals, etc.). To date, over 50 employees have been placed with other companies in the area.
At the same time, a second IAS agreement was signed on behalf of approximately 300 workers, members of either the United Mine Workers or the Office and Technical Employees Union. Limited success has been achieved for this group; however, job opportunities continue to be sought (e.g. the expected reopening of the Faro mine).
Byron Creek Collieries this operation is somewhat stable and has enjoyed a limited work force expansion (a few Webstar workers have been hired by Byron Creek). A joint company/CEIC-IAS Human Resource Planning Agreement is in place to deal with future planning and adjustment developments.
Fording Coal Ltd. this operation has stabilized and continues with a work force of some 1,400. In 1983, however, the Commission, under a work sharing agreement, paid some $850,000 in UI benefits on behalf of 1,600 Fording workers.
Line Creek-Crows Nest Resources Ltd. an effective working relationship has been established between this operation and the B.C. region. A joint Memorandum of Understanding has been signed to deal with future planning and adjustment developments concerning the company's 700 employees.
2.	The federal Government's policy with respect to coal, and for many other commodities, has been to leave the commercial and financial details of contracts to the private sector participants.
In 1985, meetings with Japanese steel industry representatives in Tokyo, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stressed Canada's interest in maintaining and expanding coal exports to Japan based on commercial considerations. In line with the above policy, the coal purchasing policies of the Japanese steel companies in B.C. were not discussed.
3.	At the January, 1986 meeting between the Prime Ministers of Japan and Canada, several issues germane to the Canadian resource sector generally were raised. With respect to coal, it was noted that Canada as a whole is committed to remaining a reliable supplier of coal to Japan.


Mr. Broadbent: What was the value and quantity of coal exported to Japan over the past three years from the (a) northeast coal fields (b) southeast coal fields in British Columbia?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Canadian Arsenals Limited
(a)	Northeast B.C. coal fields
1984
Jan. 1985 - Nov. 1985*
(b)	Southeast B.C. coal fields
1984
Jan. 1985 - Nov. 1985*
* December data not yet available.
-	nil
-	5.2 million tonnes valued at $472 million -6.5 million tonnes valued at $571 million
-6.6 million tonnes valued at $471 million
-	7.5 million tonnes valued at $515 million
-	6.5 million tonnes valued at $450 million


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: First, I would like to advise the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by five minutes today after one o'clock.
There are five motions on this day's Order Paper relating to Bill C-87. I have had the opportunity to examine the said motions and find that they are all in order. They will be proceeded with as follows.
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate. Since Motion No. 3 is consequential to Motion No. 1, a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 3.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could we get a copy of that?


Mr. Speaker:: Has this not been distributed?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No. This is the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: A vote on Motion No. 1 will dispose of Motion No. 2.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are identical. The Chair will select Motion No. 4 which will be debated and voted on separately.
I apologize for the notice not having been distributed in time to Hon. Members.
12422

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited


Stewart Donald McInnes: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. (1) To the extent provided by the regulations made under subsection (3), the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the regulations made under those Acts continue to apply to a person who meets all the following criteria:
(a)	immediately before the coming into force of this section, the person was employed by the Corporation and was a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act;
(b)	the person is employed by the Corporation or an amalgamated corporation during the whole of the period between the coming into force of this section and the making of the election referred to in paragraph (e);
(c)	the President of the Treasury Board has not made a payment to the Corporation or to an amalgamated corporation pursuant to section 30 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in respect of that person;
(d)	the person has not received or opted to receive any annuity or other benefit under section 11 or 12 of the Public Service Superannuation Act in respect of the pensionable service that he has to his credit under that Act immediately before the coming into force of this section; and
(e)	the person elects, within one year after the coming into force of this section and in such form and manner as the Minister directs, to have the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the regulations made under those Acts continue to apply to him to the extent provided by the regulations made under subsection (3).
(2)	An election referred to in paragraph (l)(e) is irrevocable.
(3)	The Governor in Council may, in relation to persons who make the election referred to in paragraph (l)(e), make regulations
(a)	specifying which provisions of the Acts and regulations mentioned in subsection (1) apply, and to what extent they apply;
(b)	adapting provisions of those Acts and regulations for the purposes of this section; and
(c)	generally for carrying out the purposes of this section.
(4)	Regulations made under subsection (3) may be made applicable on and after a day before their publication if they so provide."


Don Boudria: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer, either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal superannuation plan, and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement of purchase and sale between the government and the new employer."


Stewart Donald McInnes: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 35 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"12. Subsection 3(2) and section 9 to 12".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite unrelated to the matter before the House, but it is something which has been the subject of discussion and
agreement between the Parties. It has to do with the Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the President of the Privy Council seeks unanimous consent to revert to Motions. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour will find a disposition to receive at this point in time the following draft order and to approve it without debate. It reads as follows:
That, in relation to its Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 26, 1986, the Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat be empowered to travel to Winnipeg and that the said Order of Reference be altered to provide that the Committee's final report be made not later than Friday, June 6, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a Legislative Committee; and Motions Nos. 1 and 3 (Mr. Mclnnes), and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Boudria).
Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to speak to the amendments to Bill C-87. The pension situation of employees involved in the privatization of Canadian Arsenals Limited, both in terms of accrued pension benefits and future pension expectations, has been of significant concern to the Government. Throughout the negotiations leading to the legislation now before the House every effort has been made to ensure the fullest protection of accrued benefits and arrangements that will ensure future coverage is provided on a fair and reasonable basis. As a consequence, the Government has concluded that a further measure of protection should be
April 18, 1986

added. Therefore, it has tabled a motion to amend Bill C-87 accordingly.
As I am sure Hon. Members will appreciate, the degree of control that the Government can exercise over the pension entitlements earned by CAL employees through future employment with SNC is limited. It would not be appropriate for Government to intervene unduly with the flexibility of management and employees to arrive at mutually-acceptable terms and conditions of employment over the long term. Nor would it be consistent with privatization to allow the employees to continue to be covered under the pension plan for federal public servants for service after the date of sale.
At the same time I want to assure the House that, as part of the conditions of sale of this corporation and others, the Government has required, and will continue to require, that the purchaser offer pension arrangements no less generous than those normally found in the industry in question. In addition, the purchaser is required to agree to enter into a reciprocal transfer agreement which will permit the portability of pension credits under the PSSA to the new pension plan at the individual employee's option.
In its briefing before the parliamentary committee, SNC clearly indicated that it will fulfil both of these requirements. In arriving at the terms of this reciprocal agreement, the Government will ensure that employees' accrued benefits are fully portable, subject to suitable guarantees that the amounts transferred will be used exclusively for the benefit of employees who elect to transfer to the new plan.
The transfer of portability option, which I have just described, will appeal to some CAL employees; but there are two other important options which will also be made available to every employee. The first of these would be the normal options available to employees on ceasing to be contributors under the PSSA. Employees will be able to choose to receive whatever benefit would be available to them under the terms of the PSSA as though they were ceasing to be employed on the date the corporation is sold. The choice available to the individual will, of course, depend upon his or her age and length of pensionable service.
The other option the Government is seeking to make available to CAL employees through the present motion to amend Bill C-87 is based on the concept of continuity of service for benefit eligibility. This provision is contained in Bill C-90 which is now before the House, and replaces the current Pension Benefits Standards Act and provides minimum standards for pension plans of employees under federal jurisdiction. Clause 30 of that Bill sets minimum requirements for pension plans on the sale of a business and would, among other things, ensure that if the pension plan is not taken over by the purchaser, the selling employer must permit the employee to remain on a plan and remain a plan member without accruing further pension rights. On ceasing to be employed with the purchasing employer, the employee would then opt for benefits under the selling employer's pension plan. While he or she would not have earned further pension under
Canadian Arsenals Limited
the old plan, the employee would use the second employment toward qualifying for benefits.
Perhaps I could give an example that might make this clearer. Say a CAL employee who is now age 50 with 25 years service under the PSSA becomes an employee of SNC and remains there for five years at which time he voluntarily retires. At that point, his five years of SNC service is added to his 25 years of service under the PSSA for qualification purposes, and he therefore qualifies for an unreduced PSSA benefit based on his 25 years of CAL service. In other words, the individual has been able to preserve his ability to meet the 50-30 threshold. Obviously this option may well appeal to some employees, depending upon their personal plans and expectations.
I would like to add one final comment on this particular option. As Hon. Members are aware, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is currently consulting his advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act on broad questions of Public Service pension reform. The President of the Treasury Board has asked me to assure the House that employees who choose to leave their accrued pension credits in the PSSA under this continuity option will be treated in respect of those credits in the same way as all other employees remaining under the plan. Finally, I would like to stress that in all instances, employees will have one year from the point of sale to select the options they prefer.
The Government has endeavoured to protect employees and maximum flexibility is being provided to individuals to make pension choices that suit their particular situations, desires and long-term plans. Complex questions are involved and it is intended that each individual will be provided with the appropriate information and counselling to make the best possible personal decision.
Under the privatization arrangements proposed by the Government, CAL employees have a number of options with respect to pensions. The first option is to transfer accrued pension benefits to the new SNC pension plan under reciprocal transfer arrangements. This transfer would be done on an actuarial, ongoing basis and negotations are under way to guarantee that all amounts transferred will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of transferring employees.
Depending upon the age and service of employees, there are other options. The second is a return of contributions plus interest. The third is a deferred annuity at age 60. The fourth is an annual allowance at age 50 and the fifth, subject to acceptance of the House of the proposed amendment, is the further option of continuity of service for PSSA pension benefit eligibility upon retirement from CAL.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if there might be unanimous consent to allow two or three questions to be asked of the Parliamentary Secretary on the particular provisions of the Government's amendment in

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
view of the fact that there are both Government amendments and Opposition amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is unanimous consent, I will allow it. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that there is no unanimous consent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on report stage of this Bill. I have listened with great attention to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary who seemed to be telling us that it was through the good graces and foresight of the Government that we are now amending this Bill so that it will be what has been called more generous to the employees. I am not sure that the phrase "more generous" is an appropriate one under the circumstances. The best way to describe it would be to say that these amendments make it not quite as bad as it used to be.
I challenge the Hon. Member to say that had the Opposition not brought some of these issues to the attention of the committee we would not have seen very many amendments to this legislation. 1 must say that I am anxiously awaiting the remarks of the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) who represents almost all the people affected by this Bill. I am sure he will speak vividly and forcefully in this particular debate in order to ensure that his constituents get all the benefits they deserve. I must say that I am a little disappointed that we did not hear from him at committee, but perhaps there is still time for that today.
At issue today is not SNC. We are not here to discuss that corporate citizen. We are not here to discuss whether SNC is a good or a bad employer. I think it has made its reputation in the past and we know it to be what most people would consider a good employer. The bad employer is not SNC, it is the Government of Canada. The Government is letting down over 700 of its employees.
During the committee hearings, Members of the committee asked representatives of the Public Service Alliance what they were asking for their employees. These people do not work for the Public Service Alliance, they work for us. They work for the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: They are members.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Members across the way say quite correctly that they are members of that alliance but they are our employees. They are our constituents and it is our duty as Members of the House of Commons to take care of their concerns and to act toward them in the best way possible.
The Parliamentary Secretary used the example of an employee who had worked for the Public Service Alliance for
25 years. He described how the 50-30 threshold would be achieved under the amendment brought before us in Motion No. 1. That may be well and good. However, I remind the Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps he can respond to this later, that even if the employee does have the option to retire under that formula, if the Government plan and the SNC plan are incompatible in terms of retirement age, the employee would want to retire on his pension under the federal plan but will not be able to do so because he will only receive half a pension. The other half that he will be accumulating under the SNC plan will not come to him when he is the same age and therefore he will either be contributing for the last number of years to the workforce and working for almost nothing or he will be withdrawing with much less in the way of a pension because of the fact that the conditions of the two plans are not the same.
There is really only one solution to this dilemma. I submit that that solution is Motion No. 2 which I have put before the House. Motion No. 2 asks for employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited to be given the same benefits that the Government has given to employees of other companies which have been divested in the past.
In particular, I want the same benefits which we as a Parliament gave when the Deer Lodge Hospital and several other institutions were transferred from the federal Government to other jurisdictions. It does not matter whether the other jurisdictions were provincial entities or the private sector. The point is still the same; our employees are being transferred elsewhere.
There are two ways in which this could be achieved. For example, the employees could continue to contribute toward the federal plan, even though they were no longer federal employees, with SNC contributing its share. The Government indicated that that would not be possible because it would create a precedent. I do not agree, but, nevertheless, the Government has taken that position.
The Public Service Alliance has indicated that it is prepared to go along with my Motion No. 2. I urge the Government to accept the motion because it would permit employees, who are soon to be former government employees, to continue to contribute to the Public Service superannuation system in the same manner as employees who are on leave without pay. All existing employees of Canadian Arsenals could then continue contributing until retirement. Of course any other employee or new employee of SNC would not be in the same situation. It would provide a means to accommodate those Government employees, those employees of a Crown corporation. There is a clear and easy way to accomplish that, and I have indicated it in Motion No. 2.
The Minister has indicated that he has some reluctance with the amendment because there would then be two classes of employees at SNC. In his view there would be those employees who had the Government pension plan and those who had a

*HBHHHn
April 18, 1986

private one. That will be the case anyway. One group of employees will have two pension plans, one based on their number of years in the Public Service and the other based on their number of years with SNC. The other group would have just the SNC plan. We are not deciding whether there will be two levels of benefits. We know it already and we cannot change it. It will happen regardless of what we do. That is not the question before us today.
The question before us today is the approval of Motion No. 2 which would provide a means whereby our employees, those employees of Canadian Arsenals, would be able to continue to contribute both the employee's share and the employer's share to the Public Service Superannuation Plan. The employees have agreed to pay both shares, and they will attempt to recover some, if not all, of those funds from their new employer through the collective bargaining process. I believe it is a very reasonable compromise, and the Public Service Alliance has agreed to it. Certainly it is one with which the Government can live.
As I indicated previously, it is not precedent setting, because we went even further in the transfers of Deer Lodge Elospital and similar institutions of which the Government divested itself in the past.? The precedent is there. As a matter of fact, what we are trying to do in this case is less than what was done in the case of Deer Lodge Hospital. If we could live with it in the past, we could certainly live with it now. It is not a precedent setting issue at all. It involves fairness on the part of us collectively toward the treatment of those employees.
Yesterday I referred to fair treatment of employees of the House of Commons. Today I am talking about employees of the Government of Canada. In my view we can, if we have the desire and political will, achieve this result with little or no difficulty.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-87 respecting the privatization of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Before dealing specifically with Motions Nos. 1 and 2 which are before us today, 1 should like to spend a moment providing some background on the Bill. Many months ago in British Columbia some erroneous correspondence was circulated saying that I was in great support of the privatization of Canadian Arsenals Limited. For that reason I will refer to some background information which will indicate why that was never the case and is not the case now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It will never be the case.


James Ross Fulton: It will never be the case. Canadian Arsenals is a 100 per cent Crown-owned corporation, established in 1945 for the purpose of returning the armament industry in Canada from wartime to peacetime operations. As all Hon. Members know, currently there are two plants-one at St. Augustin
Canadian Arsenals Limited
near Quebec City and one at Ville Le Gardeur near Montreal-for manufacturing medium and large calibre ammunition. There are 750 employees at Le Gardeur and 50 at St. Augustin. The Public Service Alliance of Canada is the principal union with about 570 of the employees as members. The federal Government, through the Department of National Defence, is the company's largest customer, responsible for some 90 per cent of its sales. Some 10 per cent of its sales are exported. The following question has been legitimately and properly raised by the workers and many Members of the House: Why sell it?
Last year its profits totalled well in excess of $11 million. At that time it was ranked as No. 470 in The Financial Post top 500 in terms of sales. However, the interesting point is that the company was ranked as No. 3 in Canada for its five-year profit growth by The Financial Post. Again the question is raised: Why sell?
According to the projections of the Government, sales are expected to double over the next five years. The sale of Canadian Arsenals requires the approval of Parliament, unlike corporations under CDIC such as de Havilland. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced the sale of Canadian Arsenals at the beginning of last December to SNC of Montreal, an engineering, construction and manufacturing firm, for a reported $92.2 million. According to the press release there were eight bidders and SNC was the highest.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada was never notified of the Government's intention to privatize, and learned of it only through press reports. That is a matter which the House should ponder in some greater detail. Why did that take place, and what kind of Government attitude does it demonstrate? As we deal with Bill C-87, it is important to keep in mind that it is very precedent setting and may in fact be a precedent-at that a damn poor precedent-for the privatization of other Crown corporations should the Government continue on the road which seems to be supported by some of its more right-wing friends.
Key questions have been raised by the workers and their representatives with PSAC on the issues of job security, pensions and the Canada Labour Code. At this point 1 should like to deal with the two particular motions before us. As someone very active on the question of pensions and unions, having been a former member of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, I have some concerns about Motions Nos. 1 and 2. Paragraph (3) of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), reads in part as follows:
The Governor in Council may, in relation to persons who make the election referred to in paragraph (l)(e), make regulations-
Further on it refers to very vague and non-specific regulatory producing powers. Under the previous Government of Mr. Trudeau, the previous Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), and the present Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), I have found that only too often these kinds of regulatory producing powers of the

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Governor in Council are designed and in fact used, if we look at history, to strip rights from workers who are falsely led to believe that they will come their way. The fight is no longer one where the workers of Canadian Arsenals would be forced to cash out their pension plans and live under whatever SNC decided. It also does not group the pension plans, Mr. Speaker. I think workers in other areas of Crown Corporations are looking to see what happens in this struggle in Parliament and how the Government and the House will respond to a very real dilemma.
Many of the workers, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, if not all workers in the country at some point in their lives have to plan how they will care for themselves and their families. They have to look at costs between the time they stop working and the time they pass on. It seems to me that the Minister and government Members who have spoken have not really taken into account the kind of bombshells they have been throwing at the munitions workers. They started off by saying: "You will have to divest out of the plan-cash out." Then the Government moved to this extremely vague proposal which allows for some options. By being so non-specific it means that we as Members of this House are not doing the job we should be doing, that of setting a blueprint.
Regardless of which Party we belong to, the Government has 211 Members and can vote through whatever it wants, it seems to me that in the interests of workers, their ability to plan to have a decent and liveable pension plan when they do decide to retire, we have done a very poor job as the House of Commons. The Government has done a terrible job in responding to the real concerns of the workers.
Let us now take a look at the proposal, which is somewhat better, Motion No. 2, brought forward by the Hon. Member who just spoke. It is something I do not like because it does not address the issue of pensions head on. I am not saying that Bill C-87 should necessarily be the panacea for pension plans for the portability and transfer of pensions from the private to the public sector or from the public to the private sector or private to private. Let me read Motion No. 2:
An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer, either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal
superannuation plan-
That sounds very reasonable.
-and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or-
I want to come back to that part of the motion.
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement
of purchase and sale between the government and the new employer
The new employer is SNC.
Let me come back to paragraph (a) of Motion No. 2, because I have some concerns about it. I am not as concerned as with the Government amendment, but it is one that I think could really benefit from some clarity and drafting in that this
will force the workers to renegotiate with SNC as a result of paragraph (a).
It says the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contribution. "X" being the annual cost to the employee and historically to the employer means that there will have to be a great deal of pressure brought on SNC to live up to this. It does not provide what I see as being the most appropriate mechanism, which should have been drafted by now by the Government, in terms of the actual move of all of those years that have been earned by the employees under the public service, so they could carry on in a realistic way and pay in the same way they are paid now, rather than having to enter into a new process of negotiations.
I recognize there is a reason why this has been drafted in this way. There is, however, a better way to do this, not only for the workers of CAL, but for other workers who will be faced with the same dilemma. As was raised by the Hon. Member who just said down, the Government, even under the present administration, is not applying the same kind of criteria to situations that are similar. It all depends on how much pressure is brought on them, and what kinds of cooperation they are getting from the purchaser of an operation such as Canadian Arsenals Limited, and what kind of heat is created in the House of Commons itself.
There is a great deal more than could and should be done. It is something that Canadians will have to reflect on, whether or not this is truly the fairest way possible for this kind of privatization to take place. The Government has a majority. It is its choice, but I think the voices that have been heard in the House of Commons and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada is that what has been proposed so far is pretty tacky and pretty hard to take.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate on the report stage of Bill C-87 and the motions numbered 1, 2 and 3 for debate. I will try to focus my comments on the subject as a whole. The House will recall that the motion we are now considering is aimed at amending Bill C-87, specifically with respect to the matter of pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I may refer to comments I made here in the House on March 11 of this year, when I pointed out in debate that I was not happy with the provisions made by the Government in this Bill with respect to pensions.
The comments I made at the time may be found on page 11,422 of Hansard and perhaps I may recall what I said at the time, reading from Hansard of March 11, 1986:
We do not have that guarantee. We do not have much information dealing with the pension arrangements. We will be looking forward in committee to getting from the Minister some of the answers to these questions.
Mr. Speaker, about the pensions .. . well, we saw what happened this week when employees from Canadian Arsenals demonstrated in front of the Parliament Buildings to protest
April 18, 1986

against Bill C-87 because it totally ignores their rights, their vested rights with respect to pensions.
We know that the pension system we have for federal public servants is based on employee and employer contributions, and that there are certain formulas that have been established and negotiated and that are recognized as being both generous and fair in concept and application.
Mr. Speaker, employees and their representatives are asking to have the present pension plan, as regulated by the Pensions Act now in effect, transferred to the new employer so they can continue to contribute to their pension plan as they did before, and enjoy those benefits for which they have saved.
Mr. Speaker, in his December 2, 1985 statement on the sale of Canadian Arsenals, the President of the Treasury Board said this: It is a good deal for all parties involved, including the private sector and the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the sale is a good deal for the SNC group-and I know that people interested in this debate will refer to the remarks we made last March 11 when the Government was criticized for its amateurish and unplanned privatization procedure carried out with undue haste and without much thought given to the impact of privatization on the employees-but still we entertain serious misgivings about the so-called benefits accruing to the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Mr. Speaker, we were given assurances by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) and his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Bradley), yet our misgivings have not been dispelled, particularly with respect to employee pensions. Although this amendment deals with that problem, I would simply remind the House that the proposition under study is short on specifics and smacks of amateurism.
Looking at Motion No. 1, I see that the person, namely the employee-I will read subsection 12(e):
(e) the person elects, within one year after the coming into force of this
section and in such form and manner as the Minister directs, to have the
Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits
Act and the regulations made under those Acts continue to apply to him to the
extent provided by the regulations made under subsection (3).
Mr. Speaker, the words that bother me are "in such form and manner as the Minister directs". Had this read "in such form and manner as negotiated between the employer and the union", 1 would say it makes sense, at least the two parties will negotiate and reach an acceptable compromise. But no! The whole thing is to be decided by the Minister, unilaterally.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that, yesterday in this House, we discussed Bill C-45 in which the Government proposes to change the system where negotiations are authorized only on one side so as to allow a union to negotiate for the employees. In this case, I find the proposed changes very weak and narrow in their application since negotiation is unilateral.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Mr. Speaker, the Committee had the opportunity to examine the amendment moved by my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Motion No. 2 standing in his name attempts to make the following change to the bill:
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer-
-that is, SNC-
-either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal superannuation plan, and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement of purchase and sale between the government and the new employer.''
Mr. Speaker, this proposal was already made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in committee on behalf of the Public Service Alliance, and 1 think that it reflects the intention of the employees to continue to pay their own contributions, and even the share of the employer. As I said earlier, both employee and employer contribute 6 or 7 per cent to a pension fund which, at the time of retirement, after 35 years of service or under the magic number of 85, entitles the worker to a pension and the benefits from his investment.
If we look at Motion No. 2, we find that the employees are aware that the Government did not want to get involved with the private sector and continue to allow contributions to a public pension fund, as the Pension Act is very clear on this point. The employees therefore said: In that case, we shall continue to pay not only our own contributions, but also the share of the employer so that we may continue to benefit from the pension plan in which we already have substantial investments.
Mr. Speaker, that is truly taking the bull by the horns. If these employees cannot be authorized to keep their pension fund in which they already have vested interests and continue to contribute to this fund, 1 do not know how we could, in this House, authorize or endorse a solution which would be left completely at the discretion of the Minister as suggested in motion no. 1.
A different pension which, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, has been suggested by certain people, would also be a solution.
Mr. Speaker, the employees are asking, and I shall try to summarize since you are giving me a minute more, to be recognized as contributors to their present pension fund, which is the Canadian Public Service Superannuation Fund, and to contribute also the share of the employer if he refuses to recognize his obligation to keep up his own contributions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the amendments moved by the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on the pension rights of 800 Canadian Arsenals Limited employees affected by this

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
privatization project. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Government is responsible for these problems because, before looking for a prospective buyer for this Crown Corporation, he had failed to determine its privatization policy.
I do not want to revert to the issue of whether or not this company should be privatized. A decision has been made by the majority of the House of Commons over our opposition. We must now talk about how this will be done, and whether it will be done fairly with regard to the workers.
I think it is significant that the Government's amendment has been proposed, because it acknowledges that the Government had not thought through what would happen to the pension rights of the employees in the event of privatization and, therefore, had made no legislative arrangements. Many of the affected employees may well have found themselves forced to cash out their pension contributions, and lose the employers' share, the indexation to which they would have been entitled under the Public Service Superannuation Act, and a lot of the interest. Yet, until the Government was forced to consider the matter, it did not consider that to be a problem.
While I believe that SNC has been acting in good faith in this particular matter, I must point out that neither it nor the Government sat down to discuss these problems seriously and work out solutions until the legislation went to the legislative committee, when finally some action began to be taken.

A Crown Corporation, as the epitome of responsibility, should provide a pattern for the way a corporation should deal with its employees in the 1980's. In this case, however, the privatization of the Canadian Arsenals Limited cannot be used as a model; in fact, it would be an improvement if the Government forced these amendments upon us, but it is a precedent that is in fact better than if nothing had been done.
Still, Mr. Speaker, the Government should have thought about this more seriously beforehand and, as we intend to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I suggest that the Government should consider whether the employees, some of them over 45 years of age, should not have the right to stay fully with the Federal Government's Pension Plan instead of being placed in the middle, in between the two plans, as proposed by the Government.

We have some specific concerns, Mr. Speaker. While the Government now recognizes that acquired pension rights, up until the date of the sale, can be preserved, there is no assurance that there will be adequate melding in order that additional pension rights acquired by employees who opt, within a year, to take what is in here and keep their rights in the Public Service Superannuation Fund, or to ensure that the
additional pension credits which they earn from SNC will be translated into a pension.
Take as an example a worker aged 52 who intends to work until the age of 57 or 58 before retiring. It would probably be prudent for that worker to decide to keep his or her rights in the public service pension plan because of the indexation and other features. The employee may work for SNC but, having been there for only seven years there is no guarantee that those seven years would translate into additional pension on top of the reduced pension the employee would receive from the Public Service because the employee left at the age of 52.
I could give more examples like that, and I seriously regret the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary was not prepared to permit questioning on some of these points. He forces me to raise them in debate without any give and take. After I asked the House for unanimous consent I talked to the Parliamentary Secretary. I regret to say that he remained reluctant.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary must know that since the agreement of sale continues to be a secret document, and since the nuts and bolts of the proposal-


Mr. Daubney:: Point of order.


Don Boudria: It has been made public.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It has been been made public? I apologize.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no point of order, then.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) is furthering the illusion that I am capable of being in all committees at once. I do my best, and I also trust my colleagues on these particular matters. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), did a very able job in this area, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree.
The Parliamentary Secretary may have difficulty understanding this, but given the lack of consultation with the union, and the fact that this is a precedent for further privatizations which are a declared policy of the Government, the union is concerned over the wide degree of discretion left to Cabinet in the new Section 12. The Governor in Council is given the power to make regulations and specify which provisions of the Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act will apply, and to what extent. That means theoretically Cabinet could decide, despite the tenor and tone of the agreement, that no sections of those two Acts are going to apply despite the passage of Section 12. That is the legal position no matter what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have respect for him and I very much hope this Government, which has not kept all of its promises, honours the Parliamentary Secretary's word. I know he will do that personally, but his Government has perhaps a little more clouded reputation than he has as an individual.
The Government is allowed to make regulations to adapt provisions of the Superannuation Act for the purposes of this
April 18, 1986

Section and then make regulations generally for the carrying out of this Section. As a legislative draft person I think 1 can understand why these things are there. However, given the climate of unease which these workers feel, it seems to me at the very least we could have had the regulations perused and approved in advance by the union in order to quiet their fears. Instead of that, we have effectively a blank cheque kind of situation. At least that is how it is perceived. Because of the contentiousness of the privatization issue, we have to look at perception as well as intention. The Government's intentions may well be 100 per cent honourable. It may say it has come up with the best solution it could. It is not the best solution, because I believe, as the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) indicated in his amendment, that it should be possible to allow those employees who wish to stay in the Public Service plan to do so. The union says it will negotiate to get the employers' share paid to the employees so they can pay it into the two plans concerned. That should be possible and it is a better way. However, if the Government thinks this is the best way, it should understand that that is not the perception because of acts of omission and commission which have led to unease and disquiet on the part of the workers. That is why we can support the recommendations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Does the House want me to put the question now or shall we wait?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I believe there are other speakers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.05 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was a surprise, Mr. Speaker. Now I feel very uneasy.
While I do not plan to prolong the debate unduly, I want to make a few comments regarding Bill C-87, An Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. Let me also point out that the decision to join Motion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together requires one to comment on the need for this grouping in the first place.
The record should indicate clearly that the New Democratic Party opposes this Bill for many reasons, not the least of which is that the Government would want to cut itself off from Canadian Arsenals. Canadian Arsenals is a 100 per cent Crown corporation established in 1945 for the purpose of returning the armament industry in Canada from wartime to peacetime operations, as was required in those days. It has
Canadian Arsenals Limited
evolved into a corporation that produces munitions whose primary client is the Government of Canada. It is, by and large, an arm of the Government since some 90 per cent of its munitions are sold to the Government of Canada.
Last year, Canadian Arsenals had a profit in excess of SI 1 million on sales in excess of $100 million. That is quite impressive. That Crown corporation will not make $11 million next year as part of the Government's operation as a result of this Bill. We have some difficulty understanding the priorities of the Government, particularly of those Government Members who are concerned about the lack of Government revenue.
This Crown corporation is very profitable and well run, at least in terms of profitability. As a matter of fact, I believe it was ranked third in Canada for profitability. Yet steps are being taken to cut this particular Crown corporation adrift. It should be held up as ample proof of how a Crown corporation works extremely well in terms of profitability.
The major concern being expressed during the report stage of this Bill involves the pension arrangements for 800 employees of Canadian Arsenals. This concern arises because of the Government's negligence in thinking the process through carefully. Fortunately, in committee, thoughtful Members raised the point that not enough attention had been given to the pension arrangements of the hundreds of employees involved. Indeed, the Government agreed that this had been overlooked to a certain degree. Consequently, the first motion we are debating in this group was initiated by the Government in recognition of this oversight.
Bill C-87 is extremely important because of its precedentsetting measures. The approach used in this Bill will be used elsewhere as the Government attempts to privatize various aspects of Government operations. That is why we are particularly concerned about Clause 12. We are not simply dealing with the balance sheets or the facilities of Canadian Arsenals, we are concerned about what happens to the hundreds of employees in that operation.
Many employees of Canadian Arsenals have been contributing to pension plans for many years. Questions are now being asked about the transfer from this particular pension sphere into another and whether the employee will in fact be severely cut back in terms of the benefits that would accrue as a result of this change. Indeed, that is the case. That is the reason for Motion No. 2 in the name of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) which states:
"12. An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of
transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer, either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal superannuation plan, and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement of purchase and sale between the Government and the new employer."
1 understand that is similar to the arrangement one can make when on leave from the federal Government. It is possible to make both contributions and continue the plan. Such a procedure makes imminent sense in this situation and that is

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
why we support Motion No. 2 in the name of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I, and I know other Members were disappointed when Members on the Government side opposed the request by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions. This is essentially the last opportunity to clarify some important questions, yet those Members simply want the report stage debate to take place. While that debate may be appropriate, surely this is such a critical issue in terms of the precedent that we should be permitted an opportunity to direct some specific questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I greatly regret that decision by Government Members.
The fact that there is no legislation ensuring the rights of Crown corporation employees, who have been contributing to pension plans and move to a private corporation, simply emphasizes the point that more consideration ought to be given to this group of motions.
In conclusion, let me simply say that there is much unease with respect to the employees involved. There are concerns which have been registered in committee and have now been raised in this report stage debate. There is a whole range of unanswered questions. Before this round of motions is completed, perhaps an Hon. Member on the Government side will rise and respond to some of the questions posed. If not, then we will have to say that the process being followed is incomplete and inappropriate on such a critical and important Bill.
Because of the questions which have been posed by my colleagues, 1 anticipate that after sitting down I will hear from some Hon. Members opposite in terms of explanation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise at the report stage consideration of Bill C-87, an Act to privatize Canadian Arsenals. I believe what is happening is that the Government is moving forward with its ideological strightjacket without giving any real consideration to what will happen to the number of people who are presently working for Canadian Arsenals.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) indicated that this is not just an isolated concern. Yesterday morning we read that CN intends to sell off CN Route to three investors from Toronto. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) earlier today in the House what the Government's policy is for the people working for a Crown corporation such as CN Route. What is going to happen to those people, their jobs, their pension benefits and their future after spending so many years working for the Government of Canada through one of its Crown corporations?
The Government's philosophy is to get rid of Crown corporations. As a political Party and as the Government, it has the right to its own philosophy. No one can quarrel with that. But it wo;uld be nice on occasions if it would admit what
its policies are and even nicer if it would sometimes carry them out. In this case I do not happen to believe it is a good policy.
The Government has a policy to privatize despite the fact that it involves selling a Crown corporation which is making money, and that the major client of the Crown corporation is the Government of Canada. What we are doing is taking a Crown corporation which is selling its goods to the Government and putting it into the hands of a bunch of private individuals who wish to make a profit. But from whom will they be making a profit? It will not be from Procter and Gamble or other large companies, but from the very group which is selling the Crown corporation, the Government of Canada and through it the taxpayers of Canada.
Even if the Conservatives are right in their desire to sell off some Crown corporations, it does not make sense to sell this particular Crown corporation. There are Crown corporations which are in effect competing with private enterprise for a public market. They are competing for the purchase orders of other consumer groups and industries. But this is not the case with Canadian Arsenal. We know the Government is the major consumer, and in that case it is logical that the Government should be the producer of these types of goods.
We also know from the nature of the arms business that it is basically Governments throughout the world who buy the product. We also know that internationally it tends to be a heavily subsidized business. It is a business which quite often comes under Government regulations which are dictated by national policy. It is a very unusual business, not only because the consumer and the producer are so closely linked but because there is, for obvious reasons, Government regulation and control.
But let us look at the employees of that Crown corporation. The amendment before us this afternoon deals in the main with what is going to happen to the people who are working for a Canadian Crown corporation. We know that as a result of the sale these people will face the potential danger of losing their pension benefits, despite the amendment brought forward by the Government earlier today. That is one particular concern.
The Government really wants to sell off Crown corporation after Crown corporation and CN Route is now on the selling block. We know the workers there are going to be affected. There was an article in this morning's Globe and Mail that a number of CN's Route workers will lose their jobs. Considering this result, why does the Government not have a policy on how it will deal with the employees of these Crown corporations when they are sold? If those workers want to keep their jobs they will have to be transferred to the domain of the new owners. They quite often do not come under the same legislative protection.
That is the case here where we are going from federal law to the provincial law of the province of Quebec. Pension plans have been started and people have been paying into those pension plans for a number of years, yet there is really no
April 18, 1986

process in place to guarantee that those people will be able to keep their pensions or continue their pension growth at a rate they would like.
My main reason for speaking in this debate at this time is to point out that although the Government has a right to its policies, if it wants to privatize, that is its right, although we will oppose it because it is not our policy. But if it is going to take the right wing idea to sell a Crown corporation just because it is called a "Crown corporation", and if it is going to ignore the fact that the Crown corporation we are selling is producing goods basically for the Government of Canada, it does so at its own peril.
The Government has an obligation to be concerned about what happens to the employees who are at the present time employees of the people of Canada. If this industry was the only industry the Government was going to privatize, it would be of major concern, because we are concerned about the workers of Canadian Arsenals. But it is even more of concern when we know that it is the Government's intention to continue this process, that it wishes to sell Crown corporation after Crown corporation for whatever ill-defined justification it may have. Yet the Government has not told us what its policy is for the workers. It has not even said what the policies are for the communities in which these industries are located. It has not told us what its responsibility is as it gets out of certain endeavours. If this Government had a soul or a heart, and if it had any real knowledge of where it wants to take the country, one of its Members or a Cabinet Minister would rise and explain exactly what its policy is towards the effected comuni-ties.
If the Government is going to go hell-bent for leather and privatize agency after agency, Government Members should be able to rise in the House and tell the workers and the unions who are involved what the Government's policy is. That is my major concern. No one has done that.
Members of the Government get up and talk about a namby-pamby amendment which they have brought in at the dying stages of discussion on the legislation. The amendment deals with one set of workers in a particular way, but it does not explain where the Government wants to go in the long run. We have already heard from representatives of the workers to the effect that the amendment which is before us is not good enough. We know that to be the case. However, it is even more worrisome that the Government has not said where it will go in the future.
I realize that my time is about to expire. I hope that other Members will get up to see if we can force one of those reluctant Government back-benchers to stand up and say where the Government is taking the country as it goes off on its wild ride toward privatization.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate at the report stage debate of Bill C-87 which
Canadian Arsenals Limited
deals with the selling of Canadian Arsenals Limited. I say that I am pleased to participate in the debate since I had the opportunity, along with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), to participate in second reading debate on this piece of legislation.
At that time, as you will perhaps recall, Mr. Speaker, since I think you were presiding in the Chair, we had a number of grave concerns about the entire process and approach by which the Government was attempting to proceed with this Bill. At that time Hon. Members may recall that we were questioning why the Government was proceeding without giving Canadians the benefit of information. In effect, the Government was saying: "Yes, it is a good price for which we sold this particular company, but we will not tell Canadians what that price is. Just trust us". That was the philosophy which characterized the approach of the Conservative Government during the debate at second reading.
During the committee hearings I think the heat of the observations and representations, not only of members of the Official Opposition but of other representatives from across the country, made the Government come clean, to a certain extent, with respect to a number of questions. However, I regret that at report stage I need to stand in my place again and make a similar pitch on a different issue.
The issue we are debating this afternoon deals with Motion No. 2 which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. It states:
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of
transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer, either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal superannuation plan, and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement of purchase and sale between the government and the new employer."
What the Hon. Member is attempting to do by putting forward this motion is have the Government come clean with the employees of this company. This would give them some sense of assurance, some sense of continuity and a sense of respect and dignity in terms of their future with this particular company. This is to what the amendment refers. The amendment speaks in defence of not only the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the particular union involved, but the 800 workers, some of whom have spent a great number of years in the employ of this company.
The average age of a worker at the company is 34 years. He has an average of six years of service and a salary of $22,680. That individual, that breadwinner, wants to know, not tomorrow or the month after but today how his pension contributions will be affected. He wants to know what kind of choices and opportunities he will have in terms of these pension contributions. This is to what the amendment speaks.
The Government has said in a holus-bolus way: "We will move a motion which will allow us to make an Order in

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Council sometime in the future which will dictate what kind of arrangement vis-a-vis pension contributions these 800 employees will have". That is not the right way to deal with individuals who have been contributing to the system for a number of years. That is not the way by which families can build their futures. That is not the way the Government should be conducting its business on behalf of Canadians. It does not speak very highly of the motives of the Government. If it wants to make a decision to sell this company which has been profitable, then that is the choice of the Government. Of course, that is what it is here for. We on this side of the House have pointed out options with respect to why it should not choose to exercise that alternative.
However, if it is to move in this direction, after having made a clear decision to take the privatization route, then for goodness' sake let us have an infrastructure in keeping with that decision. Why not think of the workers? Why should they be left out of the equation? Why should their pension contributions be left simply to hang for some future discretionary measure within the Minister responsible? That is not the way business should be conducted when it involves the livelihood of people. It is unfair to say: "We will give them the benefit of one year to make up their minds whether or not they want to pursue the pension plan programs which we will be designing and offering them".
It should also be noted that this window of 12 months will begin once the legislation is passed. By the time the legislation passes, and by the time the Government introduces its Order in Council, it may very well be that 6, 8, 10 or 11 months will have passed. Therefore, that window by which an individual employee can make an intelligent decision for his family will be shortened. The one year, which might sound very attractive now, will, in fact, be watered down.
The Parliamentary Secretary laughs. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I do not think Members opposite are taking the issue as painted by the Public Service Alliance and the company seriously enough, and they have been siding on the part of the workers. Individuals in Treasury Board have been quoted in various journals and newspapers as having said that the Government has proceeded in a very unorganized and haphazard way, as far as pension contributions are concerned.
We are not trying to be obstructionist. We are not putting forward opposite views on how the Government should be proceeding simply because we are in opposition. We are doing so because there needs to be someone to speak for the workers in terms of this particular issue in order that their concerns be brought in and articulated. They have been trying to make their concerns known to the Government. This is why we are asking Members of the House to consider seriously Motion No. 2 put forward by my colleague. It is a fair and responsible amendment. It is one which speaks to the investment workers have made over the years and the one they wish to continue to make in future years. What is so wrong with that?


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, having very carefully studied the provisions of this Bill and after having examined with great care the motion which is now before the House-in fact, I believe there are two motions-


Don Boudria: There are three.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My colleague tells me that there are three motions before the House which have been grouped together for debate. These motions certainly deal with some very fundamental issues which, in the course of my-is it 40 minutes I have, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is 10 minutes.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In the course of my 10-minute intervention on this fundamental question I wish to take the opportunity to address some of the concerns raised by these motions.
I had the opportunity of meeting with many of the workers of Canadian Arsenals who, as the House will know, were here on the Hill on Wednesday of this week. They expressed concerns with respect to the possibility that they might lose certain employee pension benefits. As we know, this is a fundamental issue of concern to these employees who have served Canadian Arsenals faithfully for many years.
The possible effect of the provisions of this Bill would be to seriously jeopardize the pension position of the employees of Canadian Arsenals. That is why we heard the chant on the steps of Parliament Hill: "On veut la compensation, on veut la compensation!" The compensation could amount to something in the order of $17,000 per year to the individuals who have been affected by this legislation.
In examining the provisions of this Bill, I note that the Government, in the dying gasp of this debate, has put forward a motion which moves some distance toward meeting the concerns of the employees of Canadian Arsenals. However, I would like to support Motion No. 2, the motion that would permit employees of the corporation, as of the day prior to the date of the transfer of the company, to make an election. They could choose to remain as contributors to the federal superannuation plan, in which case they would be required to pay both the employee's and the employer's share of the required contributions to the plan, or they could accept the alternative of becoming a contributor to the pension plan as described in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Government and the new employer. The fundamental issue here is that this would give the employees in question a choice. Obviously that would permit them to continue to protect the pension rights which have accrued to them through many years of faithful, loyal, dedicated and hardworking service to Canadian Arsenals.
We must ask why it is that the Government seems to be obsessed with the notion that the private sector can do things
April 18, 1986

better than the public sector. Privatization is the current buzzword of the Conservative Government. Why is it that the Government believes a company which is motivated by the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of maximizing its return on shares is better able to manage this company than the public sector? The Public Service Alliance of Canada, in its submission to the legislative committee on Bill C-87, pointed out that a full public parliamentary debate on the role of Crown corporations and public enterprise is long overdue.
I believe that the purpose of public policy is to serve the interests of Canadians, certainly not to serve the interests of a small group of elite corporate shareholders. It is particularly essential to note that when companies are taking major decisions with respect to investment, employment or plant location, the public interest ought to be the governing interest and not the maximization of global profits.
To the extent that there may have been problems in the public sector, we suggest that that was primarily as a result of the failure of the Government to recognize the creative and important role of the public sector and the importance of Crown corporations being models of corporate responsibility. They should be open, accountable and charged with a clear and definable mandate.
In fact, Canadian Arsenals has been a very profitable company. In 1985, it had a net income of $11.3 million on sales of $103.8 million. Its return on equity was an excellent 21.4 per cent in 1984-85. The profits of this company were being used to help reduce the deficit of the Government. The Government has been cutting back on family allowances and transfer payments for health care and post-secondary education. One would have thought that the Government would have welcomed a contribution of $11 million to the public purse to help reduce the deficit. Instead of cutting back on these important public services, the Government should be recognizing that Canadian Arsenals can help to provide a source of public revenue and at the same time ensure that the priorities established for Canadian Arsenals meet the interests and concerns of the Canadian people and are responsive to the workers of that company.
It is reasonable to assume that the approach which is being taken by the Government in Bill C-87 will very likely serve as a model for other Government privatization efforts. For that reason, as well as the reasons I have discussed previously and which my colleagues have so eloquently placed on the record, we want to make sure that we give Bill C-87 the best possible effort so that it may be a good model. If the Government is determined to plough ahead with its ideological blinkers on in the pursuit of privatization, we are determined to ensure that the interests of the working men and women of Canadian Arsenals are protected and not eroded as this Bill would in fact do. That is why we have urged the Government to recognize that while it has moved forward with an amendment, it does not go far enough to protect the pension contributions of the employees involved.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
I would note as well that the jeopardization of the retirement pensions of Canadian Arsenals employees is but one of a number of concerns we have raised in the course of this debate. The Public Service Alliance made representations with respect to this Bill, and I would note here the role played by Vice President Jean Bergeron. The Public Service Alliance has spoken out very clearly with respect to the concern about longstanding contractual rights of employees and the concern that these contractual rights be protected during the transition from public to private enterprise.
The sale in question does require a jurisdictional change in the area of labour relations from the federal jurisdiction to the provincial jurisdiction of Quebec. Partly as a result of that, it would appear that there are no transitional provisions to protect the collective agreement, the benefit plans and the other acquired rights of the employees until certification is granted pursuant to the Quebec Labour Code. At this time the employees are covered under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. While SNC, the company which is buying Canadian Arsenals, has made commitments to honour all of the contractual obligations between Canadian Arsenals and its employees, it would be far preferable if those commitments were enshrined in the legislation.
As well, there is a problem in this legislation with respect to the grievance and arbitration of rights of the employees of Canadian Arsenals. The sale is adding to the degree of confusion and uncertainty that is involved.
Again, the fundamental question that must be addressed is why is it that the Government believes, in its ideological zeal to pursue the privatization agenda, that Canadian Arsenals will be better run by SNC than it is being run by a board of directors appointed by the Government of Canada? That is a question which no Member on that side of the House has yet addressed, and it is a question which we in this Party believe must be addressed. As I have indicated, it cannot be argued that there has been a failure in the corporate responsibility of this firm to its shareholders who are ultimately the people of Canada or to its employees. After all, it has a good record. I know that other speakers will be talking about the record of Canadian Arsenals in this regard.
I want to note another concern. By far the largest customer of Canadian Arsenals Limited is in fact the Department of National Defence. It has been most beneficial to have that close working relationship between Canadian Arsenals and the Department of National Defence. As it now stands, the privatization process could very well jeopardize that relationship. We have to ask ourselves more fundamental questions in terms of the rights of the employees and of the pension plan. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired; I would love to listen to him all day.

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion No. 2 which reads as follows:
That Bill C-87, be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 5 the following:
"12. An employee of the Corporation, as of the day prior to the date of
transfer, will have the right, on transferring to the new employer, either to:
(a)	choose to remain and continue as a contributor to the federal superannation plan, and the employee will pay both the employee's and the employer's shares of the required contributions to the plan; or
(b)	become a contributor to the pension plan as described in the agreement of the purchase and sale between the government and the new employer."
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that 50 per cent of the employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited are women. Closer scrutiny of the Bill reveals that if ever the Government were to prevent the employees from contributing or maintaining their pension plan, this will have a double impact on women. Since 50 per cent of the employees are women and that, as a rule, women do not have as much seniority as men do because they had to quit working for a while to raise their children, they will be taxed twice as much because they have been unable to accumulate the same number of years of pensionable service.
They will be taxed as well-most of those employees are under 35, or between 35 and 40, and if they are prevented from maintaining their pension plan, because we know that under public service regulations the wife and children are entitled to a pension when the husband dies, and that means that the wives or the female employees of 35, or between 35 and 40, will not be entitled to a pension in case of death. I might simply remind the House that most women are poor, and we have debated the pension issue long enough to know that a woman cannot get 50 per cent of her husband's pension benefits because there is no such provision in the private sector. Therefore, taxes would be imposed on 50 per cent of the wives of men who work for the corporation and they would not be eligible for pension benefits.
Then as employees women would be doubly taxed because they would also lose their retirement pension. That is why I think the Government has to change the procedure related to pensions, and Motion No. 2 must be accepted, otherwise women employees and the wives of male employees will be doubly taxed.
For quite some time now we have been debating Bill C-62 on employment equity. Since the Conservative Government is supposed to do everything right, I was wondering if, during negotiations, someone considered negotiating what is known as the contract compliance issue. Since Bill C-62 on employment equity will eventually become law, did the Government think about including in contract negotiations the question of employment equity with respect to people who will be hired by or who now work for the corporation?
Something else is also very interesting. 1 am now a member of the committee on daycare. We have had the Katie Cooke report on daycare which was tabled recently in this House. The
Government is being asked to encourage companies to provide daycare space or to open daycares centres.
We have also been told that this will be a priority for the Government. In that case, this was the time to do something about it. If this is really a priority, did the Government consider the fact that 50 per cent of these employees are women and a large number of them have children? Did the Government discuss the fact that it would have been possible to create employment equity as well as provide spaces in daycare centres?
If not, this shows that we are dealing with mere amateurs approach, because the contract was prepared hastily and the Government has been remiss in its duty. We are told that all the matters we are now discussing in this House are the result of conservative amendments, but 1 would like to point out that all this is a result of what the Liberals suggested in committee. That is very important. These are the amendments now under discussion.
I ask the Government to act and not simply to put up a smoke screen. This is one of the first times that we see that this Bill deals with the privatization of a company. Was employment equity discussed as one of the conditions of purchase? Has there been some provision to protect the spouses of the workers? Also, as concerns women, will they be hit by double taxation on their pensions?
I would like the Government to show us that it is being serious for once instead of relying on rhetoric. If indeed it is serious, I must support Motion No. 2.
Mr. Speaker, I do not simply want to have a discussion with my Conservative colleague who says that the Liberal Government did not pass any legislation to achieve employment equity.
The Liberal Government passed some excellent laws on the status of women. Canada has been one of the most progressive countries in this regard.
You always tell us that you are doing a lot for women, for instance that when appointing new board of directors. Well! You appointed 16 men out of 17 members. On another board made up of ten members, you appointed ten men. You should start by practicing what you preach. This is the best proof we could have! You should put this principle in practice in the case of a privatization and show that you are able to protect the rights of women. If the Conservative Government can do so, I shall publicly recognize it, but for the moment, I think that you are making a mistake. Especially in view of what you are doing in Bill C-62, you would have had a chance to do better with this Bill, but the Government continues to use an amateurish approach, as it has been doing all along.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is not one of privatization but one of human rights and employee rights. It is a people or personnel problem rather than a
April 18, 1986

privatization problem. The employees want to maintain their present status under the Public Service Superannuation Act. They understand quite well that the Government does not want that link between a private company and the Public Service Superannuation Act. Their first request was for the Government to pay both shares. However, there was a counter offer by the Government, that it would make an offer through Order in Council sometime in the future. It was a fairly hollow gesture, one which we could not expect loyal employees who worked for a long time for this important corporation to accept.
We have not really dealt with the link between the Department of National Defence and Canadian Arsenals Limited or how Bill C-87 will affect that long standing relationship. The Government was asking the employees to give it a blank cheque. It said that sometime in the future it would do something for them. It did not know what that would be; it did not even hint at it. In any event, the Government told them that it would do something for them in the future and that they had a year in which to make up their minds on whether they would accept the offer. It was not really a fair way to treat loyal employees who had been working for Canadian Arsenals for a long time.
On the other hand, the people affected said that they would pay both shares if the Government would not do it. They made that offer to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). He was asked to respond to that most magnanimous offer by the employees, but he has not responded. So we are here today debating an amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), to do the very things the employees want to do. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to accept the offer. It is a fair and reasonable one and it is magnanimous on the part of the employees to make it.
There is a wider issue here, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to have a sound economy we have to have better employer-employee relations. There has to be a new relationship with labour. If the Government is serious about that it should lead the way by showing that kind of attitude toward its employees. The Government should set the tone in the country by example.
We have seen strikes across the country. We are presently, I hope, in the final stages of one in my own province on the very same issue. The public servants in Newfoundland have virtually brought the province to a standstill and have negotiated directly in public with the Premier. They have forced concessions from the Newfoundland Government. The matter is still not resolved, but it is a case in point. Governments have to set the tone for the new economic reality. There has to be a new relationship with labour. There has to be peace with labour and you cannot do it by confrontation or by walking all over people. You have to sit down and be reasonable with
Canadian Arsenals Limited
people, particularly those who have served the Government and the people of Canada faithfully for a long, long time.
I say to the Government and to this Parliament that it is incumbent upon us to support the amendment from my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He has worked long and hard for many of the people, many of whom live in this area. Most of the people who are affected, as I understand it, are employees in Montreal and St. Augustin near Quebec City. The employees in question deserve fair treatment. They are making a reasonable proposal and I think it is incumbent upon the Government to accept it.
There is that wider issue, namely, the new relationship with the working people in the country. If the working people are going to be sent a signal, let them be sent a signal on this issue that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada is offering the working people a deal, a fair and equitable place to earn a living, a deal that protects them in the long run. We are facing rapid change. People feel threatened and insecure. Neither politicians nor businessmen-in fact, no one is exempt from that insecurity brought about by the rapid changes in society. We have a chance to do something for these people. We are all in the same boat. It is more important to understand the reality in which we find ourselves. We should act today by supporting this amendment and showing the workers that we are keeping faith with them.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to Bill C-87. I oppose this measure as does my party because it will be harmful for the people of Canada as well as for the men and women who work for this corporation.

No good reason has been shown why this company should be sold, Mr. Speaker, no good reason at all. It is a company that has been making a profit. It is a company that stands and ranks well with other Canadian companies. It is a company that provides a vital service. Further, if the company is sold there will be great danger that its employees will lose many of the benefits which they have earned by their service to the Government and the people of Canada as employees of this Crown Corporation.
The sale ought to be delayed until at least the proper interests of the employees can be preserved. I would welcome any possible amendments to serve the interests of the employees of the company and the people before this Bill is passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Since Motion No. 3 is consequential to Motion No. 1, a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply as per the Speaker's ruling. A vote on Motion No. 1 will dispose of Motion No. 2.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are identical. The Chair will select one.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you also have to take a vote on Motion No. 2 which has not been covered since it is not established whether or not the full House on Monday will support Motion No. 1. As I understand it, since this has not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We will do that when there is a deferred division. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) should realize that once we have gone through all the debates on Monday, or whenever we are finished with the debate, we will do that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 2 will be voted on, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: May I rise to move-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
I have selected Motion No. 4.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 35 to 37 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"12. This Act shall come into force after December 31, 1987, on a date to be
fixed by proclamation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill as it stands right now calls for it to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. The Government is saying that there are no problems left with this particular act of privatization that deserve to be resolved. In particular, the Government is saying that despite the protests which have been expressed right up until today by the
work force of Canadian Arsenals who unwillingly, find themselves being privatized by this Bill, the Government sees no problem or any problems yet to be resolved. The Parliamentary Secretary is paying some attention. Let me suggest to him that one might be critical and say that a hoist or a deferral until December, 1987 is not particularly fair to SNC, which is, after all, hoping to get going with this new acquisition. The Minister does not look like a real Tory because his suit is not blue.
The problems which exist here are not related to SNC. SNC, to some extent, is an unwilling and hapless victim of the Government's mismanagement of this act of privatization. The Minister and the Government must act differently if they intend to continue with the privatization and get co-operation. After this experience, when employees are affected, rather than looking for ways to co-operate with the Government's intention, which the Government does have the parliamentary majority to put into law, people will drag their heels. In this particular case that was not at issue because there was no effective consultation for the longest time with the workforce and the unions affected.
If anyone wants to complain about delay, as they have to me, they should look at the Government's record on this issue. The announcement of the intention to privatize Canadian Arsenals was made in the Budget on May 23. Bids were submitted and received on August 9. There followed a bidding war in which the Government tried to get the preferred bidders to up the ante, a process from which SNC eventually emerged with the Government's approval. It was not until early December that the Government announced that it intended to act and introduced the privatization Bill in the House of Commons.
I received anxious submissions from SNC last November and December asking what the NDP could do in order to expedite the Bill, as they really wanted to have it passed. I had to tell them that there was nothing I could do because the carriage of the Bill was in the hands of the Government. I suggested that the people from SNC should sit down immediately with the representatives of the workers involved to start to iron out the problems. I warned them that if they could resolve the concerns of the workforce, it would certainly help our Party to be a good deal more co-operative with regard to getting the Bill passed.
That, in fact, did not occur. SNC finally got around to talking with the union, but the Government tried its best to avoid having any meaningful discussions. We have, therefore, the spectacle of legislated amendments on an absolutely essential part of the process. The legislated protection for pension rights, which employees have worked for up to 30 years to gain, came only as an afterthought in an amendment dated April 11, 1986, almost one full year after the original announcement of the Government's intention to sell Canadian Arsenals to the private sector.
April 18, 1986

If there has been delay, the Government is responsible for it. The reason for the delay is that the Government did not know whether it intended to privatize, or how it intended to do it. Through press leaks we have learned that one group in Cabinet wanted to sell at any price, and another group of the bureaucracy wanted to go through the process and work out the ground rules before proceeding. Fundamental questions have yet to be addressed in the case of Teleglobe. The rates which Teleglobe Canada can charge are part of a regulated environment. If Teleglobe goes into the private sector, its income and, therefore, its profitability, will depend on how the Government intends to administer this regulated environment. If international tariffs for communications are deregulated, or sharply reduced, Teleglobe will no longer be very attractive. It is very difficult to sell it, given that uncertainty.
With regard to Canadian Arsenals, we wondered why we would sell it when it was anticipated that it was going to continue to be more and more profitable. It was one of the fastest growing companies in terms of profit growth in the last five years in the entire Financial Post index. We wondered why we would sell a winner, and the Government has never answered that question. The other question we had was with regard to dealing with the employees. This has not been done either.
That is why I have moved this amendment which calls for the Act to come into force after December 31, 1987, on a date to be fixd by proclamation. In the interim I hope it will be possible to resolve the problems which have been raised directly, and quite justly, on behalf of the employees when they came to Parliament Hill two days ago. These problems have also been raised by their unions repeatedly and consistently since the Bill was tabled in December.
If the Government asked whether I would agree to an amendment which would allow the Bill to come into force when all of the outstanding issues which have been raised by the union are resolved, rather than waiting for the entire year and a half, I would not be negatively disposed to that. However, successor rights have not been established, and cannot be established unless there is either legislative action or some more formal agreement between the federal Government and the Quebec Government as these employees are passed from federal jurisdiction into provincial jurisdition.
The employees have only verbal assurances from SNC that the grievance process and the administration of the collective agreement will continue on an informal basis until the employees form a union under Quebec law, either through the alliance or another union which they may choose to replace the alliance. If Motion No. 1 passes on Monday there will be a resolution of the pension issue, albeit not a very good resolution. The fact that there has not been a satisfctory resolution in that area raises questions in my mind.
Another issue is that ammunition produced by Canadian Arsenals has found its way to such places as Contra camps on the borders of Nicaragua. Yet, there has been no insistence with regard to controlling where SNC and its new subsidiary
Canadian Arsenals Limited
will be able to sell ammunition and other military products once it is no longer publicly owned. These issues ought to be resolved before a sale, rather than after. I very much regret that the Government did not see fit to resolve those problems before passing the Bill.
For those reasons I have moved that this matter be deferred and that the Bill not be proclaimed until after the end of December, 1987, which will allow ample time for the resolution of these problems. If in four months' time the Government says that it has solved these problems and asks for a one hour debate on a short Bill in order to advance the proclamation, I would strongly recommend to my colleagues that, if satisfactory resolution to the issues had been achieved, we pass such a Bill. However, for now I think it is necessary to pass this motion. This amendment should be made law in order to ensure that every Minister of the Government understands that if they insist on privatization, even when it is not warranted, they must follow a legitimate process which answers the concerns of the electorate in general, affected workers, and other people with interest in a particular sale. We will feel compelled to continue to make proposals for delay until these issues are better handled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? I will recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Presscott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we are almost ready for the question, but we do have a few other points which we must bring to your attention.
[ Translation]
This House is anxious to hear from Quebec Members who have the honour and privilege of representing those employees here, and we feel it is indeed our duty to speak up in the absence of those Members who have not risen yet. But since they will be doing it shortly, we are making sure in the meantime, as Members, that their views are put forward, the views of those who have not yet done so.
I know, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) would like us to raise those issues on his behalf, being no doubt very busy, and this is why it is impossible right now to raise them himself. I am sure it is the same with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who represents a neighbouring constituency, that of Berthier-Maskinonge, and he has many constituants who are employees of-


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


@Acting Speaker: The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


Claudy Mailly: I am questioning the relevancy of naming all those Members who are not now in this House, and pretending to speak on their behalf.


Don Boudria: I never said they were not present.

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is Friday afternoon. I was paying attention to the Hon. Member's speech and he never mentioned who was or was not in the House. He has been here for close to two years now and I know he realizes that Hon. Members do not mention who is or who is not in the Chamber. We will just leave it at that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, all Members are here. The ones who have not spoken yet are too busy doing constituency work. It is not because they are not here. I really resent the Hon. Member saying that her colleagues are not here. It is just not fair to them and the record should show that she is being unfair towards her colleagues by doing what she just did. Not that I would mention it myself, but now that she has brought it up I cannot really disagree with her. I will leave it at that.


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has just said that this Bill was most important. I would therefore particularly like to hear his comments on that, rather than having him play his childish little games.


Don Boudria: I am not playing games, you are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the Hon. Member will now get back to the motion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was going to do before I was so rudely interrupted. I am glad to hear a contribution from the Hon. Member in this debate, albeit a brief contribution.


Claudy Mailly: I spoke on it and you know it. We all spoke on it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a profile of the employees of Canadian Arsenals. I know the Hon. Member is listening very attentively, as she usually does. The average age of employees of Canadian Arsenals is 33.87 years. The reason I bring this to your attention at this time is that a number of these employees are quite young and at the same time they have a fair level of seniority in the company. That means they have contributed significantly to the pension process, yet they are still at an age at which they will be gravely damaged by what the Government is proposing and by what the Government has refused. That is to say, it has refused the amendments I proposed earlier. The delay being proposed here will surely give time to the Government and everyone else to reflect upon what they want to do and hopefully propose something better for the employees.
Let me give you a few examples of just what damage we are talking about regarding loss of benefits for the employees. I know that the Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada has raised this issue with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). They met on Wednesday, April 16. There were two meetings, one early in the morning and one a little later in the day. The Minister made a solemn promise. You will recognize and recall, as do I, that a Tory promise is a pretty important thing. That Tory Minister promised he would get back to the Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada by yesterday at two o'clock. I know this is going to be hard to believe but that Tory cabinet Minister did not respond.


T.A. Bud Bradley: It is in the mail.


Don Boudria: No, Mr. Speaker. He broke his promise, as unbelievable as that may sound. The Tories have not broken a promise today, of course, but they have practically every other day since they came into office.
This afternoon the Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance did get a call from the assistant to the Minister who said he was sorry that he did not call yesterday but he decided that he did not want to do anything more for the employees. That is what just happened a few moments ago, just behind the Chamber here. That is a very sad case. I know the Parliamentary Secretary, who is heckling, will take the opportunity to make a profound speech-


T.A. Bud Bradley: Not heckling, just clarifying.


Don Boudria: - a little later this afternoon.
An employee aged 29 with 12 years of service with Canadian Arsenals will be losing $17,213.07 a year by the time he or she is pensioned. That is the difference between the two pension plans. The Parliamentary Secretary said earlier today that the SNC pension is comparable to other similar industries. That is a very interesting statement because how many other similar industries are there in Canada? One. Just one.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Five.


Don Boudria: There is only one similar industry in Canada and it is known as IVI. Do you know who owns IVI? SNC, the same people buying this company. So what kind of sense does it make to make those kinds of comparisons? I submit that it is probably true that the pension plans are comparable. It is true that SNC is a good employer. That is not the point. It is not SNC that is a bad employer, it is the Government of Canada. It is this Tory Government which is a bad employer by letting down the people who work for it. That is what is wrong.
All the Tory Members in this House, all 211 of them, those who are here right now, every one of them, I am sure, deep down in their hearts agrees with me. If only their Whip or House Leader, or whoever is in charge, and sometimes we wonder if there is anyone in charge, would let them speak their mind in this House on behalf of their constituents. I am sure the Hon. Member who represents that riding would want to
April 18, 1986

speak on behalf of his constituents. 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin), who the employees of SNC have never been able to speak to on the phone over the last month, when he finishes that important constituency work that he is doing at his seat in the House, he will want to speak to those employees. Or he should. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who also represents a large number of these people, would also seize this opportunity, or should, to speak on behalf of his constituents. However, they will not hold their breath because it just may be that the Tory Members I have just described will not seize this occasion to speak on behalf of the people they represent. I am sure all Members seated on this side of the House, all Members of the Liberal caucus seated here right now, if there were an incident in which seven or eight hundred of our constituents were to lose their pensions, they could not have locked the door to that committee room to stop any one of us from entering the place to defend their interests. Why is it we had a hard time getting even a response to a phone call from the employees? 1 cannot understand that. It is my hope that in the next few moments all Conservative Members of Parliament will seize this opportunity and tell the Government it is time to come to its senses and act in a proper way towards the employees of Canadian Arsenals.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to speak on the matter, because it is very important for employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited, especially in Quebec, where there are two plants. I remember when I was a boy . . .


Claudy Mailly: That was a long time ago!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, a long time ago. I used to live in Toronto, in Port Credit, Ontario, in Etobicoke, near Lakeshore, west of Toronto, and we had a CAL plant there. That was after World War II, and I now realize that there were many CAL plants in Canada then because that was an excellent Crown corporation during the war. Many people, many workers worked for Canadian Arsenals Limited.
I understand that it has cut down considerably.
As I was saying in French, this was a great corporation which had many factories that produced a lot of munitions for Canadian soldiers and soldiers of other countries during the war. As a young boy, I remember seeing the plants in my area and talking to some of the older men who worked there. I am afraid that if the Government privatizes Canadian Arsenals it will destroy an excellent Crown corporation. While I am not saying it will happen, the owners could rationalize and we would not see any Canadian Aresenals Limited at all.
Motion No. 4 states:
Canadian Arsenals Limited
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 35 to 37 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
" 12. This Act shall come into force after December 31,1987, on a date to be
fixed by proclamation."
This motion was moved by my seat-mate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). It postpones the coming into force of the Act. I prefer that Canadian Arsenals not be privatized at all. However, if it is to be sold, surely the Government owes some guarantees to the workers of Canadian Arsenals.
After listening to some government Members, I cannot help but say advisedly that the workers are lucky in a sense because at least we can debate this in Parliament.
My constituency office in Vancouver-Kingsway has an open house on the weekends. I have seen cases of constituents who work in private sector companies that have been bought up or merged with another company. My constituents have told me of the difficulties they have in adjusting to a takeover or sale of a company. Sometimes Members who are lawyers, doctors and businessmen and have many job options forget how tough it is on the workers. We must not forget that there are many workers in places like Canadian Arsenals who have worked for years and believe they have some job security. It is a scary world when one is faced with finding another job, yet this happens often with a lot of companies.
When workers tell me that their company has been taken over as a result of a merger or sale, I say that there are laws for successor rights in trade union legislation. A union can be succeeded by another union so that there is some protection. Occasionally, however, that protection does not exist, and this is a good example.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is a tireless worker for public servants. He has pointed out some of the problems, including job security, pension and the transition from a company that works under the Canadian Labour Code to a corporation which will be under the Quebec Labour Code. This causes insecurity and is an unsettling situation for these workers who are worried about losing their jobs. They cannot simply go hunting. I see the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) taking copious notes about my speech, preparing to reply when I am finished. I understand that he just returned from hunting in the Canadian Arctic. He knows that it is nice to get out and go hunting but we have to work too.
My point is that there must be job security for the workers. It is my understanding that the SNC group of Montreal has already manufactured munitions as part of its other investments. It could give Canadian Arsenals a low priority. This would affect the workers, and they want to know about it. They want to see a corporate plan, and such a plan should be filed with the House, outlining what SNC plans to do with this company. That is the least the Government owes to workers in a Crown corporation which it is privatizing.
One might ask why the New Democratic Party is challenging this legislation and moving these amendments. Quite

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
frankly, this is perhaps the first of many privatization moves. What will happen when the Government privatizes Petro-Canada which is 100 times bigger than Canadian Arsenals? We want to ensure that there is a procedure that at the very minimum will benefit the workers. We want to know whether there will be a corporate plan. We would like to see successor trade union rights. We want to know what will happen to the pension plans.
The pension plan is a cause for concern in the private sector when there are mergers or takeovers. Problems arise with early retirement plans being carried over from one company to another.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Read the motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: These matters have to be considered. The Member asks me to read things. I invite him to read the submission made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada to the legislative committee on this Bill.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I was there. Where were you?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Hon. Member will recall this. 1 invite him to look at Clause 27 concerning mobility rights and Clause 22 concerning the rights of employees. These are matters about which I am concerned.


T.A. Bud Bradley: That is the reason for the amendment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is why the Member for Ottawa Centre put forward this particular clause. The Public Service Alliance stated at page 8 of its brief that in Clause 2 in the general area of employee rights, confusion abounds. Bill C-87 is silent on the issue. Despite the fact that the sale requires a justification change for labour relations purposes from Canada to Quebec, there are no transitional provisions to protect the collective agreement. I invite the Hon. Member to speak about this.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I already spoke.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a new amendment. He can speak again. I regret that I was not here to have the benefit of his speech.


Mr. Crosbie:: You are floundering, lan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know that he is a senior Member of the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) wants to speak.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are floundering.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 would not let the Minister of Justice speak. Not only would he privatize the corporation, he would move it to Newfoundland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At this stage, I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I could have unanimous consent of the House for more time.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What is it the Hon. Member wanted?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I asked for unanimous consent to extend my time, but 1 heard someone say no.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is one with which 1 fully agree, namely to postpone this measure until December, 1987. First, it seems to me that whenever we decide to privatize a publicly owned company, we should ask ourselves why we are doing so and whether it is in the best interests of the public and the employees of the company. In that sense I am not convinced that this Bill has been the subject of a thorough and thoughtful analysis. In the case of Canadian Arsenals, as I understand it, the competitive situation in the market-place would be reduced because Canadian Arsenals would be purchased by a similar company thereby reducing competition in the market-place. Second, I cannot understand why the Canadian Government cannot own a successful company where the returns go back to Canadian taxpayers.
Petro-Canada has done extremely well and is perhaps a good example of how companies owned by the public sector can be competitive with the private sector. It can do that very effectively. That view has been expressed by a lot of Liberals before me.
The suggestion to put off this decision until 1987 has merit from the point of view of the people affected. There is a fundamental principle at stake. We cannot decide to sell a public asset and in the process divest the employees of their hard-earned social security programs and, in this case, the pension benefits which the employees of Canadian Arsenals were planning to enjoy at retirement had the company not changed hands. It seems to me, therefore, that a clause needs to be inserted in the Bill which deals with the management and treatment of the social security enjoyed by employers of Canadian Arsenals until the point of sale. I would challenge any Tory back-bencher in this House to say that there should not be the continuation of the same benefits to employees of Canadian Arsenals once it changes ownership. I am sure they could not say it. That leads me to believe that this Bill was hastily drafted and certain considerations were not examined before it was introduced in this House. We should not do that to the employees of any company.
The element of protection of social security benefits which accrue to the employees of Canadian Arsenals is crucial for two reasons; first, because otherwise the employees would lose them and, second, because it sets a precedent. While we are all in favour of positive precedents, this one is negative. It would set a precedent for similar losses to be incurred by employees
April 18, 1986

of other Crown-owned agencies or companies like Teleglobe, for example. I am sure Teleglobe has been mentioned by speakers before me. Should the time come, perish the thought, that the Government sells Teleglobe to the private sector, the employees of that company would have the same fate. The Government could say: "The precedent has been set. We did it with Canadian Arsenals' employees. Why can we not do it now? It was accepted at that time and we will roll along on the same route". It is important, therefore, to ensure that these considerations are made part of this Bill.
The social considerations which affect the employees' right now have been raised by the unions. They ask how this will affect employees of other Crown corporations which may come under the process of privatization. As I said earlier, I am not a great believer in this process at all. I think Canadians have been served well by Teleglobe, Canadian Arsenals and Petro-Canada in public ownwership. There is nothing wrong with these Crown corporations being owned by Canadians. There is actually much to be gained from that approach. It provides a balance in a particular sector between public and private ownership, which is very healthy and adds to the competitive spirit. What the Government is inadvertently doing, I suspect, is reducing the competitiveness in this particular field.
One can ask why the Hon. Member for Davenport would put forward such a notion without really basing it upon his own experience. But I am told that there are cases where privatization of a publicly owned institution has been accomplished in a thoughtful manner and not at the expense of the social security coverage and protection of its employees. First, it happened at Deer Lodge Hospital in Manitoba, a hospital in New Westminster, British Columbia and a hospital in Halifax, Nova Scotia.


T.A. Bud Bradley: They are different cases.


Mr. Caccia:: Yes, I can see they are different cases in different provinces, but it tells me that there is the political will at the provincial level. I notice one case involved the Province of British Columbia which is not famous for being one of the most socialistic inclined Governments in this country, and if it was possible in British Columbia, surely an approach of this nature with the same considerations could be developed by the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada. It is only a question of political will. It is only a question of giving these considerations to the Bill at a time when it is to be introduced.
In conclusion, I must say that I support the motion to postpone this decision. The impression I have is that the Government did not think about the implications. It did not have, perhaps, the experience to include these types of clauses to protect the benefits of the existing employees. The Government still can do so, however, and ought to do so in consideration of the fact that it would set a precedent for other corporations which the Government, perish the thought, may intend to sell.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
I see that you are indicating that my time is up, but I have only spoken for 10 minutes. 1 have been very sober in my intervention but I know that my colleague would like to speak at this point and I will give the floor to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I have to call the Hon. Member to order. I love to listen to him but he only has 10 minutes in this particular debate.


Sergio Marchi: It is always a challenge, of course, to follow the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification in terms of the speaking order. 1 know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), sought to speak at this point.	_


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since the Hon. Member did not rise, I recognized the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I was rising.


Sergio Marchi: If the Hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) wishes to participate in the debate, then I would yield the floor to him and speak after he has finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I did not see the Hon. Member for Spadina rise. If he wants to speak, then I will recognize him, if that is all right with the Hon. Member for York West. I do not think the practice of yielding the floor to another Member should be a practice to follow. However, we will do it today. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), on debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for yielding the floor to me.
The problem with the Bill, as I was mentioning a little while ago, and the problem which requires the putting of the motion to extend the proclamation time, is that the interests of this company and the interests of the workers in the company are not well served. There must be more time to give it proper consideration and, perhaps, even to come back for certain amendments which might be quickly dealt with once they have been properly discussed.
The respect in which the interests of the country are not well served is that there has been no clear reason shown why the company needs to be sold or why it should be sold. It is a healthy firm. It employs a total of about 800 people near Quebec City and at Ville Le Gardeur near Montreal. It has been successful. Their jobs are about as secure as any jobs can be in the country. To start changing ownership without giving a clear reason for it does not make very much sense, especially in this day and age when companies which acquire their competitors often shut down one or the other of their plants.

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Even if these plants are not shut down, the company which is buying it might shut down its other plant. That is not in the interests of the country.
This company also sells a vital product to the country. If it is taken over by another company and that company decides to cut back production, for whatever reason, perhaps even to dismantle the plant, then if there is a desire to expand, the Government will be in a much less favourable situation than it is at the present time.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the likelihood of the sale of this company to its only sizeable competitor will result in a near monopoly for that company. There will be less control of its operations by our Government. There will be less opportunity and less practical readiness for the Government to exercise its control over the export of weapons to countries such as Central American countries, and to groups there such as the American-backed Contras who have already, by some means or other, been able to obtain ammunition from Canada. It is much easier for the Government to exercise its responsibility over control of a Crown corporation than it is to exercise that same control over a near monopoly, if the Government sells a Crown corporation to its competitor.
I am concerned about the fact that the rights of the employees are inadequately protected and poorly considered by this legislation. The pension arrangement has not been clarified. There has been some effort to do so, but it has not been clarified to the satisfaction of the workers in the plant or to that of the union which represents them. That can be done. There is precedent, in legislation, for providing the workers with a choice. Once they have made their choice of whether or not they will stay with the old system or enter a new one, then the matter will be resolved.
However, this is not the case now. The matter has been left in some confusion, which is simply not fair. The practice of dumping a union or a pension plan by changing ownership is a practice which is growing to be much too common in Canada. This morning we heard that the rate of mergers in Canada in the last few years has more than trebled. The effect of these mergers is very often not only to eliminate jobs but also very often to undermine or even to destroy the bargaining rights of the employees who, without proper legislative protection, have no recourse. In fact, they do have recourse in terms of a wildcat strike.
There are many other matters besides the pension matter which these workers have negotiated over the years. There have been many examples of what happens during a transitional period from federal labour jurisdiction, as in this case, to provincial labour jurisdiction, from one owner to another. There will be the question of whether the same union will have successor rights. There will be the question of the administration of grievances throughout a period which may be many months, or even a year or more, if there are legislative hangups. There will be the question of the whole administration of the labour contract. Even if the new company acts in good faith, which we are told it is doing, experience with many such
companies raises the question, even if the Government of Quebec is acting in good faith-it is very new and we do not really know what it is like-of the procedural problems of transferring from a federal company, under federal law, to a private company, under provincial law, which may very well gum things up for the better part of a year.
I have had experience in a factory where 1 worked for 18 years as a union officer, as a grievance officer and as secretary of my local. I know how important it is that grievances be handled promptly. They should be taken up within a day or two of the time the matter arises, the time when it is grieved. The settlement of them has to move within certain time limits, according to the contract, in nearly all cases. This is a matter of general labour law. If it is delayed because it is not known who the official responsible is or under what labour law they are operating, then there can be an immense amount of hardship and bad feeling created. This is unnecessary. It could be avoided by the proper interim legislation. Having the verbal assurance of SNC that it will recognize successor rights, even if that intention is good, does not come anywhere close to providing a firm with the legal framework under the whole operation of these two plants in relation to their employer relations.
The hoist of a year and a half implies that the proclamation would be at the end of that time. That need not seriously hinder the transition, and it need not hinder the profitability of these two plants. It gives time to work out these pension arrangements for the employees. Perhaps it would even give time to ensure that certain safeguards be written into the agreement. This would ensure that the industry, which is a necessary industry to any country, remains effectively under Canadian control. It would ensure that neither will Canada lack its services when they are needed nor will its services be put to a use that is contrary to government policy. Therefore, I hope that Hon. Members will support this amendment unanimously.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to participate in debate on report stage of this Bill and to address the amendment that would have the effect of delaying for up to a year and a half the legislation we are debating this afternoon and have been debating for some months, the Bill which provides for the privatization of Canadian Arsenals Limited. I believe the amendment speaks not necessarily to delay for the sake of delay. Rather, its purpose is to tell the Government that it needs to go back to the drawing-board and to be more precise.
If this legislation were delayed, it would be strengthened, and that is what we were elected to do. If we were elected to ratify holus-bolus whatever the Government intended to do in quick and short order, then we would not be fulfilling the major responsibility inherent in the position of a Member of Parliament, in particular a back-bench Member of Parliament. We were elected to ensure that the legislation that flows from
April 18, 1986

this Chamber to the Senate is legislation that will protect the rights of Canadians from coast to coast.
That kind of protection should exist in this piece of legislation because the shareholders of Canadian Arsenals Limited are some 25 million Canadians: you and I, Mr. Speaker, and every other Canadian. By its very definition, a shareholder of a corporation dictates policy and should also have information at his or her fingertips. In this case, we in this Party, the workers and the Public Service Alliance are trying to explain to the Government that those Canadian shareholders are not completely satisfied with this legislation.
This afternoon, speakers from both opposition Parties have spoken to the essential concern of the union and the workers, which is that workers' pension contributions not be undermined. They are saying to the Government that if it has made the poltiical decision and has the political will to make this company private, then so be it, but they want the guarantee that what they have invested throughout the years will be safeguarded and that if they move to a private corporation owned by this engineering firm from Quebec, that pension package will be protected. If it is not protected, they want to be the ones who will choose the package. Let us give them that choice because they deserve it.
These individuals will be working for a new company. They will be doing the same jobs, probably for the same salaries. Is it not only logical then that the contibutions they have made over the years to the pension plan should also be brought with them with some degree of security so that those individuals will know that they and their families will not suffer for the change? It is logical and I would think that every Member of the House would agree with that principle. I think I can safely assume that that is so, because it is only just and fair, but we on this side of the House wonder why the Government would not clarify the situation for those 800 workers.
The Government cannot, simply because it is the Government, change the rules of the game after the game has already begun. It might be different if the Government were to describe the type of package that would be given to new workers. However, the Government simply cannot expect to treat employees, who have been working for this firm for years and years, in a very undignified manner. That is exactly the manner in which the Government is proceeding.
The Government has decided, through a Government amendment, that it will bring in the kind of pension plan that it thinks is right. It cannot do that. The Government is privatizing this company so it should do everything all at once. It should pay attention to each and every aspect of this deal.
What the Government is doing is wrong. There is the suggestion that the Government is interested in some aspects of the deal more than in others. We see that the Government is not concerned with the welfare of 800 families. The Government is not concerned with the investment made by 800 employees. To a certain degree, that is not surprising because we know what the Government thought of pensioners some
Canadian Arsenals Limited
months ago. The Government was prepared, despite the social contract signed by individuals across the country, to undermine and deindex their pensions to a partial degree. The Government was stopped in its effort by the pensioners in conjunction with the opposition Parties. Today the Government is not moving against the pensions of senior citizens but, rather, the pensions of individuals who are still in the prime of their lives. The Government is now attacking working families, and that is wrong. That is why members of my Party can see some merit in the proposal to delay this legislation.
I am not necessarily concerned with the length of time this legislation may be delayed. It could be one year, two years or a month. I am concerned that there be an opportunity for more consideration to be given to this Bill. We want there to be enough time given to this legislation to ensure that the workers and not the multinationals or large engineering firms be protected, because it is the workers who have made the firm attractive to the private sector. That leads me to another point.
The 25 million Canadian shareholders also wish to know the philosophy of the Conservative administration as it concerns Crown corporations. The people are receiving conflicting signals. Only a few short months ago during the de Havilland debate, many Hon. Members rose to say that we needed to sell that Crown corporation, and when they had to scramble for a reason for that because they could not find a very good one, they said that it was somehow losing money. It is not that I agree with that narrow view or that narrow thinking, but if that was their reason for selling de Havilland, a Crown corporation, to private interests, I would think that with some degree of consistency they would look through the same eyeglasses at other Crown corporations. Why is there this double standard?
Canadian Arsenals Limited has consistently shown profits from 1980 to 1985. In 1984-85 it showed profits of $11.3 million. It has assets of over $126.4 million and has a cumulative total of $36 million in profits over the last three years. It also has $200 million in backlogged orders. The Conservatives have a philosophy which says that they only sell companies that are losing money, as they preached with regard to de Havilland. They did not look at every other issue at which Canadians wanted them to look. They looked at Canadian Arsenals Limited and said that they wanted to sell it. It is a profitable organization and a proud Canadian entity, yet they saw fit to privatize it. The shareholders are basically saying: "Hold on, we want to know what the chief executive officer is thinking and how you will handle such deals in the future".
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is up. I ask Hon. Members to extend my speaking time because 1 am really getting into the issue and enjoying it.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to have an opportunity so soon to participate in

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
the very important debate on Bill C-87 which is before the House at report stage. The motion before us would require that the House give some time for contemplation, deliberation and reconsideration by the Government before the Act comes into effect.
1 should like to seek some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the possibility of moving an amendment to the motion. Motion No. 4 reads:
This Act shall come into force after December 31, 1987, on a date to be fixed by proclamation.
1 should like to amend the motion in such a manner as to ensure that when the NDP forms the federal Government, we will have an opportunity to review this carefully and to ensure that it will not be considered a fait accompli. Would it be in order to change 1987 to 1989? 1 would so move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), if that motion is in order. Would such a motion be in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member would like to move that type of motion, I would be glad to receive it in writing. Would he like to do it today or would he like to do it on Monday?


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry. What did you say, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am talking about your motion. Did you want to present me with a motion at this time?


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would be pleased to write out the motion and present it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In both official languages, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I move:
That the motion be amended to change " 1987" to " 1989".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept it. Debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this amendment which would change-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member cannot speak now that he has moved the motion. I am afraid he is not allowed to speak.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Why is that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You just moved the motion, therefore you are not allowed to speak on it.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal briefly with the amendment which our colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has just moved.
In fact, several of our colleagues who rose before me claimed that the Government needed a period of reflection in order to rectify some of the Bill's shortcomings. The Hon.
Member who suggested to give the Government until December 31, 1987 to think this thing over was certainly looking in the right direction.
However, according to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, it would seem that the Hon. Member would need two additional years to understand some of the problems-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are slow on the uptake on the other side-


Jacques Guilbault: -of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main problems that the Government is having a hard time to understand is that the Canadian State may, as it pleases, sell off a Crown corporation. However, it does not seem fair to me for it to sell off at the same time the employees of the said Crown corporation. Yet, in a sense, that is what is happening.
The workers presently employed by Canadian Arsenals Limited have agreed under this Bill to concessions that are almost incredible in the labour movement. They have agreed to work for Surveyer, Nenniger & Chenevert (SNC), a firm, I am pleased to say, which has its head office in my riding, without being allowed to take along with them the union privileges they enjoy now. That is already a lot, and I suggest it is a major concession.
However, it seems to me that the Government is going too far in asking them to surrender also their established rights for a pension plan to protect their future financially.
That is why my colleague has moved an amendment, which may seem ridiculous at first sight, to replace 1987 with 1989. I understand that my honourable colleagues are saying: They want to stretch the debate. Let us be honest: Surely we want to stretch the debate.
I will say outright that it is not right what the Government is doing. Let us say it: it is downright unfair! That is why we oppose this and we will stretch the debate as much as we possibly can this afternoon. I give notice that we are going to stretch it until 5 p.m. That is what is taking place. Let us stop this peek-a-boo game. The Government should not treat this way the human beings who are working there.
Because this Crown corporation is sold to the private sector, something I do not oppose in principle-the State is not there to manufacture ammunitions-these people will be at the mercy of a boss working in the private sector, without any union protection. That is already a dramatic change. For the Government to ask these people to surrender their pension plan, I think, is going too far.
One of the amendments we discussed earlier was introduced by my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). That was a reasonable amendment. However, it was not accepted, Mr. Speaker. We have trouble making the Government understand that, while we agree with the principle of privatization, there are certain things should be considered. We believe that certain aspects are unacceptable. I do not
April 18, 1986

want to preach and pretend that all the Hon. Members will agree with me, but certain things are unacceptable.
The Government is saying: We do not want to be unfair with these people. We are going to improve their situation and accommodate them. However, we are going to do it by order in council. The public might not understand what this means, but 1 do as I have been a Member of this House for a long time. It means: Give us a free hand and trust us. To do something by order in council means: We shall see to it later; we shall refer this to Cabinet once the Bill is passed.
As for me, I want to know exactly how the Government would proceed, right now while this matter is before the House. Let us face the facts. If you want to take part in the debate, please do so because this will help us to keep going until 5 o'clock. There is no need to do that. Let us talk frankly. If you want to act by order in council, this is what I say: Bring your plan to the House this afternoon and we shall look at it. If we can have an explanation from a Minister, even if it is not a formal amendment, I would be willing to take the word of this Minister this afternoon and to give you a free hand to settle the issue of the pension fund by order in council.
However, we are still being told: You have to trust us; agree to this purchase and we shall take care of the employees. To be frank, I am still not convinced, especially as I know that SNC supports the amendement moved by my colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), which would give the employees the optionlVfr. Bernier: The people who watch you on television.


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, I am happy that people can see me on television and I am also anxious for them to hear you, from the Beauce region. I want to see whether you will support the cause of organized workers as much as I do. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I should address my comments to you.
The amendment proposed by my colleague gave a choice to the employees. They would have been able either to continue contributing to their present pension plan with a few changes for transfers, or else to join the pension plan set up by SNC. This seems logical to me. What I do not want to do is to vote blindly. Do you understand?


An Hon. Member:: For a change?


Jacques Guilbault: Yes. For a change. It would make a change for me because, usually, I look-


An Hon. Member:: What do you mean by voting blindly?


Jacques Guilbault: For heaven's sake! It is strange to hear a Government Member speak about voting blindly, Mr. Speaker.
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? I remember something being said in this House years ago that some of us were voting like trained seals. Now someone on the Government side is telling me that for a change we are looking at the content of a motion before voting. That is a precious admonition coming from Members on the Government side.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues opposite-because I said earlier, indeed, that we intended to have the debate go on until 5 o'clock. That is not really our intention. As far as I am concerned, I am ready to let it pass immediately.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Well, now I hear somebody say hear, hear! Very well, we are beginning to agree. If we can discuss a little, we are going to agree.
I simply want clarifications on how those employees will have their pension plan protected. If we could get that, the Bill would go through rapidly, the sale would take place. Not only are SNC employees concerned, but SNC itself is also getting impatient. The company is ready to reach an agreement with the Government, they want to buy the facilities, they want to operate them. We also have contacts with that company. They are getting somewhat impatient. They themselves made an offer to the employees, to the union members who will no longer be. But that does not work. The Government is not agreeing to that. The Government says: Let us proceed with the sale. After that, we will provide for a sensible pension plan. I am saying "Alright, but let us see it now. Let us look at it beforehand".
Because the employees know what they have now, a pension plan which provides for full indexation, and that is very, very unusual in the private sector. It would be amazing were they to retain that easily. Those people are aware of that fact. Moreover, this allows for benefits to their dependents, with respect to inheritance rights. This is not something that is always provided for in private pension plans either, and there is no assurance that they will get that if they are left unprotected, if they are simply delivered bound and gagged to private enterprise.
Will they be able to get a full pension at age 55 as they may do now? There is no assurance of that. Those are some of the assurances we want to have, rather than the vague promise that will be dealt with by way of an order in council. If we could agree to deal with that, the Bill would proceed quite rapidly.
To sum it up, I am asking the Government to be a little less of an amateur in that area-


Claudy Mailly: That will be some change.

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited


Jacques Guilbault: No, I am quite serious. I see the Hon. Member over there who is doing that. 1 find this to be amateurish, but let me explain. In the first place, this is not the first privatization. There was de Havilland before, and it is not the last one indeed, because that is the Government's vowed intention. That is policy.
Let us therefore beware. Will that be a precedent? Are we going to find that every time there is a Crown corporation to be privatized, employees will be just about sold, I mean dropped just like that, without any union protection, without any assurance as to their pension plan. Those are the questions we are raising. We had no clarification on that. This is a serious matter. I think we are getting to understand each other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt but the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Once again it is a pleasure to be recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, and to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate. This motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is in recognition of the fact that there will be an election probably in 1988 and that the Government will be replaced by the New Democratic Party as the governing Party of Canada. It is an appropriate motion. It provides us an opportunity ask some fundamental questions regarding the motivation behind the selling of a Crown Corporation.
Unlike my friend who has just spoken who is not against the principle involved in this Bill, the question is whether private enterprise is inherently more efficient than public enterprise. It is a fair question to ask, particularly with this Crown Corporation. I say that while recalling the collapse of two banks in Canada and the fact that business bankruptcies are up over last year in the 13 per cent to 14 per cent range and recognizing that thousands and thousands of businesses collapse each year for a variety of reasons.
In my estimation, in the Canadian context, the main reason for business collapses is inefficient or inappropriate management. The same can be said of many Government Departments. There are Departments inefficiently run because of an inefficient poorly trained management staff and peculiar practices in some cases. But in this instance we are talking about a Crown Corporation, Canadian Arsenals, that does very well for itself.
The company had profits in its last fiscal year of $11.3 million. It is not the largest company in Canada. As a matter of fact, it hardly ranks among the top 500 in Canada. It is actually in the 470 range, yet the company was ranked third in Canada for its five-year profit growth by The Financial Post. This is an incredible statement. It is an extremely profitable company which has shown considerable growth over the last five years. By all projections, the next five years would look to be equally lucrative. Projections are that profits will increase
significantly in the next horizon as presented by firms that have evaluated the company's performance.
One must ask why we are selling one of the most profitable Crown corporations in Canada when the Government could certainly use the revenue. These days, $11.3 million in cold hard cash would go a long way toward assisting young people through job creation, assisting small businesses to expand, assisting hard-pressed farmers, providing day care facilities or social housing, or reducing the debt of the country. The Government could put this $11.3 million to whatever positive use it determines, but is, instead, throwing it away. The sales of Canadian Arsenals are expected to double in the next five years. I am not certain that that would translate into doubled profits in the next five years, but there would obviously be significant increases in the profit margin.
The Government has decided to sell Canadian Arsenals, which is a 100 per cent Crown-owned corporation, to the SNC group of Montreal. The SNC group of Montreal happens to own another munitions company called IVI. There are only two major munition companies in Canada, those being Canadian Arsenals Limited and IVI. The Government is creating a monopoly. The Canadian Armed Forces will now be required to purchase its munitions from a monopoly. The requirement for munitions will obviously increase in the future, and we will have to pay the price set by SNC and it will reap the profits. The present shareholders of Canadian Arsenals are the people of Canada and they have been doing very well by the profits of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
We must recognize that we are creating a virtual monopoly in the munitions business. We are selling a source of revenue for the federal Government and are adding to the creeping cancer in our society called corporate concentration. More and more power is being put into fewer and fewer hands. 1 am willing to bet that there is not another western industrialized nation which would stand idly by, as we are today, while more and more of its economy is controlled by fewer and fewer people. The other day I noticed a headline in the New York Times warning of the takeover wave in Canada. The Americans are observing what is happening north of the border in Canada and seeing a business trend, the usefulness of which they question with regard to Canada's future. As we discuss this Bill, the Government is contributing to further corporate concentration.
It is interesting to note the return on equity of Canadian Arsenals. That is the best way to evaluate a company. In 198485, Canadian Arsenals had a return on equity of 21.4 per cent. There are not many companies in the country today which had a 21.4 per cent return on equity in the past fiscal year This is one of the highest returns on equity to be found in the Canadian economy. Let us recognize that the champions of business are wilfully selling off a very lucrative business, the development and manufacturing of munitions for our Armed Forces.
April 18, 1986

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the many unanswered questions still outstanding with regard to the treatment of employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited and their futures in terms of pensions, plus a variety of other unanswered questions with regard to the transfer of control from a Crown corporation to a private corporation, encourage us to speak in favour of this amendment which will postpone this transaction until some time in the future. That will give us an opportunity for some clear second thoughts about what we are doing. Hopefully, saner heads will prevail in the end.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to comment on the sub-amendment to Clause 12, which is aimed at giving the Government time to reflect and suggests that this Act come into force after December 31, 1989, on a date to be fixed by proclamation.
Mr. Speaker, this obviously gives the Government enough time to reconsider the Bill and add a measure of sensitivity to the needs of its employees. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying I don't trust this Government, but 1 can tell you that in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, that trust is relatively limited, especially considering the reputation this government has among its public servants, and I am referring to the fact that it has cut 15,000 jobs and is talking about cutting 15,000 more very shortly. And we all know that as far as job security goes, this Government is unreliable, to say the least, and personally, I am defending the interests of Canadian Arsenals employees, and 1 say right now, in no uncertain terms, that we are going to expect this Government to clean up its act and treat its employees more generously in terms of pensions and the formula proposed in the sale contract. I could go on for hours, Mr. Speaker, reading the agreements concluded by the Government and SNC, on what basic formulas are to be used, age of retirement and conditions for pension eligibility, survival benefits, and pension fund contributions.
What it all boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that we are dealing with the worst kind of amateurism.
We have a Government that has decided to privatize a company and other companies as well, but especially this one, a company that has shown a profit during the last five years, a company that was built up and made profitable again through the efforts of its employees and the support of its Board of Directors, and because it is making money, because it is a profitable business, the Government has decided to get rid of it, for reasons it tried to explain but failed at second reading and it has failed even more miserably at the report stage.
Mr. Speaker, we may recall that Canadian Arsenals manufactures medium and large calibre munitions. So they don't have a wide range of customers, aside from the Government or perhaps other governments, that could buy their products. There are 750 employees at Le Gardeur near Montreal and there is another plant at Saint-Augustin near Quebec City, with 50 employees. Ninety per cent of the
Canadian Arsenals Limited
company's production is sold to the Government, Mr. Speaker, and we know that the transaction involves making calls for tenders. We asked what the criteria were. We were told: the price only.
Mr. Speaker, it is later on that people realized all of a sudden that other considerations had to be reviewed seriously. For instance, the pension plan of the employees had to be taken into account, as well as the indexation of this pension plan, because it is important to have a pension plan which keeps its purchasing power. Just as is now the case for civil servants, they wanted, I suppose, to continue the benefits they had paid for and perhaps to maintain their pension entitlements in the future, by paying their share in the contract and the indexation which is standard among civil servants.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the background of this sale ... And when I say amateurish, I really mean amateurish. The Government did not take the trouble of consulting the union. It could have learned something! It did this thing unilaterally, something it should never have done.
The union representatives question the logic of the Government's sale of a profit-making corporation-and they said so in committee. They do not think it is politically wise to treat employees as it is trying to do. That is why we introduced a series of amendments in an attempt-the Minister was here, but he is gone-I saw the Minister in the House and I thought that perhaps he would rise in the debate and give us the assurance that when using his discretionary power, because discretionary power is what he will get under Government amendment No. 1 which will probably be passed by the House today, he will maintain the pension benefits which the employees now have.
This is not a precedent. Hon. Members know it was done in the case of nearly 20,000 Canada Post employees. It was done, a company under Treasury Board jurisdiction was privatized, so to speak, and turned into a Crown corporation. Those people put in the position where they could continue paying their pension contributions and transfer. In other words, they were sure they could change jobs. It means that if a Canada Post employee was not satisfied after three years he had the option of going to the Public Service Commission and ask them to find him a new job. That was fair. But there is no such option in this contract, it is nontransferable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to some of the comments and get back to my theme of amateurism. I am not the only one who said that, a lot of people came to the same conclusion, particularly those who made offers and who, during the auction, asked the public service departments what the terms of the sale were. We heard interesting comments from these people. Even the senior department officials might have interesting remarks to make. I will simply read some of the comments made by Mr. O'Toole. As we know, Mr. O'Toole-

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
He is the head of the privatization secretariat of Treasury Board. He is also assisted by a Mr. Basil Beneteau who recently retired as Vice-Chairman of Northern Telecom after a career in telecommunications. I want to quote those gentlemen because they say some interesting things about the sale of Canadian Arsenals. One quote reads:
"It was a horse race to keep up with the transactions in progress and build a strategic framework," says O'Toole.
I am quoting from the Report On Business magazine of December 14, 1985. It goes on to say:
"1 thought I was going to go nuts about August with the fifth round." For the potential buyers, every bid revision added to their costs, simply because the Government had not done its homework before putting Canadian Arsenals on the block. If the Tories had either adopted the approach recommended by their own task force or the one developed by the Treasury Board secretariat, such problems could have been easily avoided.
That is what I mean when I talk about amateurism. The Tories simply had not done their homework. They had not thought about the employees' benefits. They did not even give a thought to them. You would think that an employer, someone who cared for his employees, would at least think of the conditions into which he is going to be putting those employees if he sells the company. The Government did not do that. It is the same thing over and over with members of this Government. They do not do their homework. They state the facts in the House-they did that on takeovers and on privatization-but it is time they started to get their act together and get this thing going on the right track. Otherwise, the first thing they know they will be in opposition again. God bless them all, they are good at that and 1 wish them very well.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a further opportunity to consider this Bill and speak on the motion of my hon. friend which would extend the proclamation date until 1989. That might seem excessive to a few people on the opposite side of the House who wish to comment on the need for better consideration. However, this Bill is likely to be a model or precedent to be followed if this Government is hell-bent on its plan for privatizing everything it can lay its hands on, everything the Canadian people have created through Government action over the past years. Therefore, it should be well considered. We should look at the issues underlying it.
There are broadly two issues. They cannot be handled in a hurry, without better public consideration than has been given. The most important issue has barely been addressed by this Government or this legislation. That issue is the question of who created the company. Who created the wealth of the company? Who made it a viable, profitable operation? Who made it worth selling or worth buying?


T.A. Bud Bradley: 


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: In my mind it was not NATO, as one of the clowns opposite has suggested. It was the working people in
those factories who made that company viable. 1 worked in a factory for 19 years and I know that, in a pinch, the manager of the factory had to acknowledge that if production was to be brought up and kept up to a standard, it was a matter of the morale of the workers involved. Management could have all kinds of schemes and plans and spend all kinds of money, but efficient production depended on the workforce in the factory. Whether it is the immedate workforce currently producing, the equipment, material and power resources provided, or whether you take it back a step further to those who produced the plant, the power resources and the materials, it is the workers involved who made the company viable. Management did not get out there with a hammer and saw and build it. The owner did not get out there with his hammer and saw and build it. It was the workers who produced the plant and it is the workers who produce the products from that plant. This is a point which is commonly ignored. It is a point which is becoming more and more of concern to working people in Canada. They produce this wealth which is then traded and traded and traded in these high-level financial deals which make absolutely no sense of the work the workers are doing. Very often it even destroys their work. Certainly it very often destroys their opportunity to go on working. That is why there should be full consideration given to the people who in fact produced the wealth that made this plant worth talking about and worth buying or selling.
On the other side of the coin, the other consideration deals with the finagling that was done in the process of selling this plant. Some questions have been raised, but I do not think adequate answers have been given.
It may take time to dig out these answers to the questions that have been raised about the process that the Department of Supply and Services used in arranging the sale. 1 admit that the Department of Supply and Services is not as used to selling as it is to buying. Previous Members have said that the Department was probably an amateur at selling. That is the Government's problem. If it has decided to embark on a reverse process and disperse the wealth that has been built up by the Canadian people through the action of Canadian Governments, it should consider very well not only why it will do it, but how it will do it.
We are told, for example, that dozens of companies expressed an interest in buying Canadian Arsenals, but only six of them were asked to submit final money offers by a deadline of November 19. What we are not told is why all the others were dropped. We are told that those who did submit bids were pressured into submitting revised bids not once, twice but three times between July and November 19. The Department of Supply and Services kept dickering with them and changing the story.
That is not a normal bidding procedure. As part of the city council of Toronto, I obtained some familiarity with the normal tendering and bidding procedure and that is a very
April 18, 1986

strange way for a public body to do business. I will come back to that point later.
We are also told that the Director General of Aerospace and Armaments, Stanley Kerr, who was a senior official of the Department of Supply and Services, left the Department of Supply and Services on November 1 to work for CFN Consultants, which was lobbying DSS on behalf of SNC, the company that is purchasing Canadian Arsenals. Mr. Kerr has signed an affidavit saying that he did not deal with any aspect of the CAL deal, but it still raises a question. It is the kind of question which Government Members would have screamed blue murder about when they were in opposition, screaming about conflict of interest.
I come to one interesting point, which relates to the rather strange bidding procedures that resulted in this one company being selected. We find in the Toronto Sun that SNC paid to a certain Member, who is the Minister responsible for regional development, a campaign fund donation directly, and that the company and the officers of the company have paid additional money to other Tory campaign funds, the central fund.
According to La Presse, they have paid $10,000 to the Tory campaign. Of course, ever politician seeks election donations, but when the election donations come to the people who have particular responsibility for a deal like this, from the people who turn out to be the beneficiaries of a deal like this, the public is entitled to ask some questions and get some answers. We want to know just who influenced the deal and who influenced this rather unusual procedure in the bidding. What was going on in the back rooms that influenced the way the value of money changed hands? The value of the work of the workers in that plant was being tossed around like a football.
As I said, it is the workers who created the value of that plant and the value of the products of that plant by their work. It is not the money wheelers and dealers who created that value but it is the money wheelers and dealers who want to scoop up the value. When some of them have made a point of providing election contributions to certain people who now have attained a high position in the Conservative Government, it is important to find out who, as a result of that, is scooping up the value that is created by people working in that plant. It may not be worth it to the Government, but it is well worth it to the people of Canada to take some time to look into these questions.
Mr. Sergio March! (York West): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to elaborate again on some of the points that were made earlier by-


An Hon. Member:: The same points you made last time.


Sergio Marchi: -myself and my colleagues. There are some Members opposite who, in the dying minutes of another parliamentary debate, do not like seeing members of the Opposition rising to make their points of view known. I have been sitting here since two o'clock carrying out my responsibilities and I believe I have earned my pay. I do not know
Canadian Arsenals Limited
what Members opposite have been doing other than reading The Toronto Star and seeing that the polls are showing them down once again.
This is the national forum for debate and where political careers are made and broken. This is where we find out who can articulate concerns on behalf of their constituents. I am learning that it is simply a case of Members of Parliament from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party who have any interest in or any sense of obligation and compassion for the representations we are receiving. Most important, those Members opposite are receiving the same representations, but the difference is that they are sitting on their representations while we are bringing them forth in the House of Commons, as is the intention of this forum.
My hon. friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), quoted from an April edition of Business Magazine.


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Sergio Marchi: He quoted a number of interesting paragraphs from that magazine, and Hon. Members opposite are saying "more". The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier forgot to include in his quote that Mr. O'Toole from the privatization section of the Treasury Board said that the Government probably did not invest enough time in the entire stage.
When one considers that quote in conjunction with the subamendment, it gives credibility and life to that particular subamendment.
I will not stand here and suggest that I agree completely that we should delay this decision even though I disagree with the decision itself. If that decision has been made, I think we should inevitably come forth with it in the proper way. I am not prepared to suggest that it should be put off until 1989, because if we are serious about this issue and take into account why this particular firm is in business, we should have the responsibility of dealing with the situation in a responsible and forthright way.
That is why I would not support delaying this until 1989 simply for the sake of delay or waiting until the New Democratic Party is elected to Government, as suggested by the Member from the NDP. If that is the purpose, then it will not be 1989, but probably 3089.
Our purpose in rising is not to delay or procrastinate, but to allow the Government ample-I suggest that word wisely- opportunity to go back once again, as the magazine outlines, and do its homework correctly. The Government should do its homework on behalf of average Canadians, for a change. I say "a change" because it seems that this Conservative administration is concerned with everything else but the lot of the average Canadian.
It is fine for those Hon. Members to stand up and tell us that this is such a proud and profitable organization, but I do

April 18, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
not know why they are saying those things at a time when the Government is selling the corporation. If the Government is prepared to admit that it is such a good corporation, then it should admit as well that it is partially its 800 workers who have made Canadian Arsenals a profitable, effective and proud Canadian entity which has triggered interest within the private sector. If the Government is prepared to admit that is so because of the diligence and responsibility of those 800 workers, it should feel at least a little obligated to give them what is rightfully theirs. When we are discussing the future of this corporation we should discuss the future of those 800 employees. They have invested their lives. They have their pension contributions locked up. But what the Government is prepared to say is: "Forget about that for a moment. We will bring forward a motion in future to deal with it. Right now just trust us". That is not good enough. It is not good business, good management, nor is it fair. It is not fair to the families of those workers who have a future with that particular company, whether it is under Government control or under the control of the private sector. They will continue to labour for that company and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to allow them the opportunities which should be theirs. The Government should allow them to continue to place with the Government of Canada their pension contributions if they so desire. The choice should be theirs.
The union disagrees with the Government's policy, the workers disagree, the media disagrees, the two Opposition Parties disagree, and most fair-minded Canadians disagree. Their question and ours is, how can the Government proceed on this basis? We thought the Government learned a lesson a few short months ago when it was prepared to deindex senior citizens' pensions because it thought that they were unorganized, poorly financed and would not protest. But the Government was rightfully shocked to see the mobilization of senior citizens. The Government is thinking in the same narrow way with the same kind of "don't worry, we know what it is all about" attitude with respect to this pension issue facing the 800 employees of Canadian Arsenals. That is why we are asking for time. We are asking the Government to go back and look at itself in the mirror and ask itself if it is approaching the issue on behalf of Canadians as it ought to. As the Prime Minister said so often, this is supposed to be a Government for the people, by the people. We do not see that here and we have not seen it thus far on any other issue. The other question is on the Government's whole philosophy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, one would think that with a reception like that, those Hon. Members would agree unanimously to let me go on for the rest of the evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Sure.


George Baker: Please don't.
There are perhaps two reasons why the New Democratic Party moved this particular motion; first, it cannot comprehend the legislation, and I do not believe anyone in Canada could comprehend the position of the Government in relation to Crown corporations. It is a very confusing position. On the one hand, the Government wants to get rid of Crown corporations which are profitable and, on the other hand, we see the creation of Crown corporations to save money. For example, I refer to the creation just this year of the Crown corporation CN Marine. It is very difficult to really understand the policy of the Government. Only today, I understand, CN sold CN Route to a private firm, so I presume this House will be considering very shortly the fate of those employees and their pensions.
The Opposition is also concerned about the attitude of the Treasury Board towards employees. You might find this somewhat incredible, Mr. Speaker, but in the present negotiations going on with Treasury Board, for example, employees in the general labour and trades groups in Edmonton-with which city the Speaker is familiar-will, in certain categories, be making less than workers who work outside of Edmonton. The Government says that this only covers 18,000 or 19,000 employees. It is a bit confusing to have salary ranges differ according to whether one works in Ottawa or Toronto, but it is even more confusing when the unions are told the Government will pay different wages in Edmonton from those paid in areas outside of Edmonton.
With respect to crewmen on ships, there is a line called the 102nd parallel which goes up through Saskatchewan. If one is sailing a ship to the east of that line, one will make $200 a month less than if one were sailing a ship to the west of that line. Hon. Members opposite might be interested to check with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to find out what happens when a ship actually crosses the line. Is it any wonder that the New Democratic and the Liberal Parties are asking to have another look at this Bill? We want to examine Government policy. The Government obviously does not know what it is doing with Crown corporations. For sure, it does not know what the attitude of Treasury Board is towards its employees. There are about 3,000 or 4,000 employees in the negotiating group of ships crews-but I see my time has expired.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 5 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.