1986-11-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I was informed that a set of microfiche records containing information on some 16 million Canadian taxpayers was missing. This loss occurred in the Toronto District Office after working hours on October 30. After a preliminary and thorough search by departmental security personnel in the Toronto District Office, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue was informed on November 4, and he informed me shortly thereafter.
On November 5 I spoke personally with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and an investigation by the force into the loss was launched immediately. It was agreed between Revenue Canada and the RCMP that the fact of the microfiche loss and the public investigation should not be made public until such time as the investigation could not be compromised by public disclosure. Since the investigation is now well advanced, and with the concurrence of the Commissioner of the RCMP, I feel that the right of Canadians to be informed about what has happened, and the potential consequences of what has happened, require me to inform the House on this matter.
First, I should explain the nature of the missing information. The records contained the names, addresses, dates of birth, social insurance numbers, spouses first name, nearest District Office and the year of latest tax filing. Additionally, there is coded information which broadly categorizes the taxpayer by the principle source of revenue-farmer or professional, for example. The records were dated February, 1986. These microfiche were in the process of being replaced by up-to-date records and were due to be returned to Ottawa for secure destruction according to the normal departmental practice.
While this is a serious matter, I must re-emphasize that no financial information provided by individual taxpayers on their returns was in the lost records, beyond the coded categories of principal sources of revenue to which I referred previously. However, this does not lessen the concern about private information on Canadians getting into unauthorized hands.
Second, I should outline the potential consequences of the loss of this information. We cannot, of course, be certain of the motivation for this act or of any intended uses of the information. The motivation might have been merely to do mischief, or to damage the reputation of the Department. Or the purpose might have been to secure lists of taxpayers for commercial or more nefarious purposes. Or it is conceivable that the intended use was to attempt to obtain moneys from the Government by using the information for fraudulent purposes.
On this last point, I can assure the House that the procedures used to prevent fraud against National Revenue have been carefully reviewed. For obvious reasons I should not elaborate on either the types of fraud we have to guard against or the measures we employ to combat the risk of fraud. However, based on the best available information, I am assured by my officials that the risk of fraud being successfully perpetrated as a result of the loss of the information which I have described is minimal. Nevertheless, I have asked that additional safeguards be implemented at this time.
I want to further assure Your Honour and the House that the procedures in other affected departments have been closely examined. An assessment has been made of the risk of the information being used to obtain passports fraudulently or to divert unemployment insurance, old age pension and similar benefits by use of false changes of address. In all cases, while the information could provide a starting point for making such false applications, other procedures and requirements now in place are such that the risks of fraud either have not increased or are judged to have increased only marginally. Additional steps are being taken by the Government to counter even a marginal increase in risk.
[DOT] (mo)
I wish to emphasize the gravity with which I view this loss of information entrusted to National Revenue. This is the first time that there has ever been a loss of this magnitude. Besides conducting an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of this information, I have asked the RCMP as well to conduct a separate review of my Department's security procedures for the handling of all microfiche data.
I will inform the House at the earliest possible moment of the results of the review into this unacceptable breach of security that led to the disappearance of this material. The need for disciplinary action will be determined when the review is complete.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch earlier with the Minister and at my

November 17, 1986
Statements by Ministers
request, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), had certain consultations with him.

Mr. Speaker, this statement by the Minister concerns sixteen million individual Canadian taxpayers. It is a very important matter because it reflects on the whole integrity of our income tax system, which is based on the principle of confidentiality of income tax returns. This is the whole basis of the system under which sixteen million Canadians trust their Government to keep their personal finances a confidential matter between them and the Government.
This morning, we were informed that there was either fraud or negligence or a lack of security in the system. Although no information directly concerning the finances of taxpayers may be involved, one wonders whether with this information, the person who now has the microfiches might be able to insert the requisite codes to find data on just about anyone in Canada and on these 16 million taxpayers.

We take this very seriously, as has the Minister. Our system of income tax is based on voluntary assessment by individual taxpayers who, on their honour and through their own investigations, submit returns one by one to the Department of National Revenue. The voluntary system only works if individual taxpayers can be assured of the confidential nature of those returns. The returns are becoming more and more detailed. They contain information on a wide range of subjects concerning every individual Canadian. Of course, nothing is more sacrosanct in a free society than a taxpayer's individual affairs.
As the Minister has said, this event reflects upon every noncorporate return. If we translate that from bureaucratic language into language that you and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that means that the stolen or missing material contains information on 16 million individual taxpayers.
We accept the Minister's assurance that at this stage no financial information is included but Social Insurance Numbers, addresses and information about whether or not spouses have filed, whether or not capital gains are included and whether or not the income is professional or from farming and the like.
I would put a question to the Minister, and of course, in due course we will want answers and a further report to the House. I wish to know whether or not whoever holds this information can use it to get into the coding system which will open up other information related to individual taxpayers. If so, this is a very serious matter. I think what the Minister has said today will shake the confidence in the income tax system and will disturb the Canadian public generally. Since it relates to 16 million individual taxpayers, it is a matter of the utmost importance.
We will want to know if there was fraud, if there was negligence, and if there was negligence who was responsible. We want to know if there was no security system whereby-


Mr. Gauthier:: Sloppy.


John Napier Turner: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), has said that it is sloppy. Certainly something has gone wrong and we want some answers from the Minister. We expect an early report to the House on this very grievous situation.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Minister today discloses a very serious breach of security in his Department. The loss of the microfiche records containing information on 16 million taxpayers, almost every taxpayer in Canada, is serious. As the Minister has recognized, and as the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has pointed out to the House, it shakes the confidence ordinary Canadians have in the tax system.
As has been pointed out, our tax system depends upon voluntary compliance. If Canadian taxpayers begin to feel that the personal information they present to the Government on their tax forms can be obtained by unauthorized personnel, Canadians will begin to lose faith in the Government and in the tax system, and this could have dire consequences.
We are talking about these little microfiche that were stolen from the Toronto office. Yet we cannot help but wonder whether or not the ineptitude of the Government and the Department particularly may have led to this situation. We understand that the Toronto office is going through another major reorganization. Instead of being one central office, it is being broken up into three sub-offices. The morale within the Department has been low for a long period of time. Morale was low when the Liberals were in power. There were all sorts of promises made by the Conservatives when they came into power about reorganizing the Department. Yet we find an ongoing decrease in the sense of confidence of the people working in that Department.
The Department has been hit by continuous cut-backs. There are fewer investigative officers in that Department now than there were in 1980. We learned this weekend as well that there are only 20 investigators working on the case of the $3 billion in losses from public revenue due to the scam the Liberals introduced called the scientific research tax credit. Again, there have been more and more cut-backs.
The question that must be asked by Members of the House and by the Government is how far can we continue to cut back on Departments before we reach a point where the Department cannot properly carry on its duties. How many more cutbacks can there be before we begin to find lapses in security like the one that occurred in this last month? Surely we must reach a point where we cannot cut back any more. Surely this Department simply cannot be cut back on any more without serious mistakes being made, mistakes like the one that occurred in the latter part of October.
November 17, 1986

This is a serious matter, because if it is possible to break into the computer system all sorts of information on individual Canadian taxpayers is now open to whoever wishes to have that information. That means that those people who are interested in credit ratings will have access to important information. It means that all sorts of fraud may be perpetrated. There may be a redirection of Old Age Security cheques and unemployment insurance cheques. There may be false applications for passports.
To stop those possible abuses, the Government will have to increase its staff in those various departments to make certain that Old Age Security cheques are not redirected to some false address. It is a very serious situation. I would expect this Government to understand the seriousness of it, and to take every possible precaution to make certain that fraud and misuse of this information will not occur.
# * *


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as Joint Chairman, I have the honour of tabling the First Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report today.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of citizens from Winnipeg who say that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty on behalf of a number of constituents from Prince Albert to present a petiltion to the House of
Introduction of Bills
Commons in which they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals to increase the cost of drugs, or anything that will increase the prescription drug prices for Canadians.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens from Thompson, Brandon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I remind Hon. Members that the practice is that all of the petitions to be presented by an hon. Member be presented when the Member rises. If this is just one more petition, I am sure that the House would be pleased to receive it.


David Orlikow: I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens from Thompson, Min-nedosa and Brandon in Manitoba who object to the Government's proposed legislation with regard to prescription drugs.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of port operations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADAIR LIMITED DIVESTITURE ACT


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be now read the first time and be printed.

November 17, 1986
Motions


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


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be now read the first time and be printed.


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

CANADA-NETHERLANDS INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1986; CANADA-JAPAN INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1986; CANADA-CHINA INCOME TAX AGREEMENT ACT, 1986;

Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill S-2 (from the Senate) an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Canada and Japan and agreements between Canada and the People's Republic of China and Canada and the Republic of Malta for avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax be now read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move concurrence in the First Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages presented to the House earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; Nos. 2 and 12.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the Government employ the services of Colvin Designs Ltd. and/or Giovanni Mowinkle, interior designer during the period September 4, 1984 to June 30, 1986, to supply furnishings, improvements, interior decorating or advice on same for the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa or the Harrington Lake residence and, if so, by residence, what was the cost of each contract?
2.	Was all of the work paid for from Government funds and, if not, who paid such costs and what was the amount involved in each case?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Nickerson: In May, 1986, did three United States nuclear powered submarines surface at the North Pole and did any of these submarines travel through waters over which Canada claims sovereignty and, if so, pursuant to what Canadian authority did such travel take place?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The Government can confirm that three United States nuclear powered submarines surfaced at the geographic North Pole on May 6, 1986. However, the Government cannot comment on the routing the submarines took to the North Pole. It is Government policy not to comment on the movements of Allied warships that may transit Canadian waters.


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 3 and 4 could be made Orders for Returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 3 and 4 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Malepart: 1. Did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate grants to the constituency of (a) Jonquiere (6) Lac-Saint-Jean (c) Chicoutimi, P.Q. under the Canada Works Program (Phase II-1985) and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
November 17, 1986

2. In each case, what is (a) a list of projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (iii) description of the project (4) a list of projects accepted and, in each case, what was the (i) amount of the grant (ii) number of jobs created?
Return tabled.


Mr. Malepart: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration allocate grants to the constituency of Roberval under the Canada Works Program (Phase II-1985) and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	In each case, what is (a) a list of projects submitted and the (i) title (ii) name and address of the sponsor (iii) description of the project (4) a list of projects accepted and, in each case, what was the (i) amount of the grant (ii) number of jobs created?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 11.


Mr. Parry: Did the Minister responsible for Canada Post or any other Government official give orders to the President of Canada Post, Mr. D. Lander, not to answer mail directed to him from Members of Parliament regarding the elimination of postal services?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should state on behalf of the Government that neither the Minister responsible for Canada Post nor any other Government official has given "orders to the President of Canada Post-not to answer mail directed to him from Members of Parliament".
In fact, the President has received approximately 900 letters since January 1, 1986 from Members of Parliament. All but the most recent have been responded to by the Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that notice was given in respect of making an application pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 29. If I am not mistaken, the appropriate point at which to do that is immediately before Government Orders.
Excise Tax Act


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which requires urgent consideration, namely, the Government's failure to maintain adequate export controls on materials that may be used for offensive purposes by Iran. With the proclamation of this information in the last 24 hours, and with no opportunity to discuss it, it is a pertinent matter which has bearing upon the external relations of Canada in a number of areas. It requires at this time proper consideration by the House on an emergency basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of the application of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and the Chair will return to the House at three o'clock with a ruling.
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to increase taxes on Canadians. The Official Opposition objects very strongly to the way in which the Government has proceeded with these tax increases and with the measures it proposes.
For example, there is a proposal to increase the federal manufacturers sales tax. It is an insidious tax in the sense that ordinary Canadians do not find out directly why costs have increased. However, costs increase. The chart provided by the Government in the budget statement indicated, for example, that the increase in the manufacturers sales tax would be from 7 per cent to 8 per cent on construction goods. Also it indicated a similar increase on cable and Pay TV services from 14 per cent to 15 per cent, and on alcoholic beverages and tobacco and all other taxable goods from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. The total revenue derived from this 1 per cent increase will be $700 million in 1986, that is, the year ending in April; over $1 billion in 1987; and rising in the year 1990 to $1,300 million.
I hope Hon, Members of the House noted in the media last week while we were adjourned that the fear or expectation of

November 17, 1986
Excise Tax Act
an increase in inflation is becoming widespread in the country. Compared with the way they felt a year or two years ago, Canadians believe that inflation is on the increase. In the coverage and discussion of that issue in the media, I noted that a considerable number of experts took the view that the current round of inflation was being led by the tax increases introduced by the federal Government.
This particular tax increase which the Official Opposition opposes is that kind of increase. Unlike the income tax which taxpayers face being taken out of their income or perhaps out of borrowings which they have made to pay their taxes, this tax is extracted every day as individual Canadians shop for the necessities of life, for construction goods, and for alcoholic beverages and tobacco.
I should like to say a word or two about the particularity of increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Over the years in Liberal, I admit, as well as in Conservative Governments alcohol and tobacco have been looked upon as products which were almost infinitely susceptible to bearing taxes. In fact, there is probably a connection between increasing taxes and marginally reducing consumption. One could say, at least in connection with tobacco, that by increasing taxes on tobacco, the Government can argue that it is doing Canadians a favour because it is helping to make it easier for them to stop smoking.
There is another side to the story, and I say this as a nonsmoker and as one who is committed to trying to reduce the amount of smoking in Canadian society. A suspicion has arisen on the part of Canadians that the Government has too much of a vested interest in tobacco because of the taxes it derives to take any serious action to deal with the problem of smoking and to try to reduce smoking.

Mr. Speaker, I may recall the figures given by the Government when the Budget was brought down, when it recognized that the increase proposed in the Budget, and in that Budget alone, would provide the Government with additional revenue worth $125 million for the current year, rising to $150 million by 1990.
Mr. Speaker, these are very substantial amounts, especially when compared with the Government's recent announcement that it would spend $1 million during the current year on a campaign to reduce the consumption of tobacco in this country.

One million dollars has been provided by the Government for a campaign to deter smoking, and the additional revenue from the increase in taxes on smoking is in the order of something like $125 million for the current year. People see these figures and they must ask themselves whether the Government wants to see smoking continue in order to derive additional revenue or whether it wants to deter smoking. I would want to seek an undertaking from the Government that the effort to inform Canadians about the dangers of smoking
will be increased. It is not enough to raise over $100 million in additional taxes from smokers and to spend $1 million trying to prevent smoking or trying to bring the facts to Canadians about smoking.
Although the tendency to smoking is decreasing in Canadian society, recent particularly disturbing statistics show that among young female Canadians smoking is still increasing. Every year more young females in Canadian society are taking up smoking and are smoking more. It is a discouraging fact that as the movement for equality in the status of women with men in society has become more and more successful as women have begun to achieve equal access to the opportunities in Canadian society, one of the opportunities regrettably in which they are also moving to a level of equality is in smoking. It is particularly disturbing because smoking is very harmful to young women if they are pregnant, and I want to draw the attention of the Elouse to that important fact. Smoking during pregnancy is recognized as a threat to the health not only of the mother but of the fetus.
I do not think it is enough for the Government to raise taxes on smoking by $125 million for the current year and to put $1 million of that into a general public information campaign about the dangers of smoking. I think the Government has to do a great deal more. It is disappointing for those of us who know that the social costs of smoking far outweigh the revenues derived by Government to see the Government proceeding in this way.
This increase in taxes will produce a marginal reduction in the number of people who smoke and in the amount they smoke. It will do very little to reach the target group about which I have been talking, and about which the federal Government should be doing something.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak today on Bill C-14, a bill to increase excise taxes I want to point out a lot of things that are wrong with this Bill, and with the Government's plans for taxation in a more general fashion. We should look at how excise taxes fit into the total package of taxation for Canadians and see the role that they increasingly play.
If we look at the fiscal plan for 1986-87 published by the Department of Finance we see that personal income taxes amount to $37.7 billion; corporate income taxes to $11.7 billion; unemployment insurance contributions to $9 billion; sales tax to $11.7 billion; customs to $4.2 billion and miscellaneous taxes of various sorts to $6.8 billion. The Government also manages to collect some non tax revenue to the tune of $5.7 billion.
If we look at these figures we see that personal income tax is pretty high and corporate income tax is actually a little bit below sales tax. We are concerned about this. We know that 79,000 profitable Canadian corporations are not paying taxes at all. If the Government wants to increase taxes this is where
November 17, 1986

it should be looking. The Government needs to increase taxes for social programs and deficit reduction, but it is going after the hidden taxes in sales tax, an extremely misguided policy. We see this part of taxation increasing while corporate loopholes remain where they are. There has been no more than a token protest against corporate loopholes and no serious attempt has been made to have corporations pay a reasonable share of taxes, a share they used to pay in the past, that they pay in other countries but for which they are being let off the hook in Canada.
Bill C-14 would increase the collection of sales and excise taxes announced in the 1986 Budget. Specifically these changes include a 1 per cent sales tax increase, a great hidden tax and one the Tories hypocritically opposed when the Liberals wanted to increase this hidden tax. Now that the Tories are in Government they can see the benefits of collecting taxes from people without doing it openly and honestly. The rate of the manufacturers sales tax presently at 7 per cent for construction materials, cable and pay television services, 14 per cent for alcoholic beverages and tobacco, 11 per cent for other taxable goods, will increase to 8 per cent, 15 per cent and 12 per cent respectively for the different taxes.
I would like to comment a little about the excise tax increase and duties on alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco products. The previous speaker made some quite sensible remarks about the concerns we must have about Government becoming too dependent on these sources of income. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not so opposed to paying high taxes on their vices. Some people feel that is not such a bad thing because it may do them some good by curtailing consumption. People would rather see those taxes increase than many other taxes on absolutely essential items which cause real harm when increased.
In the case of cigarette tax increases, we can expect some good. We know increased taxes affect consumption, and especially consumption among young people who do not have as much money to spend. That would be all to the good because age 12 is getting to be the typical starting age for smoking. This group does not have a lot of money to spend and an increase in tax will keep some of them from starting to smoke.
Rather than not having this tax increase, still being aware of the problem this could create for a Government becoming dependent on this source of tax, the best solution would be to channel the money collected in sales taxes and other taxes on cigarette and tobacco products on programs to combat the cigarette habit which is so harmful and is responsible for such a large number of deaths. If the money were channelled into counter advertising, into programs to substitute tobacco growing with other crops, and into programs of research for addiction treatment, this would be a far better use of the money and the Government would not be tempted to use it as an easy way to raise taxes for general revenues.
The impact of all these different increases will mean less disposable income for families. We know in the case of
Excise Tax Act
families at a very low level of income, say, $10,000 for a family with two children, the estimated cost of those tax increases is $170. Since there is going to be a sales tax credit of $150 the impact is considerably mitigated, and that is a good thing, although I note it has not been entirely done away with. Families at a very low level of income with two children to support will still have an increase on average of $20 in the sales taxes they pay. For families at the $15,000 level the estimated cost of the tax increase is $215, and a net cost of $65 given the $150 sales tax credit. When we get to families with $20,000, and, after all, this is not an enormous amount of money for families with two children, they will feel the brunt of the sales tax increase and will be hit to the tune of $269 a year. That is a pretty sizeable increase, Mr. Speaker.
When we consider that this Government has made a very big thing of increased average family income-that is certainly desirable and we welcome it-it likes to forget that this is not disposable family income. Those increases in income that people have achieved through a very slight decline in unemployment does not mean that families will have more money to spend on the necessities of life, necessities for their children and so forth because of these increased taxes. It is of course the net disposable income that really counts, so the Government has been somewhat phoney in talking about a decline in poverty because you have to look at the total picture.
The NDP has been looking at the entire tax system for Canadians; we have been looking at income taxes, corporate taxes and sales and excise taxes. The sales and excise tax is regressive. It means you pay the same amount no matter what your income. For the low income person that means a higher proportion of income goes for taxes, and those who can well afford to pay are in fact paying very insignificant amounts. That is of course unfair. A progressive system is the fair way. Canadians approve of a system where those who have the ability to pay bear a greater burden.
The Conservative Government's use of the hidden excise and sales tax is unfair because it puts too much of a burden on those with low incomes. The Conservative tax increases amount to $1,305 for the average Canadian family, that being a $35,000 income and two dependant children. Sales and excise tax increases alone account for $845 of this new burden. The November, 1984 economic statement meant an increase of $350 a year. The May, 1985 Budget meant an increase of $325 a year. The most recent Budget of February, 1986, meant an increase of $170 a year for that family.
Individuals are being treated very differently from corporations by the Conservative Government. The giveaways to corporations are secret. It is done by tax expenditure and the amount of money involved is enormous. One calculation I prepared shows that these giveaways amount to $26.5 billion for this fiscal year. That is an enormous amount of money. The giveaways for individuals, however, are very public. They come by way of a cheque in the mail for the family allowance or

November 17, 1986
Excise Tax Act
unemployment insurance. It is clear where that money goes. Yet now we have this unfair system where corporations get away with so much and individuals are bearing an increasing burden of taxation.
To conclude, I would simply note that this is not going to do the country any good at all. The Government is not spending the money wisely. We still see enormous wastage. The Government is not reducing the deficit.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is so.


Lynn McDonald: That is a phoney excuse. The deficit was estimated at $29 billion at the beginning of the year and it has now been increased to $32 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Reduced from what?


Lynn McDonald: We have a very large accumulated deficit of over $100 billion and the Government is going to be adding $32 billion to it. That is not my idea of a reduction. You can easily say we might have had an increase of $50 billion-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: From $35 billion to $32 billion is pretty good.


Lynn McDonald: -and you only have an increase of $32 billion and that is great. That is not a reduction. It is a reduction in the increase. That is not a reduction. It is phoney indeed to call a $32 billion deficit a reduction. Reduced from what? From what might have been worse, but it is certainly not a reduction in real terms and Canadians know that is so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-14. On October 23 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stood in this House and talked about a new procedure he was establishing to bring fairness and equity and simplicity to the Canadian tax system. If he really believed what he said he would not be proceeding with this Bill. When he outlined his plans he talked about reducing income taxes for low income Canadians. However, if we look at this Bill and his first two Budgets, many of the provisions of which are implemented in C-14, we see that the system is not fair at all. If you look at the taxes being imposed on low income Canadians there is certainly no element of fairness.
Clearly, most of the provisions of the first two Budgets mean regressive taxes. That is, sales taxes which obviously weigh more heavily on low income Canadians. For example, a family with one bread-winner and two children will be paying $255 more in taxes every year. There were increases in the RSP limits and the introduction of the capital gains tax exemption, but most of the benefit there goes to high income earners. For example, those in the $30,000 bracket gain no benefit from the RSP exemption. Those same people also gained very little benefit from the capital gains exemption. So we have a
ridiculous situation where the person earning $30,000 or $35,000 is facing an increase in taxes of $250 per year, and the person earning $100,000 will have an increase of only $1,740. It is very clear who has the advantage there. Then we have a single parent family with two children and $20,000 in income. That family will pay $420 a year more.
As I said, when the Minister stood in the House and made this presentation concerning tax reform he did not mean it. If he had, he would not be proceeding with Bill C-14 which has a devastating impact on all Canadians, but especially low income Canadians, where taxes are being increased by $5 billion. Therefore, Bill C-14 weighs much more heavily on low-income Canadians. A family with a $15,000 income will pay $255 more per year. A family with a $30,000 income will pay $630 more per year. A family with a $50,000 income, which is about 66 per cent more than a $30,000 income, actually pays less. Their increase will be only $575. This is a very unfair situation. An elderly couple with an income of $27,000 and no dependents will pay $500 more per year. The tax scheme put forward in the first two Budgets of the Minister of Finance is designed to increase dramatically the taxes of low-income Canadians.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made the spectacular announcement that he was going to exempt the two cent a litre increase which the Government imposed on farmers in September of 1985. If the Government really wanted to help farmers it would make that exemption retroactive to September 1, 1985, when it was first imposed, rather than only to May 1. Agriculture in Canada is clearly in a stressed situation. The situation was just as stressful in 1985 as it is in 1986. That two cent per litre tax would have generated $65 million or $70 million a year in revenues. I call upon the Government to make that exemption retroactive to September 1 when it was imposed. The Government is pretending to make great contributions to agriculture when in fact it is mostly a smoke and mirrors show that does not cost the Government anything while giving the appearance of lending assistance.
The Minister of Finance stood in his place on October 23 and talked about tax reform. He spoke about fairness, equity, simplication of income tax and so on. This Bill goes in the complete opposite direction from that. He did not tell Canadians that the Government was considering the imposition of a business transfer tax which would apply to everything from haircuts to shoe shines to automobile repairs. In addition, it will increase the taxes on a broad range of other things.
Since the Government came to power two years ago the sales tax has been increased by 25 per cent. It was about 9 per cent at that time and will be raised to 12 per cent if the Government forces this Bill through Parliament. The Government is considering the implementation of a sweeping business transfer tax of 9 per cent, if it is not imposed on food. If it is imposed on the food which Canadians eat, it will be only 6 per
November 17, 1986

cent. Everything that we do, everything that we touch, every service that we receive will suddenly become taxable.
This Bill puts a lie to the statement of the Minister of Finance on October 23 when he said he was going to simplify our tax system and make it more fair and equitable. It is clear that this Bill does not do that.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Bill before the House today. It concerns a very important matter, namely income tax. As Canadians, we all have to pay taxes in this country. Unfortunately, the tax burden on the poor and the middle class in this country is particularly heavy. The Bill before the House will certainly not do anything to improve a situation that will get even worse with Bill C-14.

I would like to give a number of reasons why that makes it worse for ordinary Canadians. Bill C-14 resulted from the Budget presented in this House on February 27, 1986. This Bill contains a 1 per cent increase in sales tax for all Canadians. We presently have a manufacturers' sales tax of 7 per cent on construction materials, cable and pay television services; a 14 per cent sales tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco; and an 11 per cent tax on all other taxable goods. This Bill will increase the tax on construction materials from 7 per cent to 8 per cent, the tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco from 14 per cent to 15 per cent, and the tax on other taxable goods from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. These tax increases will affect all Canadians.
The research we have done on this indicates that the increased cost of this Bill for the average family will be approximately $150 a year, in addition to an increase of $20 in excise taxes and duties. That is a considerable increase for the poorer people, the working poor, single parent families and other such people.
There has been a shift in Government taxation policies in the last couple of years. I have noticed that during the last two years the Conservative Party has increased more rapidly the revenue it generates from sales taxes and excise taxes than the revenue it generates through individual and corporate taxes. For example, sales and excise tax increases have yielded more than twice the amount of revenue drawn from changes to personal income tax and more than four times the revenue drawn from corporate income taxes. More than twice as much money is now generated from sales and excise taxes as from individual taxes, and more than four times the amount generated from large and small corporations.
Since the Conservative Party came into power in September of 1984 there has been an average increase per family of $1,305 for personal, sales and excise taxes. I classify an average Canadian family as one with approximately $35,000 income and two dependent children.
Excise Tax Act

Mr. Speaker, we have now had three income tax increases. It started with the Minister's economic statement in November 1984, when there was an increase of $350 per year for the average Canadian family. Subsequently, the 1985 Budget brought us another tax increase for the average Canadian family, and this time it was $325 per year. It was the second time we had a tax increase imposed by the Conservative Party in this country. The third time was in the last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in February 1986. At that time, the average Canadian family saw its taxes increased by $170 per year. Mr. Speaker, this is a lot for the average family. It is a lot for Quebecers, for the people of Saskatchewan and for all Canadians.
As I said, there has been a reverse in the way the Conservative Party is taxing Canadians. Since the 1960s under successive Governments in this country, including the short-lived Conservative Government under the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), we saw a declining rate in sales and excise taxes in relation to the over-all collection of taxes by the federal Government. That trend has reversed this year.
Last year some 22.3 per cent of the taxes raised were through sales and excise taxes in Canada. This year, rather than 22.3 per cent, the tax will be increased to 23.2 per cent.
There are three reasons why I am concerned about an increase in sales and excise tax rather than an increase in corporate tax or individual taxes paid by Canadians. First, a federal sales and excise tax is a hidden tax because it is put on the basic price of a commodity. The average Canadian has no idea that he or she is paying an additional tax to the federal Government when buying some goods or commodities. It is a hidden tax, unlike a provincial sales tax of 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent which is up front and visible to all. In many cases Canadians have no idea that they are paying a federal tax.

As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the second aspect is that the sales tax, the excise tax levied on Canadians is totally unfair because, when buying a television, a refrigerator, a car or any household appliance, a customer has to pay the same tax whether he or she is poor, or earns an average salary, or is a millionnaire. An excise tax or a sales tax is simply unfair.
A Member who gets $70,000 a year and a working man or woman earning $15,000 or $25,000 annually pay the same tax on anything they buy. Mr. Speaker, this is altogether unfair to ordinary Canadians throughout the country.

That is the other reason why this sales tax increase is very unfair.
1214

November 17, 1986
Excise Tax Act
The third reason why I believe these taxes are unfair is ordinary Canadians are already paying too much in taxes. This Bill will tax commodities that previously were not taxed, and increases taxes on other commodities. Canadians are being taxed too much and it is time that low-income and middle-income Canadians revolt against such a taxation system.


An Hon. Member:: What should we have, then?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In answer to my Conservative friend opposite, our Party had a tax probe that was chaired by the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). It studied the taxation system and made recommendations as to what taxes should be cut and what taxes should be increased in certain areas, since the rich are getting away with avoiding tax by using certain loopholes. Furthermore, there are many companies and corporations in this country, such as the Royal Bank, that are not paying taxes as they should. We need a fair taxation system in this country.
The Government should no longer impose taxes on the ordinary men and women who work hard to keep Canada the great country it is today. They are the ordinary people who farm the land, make the factories work and produce the goods and services. It is ordinary people who built Canada into the fantastic country it is, but those are the very people the Conservative Party is taxing over and over again.
I remember when my grandfather said years ago that Tory times are tough times. He grew up in the 1930s, during the Government of R. B. Bennett. My grandfather also said: "Tory times are taxing times". As recent Gallup Polls indicate, Canadians again realize that Tory times are tough times and that electing a Tory Government means electing a Government that will tax, tax, tax.


Mr. Cassidy:: They are number three in Quebec!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As my colleague points out, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is now number three in Quebec. Every single poll indicates that the Conservative Party, the Government Party with 57 or 58 Members, ranks third in Quebec with something like 23 or 24 per cent of the votes.
With this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party will be finished for another generation in this country. The very same thing happened after the '30s with R. B. Bennett and Canada's great depression. After this, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party will disappear in Canada for 20 or 30 years.

It was not until John Diefenbaker came along in the 1950s that the Conservative Party was revived. John Diefenbaker stood for many things that helped ordinary Candaians. It was the wealthy Conservatives of Bay Street, led by Dalton Camp, who stabbed John Diefenbaker in the back and got rid of him. Once again, the Conservative Party disappeared for 20 years.
Yet who does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) hire as his chief adviser but the same Dalton Camp who got rid of John Diefenbaker. As a Saskatchewan parliamentarian, we in the Province of Saskatchewan and indeed people right across western Canada will not forget that.
[ Translation]
I know that my friends in Quebec agree with me and are against this Bill. I hope that the Members from Quebec will vote against the Government, against the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), because the Bill is quite unfair to all Canadian men and women.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the House is being asked to agree to Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. Its purpose is to implement the increases in what the ordinary taxpayer calls the sales tax. This Bill is a prime example of how the Conservative approach to our taxation system is based on unfairness, based on putting an undue burden on the middle and lower-income taxpayer.
I want to take a few minutes to review what Bill C-14 intends to do. First, it will put into effect the sales and excise tax increases that were proposed in the Budget of February 26, 1986. It is important to note that all of the items that are targeted in this Bill were also the subject of tax increases by the Conservative Budget of May 23, 1985. For example, effective April 1, 1986 an additional 1 per cent sales tax was levied on all taxable goods. However, the 1985 Budget also raised this sales tax by 1 per cent, effective January 1, 1986.
If this Bill is adopted by the House we will see that the tax on construction goods increased by 1 per cent to 7 per cent effective January 1, 1986, as well as an additional 1 per cent tax, increasing the rate to 8 per cent effective April 1, 1986.
The same is also true for all other categories of goods generally subject to sales and excise taxes. Cable and pay TV services went up 1 per cent to 7 per cent January 1, 1986, and up another 1 per cent to 8 per cent effective April 1, 1986. All other taxable goods were at the level of 11 per cent, which was an increase of 1 per cent effective January 1, 1986. There is now another 1 per cent increase to 12 per cent, going into effect April 1, 1986. We see that effective May 1, 1986 the tax rate on air transportation, the tickets, will increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. When we look at the telecommunications programming services tax, which applies to television equipment provided to customers of cable and pay-TV services, and to equipment used by hotels and other closed-circuits broadcasts, we see that this tax will increase by 1 per cent to 8 per cent. It was already increased in the 1985 Budget by 1 per cent. This is a very sizeable jump in less than one year.
What about the tax on fuels? Prior to the 1985 Budget federal excise tax on non-commercial automotive fuels was 1.5 cents a litre. The 1985 Budget increased the excise tax on
November 17, 1986

gasoline and aviation gasoline by 2 cents per litre effective September 3, 1985. This tax is scheduled to increase to 4.5 cents per litre on January 1, 1987. The 1985 Budget also extended the excise tax to diesel and aviation fuel other than gasoline. Consequently, an excise tax of two cents per litre was placed on diesel and non-gasoline aviation fuel for the first time on September 3, 1985. This tax is also scheduled to increase three cents a litre on Janaury 1, 1987.
Let us take a look at the cumulative effect of the increases in what the tax experts call commodity taxes as a result of the Conservative Budget of February, 1986, a Budget which is intended to be implemented as far as commodity or sales taxes are concerned by Bill C-14 currently before the House.
In 1986 the proposed 1 per cent increase in federal sales tax rates will give the Government $700 million in additional revenue. In 1987 this tax will increase to $1.05 billion. In 1988 the amount will increase to $1,125 billion. In 1989 it will increase to $1.2 billion and in 1990 to $1.3 billion. This is hardly tax relief for middle and lower income Canadians. This is a strange way for the Conservatives to be approaching tax reform.
Not too long ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) rose in the House and said: "We intend to proceed with tax reform that will lower the burden of taxes on individual taxpayers". He said he would do that by decreasing the personal income tax rates so that individual taxpayers would have more money in their pockets. But what he did not make clear, although he certainly hinted at it in his statement, is that the Government also intends to increase the extent and broaden the base of commodity or sales taxes through a new business transfer tax. If the Conservatives are able to get away with this it means that they will be putting money into the pockets of individual taxpayers with one hand through reductions in personal income tax rates and with the other they will be removing from those pockets that money, along with even more money through increased sales taxes. Call them what you will, Mr. Speaker, commodity taxes, sales taxes or business transfer taxes, we are talking about increases in taxes which will affect particularly middle and lower income Canadians.
If we are interested in fairness in the tax system, surely that must come from a system which says to people that they pay according to their ability to pay and that the burden of taxation on their shoulders will be greater if they have earned more money through their activities in this country and abroad. Fairness in the tax system does not come about by saying to individual Canadians that it does not matter how much money you have, if you have to spend money for the daily necessities of life and if you have to spend most of your income on buying goods and services, which is the case for most Canadians, then you are the one who is going to pay more, you are the one who is going to assume the higher burden. This is what the Conservatives are saying. This is the message they are sending out in Bill C-14. This message was confirmed by what the Minister of Finance said not long ago in the House when he made his statement on tax reform.
Business of the House
One thing that the Minister of Finance did not make a clear statement on was whether the result of the Conservative so-called tax reform would increase the total tax burden on individual Canadians. He had the opportunity to do so but he did not seize that opportunity to make a commitment and to give an undertaking to individual Canadians that Tory tax reform would mean that the total tax burden on individual Canadians would not increase. In fact, he certainly left that likelihood very much open, very much on the Conservative agenda.
If I am not mistaken, I saw a report in the press last weekend which stated that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) when speaking in London admitted that increases in revenue were very likely to come from Conservative tax reform and that keeping the total tax burden at the same level as it is now on individual Canadians was only an objective and that the Conservatives are already gearing up to hit individual Canadians with an additional tax burden. They have already been hit by an unfair additional level of taxation through the last two Conservative Budgets.
Bill C-14 is only a continuation of this massive, unfair tax grab by the Conservatives from the pockets of individual Canadians, particularly middle and lower income Canadians. Members of the Government intend to keep up this tax grab in a sneaky way claiming that they are lowering the burden of taxation through lowering personal income tax rates. At the same time they are sneaking around behind the backs of individual Canadians, putting their hands into their pockets and taking out the money they give them through lower personal tax rates. They are taking even more money through unfair and increased sales taxes, taxes which they may have a new name for, such as the business transfer tax. However, it is still the same thing. It is an unfair and regressive increase in sales taxes. When people go to their dentists, their barbers or their accountants they will have to pay taxes for the first time on transactions that will be subject to tax.
We should be opposing this Bill. We should be sending a clear signal to the Conservative Government on behalf of individual Canadians that they have had enough, they will not take it any more and they are fed up with the increase in tax burden since the Government took office. Individual Canadians want a change. They are only waiting for the opportunity, that cannot come too soon, to get rid of this Government whose sole purpose is to place an unfair burden of taxation on middle and lower income Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I put the question or call upon the next speaker, I would like to read the following statement.

November 17, 1986
Excise Tax Act
I have received notice from the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) that due to a prior commitment he is unable to be present in the House tomorrow, Tuesday, November 18, 1986, to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business.
Accordingly, in conformity with the statement made by the Chair on May 28, 1986, I am directing the Table to drop this item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* *
*


EXCISE TAX ACT AND EXCISE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will 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):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether there would be a disposition on the part of the House to call it 1.15 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that it is 1.15 p.m. The House will recess until two o'clock this day.
At 1.09 p.m. the House took recess.



if

November 17, 1986



SO. 21 FISHERIES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the suicide last week of Rosa Becker, a woman who made legal history when the Supreme Court of Canada established in 1980 that the contribution of a common-law wife to the building up of a family farm entitled her to a half interest when her common-law husband kicked her out after 18 years, to marry someone else. However, Rosa Becker meant her suicide to draw attention to the injustice of living with that judgment. She received no money at all as of the time of her death. She held a $60 a week job while her ex and his wife lived on the farm she had helped to create. Her lawyer appropriated as fees all the money received.
We can be critical of Gerald Langlois, the lawyer who carried the case for years without financial compensation because of the reward he received in national fame and approval. However, it is regrettable that he pushed to the limit of 100 per cent his right to be compensated ahead of his client. That right of lawyers needs to be examined. I call on law societies across Canada to examine the facts of this case and review their policies on payment of fees to lawyers.



INSURANCE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this Government supports the agency system and general insurance agents. It will not give more power to the banking institutions of this country. As a former operator of a general insurance agency I know how well the consumers' interests are served by their independent insurance agents.
I would like to reassure not only my constituents and residents of my Province of Saskatchewan, but the over 10,000 independent insurance agents and their employees right across Canada that we will vigorously oppose any plan to allow financial institutions to include in their range of services the sale of general insurance products presently marketed through general insurance agents or brokerage agencies.
The driving force for this change seems to be the financial institutions rather than the consumer so it should be quite obvious whose best interests would be served by the proposed change.



ATTACK ON FISHERIES OFFICER ON QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on the November 1 weekend the Fisheries and Oceans patrolman on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Marvin Boyd, was beaten unconscious, had his face cut up and his leg broken. His injuries were serious enough to have him flown to Vancouver for urgent medical attention. He is now without work, without an income and likely will be laid up for months to come.
Increasingly we hear of such attacks on the Fisheries officers responsible for enforcing federal regulations. The federal Government must illustrate confidence in the good work of its patrolmen and enforcement personnel if we are to prevent a repeat of such incidents. The Government also has a responsibility to pursue all avenues of redress for Mr. Boyd to ensure he is fully compensated for his losses.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to issue, at the very least, a public declaration supporting the often thankless work of those who must carry out his policies on the ground level. We must not allow innocent public servants to take the brunt of a Government's unwillingness to resolve resource conflicts or educate the public on the need to protect fish habitat.
Sadly, I am now informed by the Minister's officials that no supportive action will be taken. The Conservative Government runs out to spend $350,000 to defend Sinclair Stevens on conflict of interest charges. The same Conservative Government refuses to defend a patrolman who has carried out his duty. The Department concludes, in a November 10 letter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries, that because the Fisheries guardian was not on duty at the time he was assaulted by two individuals, no further action is being contemplated by the Department. Is that justice, Mr. Speaker?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, is anyone listening? Is anyone hearing the cry going across our nation? Victims of crime are fighting back, and the average person on the street understands and sympathizes.
Case in point-Steven Kessler, ordinary, patriotic Canadian of Yugoslavian descent, well known as mild mannered and honest, reacted with violence last week against two armed robbers intent on stealing money and drugs from Kessler's store. This shocking incident left one man dead, another seriously injured-, and Kessler charged with second-degree murder.

November 17, 1986
The facts leading up to the incident as well as the public reaction since indicate a strong message. It is time both federal and provincial politicians listened. We have perhaps the best police forces in the world, but our courts are pathetic and Canadians are showing less and less faith in the system. It is time for toughening and speeding up our judicial system. It is long overdue. Let's get at it.



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that 16 million taxpayers' files have been lost. The integrity of the entire Canadian tax system is threatened by this inexcusable breach of taxpayers' privacy. How can Canadians trust a Government that cannot keep tax records confidential?
Today Canadians must ask themselves what will happen to our tax structure. Every Canadian files a tax return voluntarily every year. Those tax returns contain vital information. If the Government and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) cannot guarantee the confidentiality of those records, it will be very bad for all Canadians. I hope the Minister of National Revenue will do something about this right away. It took six days to find out that those records were missing. Something is wrong in that Department.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the world wheelchair marathon champion, Andre Viger from Quebec, was voted "Personality of the Year" at the third "Gala de /'Excellence" organized by the newspaper La Presse.
Andre Viger has been a real winner since the beginning of this year. He won seven out of nine marathons in which he participated, breaking a whole series of records, and he won the world championship for the handicapped in England.
Our champion said during an interview: "I want to tell people to look at the potential, not the weaknesses of others. In my case, my greatest weakness, my wheelchair, has become my greatest strength."
In a text introducing the fifty-two candidates for the award, Mr. Roger D. Landry, president and editor of La Presse, said: "Excellence means setting an example. It means overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It means wanting to
persevere against all adversity and having the ambition to succeed."
Mr. Speaker, with all the Members of this House, I say: Bravo, Andre Viger!



APARTHEID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in his bid to sell lumber to South Africa, British Columbia Premier Bill Vander Zalm has shown contempt for human rights and total ignorance of the vicious nature of apartheid. British Columbians must speak out against such a shameful, selfish, and shortsighted policy. Trading with apartheid will not solve our economic problems.
Vander Zalm's proposal has called the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) bluff. The Prime Minister pretends that he has taken a strong stand against apartheid, but when Vander Zalm thumbs his nose at this policy, our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) says there is nothing he can do unless we pass a law. If that is what it takes, by all means let us pass a law which bans all trade with South Africa.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the largest Icelandic settlement outside of Iceland is Gimli, located in my constituency.
The people of Gimli are outraged with the recent sinking of two whaling ships in Reykjavik harbour and the destruction of the offices of a nearby fishing company. They are outraged that a Canadian is openly bragging that his group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is taking full credit for a criminal action in another nation. They are not pleased that acts of international sabotage are initiated from within Canada.
The action of Paul Watson should be condemned by all Canadians. Acts of sabotage cannot be condoned in any part of the world. I know that I speak on behalf of my constituents when I urge the House and request the Government to cooperate fully with the Icelandic Government to bring those responsible for this crime to justice.
November 17, 1986



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, France's environment Minister, Alain Carignon, has called the chemical spill at the Swiss firm Sandoz near Basel: "An ecological catastrophe".
Residents of many towns along the Rhine River, forced to abandon the river as a source of household water, have resorted to water trucked in from elsewhere by fire departments.
Another chemical company, Ciba-Geigy, spilled 400 litres of the herbicide atrazine into the Rhine.
Swiss officials talk about the Sandoz incident as having shattered their confidence in self-regulation of the industry. The statement issued at a special session of the Basel Parliament said that the fire at Sandoz and its consequences have profoundly shaken confidence in the chemical industry.
The accident has led authorities to focus on the dangers surrounding the storage of dangerous chemicals as well as the more obvious risks from production and transport.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothiils):: Mr. Speaker, free trade should have been negotiated with the United States during the last Parliament. The Liberal-NDP alliance wasted that Parliament with massive deficits and policies like the National Energy Program.
Now, with the Democrats controlling both U.S. Houses, it will be difficult to protect the three million Canadian jobs tied directly to exports to the United States.
Every student who wants a future job, every lumberman, every grain, hog and cattle producer, and every factory worker should be enraged that their jobs and their futures have been put into real jeopardy by the irresponsible conduct of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). The pension of every senior citizen is in danger if Canada loses more jobs due to U.S. protectionism.
I call upon the Leader of the New Democratic Party to stop sabotaging the future of Canada and Canadians. Let Mr. Reisman do his job.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express our very deep regrets at the assassination last week of Rolando Olalia, the Philippines labour leader who had done so much to try to bring about reconciliation within his country.
His KMU was a coalition which included labour unions, peasants, and unemployed workers. It had close contacts with our own Canadian Labour Congress. His death has cost the Philippines an important spokesperson for peace and for reconciliation in the future. It is to be deeply regretted.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about comments made to the national press recently by Paul Watson of Vancouver, the leader of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
On November 8 Mr. Watson's organization destroyed two whaling vessels and a processing plant in Iceland. He has publicly announced that he intends to destroy Asian monofilament nets in the North Pacific.
I am concerned as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, and indeed as a Canadian citizen, that the global village does not view Canada as a country that attempts to come to terms with environmental problems through criminal activities. What Paul Watson has done is criminal and Canadians do not condone this type of action.



BANKS AND BANKING


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made much of the fact that the Estey Report did not find Ministers blameworthy in events leading up to the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank. However, Mr. Justice Estey had some trenchant criticism of the Government's actions during and after the bail-out, the very things about which the Official Opposition has been challenging the Government since March, 1985.
The Estey Report has confirmed that the Government made a hasty and uninformed decision without recourse to facts that

November 17, 1986
Oral Questions
would have got in the way of that decision, that the Government then blindly guaranteed the bank's viability and, once it had failed, repaid nearly $1 billion out of the public purse to nameless uninsured depositors. If the principle of ministerial accountability has any meaning for the Government, it must now provide answers in Parliament to the questions it has evaded for the last year and one-half.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, who is now taking his seat, arising from his statement this morning.

My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Canadians don't want everybody to know about their financial affairs. They don't want their income tax returns to be publicized or used to blackmail them. The Government has failed to protect taxpayers.
My question is as follows: Why did the Minister say he was informed only five days after the event took place? This morning, the Minister said the microfiches were stolen after working hours. Why was the security service not operating between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m.? What is going on here?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the right hon. gentleman for being a bit late.
I tell him and my colleagues that I am not-and the hon. gentleman would not expect me to be-very happy with the situation either. This is one reason why I have ordered an intensive review. In my view the lack of celerity in informing my Deputy Minister and subsequently myself was unacceptable. This will form part of the review. I will try to have answers when the review is complete.


PROTECTION OF TAXPAYERS FROM FRAUD AND INVASION OF PRIVACY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister said that he had taken steps, to use his words, to protect the Government from fraud. What will the Minister do to protect 16 million Canadian taxpayers from fraud and from invasion of privacy? What is to prevent someone who has this information from plugging into the computer system and destroying the personal financial security and privacy of 16 million Canadian families?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, again, I respect very much the concerns of the right hon. gentleman. The situation is serious enough without making it worse by careless references to what might or might not occur. I know that he does not intend this. However, let me say to him that there is no likelihood that the information, as gross a breach of privacy as its being taken is, provides an entree into the computer system of taxpayers and to that particular type of data base. There are safeguards in place to prevent just that.
As far as what can be done to make up, if you will, for the loss of privacy to individual Canadians who entrusted their social insurance numbers to Revenue Canada in the sure and certain belief that they would be held inviolate, frankly, is something I do not know. I do know that there has been an unacceptable breach of security. I know that public interest demands that the public be told as soon as the RCMP indicated it was suitable. The best defence is to be vigilant in terms of each Canadian realizing that the social insurance number and some of the information belonging to individuals is out there and cannot be accounted for at this time.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister would have accepted the ministerial responsibility that is here. This morning he said that he could not be expected, to use his words, to take responsibility for every locked room or every safe or every desk. Will the Minister take responsibility for the financial secrecy and integrity of the tax system which affects 16 million Canadians? Will he accept that responsibility?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my right hon. friend that, to the best of my ability, I will attempt to accept that responsibility by finding out, as I have already attempted to do, the reasons for this breach. I have asked the RCMP to institute immediately an inquiry into the adequacy of the security procedures which are being used to handle this microfiche data and to keep it inviolate. I have instituted a departmental review. I will be taking whatever other measures appear to be proper arising out of this situation. I will be providing answers as quickly as possible to the House.


EXPORT CONTROL POLICY-SALE OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pose questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence, perhaps I could ask them of the Deputy Prime Minister. A document released on
November 17, 1986

September 10 by the Department of External Affairs on export control policy states:
When a class of goods is not clearly and uniquely either military or civilian, there will be Ministerial consultation. Helicopters are an example.
Was the Secretary of State or the Cabinet consulted on the decision to sell helicopter engine parts to the Ayatollah regime in Iran since they could clearly be used for military purposes? Should this decision not have been made at the highest level of Government? Why was a decision made to sell to Iran at that point in time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this was approved by officials in the normal course of doing business in this manner. We have been assured by Pratt & Whitney that the spare parts for the engines involved for the Bell 212 helicopter are commercially configured. The company has also stated that the power required for a military helicopter is much greater than that of the Bell 212 and that the engines in question, the PT6 T-3, could not be used for the Cobra helicopter without very major changes in the configuration of the unit itself, something that could not have been accomplished in Iran.


CANADIAN DEFENCE PRODUCTS GUIDE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the Canadian Defence Products Guide, a document put out by the Department of External Affairs. This document clearly points out that the engine to which the Deputy Prime Minister just referred is advertised for military purposes and for use in the Cobra gunship. Do I assume that the Government does not read its own documents, or do I assume that there was another reason the export permits were given authorizing Pratt & Whitney to sell to Iran? How can you justify your own document advertising that engine and then not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows it is improper to address the Minister with the word "you". I would ask him to rephrase the remainder of his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, through you, how the Government can justify a decision to sell those parts to Iran when its own document clearly specifies that they can be sold and used for military purposes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the Hon. Member that again we have been assured that this was a commercially oriented transaction. There have been cases where permit applications have been refused. When spare parts for engines used in the Cobra helicopter were requested, those requests were turned down. Where there is a clear case of spare parts being used for military purposes, the export permit requests are turned down. As a matter of fact one such request occurred in January of 1985. I think both the
Oral Questions
Department and the Minister have carried out the spirit if not the letter of the guidelines to which the Hon. Member refers.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. We know now that personal information on sixteen million taxpayers is in the hands of a thief. This is a very serious situation. My question to the Minister is as follows: What exactly does the Government intend to do to protect the taxpayers?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, without being evasive, I am not able to say specifically, and I believe he would not be able to either, that the data is in the hands of thieves. It may well be that it is but we do not know that, and that is as much as I can tell him about the investigation that is proceeding.
What can be done? There are additional safeguards being implemented. If I were to tell the Hon. Member what they were, that would be to some extent counterproductive. I can assure him, as I have assured the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we have taken this matter very seriously, as indeed we must and we should. We have asked the RCMP to evaluate the procedures which up to now have been satisfactory in keeping this kind of data sacrosanct. I have directed that there be an intensive review. We have notified other Departments and provinces and we will take every measure possible to make certain that this information does not do any damage.


USE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that access to this information can be very dangerous indeed regarding the invasion of privacy. A member of my staff, for example, phoned the Toronto-Dominion Bank over the noon hour and simply gave the bank a Social Insurance Number plus a name. That member of my staff was told that that particular person's credit rating could be produced. That is alarming in terms of its potential impact on some 16 million Canadians who now know that that information is in the hands of someone. I want to ask the Minister very specifically what he is doing to inform all those directly affected by this very serious situation what they should be doing to protect themselves?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 17, 1986
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: indicated to the House this morning that as soon as I received permission from the RCMP I thought it was the responsible thing to inform Canadians first about the situation, otherwise they would have no way of knowing. Secondly, we are trying to find ways that we can minimize the risk. But I would be less than frank if I told the House, or told my friend opposite, that if this information is in unauthorized hands, which we do not yet know, there could be any blanket assurances. The best assurance that Canadians can have at this moment in order to protect themselves is simply to know that this shocking breach of security has occurred, and that there may be a danger that people will use their SIN numbers for the type of purpose that my hon. friend has indicated.


NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister appropriately warned Canadians this morning by making a statement in the House, and by making a statement outside the House. But I say to the Minister that hundreds of thousands of Canadians may miss that information because they missed the news.
Does the Government intend to write to all the people who have Social Insurance Numbers and inform them directly of the dangers involved so that they will not be left out? Is the Government at least giving serious consideration to changing the Social Insurance Number of every Canadian?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As I believe the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows, we did inform the provinces this morning as soon as it became appropriate to do so. We have informed other Ministers whose Departments are affected and we can count on their assistance and facilities to spread the bad news. We will take every possible step to communicate with individual Canadian tax filers. It is not yet clear whether it is feasible to change individual SIN numbers, or whether there are other appropriate means that we can institute to provide protection. What we could do and what we will do is take whatever requirements are there that allow the summary information on the microfiche to be used, and vary the codes.


DELAY IN INFORMING MINISTER
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The integrity of the entire Canadian tax system is threatened by this inexcusable breach of taxpayer privacy. Why was the Minister only informed on November 4, when the files disappeared on October 30? Why was there a six-day delay in him being informed? Who is running the Department?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend opposite that I am no more happy with this than he is. As I said before, this was an
inexplicable delay. I know that the officials involved were diligently pursuing this missing data. I should have been informed, and my deputy should have been informed. The investigation and review will perhaps shed more light on this, and there will be disciplinary action taken where appropriate.


TAXPAYERS' CONFIDENCE IN INCOME TAX SYSTEM
Alfonso Gagliano: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This theft is a threat to the integrity of Canada's entire tax system. How can Canadians trust this Government if it cannot keep their income tax returns confidential? Could the Minister explain to the House how Canadians can be expected to trust this Government?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: apologize to the House. I did not get the purport of my hon. friend's question. I can say to him that I agree that the integrity of the Canadian tax system has been damaged. I am sorry that I did not understand the last part of his question.


EXPORT PERMITS-SHIPMENT OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The policy of the Government on export permits up to September 10 was that such permits could be restricted in the case of goods described as civilian strategic equipment; not just military, but civilian strategic equipment. They could also be banned where a Government was pursuing policies on human rights wholly repugnant to Canadian values. Is the Minister saying that the permission given to Pratt & Whitney and others to ship helicopter parts to Iran is in conformity with the policy which was in existence until September 10 of this year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that Bell 212 helicopters are commercially oriented helicopters with PT6 T-3 engines. They are used for that particular purpose. The spare parts in question were spare parts for that helicopter. As I outlined earlier, Pratt & Whitney officials advise the Government that it would be almost impossible in Iran to reconfigure the Cobra to adapt to the types of engines in question. Once again, we have received assurances that the spare parts for these particular helicopters were used for civilian purposes, and that is where it rests.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister if this could then be described as
November 17, 1986

civilian strategic equipment which under the policy up until September 10 was on the prohibited list. I also asked about the violation of human rights in Iran. I would be grateful if the Minister would reply to those questions, in that what has been done is a violation of the Government's own policy. In addition to answering my first question, would the Minister comment upon the fact that Bell Helicopter in Texas last month declined to sell helicopter parts to Iran because of its confidence that they were being used in Iran's fight against Iraq and in its fight against its own people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, so did the Government deny that back in January, 1985. An application was received, and it was believed at that time that the spare parts in question would be used for military helicopters and, as a result, the permits were turned down.


ISSUANCE OF EXPORT PERMITS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, following on that answer, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to press reports, in September, 1985, the U.S. Commerce Department authorized United Technologies to have one of its Canadian subsidiaries ship Bell helicopter parts. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether his Government received a request from the U.S. administration to issue those export permits? Does that account for the fact that the policy on export permits was not applied strictly, as it should have been?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not aware of that particular issue, Mr. Speaker. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that on the issue in question we have been assured that it was a straight commercial, civilian oriented transaction. We have been given that assurance by Pratt & Whitney. For the reasons outlined earlier, I think the issuance of the export permits was in compliance with the policies of the Government at that time.


FUTURE SHIPMENTS INQUIRY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is being especially forthcoming. Perhaps we can get this out in front of a committee. President Reagan, according to this wire report, says that there will be no further U.S. arms shipments and is encouraging other countries to act in the same manner. Does that mean that there will be no further helicopter parts shipped from Longueuil to Tehran?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman is suggesting that we are taking our orders in this particular case from the President of the United States. Such is not the case.
Oral Questions REVENUE CANADA


REPORTED THEFT OF TAX RECORDS-ISSUANCE OF OLD AGE SECURITY CHEQUES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Given the seriousness of the situation to which he addressed himself this morning, and especially considering the possibility of fraud occurring, will the Minister be able to announce whether Health and Welfare will be announcing new procedures for those persons receiving old age security cheques, in terms of change of address?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to check with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and he tells me that measures are being considered. At this time I cannot say exactly what they are. Perhaps the Minister might wish to do so, but he would understand that whatever measures are taken it would perhaps be counter-productive to put them out specifically for public scrutiny at this time.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, understanding the fact that to make everything public might not be desirable, I think the Canadian public has a right to know what new security procedures the Government is pursuing. Given the fact that the Conservative task force on Revenue Canada in 1984 indicated that it was concerned about the continuing erosion of the principle of confidentiality of tax information, is the Minister prepared to tell the Canadian public what new measures will be taken to make certain the secret information of Revenue Canada will in fact remain secret?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows and as I have already conceded, this has been the most grievous blow to confidentiality of Canadians' personal information, as far as I am aware, in the Department's history. I am not seeking to minimize it for one moment. The Hon. Member and the House have my assurance that we will be taking every possible measure to make certain that the most stringent attempts are made to try to countermand or repair the damage which has been done. I can undertake to him, perhaps on a private basis, to give him some indication of progress. I will tell the House as soon as I can, if it is proper to do so, what I have been doing.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that the Government has not diminished its commitment to the resources for the taxation side of Revenue Canada. We have in fact added over 600 person years during the last two years. We have substantial resources on audit and investigation.

November 17, 1986
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns an unprecedented statement by Simon Reisman. He said: "Canada can no longer expect to continue its practice of subsidizing industry if it wants to escape the effects of American trade laws". Would the Minister explain to the House whether or not he agrees with this particular statement and whether this statement is now government policy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think a review of our regional development policy is already under way. In the Throne Speech, the Prime Minister re-emphasized the importance of providing assistance for regional development. The Government has a duty to recognize these disparities and to be willing to work at reducing them as efficiently and productively as possible.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I remind him that Simon Reisman is not talking about review. He is talking about major concessions to industry in Canada. I want an undertaking from the Minister that no concessions whatsoever will be made with regard to maritime freight assistance, western grain transportation assistance, assistance to small business, as well as assistance to our primary producers. Will the Minister give us an undertaking that no concessions will be made in those areas?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, since September 1984, the federal Government has signed subsidiary agreements with the provinces totalling over $1.6 billion. These agreements have focussed on creating jobs and providing regional development assistance. And that is exactly what we will go on doing.

Will the Government agree today to committing the necessary funds to upgrade the facilities to make Vancouver a competitive world-class port while creating many more long-term jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what we hope today is to get unanimous consent from the Hon. Member's Party to proceed with all stages of a Bill to put the Port of Vancouver back to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister knows that there are many, many people in this country who agree with that principle but do not necessarily agree with some of the compromises.


REQUEST THAT PORT USERS COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister a second question. He knows that the situation in the Port of Vancouver is a very complex one. Will the Government ask the Port of Vancouver to comply with the Ports Canada legislation, which was passed some number of years ago, by establishing a port users committee to develop a comprehensive plan for the Port so that we can deal with all problems facing that Port?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Port of Vancouver is well served by a very competent board. I know there has been good public dialogue in furthering the interests of the commercial activity of the Port of Vancouver. To the extent that that can be further facilitated, I am sure the Hon. Member's suggestion would be taken into consideration and I will certainly convey that to the board.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT PROVISIONS   PORTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have here part of an internal U.S. Government study of the Auto Pact that concludes:


VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO UPGRADE FACILITIES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister knows that to be competitive the Port of Vancouver needs at least three new container cranes as well as modernized rail transportation.
-the safeguard provisions in the Pact have increased Canada's leverage in prodding Japanese and South Korean producers to invest and buy automotive parts in Canada.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us why, when even the Americans recognize the benefits to Canada of these safeguards, the Canadian Cabinet is considering giving them up as concessions in the free trade talks?
November 17, 1986


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are not. It is as simple as that. We have said that no changes will be considered for the Auto Pact which will undermine the capability and the effectiveness of the auto industry to create jobs, jobs that the Member knows full well are very important to his part of the country. It is one of the reasons that the unemployment rate is as low as it is in Windsor. It is one of the reasons that it is as low as it is in Oshawa. He understands and we understand fully the importance of the Auto Pact, and there is no consideration whatever to undermine that importance.


Steven W. Langdon: Once again the Minister is out of touch with the facts, Mr. Speaker. In fact the unemployment rate doubled in Windsor last month.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister of Finance give a clear answer and state, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself stated to the House, that:
-the Auto Pact serves Canada's interests well, and we do not see any purpose in changing a system that works.
Or are you, in fact, turning that question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member does know that it is improper to address a Minister or another Member with the word "you". I would ask the Member to rephrase the last part of his question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister simply attest to this House that the statements made on occasion after occasion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Auto Pact would not be touched because it serves our interests well will, in fact, be respected?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing that in any way is contrary to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said. What I do want to point out is what Mr. Murphy, the chief negotiator for the United States, has said in the course of these negotiations, that if he could have more Ed Broadbents on his side in Washington helping the side of the Americans in these negotiations, they would be a lot better off.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the fact that talks have broken down between Canadian
Oral Questions
negotiators and French negotiators over the boundary dispute and the fisheries management dispute with France in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, could the Minister tell us what he is now doing to make sure that the interests of Canadian fishermen will be protected? Will the Minister assure the House, as reported in The Globe and Mail by a fishermen's union representative, that we are not going to barter cod for cultural agreements?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can definitely assure the Hon. Member that the interests of Atlantic fishermen, particularly those on the south shore of Newfoundland that might be seen as negatively impacted by the present practice of over-fishing by the French national fleet in the waters around St. Pierre and Miquelon, will be respected and protected by initiatives at the highest diplomatic level.


CATCH TAKEN BY FRENCH FISHING FLEET
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to the House how it is possible, out of a quota of some 6,000 metric tonnes allotted to France in Zone 3PS, that France could take 26,000 metric tonnes in that zone and why no one in Canada knew until reading about it in a newspaper published in France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member does his reading but we have known since 1983 of extensive French over-fishing in the disputed zone which has not been properly delineated because of a claim by France to a 200-mile territorial sea south of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. It looks as though ultimately that boundary matter will have to be resolved by international arbitration.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns pharmaceutical products.
Four million Canadians on low incomes are being penalized by this legislation. They don't get welfare benefits, they have no private insurance and no protection against the rising cost of drugs. What is the Minister going to do to help them?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what can be done is to have Hon. Members read the legislation and realize that they are misinforming the public in claiming that there will be an increase in the price of drugs. What there will be an increase

November 17, 1986
Oral Questions
in is jobs in the high-tech area. There will be 3,000 direct high-tech jobs produced out of this Bill, and with no increase in the price of drugs to the kinds of consumers about whom the Hon. Member is talking. I wish she would not continue scaring people unnecessarily in that regard.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT PROVIDES FUNDS TO PROVINCES IF DRUG COSTS ARE NOT INCREASED
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the Minister at his word. However, there is a contradiction in his legislation, where the Minister will give the provinces $100 million or $25 million annually.
Considering that this Government wants to reduce the deficit, could the Minister explain why he is giving $100 million to the provinces if there is to be no increase in drug costs?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was right the first time. It is $25 million a year for four years only. That deals- it is too long to describe in Question Period-with 41 generic drugs which we are calling pipeline drugs that are caught between the old law and the proposed law. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the $100 million way more than covers any additional cost-


Some Hon. Members:: Additional cost?


Harvie Andre: The consumers about whom she is talking will not be affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT PROVISIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance who should know that not Washington but Windsor, Oshawa, St. Thomas, Oakville, St. Catharines and St. Therese have Ed Broadbent fighting for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member will put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: With regard to the statement in the leaked cabinet document that was revealed two weeks ago, does the
Minister share the view that the Auto Pact safeguards are an obstacle to necessary changes in the Auto Pact?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Hon. Member missed in my first response was the fact that Mr. Murphy, the chief negotiator for the U.S., was saying that the confusion and fear being sown by the Leader of the NDP was helping the negotiations in the U.S. He said, "yeh, get him to testify more in Washington." He wants Ed Broadbent to keep saying what he has because it is helping the U.S. negotiations. That is certainly not the way we want to go about these negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame on Ed!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. All Members know that in this House when we refer to another Hon. Member, we do so in the appropriate way.


AUTO PACT SAFEGUARDS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, since you have probably noticed that the Minister's response had only parenthetic relationship to the question asked I will repeat it.


Steven W. Langdon: Strictly tangential.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Was the Minister suggesting on November 13, when he said there are certain improvements which might be made in the Auto Pact, that those of us who believe the safeguards are at the heart of the survival of the industry are suffering a misconception as this secret document suggests?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is sowing seeds of confusion and that is totally inappropriate. I have never said that we were about to negotiate the safeguards. What I have clearly said is that any changes ever to be considered to the Auto Pact-or automotive trade because as he knows there are a number of other parts of the industry not included in the Auto Pact- would be made only with a view to improving the situation of the automotive industry in Canada because it is so important to us. It creates so many jobs and so many exports, and therefore we are going to do nothing to undermine the industry.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns his reckless new parole supervision policy. Why is he taking risks with public safety and public confidence by taking the parole
November 17, 1986

supervision system away from professional officials and turning it over to volunteers?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. gentleman that we do not consider what we are doing reckless or playing with public safety. I have reviewed this matter quite thoroughly with my staff. It involves only a maximum of 25 per cent of parole cases in Toronto and public safety is not being jeopardized.


OFFICIALS' ATTENDANCE AT TORONTO RALLY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be aware that while he was touring the country on the subject of crime prevention there was a rally in Toronto. I want his assurance that the officials who participated in that rally will not be punished for doing so.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that there is a code of conduct for employees of the Canadian Correctional Service of which I am sure they are aware. In any event, I am not aware at this time of any disciplinary action being taken or contemplated concerning the employees who took part in that rally.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It has been suggested that some purchasers of machinery and equipment have taken excessive investment tax credits through the medium of overstating trade-in allowances. Does the Minister intend to review what has gone on and, if so, who is he targeting and what taxation years will be affected?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that indeed there has been concern for some time that there may be some abuse of the investment tax credit and capital cost allowance, contrary to their original intention. There is no specific group targeted. The situation is, as I have said in letters to my colleagues, that it will be done methodically in different areas of the country after taxpayers are given notice. There is no cause for concern. It is just to make sure that there are no abuses of the system.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week the Conservative Minister of
Oral Questions
Health of Nova Scotia said that the extra cost to that province over the next 10 years if the patent drug legislation passes will be $146 million. He said that unless the federal Government gives the province that extra money it will have to come out of other money the province puts into health care. Why is the Minister bringing in legislation which will increase the profits of the multinational drug corporations, already the most profitable in the country, and thereby harming so many seniors and others in that province?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were sincere in that question he obviously does not know anything about the Bill, what it contains, its effects, ramifications or consequences. I appeal to the Hon. Member and his House Leader to co-operate with our House Leader, reach agreement to proceed with this legislation on second reading, get it into committee, and we can examine all those questions. I am sure if he keeps an open mind and remains intellectually honest he will see that it is good legislation for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will know that in the cut and thrust of debate in Question Period we should be very careful not even to get close to imputing motives. I am sure all Hon. Members know that.


JOB CREATION INQUIRY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the figures I used came from the Conservative Minister in Nova Scotia so maybe this Minister should talk to him. That province has calculated that it will cost the province an extra $146 million in the next 10 years. The Minister has talked about 3,000 new jobs. How many of those jobs will be in Nova Scotia given that 96 per cent of the industry is now located in Ontario or Quebec?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from making announcements concerning 50 new jobs and $150 million investment in British Columbia, a $100 million investment in Alberta, and great investments in Quebec and Ontario. The benefits will be very widespread. However, the kind of detailed information he has asked for needs to be provided in committee. I repeat that if we allow this to go to committee and give it a careful and honest examination he will see that it is good legislation and none of the scare stories have any validity.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is now six weeks since the Prime Minister announced an aid program for grain farmers who are suffering the lowest prices since the 1930s.

November 17, 1986
Oral Questions
This came after about six months of representation from the various farm groups. Can the Minister say when this money is going to be paid? Will it be paid in time for Christmas so that Canadian farmers can have a Christmas the same as other Canadians?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in this matter. He should realize that both myself and my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, met with 35 or 40 farm leaders just a short time ago. They asked us to do some further calculations on some options involving a combination of seeded acreage, production, and grain values. This is exactly what we are doing. In fact I am meeting this afternoon with my provincial counterparts from across the country. The meeting is on other matters but no doubt we will be discussing this specific issue later this afternoon.


TIMING OF PAYMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, a recent press report says that the Minister is not going to proceed until after he meets with farm groups again and he is not going to meet with them until around February. If the Minister is not prepared to make this payment in time for Christmas, can he say exactly when he plans to make this payment of $1 billion to the grain producers of the country?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what press reports the Hon. Member is referring. I have seen some that are fairly accurate. I have seen others which are extremely inaccurate, and I refer to them in very complimentary terms.
The last time my colleagues and I met with farm leaders we did not see the purpose for a further meeting because we had agreed unanimously on the formula with the exception of two items. One was whether it would be possible for us to build in further factors to relate to regional yields, but they wanted to leave that challenge to us. The second item was the selection of a base year. A third item would be whether or not we-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has gone on sufficiently long. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt for one question.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Falconbridge Nickel Company recently announced that 275 jobs will disappear in Sudbury by the end of this year and another 250
by 1988. The Deputy Prime Minister led a coterie of cabinet Ministers to Sudbury recently. They talked behind closed doors about ways to diversify the economy of northern Ontario. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House what steps the Government will take to diversify the economy of northern Ontario? We want specific steps now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House on many occasions, this is the first time a national Government has treated the region of northern Ontario with attention which reflects its unique characteristics. Under the leadership of the Solicitor General, who is taking a lead role in that particular area and working with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I can assure the Hon. Member that all the problems with respect to unemployment, economic development and new opportunities and meeting those new challenges which exist in northern Ontario will be fulfilled.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board is reported as saying, at the Manitoba Wheat Pool Convention, that there is little likelihood of final payment on wheat sold for the 1985-86 crop year. Since it was the number three and lower grades that were actually sold at a loss, the high protein grades one and two are actually subsidizing these lower grades of wheat.
Would the Minister advise the House whether he believes the producers should actually be entitled to the full amount that was realized on their crop that was sold, and whether he would support setting up a separate pool for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern because it reflects that of many producers who are facing very low grain prices. The final calculations have not yet been done. The Board will not be in a position to make those announcements until some time in the new year. If the Member has concerns, we will certainly be willing to consider them for the next crop year.
November 17, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that I had indicated that I would recognize him for only one question because we were near the end of Question Period. We are all delighted to have the Hon. Member back with us. His enthusiasm is evident. I am sure he will have a chance to ask another question soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today I received an application from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for an emergency debate under Standing Order 29 with respect to the export of certain material to Iran from Canada. 1 indicated that I would consider the application carefully and report to the House at this time, which I am now doing.
There is no question that the matter is important. That has been evidenced by the questions asked today during Question Period. However, having reviewed the terms of Standing Order 29 with relation to the existence of a genuine emergency, I regret to inform the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that I cannot accept his application at this time.
I repeat, as 1 have on occasions of other such applications, that I considered the matter to be serious, and that has been evidenced by the exchange today. I am sure there will be other occasions during the next few days to raise the matter.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the Opposition House Leaders and critics with respect to certain legislation regarding the maintenance of ports operations which was introduced this morning. I know the representative of the Liberal Party would probably be in agreement with the proposal I am about to put forward. There have been discussions with the New Democratic Party as well. I am not sure whether there has been complete concurrence but, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 seek unanimous consent for the following proposal with regard to Bill C-24:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of the House:
Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be called for Second Reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole forthwith upon the passage of this Order;
That Private Members' Business shall not be taken into consideration and that the item scheduled for this day in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport, be rescheduled for Private Members' Hour on Tuesday, November 18, 1986;
Business of the House
That proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 66 shall not be taken into consideration this day; and
That Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House this day until such time as Bill C-24 has been passed through all stages.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that there is not unanimous consent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important piece of legislation. 1 would like to indicate that our Party is willing to proceed to second reading today. I would request the unanimous consent of the House to proceed to second reading today. Our Party would certainly be willing to have this completed by tomorrow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if that is a commitment to pass this piece of legislation through all stages by tomorrow, I assume they are agreeing to proceed through Committee of the Whole. Hopefully it would be completed today or very early tomorrow. It would be preferable to complete it today. Could we be more precise and say tomorrow at the end of the day or at noon? I believe Hon. Members truly recognize the importance of this issue. If we could have that assurance that it would be passed through all stages by noon tomorrow, I believe there could be agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I think many Hon. Members know, the Official Opposition was ready to agree to the Order as originally presented.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We want to make some points about the Bill, which we are ready to make in debate. We realize the importance of the issue. We were and are ready to co-operate to enable the House to take an early decision, assuming there is an appropriate time for debate of the matters set forth in the Bill. In the spirit of co-operation, therefore, we are certainly willing to go along with other approaches to an early disposition of this matter, including the one suggested by the New Democratic Party. As I have said, we were willing to agree with the order originally proposed by the Government House Leader.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party. Every day is very important. I am amazed that the New Democratic Party is not prepared to work overtime on this issue. I regret that very much.

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Mr. Parry:: Stop the propaganda.


John R. Rodriguez: Where were you for the last two weeks?


Michael Morris Cassidy: You could have put this up last week and you know it.


John R. Rodriguez: You did not have the Bill ready this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Chair can assist. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has risen and asked for consent to a motion which was described in detail to the House. There was not unanimous consent. There now seems to be an indication, as evidenced by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), that the members of the New Democratic Party are at least partially prepared to get on with Bill C-24. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has made it very clear that the Official Opposition was prepared to accept the original motion.
Perhaps, in order to expedite the matter, we might put it aside for a few minutes during which the House Leaders can consult and come back to the Chair and the chamber, if that would help to expedite the matter. It is a suggestion that might be acceptable.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to agree to your suggestion. I think we have a real disposition in this Party that we start debate today on second reading. We certainly want to finish it by tomorrow.
It may be wise if the House Leaders have a chance to meet and work out some of the details. It is a very important issue in the country and I think we can work out the details if we can get together for a few minutes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, having regard to those statements and your assistance, perhaps we might agree to proceed with the second reading of Bill C-24, after which we will try to work out that kind of arrangement.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Deputy Prime Minister. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of legislation into Parliament is usually among the more welcome of the tasks that fall to a Minister of the Crown. This should particularly be the case for a relatively new Minister in a relatively new session of the Parliament of Canada. It is, therefore, unfortunate that I find myself introducing the present Bill with certain regret. That regret is occasioned by the Government having to intervene in a labour dispute in order to achieve something which the Parties normally are expected to do and should be able to do themselves. I refer, of course, to the termination of their work stoppage and the resolution of their differences.
My reluctance to intervene in this dispute should not be confused, however, with a hesitation to assume my responsibilities and take decisive action in the broader public interest. Therefore, I recommend the present Bill, the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986, to the House and urge its expeditious passage.

The Canada Labour Code provides a framework for the conduct of collective bargaining in federal industries. For the most part, those industries are essentially of public interest involving key transportation and communications activities that are vital to the economy of our country and the well-being of its citizens. The thrust of the Canada Labour Code places the prime responsibility for bargaining and resolving disputes on the parties themselves. However, it is recognized that they may require help in what may at times prove to be a complex task.
The Code, therefore, provides for conciliation and mediation procedures which may be invoked to assist the parties in reaching their ultimate goal of concluding or renewing a collective agreement.

It is only as a very last resort that governments should intervene in the collective bargaining process, and such interventions should be minimal if we are to maintain respect for the law and the institutions of Parliament. In the present case, we have unfortunately reached a last resort stage. The parties failed in their efforts to resolve the dispute in direct negotiations between themselves, and subsequently failed to take full advantage of the range of expert conciliation that was extended to them. Following a breakdown in the negotiations in early October, the employer exercised its admittedly legal right to impose a lock-out which was lifted after three days in an effort to promote further bargaining. On October 29, I appointed two mediators to assist in the negotiations. On November 14, I met personally with the two bargaining committees and appealed to them to resolve this dispute through negotiation. Nevertheless, the parties remained unable to resolve their differences.
The inability of the parties to resolve their dispute, indeed their wilful abdication of their responsibility to one another and to the Canadian public, has forced the Government to bring about a conclusion to a work stoppage which the
November 17, 1986

economy of this country can little stand to bear. The recently concluded work stoppage at Thunder Bay delayed grain exports, and the Government is not prepared to stand idly by and see the livelihood of Canada's grain producers placed in further jeopardy by a lengthy work stoppage at West Coast ports. In addition to the damage which a lengthy work stoppage would cause to Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter of grain, the business community and its employees dependent upon water transportation for shipment of their goods and resources, are also subject to undue hardship as a result of this work stoppage. We are once again faced with a situation in which the parties to a dispute are able to inflict more punishment on others than on themselves.
Before providing Hon. Members with the details of this particular labour dispute, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Government remains totally committed to the process of free collective bargaining and holds the belief that the common well-being can best be encouraged through the constructive settlement of disputes through meaningful negotiations.

Part V of the Canada Labour Code establishes a framework of rights and responsibilities within which management and organized labour are to conduct their relations. That framework places the responsibility for resolving labour-management disputes clearly on the parties to collective bargaining. The Labour Code provides for a complete range of third-party assistance to labour and management to aid them in resolving their differences through the bargaining process.

Unfortunately, there are rare situations where bargaining fails and the Government, as defender of the public interest and caretaker of the economy, must intervene to prevent irreparable damage. This is the situation we face today in the dispute involving the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Canadian Area.
The current labour dispute between the B.C. Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union centres around negotiations for renewal of the collective agreement which expired on December 31, 1985. The agreement, covering some 2,250 regular longshoremen and 2,000 casual longshoremen, was the subject of direct bargaining between the parties from October 4 to December 2, 1985. Following the breakdown of direct negotiations between the parties, the union filed a notice of dispute and requested that the conciliation proceedings of the Canada Labour Code be waived. In view of the dismal record which characterizes labour negotiations between these parties, the Minister of Labour decided it would be inappropriate to waive concilation efforts and thus appointed a conciliation officer from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada on December 20, 1985, to assist the parties in resolving their differences.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
During the month of January, 1986, the parties continued to meet in direct negotations. Conciliation meetings between the concilation officer and the parties began on February 3, 1986, and continued on various dates during the following two-month period before the parties again met in direct negotiations for two days in early April. Talks were subsequently adjourned to accommodate the union's annual convention and election of officers during the second week of April. The incumbent, Mr. Dave Lomas, was replaced by Mr. Don Garcia as President for the Canadian area of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Mr. Garcia immediately requested that the conciliation officer file his report and that no further third-party assistance be provided. Once again, in light of the difficulties which have typified past negotiations between these two parties, the Minister determined that further conciliation assistance would be appropriate and appointed a conciliation commissioner.
Mr. Dalton Larson was appointed on May 30, 1986, following which meetings with the two sides took place on five separate occasions during the month of June. Following the hearings, Mr. Larson advised the parties by letter dated July 18, 1986, that he would require submissions from them in support of the positions that each had taken during the conciliation proceedings. The parties were requested to submit any data, statistics and historical background information which would provide the Conciliation Commissioner with additional insight into their respective positions on the various contract items in dispute. Following receipt of the parties' submissions, Commissioner Larson afforded each party an opportunity to rebut the arguments put forward by the other.

Following a comprehensive review of the parties' respective positions, Mr. Larson wrote and filed his final report with me. The report of the conciliation commissioner was subsequently released to the parties on September 8, 1986, and further direct bargaining took place on September 25 and October 3.

On October 6, 1986, the BCMEA instituted a lock-out of the workforce. In response to a telegram which I sent them seeking a resumption of grain shipments, the BCMEA agreed to lift a lock-out for a 30-day period during which time the parties were to continue in their efforts to resolve their differences. Longshoring operations resumed on October 8 and the negotiations reconvened on October 15.
Following the failure of these negotiations, I appointed two mediators on October 29. They immediately convened meetings aimed at resolving the impasse. These negotiations also failed and on November 14 I met personally with the parties in a further effort to convince them to settle their differences through collective bargaining. As Hon. Members are aware, the dispute is continuing despite all our efforts to promote a negotiated settlement.

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
In order to provide Hon. Members with some perspectives on this dispute it may be instructive if I briefly recount the findings of the Conciliation Commissioner who dealt with this dispute, Mr. Dalton Larson. In his report, Mr. Larson made recommendations dealing with all of the contentious issues, including wages, container handling, bulk terminal operations, pensions, hours of work and automation protection. Conciliation Commissioner Larson recommended a three-year agreement effective January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1988, with a wage freeze in the first year, a 2 per cent increase on the base rate in the second year, and a 3 per cent increase on the base rate in the third year of the agreement.
By far the most contentious issue, and the one which the Commissioner labelled "a singular impediment to the successful conclusion of the new collective agreement", is the container handling clause, article 26.05 of the collective agreement. This clause, which provides the union with jurisdiction over the stuffing and destuffing of consolidated cargo containers which are destined for or come from any point within the Vancouver local area or the Prince Rupert port area, places the Port of Vancouver at a competitive disadvantage with major United States ports such as Seattle and Tacoma.
The BCMEA feels that the removal of the limitations represented by the container clause would sharply increase the amount of container traffic and thus the amount of skilled work available to the union. This view is shared by the Vancouver Port Authority, the Vancouver Board of Trade and a number of shipping lines. From its point of view, the ILWU views the employer's claim with scepticism and is concerned that if the forecast of increased traffic predicted by the BCMEA is wrong the union will have surrendered jurisdiction over a substantial part of its present work with little hope of winning it back.
I think it would be worthwhile at this point to briefly review the situation pertaining to the container clause since its inclusion in the collective agreement in 1970. While the clause was negotiated into the collective agreement with the expectation that it would maximize work opportunities for longshoremen, it has actually proven to have had the reverse effect. With the advent of the container handling clause in the collective agreement, shippers began to move their containers through Seattle and other west coast ports and then truck them to Vancouver to avoid the effect of the clause. While the amount of container traffic to the Port of Vancouver has increased marginally over the past decade, it has lagged considerably behind the increase in the amount of Canadian container cargo handled via the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Reliable sources have estimated that as many as 80,000 containers shipped through American west coast ports each year are destined for Canada.
The container clause has been the subject of a number of reports and studies by various interest groups. In 1982, a committee of two, one representing the BCMEA and the other
representing the ILWU, was appointed to make recommendations concerning the container clause. The report of that committee, co-authored by the current ILWU Canadian Area President, Mr. Don Garcia, recommended a one-year moratorium on the container clause with a monitoring of the related effects on container traffic through the Port of Vancouver and employment opportunities for longshoremen in the Port of Vancouver. That recommendation was subsequently rejected by the ILWU caucus.
During 1985 a larger committee was appointed by the parties to review the container handling issue and attempt to measure the amount of container work being done by longshoremen. Meetings were held from time to time from March to October of 1985 and options regarding the form of employment safeguards which would be required to replace the current provisions were explored.
In his recommendations for resolving the current labour dispute between the parties Mr. Larson recommended that the container clause be eliminated, on the condition that the BCMEA guarantee that the number of hours available to be worked on the containers in any year be fixed at 725,000. In the event that the hours fall below that number, the BCMEA would be required to pay any shortfall at straight time rates to trustees for the benefit of active members of the ILWU to compensate for actual work opportunities lost. The Commissioner also suggested that the guarantee should continue indefinitely until the employer is able to convince the union that there is no longer a need for it.
In other areas, the Commissioner has recommended the extension of the mechanization and modernization supplementary pension agreement to all union members without restriction as to when they joined the union, an increase in the employer contribution to the welfare plan, and increased flexibility in the deployment of dock gantry crane drivers as part of the regular workforce. Commissioner Larson recommended against the employer's demand for a comprehensive new system for bulk terminal operations and instead proposed a revision of work rules to allow for holding over a crew to the next shift to complete unloading procedures at overtime rates.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before Hon. Members today, namely the Maintenance of ports operations Act, 1986, orders the immediate resumption of longshoring and related operations in the West Coast ports. The longshoremen will return to work under the terms set forth in the report of the conciliation commissioner, Dalton L. Larson, with the sole exception of matters related to container handling.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides that, if the parties to the collective agreement are unable to agree on the interpretation or incorporation of any of the conciliation commissioner's recommendations regarding the collective agreement, a referee may be appointed to interpret the amendment for the purpose of incorporating it in the agreement and/or to determine the

November 17, 1986
manner in which the amendment should be expressed in contractual language. Because of the critical importance of the container clause to both parties, an industrial inquiry commission will be appointed to make a final and binding determination after conducting a comprehensive investigation of the issue.

As I indicated earlier, I take no pleasure in bringing this Bill before the House today. However, one need only look at the dismal record of labour relations between the BCMEA and the ILWU over the last 16 years to realize that the parties themselves must shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves today.
The record speaks for itself. With the exception of two one-year agreements signed during the period of the anti-inflation program in the mid 1970s, and one round of bargaining which saw wage re-opener negotiations for 1984 result in an extension to the contract through 1985, the parties have engaged in work-stoppage action in every round of collective bargaining since 1970. On three previous occasions, legislation has been required to end work stoppages.
No collective agreement imposed by a third party will ever effectively substitute for a collective agreement which has been negotiated by the parties themselves. However, in this case, I feel that the report of conciliation Commissioner Dalton Larson strikes a reasonable compromise in the dispute between the BCMEA and the ILWU, and for this reason his recommendations will form the basis of the new collective agreement between the parties.
Nonetheless, in recognition of the fact that the container clause has been a matter of contention for at least a dozen years, we are prepared to undertake a comprehensive study of the container issue analysing every aspect of the problem including the effects on the competitive position of the ports. Within a short time, I will appoint an industrial inquiry commission to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the container issue, and its findings will constitute a binding resolution of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, failure of the parties to agree is no reason by itself for intervention by Government or Parliament in a labour dispute.
If we were faced with an industrial activity for which there were reasonable alternatives, or in which the parties only inflicted harm on one another, the obvious course would be to let the work stoppage continue until they decided to come to their senses.
However, that is not the nature of the industry in the present case. The West Coast ports are crucial to the economy of this country. Their importance to the ability of Western Canada's grain producers to get their crops to domestic and world markets is unquestionable.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986

A protracted work stoppage on the West Coast which further damages Canada's international reputation as a reliable exporter cannot be tolerated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: A final resolution of the container issue is imperative. The provisions of the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986 address these two key issues.
In conclusion, let me summarize. This dispute has dragged on too long and the work stoppage is causing far too much harm to other sectors of the economy. The parties refuse to resolve their differences. Parliament, therefore, is required to act and to fulfil the responsibilities which the parties have abdicated.
The recent Speech from the Throne dealt with the need for a more caring society. It is not just Government that has to care. In this case, the parties have cared little for the impact that their differences are having on significant segments of society. The personal regret I feel over the events which have led to the requirement for parliamentary intervention, regret which I know is shared by many Hon. Members, does not weaken my resolve to protect the public interest from the intransigence of the parties to a private dispute. I therefore urge Hon. Members to give speedy passage to the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the Minister for giving us such a complete rendition of the reasons for this Bill, considering his late-night flights to and from the West Coast. As our House Leader said earlier this afternoon, we are in favour of this Bill. We recognize its necessity, particularly because of the circumstances faced by western farmers who are continuing to fight for international markets and who need the sense of security provided by customers around the world. There must be no hinderance or any form of delay or impediment to the marketing of those products.
I want to emphasize that our approval of the Bill is limited to this specific circumstance. I would not want it to be construed by anyone that we are in any way adopting or accepting the principle that Parliament should be called into session each time the collective bargaining process breaks down or whenever there is a sudden emergency. We feel that one of the great mainstays of our economy has been the collective bargaining procedure. I mention that only because if one were to study the history of the position taken by successive representives of the Progressive Conservative Party on this question, one would find that there tends to be an overweening and sometimes overbearing demand or insistence on some kind of third-party tribunal that will in all circumstances arbitrate or judge upon labour-management conflicts in which there is a service component.

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the Conservative spokesperson during the debate on the West Coast Ports Operations, 1982 Act. At that time the Hon. Member for Rosedale was making the case on behalf of his Party. In order to come to grips with the solution at the time of the stoppage of work on the West Coast in 1982, he was critical of the then Government of the day for not having a full-time tribunal.
If I may be somewhat bolder, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the debate in 1978 on the Shipping Continuation Act. At that time you, Sir, were a spokesperson for the Conservative Party on such matters and you said that a permanent mechanism such as an essential services disputes commission should be put forward as a way of coming to grips with these issues.
I could repeat several other of your statements, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you know them better than I, and there is no point in taking up the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite sure that the Hon. Member can repeat many of my assertions. I wish to assure the Hon. Member, and all other Hon. Members, that even if he does, I will not be tempted to rise in debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: You have relieved my anxiety greatly on that point.
I am simply pointing out by reviewing the historical record that there has been a consistent pattern, a presentation on the part of members of the Conservative Party that they wish to see a form of permanent council or tribunal established which would take away the adjudication of these disputes from the collective bargaining process.
I wish to make it clear that we do not see our support of the Minister's Bill in any way endorsing or adopting that philosophy. We see it as a very specific circumstance caused by extremely difficult problems faced by western producers that a work stoppage would aggravate to an unacceptable degree. Therefore, we recognize the necessity of Parliament to act at this point in time. However, I take some issue with certain parts of the Bill. There will be further opportunity when we get to committee to move amendments in this area.
As a second part of the Bill, the Minister has included the implementation of an inquiry under Section 7(2) of the industrial inquiries legislation to look specifically at the container clause. We know that this has been a matter of long standing. The Minister himself said that attempts have been made to find a resolution of this issue for some 16 years. We recognize that it is part of that much larger continuing set of problems and difficulties in labour-management relations. When conditions of work change and new technology or new equipment is introduced, obviously fears of job security are raised, and working people are faced with major problems in coming to grips with these issues. We recognize full well that we cannot stand in the way of change, if we are going to be a
competitive society and maintain our productivity and our ability to assure international markets.
The world of port development is one which is highly competitive. I can recall, from my experience as a former Minister of Transport, how important it was to be constantly upgrading and modernizing our approach to port development, because there was so much other competition in both the eastern and western seaboards.
I am afraid that in some ways the net has been cast too small. By concentrating exclusively on the question of the container clause, it tends to put in the background a number of other equally crucial matters relating to the productivity and the competitiveness of the Vancouver port. There could be a built-in bias to the way in which this industrial inquiry has been tailored against the labour side of the equation. We know that labour itself feels that the removal of the container protection clause would cause a major job loss.
I am sure the Minister has the various presentations and proposals in which it is argued quite strenuously that there are a number of other significant factors related to the port that also have to do with efficiency, productivity, and competition. But these are not specifically under the purview of the inquiry. I recognize that the Commissioner may consider them. But when it comes to the recommendations, the recommendation will be for the container clause. It may not be recommendations related to job security, or recommendations related to improvements in the port facilities, or recommendations related to substantial improvement that is required in the railway organization and administration moving into the port; it may not be recommendations related to the marketing questions. So there are a number of related matters of equal, crucial concern to the operation of the port that, as I read the Bill and listen to the Minister, tend to get excluded and pushed aside. Therefore, there might be a bias creeping in by the terms that the Commissioner is using to focus exclusively on the container clause, and not having the power or the purview to make recommendations in a much broader vein.
If the Minister is going to use this legislation as the lever to find a solution finally to the problems facing the Vancouver port, then it would have to be a broader definition than is included in the Bill. It may very well be that the proper way of doing that would be in parallel to the establishment of the inquiry commission, and to have a special ports committee working with the Vancouver port and Ports Canada that would look at the parallel concurrent problems relating to the port in terms of capital financing, improvement of marketing, job security, and the rest. If not, I would suggest quite strenuously-and I thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) for appearing in the Chamber to listen to these words of wisdom- that in committee it may be that the Minister will take some time to consider whether the terms as included in the Bill might be broadened in the inquiry itself.


James Francis Kelleher: I won't tell you that it is House duty.


Lloyd Axworthy: He sure knows how to hurt a guy.
November 17, 1986

Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, in order for us to give assurances to both parties to the dispute that Parliament is acting in the total interest of both parties, and in fact in the total interest of the port community and of the shipping community, we need to broaden, elaborate, and redefine the focus of the parliamentary action that is being proposed, and that action will subsequently follow.
Finally, I wish to say to the Minister that I hope that we have in front of us another case example of how the Government can no longer delay coming to grips with the fundamental issue of technology change and its effects upon labour in this country.
If I may make one small digression. Members of this Party have argued in a different context for the need to deal with the question of labour adjustment, particularly in relation to the matter of trade. We see in front of us a potential for serious dislocations occurring on a number of fronts. The actions taken by the Government in substantially reducing the employment strategies and the national trading Act and other instruments have severely reduced its capacity to respond to the technology change in the labour market. We do not have the same tools that we had two years ago to respond to those issues. The Government has retreated substantially from coming to grips with the fundamental problem that, as we go through a number of changes in our economy, too often it is workers who become the victims of those changes. For the sake of argument for productivity, competition, and greater levels of efficiency, we tend to forget that there are a number of human lives at stake, a number of jobs at stake, a number of very real issues at the individual level which must be faced.
I would say to the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that as a relatively new Minister he has an opportunity, in fact, an obligation, to bring forward in this House a much broader plan of action, a much broader blueprint, so that not only Members of Parliament but the wider economy can see what signals are being sent by the Government as to what it intends to do about these very crucial issues.
We can no longer simply leave it to management and labour. If we as a Parliament in this case are being drawn in to provide a solution to the problem, it would seem that we have an equal obligation and responsibility to begin giving a broader set of guidelines and blueprints on how we want to come to grips with the issue and how we can assist along the way.
We would support the Bill primarily and fundamentally because of the situation faced by western farmers. We are prepared to work with dispatch. However, when the matter goes to committee, we hope the Minister will have had time to take under advisement some of our recommendations at second reading. We could discuss some of the particulars at that time and perhaps even improve upon the initiative which the Minister has taken.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister and the spokesman for the Liberal Party, none of us in the New Democratic Party take any pleasure in dealing with legislation which inserts a third party into settling a disagreement between two parties who should be bargaining collectively and reaching an agreement.
In principle, my Party is philosophically opposed to this type of thing. However, in reality, all parties including mine at the provincial level have resorted to legislative intervention on more than one occasion in a dispute which severely affected the provincial or national larger public interest. We in the New Democratic Party pride ourselves on being in the forefront of support for the right to belong to a union, the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, and the right to strike when that breaks down. That is part of the history and foundation of the New Democratic Party. I might also add that it was part of the history and foundation of our forerunners, namely, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. That Federation was comprised of farm organizations, the trade union movement, the academic community, and people from other walks of life. However, these three were the main founders. I might add to it the religious community, thinking of J. S. Woodsworth. The reconciling of the interests of those communities was no small task. Our Party knows that as well if not better than any other Party in the country, as a result of some experiences both bad and good.
We recognize that the lock-out is severely harming not only grain producers of Alberta, the Peace River country, and the western half of Saskatchewan, but also potash production and sulphur and lumber exports. I take issue with the Minister and many others who seem to forget that this is not a strike. The International Longshoremen's Union has repeatedly said publicly, privately, in writing and verbally, that it would keep working. This is not a strike; this is an employer lock-out. A consortium of companies has chosen to stop the operations in the Port of Vancouver, just as it did a few months ago at Thunder Bay.
However, whether it is the media, comments in the House or in other places, they are always put in the context of a work stoppage, in the context of labour unions, and in the context of strikes. I have been here along with Your Honour since 1968. There are only 11 of us left out of 96, which tells us something about the mortality rate around here. 1 have been through this type of thing six or eight times, in terms of back to work legislation involving longshoremen on at least one previous occasion, air traffic controllers, the Post Office, St. Lawrence Seaway pilots, railroaders, and grain handlers twice. Yet this is the first and only experience since 1968 where it is government and parliamentary intervention to make employers unlock the doors of their premises.
Possibly this would cause my colleagues on the government side and in the Official Opposition to say that this legislation should make members of the NDP jubilant and that we would rush to support it because it is against the employers, the bosses.

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
I must confess that initially that was my reaction, that for a change the real culprit was to get it in the neck. Initially, I suppose as a committed democratic socialist, those were my thoughts about the Bill. However, when I looked with some measure of responsibility at its over-all effects and whatnot, I was not in such a rush-and I do not think my colleagues are-to support the legislation even though it would end an employer strike.
There are some serious ramifications in the legislation, both omissions and commissions, affecting the workforce. I am not only referring to longshoremen, but there are some serious ramifications for workers in other fields, particularly in ports and generally in transportation. We cannot ignore that, as much as I relish the idea of kicking the B.C. employers' associations in the backside.
The Minister mentioned what happened at Thunder Bay, and quite properly so. I want to remind the House that the grain handlers union in that instance knew very well, as all unions do, that you need to have not only a majority of support of your own membership but you must have some measure of public support, or at least sympathy, for your case in order to help you win it. The grain handlers union knew that if it shut down the entire Port of Thunder Bay it would lose whatever public support or sympathy available to it, particularly from northern Ontario west. The union, after 18 months without a contract-you could hardly say they were not patient-struck the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Before, during and since the debate to get rid of the statutory Crowsnest pass grain rates, all of the grain companies have talked to us about the beauties and blessings of competition, that you need to have competition. The co-operative grain companies said that, the private grain companies said that, so did the wheat pools, the UGG and so on. All have maintained that you need to have competition.
One would have thought that when the grain handlers struck the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminal in Thunder Bay, the other grain companies would say: "Oh, goody, goody. Now we get a chance competitively and because of this stupidity to get some of their business away from them." That did not happen. Competition went out of the window. All of the other grain companies locked the doors of their terminals and locked out the grain handlers. In other words, the other employers, and I think of the UGG, the Manitoba Pool, Pioneer Grain and Otto Lang, the Cargill Grain Company, said: "We are not going to allow our members and owners-in the case of the cooperative elevator companies-and we are not going to allow our customers-in the case of the private grain companies-to deliver any grain". So the entire Port of Thunder Bay ground to a halt. I hope that members and shareholders of the United Grain Growers, the Manitoba Wheat Pool and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool during the course of the next few weeks will ask some very searching and probably embarrassing questions of their management and boards of directors. I do not know how they can get at the private companies. I do not think they
can, but at least they can bawl them out and perhaps quit delivering grain to them once in a while. I might say that, in spite of alarmist press reports I have yet to see any evidence of any specific grain sale loss.


Mr. St. Germain:: Good.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In fact, as has occurred in other years, you end up in a catch-up situation and all our contracts will be met. We have not lost any sales, but we may have lost some revenue from sales over the period of that strike. It will, however, all be regained. The problem is that, as a result of the war with the United States and the European Economic Community, there will be a revenue loss, but not a loss in the volume of grain sales. In fact, there will probably be an increase in the volume of grain movement through Thunder Bay.
The next thing we know is that we have a mess at Vancouver. In many respects that port has been in a mess in many ways for many years. There is nothing new about it. Not only the longshoremen's but several other unions have been pleading and begging the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Port Authority and the federal Government to do a whole number of things to make that port bigger, better and more competitive, and to increase business and increase employment, all of which pleading has been ignored on the grounds of restraint, budget deficits and plain mismanagement from Vancouver to Ottawa. When an impasse is reached between the longshoremen and the Maritime Employers Association, the centrepiece of the impasse and disagreement will be the container clause. That is the one on which neither side cannot, will not and have not for yea these many years reached agreement. All other items get shunted off to the side even though they have been negotiated, agreement reached on a few with disagreement on others. Obviously they could arrive at a contract settlement, I suspect, within 48 hours if that darn container clause 2605 were not in the piece.
I have a personal feeling, and I do not know if it is held by others in my caucus or anywhere else, that both sides want us to settle that issue for them, even though both sides ain't going to like it. Since they cannot and will not reach agreement, I appreciate that the Minister really has not a heck of a lot of choice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister has to settle. We have to settle the issue for them. Warning was served on both sides to settle or Parliament will do it for them. This causes me to suspect that both sides decided not to settle because they knew they would never reach agreement for another 100 years. Having said that, the Minister includes in his legislation a whole lot of other items on which if they do not reach agreement either he, his Commissioner or his referee will settle. I know he gives them until the end of 1988, a period of two years. But it is not free collective bargaining when a gun is pointed at your head and you hear: "You guys reach agreement on every clause,
November 17, 1986

everything in the Larson Report except the container clause or my referee will do it for you". Why should either party bother sitting down to negotiate all these other things when each one of them knows that all it has to do is to continue to disagree and the Minister will see to it that the issue is settled for them? I would think that the Minister should put in his Bill that this gun will not apply until after December 31, 1988 and only in those areas on which disagreement remains.
As a long-time member of the co-operative and credit union movement and a supporter, having been on boards of directors, credit committees and whatnot for many years, I regret having to say this but I always think that good friends if they cannot talk frankly to one another are not very good friends. I want to say frankly, as I have said to my friends in the wheat pool, what I think they did wrong in the case of the lock-out in Vancouver. The issue is the container clause.
1 do not know of any potash or sulphur that gets shipped in containers. I have never heard of it. Maybe the odd time someone fills a container with it, but I would be damned surprised. I do not know of any logs or dimension lumber that goes into containers. I have never heard of it. 1 am told that some specialty manufactured and processed lumber products in small quantities have been loaded in containers. They might possibly number a few hundred out of tens of thousands a year.
I do not know of any grain which is put in containers. I understand that, say, a 500-bushel lot of specialized crop seed can be put in a container. That might happen a few dozen times out of tens of thousands of container movements in the course of a year. Therefore, I fail to understand why the grain companies, the potash companies, the sulphur companies and the lumber companies were party to shutting down the entire Port of Vancouver. Each of those four groups handling heavy bulk commodities should have said, and can still say, for now and for the future, that they are not going to be party to the collective agreement regarding containers; they are not bound by the employers' association when it comes to a lock-out over containers.
What happened? Here are the grain producers of Alberta, the Peace River country of British Columbia, and the western half of Saskatchewan, members and shareholders of the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the United Grain Growers, who have been told by their management and board of directors that they cannot deliver grain to their own terminals. Yet the dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the handling of grain. The same thing applies to the shipment of potash, sulphur, lumber and logs.
Another thing is that out of roughly 3,500 longshoremen, some full-time, part-time or casual, only about 100, as I understand it, are involved with ships handling grain, potash and sulphur. You need only about three or four men for about 12, 18 or maybe 24 hours in order to handle a grain ship. The overwhelming majority of longshoremen are involved in what is called general merchandise shipping. Whether it be a
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
freighter with a hold full of cars and trucks, containers, or bags of potato chips, it is general cargo which requires many more longshoremen. It has not been the longshoremen in Vancouver or Prince Rupert, or the grain handlers in Thunder Bay, who prevented western grain producers from shipping their grain. In Vancouver it was the companies who are owned and supposedly controlled by the producers who locked out those producers, not just the longshoremen. That needs to be said, and I hope the producers ask questions of the management and boards of directors of the companies which they have spent their lives building and which they own.
As well, I wish that the Minister and everyone else in this House, if nowhere else in the country, would stop calling it a work stoppage because that is not what it is. I repeat, it is not a work stoppage.
I want to say to the Minister that he and the referees he appoints had best take into account the concerns of the longshoremen on at least two or three items in the Larson Report. One of them, of course, is pensions. All Members of this House are aware of the volume of correspondence we get on pensions. Some of my colleagues and I have spent months and months on the CNR pension plan. There are several hundred plans which should be dealt with. This is not a matter of employment, this is a matter of how well you survive upon retirement because then you have no union to fight for you. You have no employer to be magnanimous. You are on your own. Therefore, anything dealing with their pensions will be fought for to the death. Indeed, I hope not, but maybe even to the point of disobeying the law.


Gerry St. Germain: Oh, now, now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said I hope not. I will try to help persuade people not to break the law, but you can only drive people so far. That has been proven so many, many times in our country's history, as well as that of many other countries. If pushed too far, people will rebel, even if it means breaking the law. Therefore, I urge the Minister to make sure he is a close adviser to the referee he appoints in order to avoid a lot more serious trouble further down the road.
The Larson Report also includes a provision for a 12-hour day. Here we are in Parliament and in Government frantically trying to get more jobs created and reduce unemployment, and this report recommends a 12-hour day in certain circumstances. That is incredible. It comes right out of the 1890s, right up to the 1920s. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, again, he had better closely advise his referee on that issue.
I hope the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, or some other member of the Government, will have second thoughts and want to make some changes to the legislation. There is one thing in the Bill, for example, which is very unfair, one-sided and biased. It is a clause which will likely never have to be used, but since we are talking about the principle of the Bill, this clause is a terrible principle. I refer to Clause 13(2) under Offences. It provides for a daily fine for officers and representatives of the union, and officers and representatives of the

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
company. It refers to the employers' association, but I am not sure if it means the individual members of the employers' association. I ask the Minister to look at that question. As he knows, there is a list in the schedule of 30 or 40 employers who are members of that association. Can one of them, on their own, abrogate or disobey the provisions of this Act? Are they covered as an individual employer or an officer or representative of the individual company? Are they covered, or is it only the officer or representative of the entire employers' association?
Under Clause 13(2) there is provision that
No officer or representative of a union who is convicted of an offence under this Act that was committed while the officer or representative was acting in that capacity shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union at any time during the five years immediately after the date of the conviction.
What about the company officers? Will the Minister move an amendment that no officer or representative acting on behalf of the Maritime Employers' Association, or any member company thereof, who is convicted may serve in that capacity as an officer, member of the board of directors or representative of that company for the five years after this Act comes into force?
When Parliament has to intervene, however reluctantly, in this kind of situation, it must not only be seen to be but must actually be even-handed. What is sauce for that particular goose is also sauce for that gander. It would only take the Minister a few minutes to add a paragraph to that clause which covers officers, representatives, directors, et cetera, of all the companies which are members of the British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association as well as the association itself.
There is a lesson the Government should learn from this experience. The previous Government did not learn it, or if it did it did nothing about it. There is a requirement for a total look at the operation of our ports on the West Coast. I know the Minister will want his commission of inquiry to study other aspects of the Port of Vancouver and other ports on the West Coast. It should study their competitiveness, how well they are equipped, et cetera. The International Longshoremen's Union has done a thorough analysis, particularly of the Port of Vancouver and other Fraser River ports, of their competitiveness, capacity and ability to compete and attract business. They have studied Tacoma and Seattle as well.
There is a lot of what I would call "chamber of commerce hype" being peddled about saying that if we got rid of the container clause Vancouver could handle 80,000 more containers a year. To put it politely, that is hogwash. In 1986, the Port of Vancouver handled 66,000 inbound containers and 83,000 outbound containers. All year long ships have to wait for a crane in order to load or unload containers. We require at least three more cranes at two of the terminals in order to handle the containers we are now getting. If we were to achieve this nirvana of a no-container clause and 80,000 more
containers were to arrive at Vancouver during the next year, I do not know how they would be handled, unless the maritime employers are going to carry them on their backs. There is no way. They need acres and acres more for storage space container traffic, general merchandise and bulk commodities; potash and sulfur in particular. We need at least three large capacity cranes now and three more over the next two or three years. We need that with or without a container clause in the collective agreement.
To lay the blame for the difficulties of the Port of Vancouver on the container clause and the longshoremen is not only misleading, but misrepresenting the requirements of and the situation in Vancouver. There is a perfectly good reason why Seattle and Tacoma are doing so well. It is not just a container clause. It is their new and modern facilities. We are wringing our hands about being competitive and saying that it is all the fault of the container clause. That is really stretching it, Mr. Speaker.
We will not be able to handle any increased traffic in the Port of Vancouver without a massive investment in enlarged and modernized facilities, automated equipment, etc. The union recognizes that because it means job security for them and more jobs eventually as well as the welfare and good order of their employees, the Port of Vancouver, the whole Province of British Columbia and the entire country.
I have research here to which we must pay attention. I believe it will be circulated to all Members. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and others will proceed to kick the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) around and get some activity on the things which need to be done in order to keep the West Coast ports competitive and able to attract and properly and efficiently handle increased traffic. Although containers are being held up as causing all the problems, that is not the case.
In fact, of 176,000 containers handled in 1985, 16.5 per cent of those inbound were subject to unpacking. Two point seven per cent of the outbound containers were subject to packing. In 1986, 12.6 per cent of 66,000 containers were subject to mandatory unpacking under the collective agreement. Of 83,000 outbound containers, 2.1 per cent were subject to mandatory packing. It is not true that the container clause is the major impediment to increased capacity and handling for container traffic. The best one can say for anyone who claims that is that they are badly misinformed. Let us not get ourselves distracted from the real issues, about how we make our West Coast ports better.
In conclusion, we want time to think about this tonight. We may or may not have some amendments, and I say to the Minister honestly that we hope he will have some forethought and accept some amendments which we may be contemplating. I assure him that we will notify him and the Official Opposition of any amendments we may have so that we may consult, reach an agreement on what is acceptable and deal with the
November 17, 1986

Bill very quickly The interests of the New Democratic Party are like those of all other Members of the House. We want to get the best possible and most acceptable legislation, even though it is legislation that none of us want to impose.
I believe we will have legislation by six o'clock tomorrow that may not make everyone happy, but as the Minister warned the employers and employees, if they force Parliament to do it there will be measures that neither one will like. That is exactly what is happening, and I close by asking Members to keep in mind that this is not a strike or a work stoppage, and that we are here to pass the best possible legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order, I must make this announcement.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Environmental Affairs-Use of low sulphur coal; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Regional Development-(a) Future of Winnipeg rail shops (b) Aerospace industry inquiry; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Immigration-(a) Awarding of ministerial special entry permit (b) Request that Minister revoke decision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) may have unintentionally misled the House in two portions of his speech. I believe it is inadvertent, but when he spoke in terms of parties arriving at an agreement, he went on clause by clause-


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


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: It is a point of order.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, it is a point of debate. I see that the Hon. Member is on the list. I am sure he can bring that to the attention of the House. Debate.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) referred Hon. Members to the fact that the West Coast dock dispute has brought about an unfortunate situation in the West Coast ports in that today they are not in operation. I submit that this has to be acknowledged by all Members of the House as being a primary consideration in giving quick passage to the Bill before us, Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations.
The dispute between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union represents a serious source of harm to a large number of people not directly involved in the dispute, and especially to Canada's grain farmers located in the prairie region. It is for that very reason that everyone must have a serious regard for the difficulties this dispute could cause to innocent parties who have no say in its resolution, if it were to continue. Decisive action is required to ensure that the sectors of the economy that depend on the port, including the grain economy, are allowed to function to their fullest capability.
The ports involved in this question are in British Columbia. I am a Member from British Columbia and do not only speak as a Member from that area, but as one who grew up in southern Saskatchewan on a mixed farm in a farming community. I can relate the concerns that must be expressed and have been shown by Members from all Parties who come from the Prairies.
Canada's grain producers have faced considerable uncertainty in the past few years as the result of developments in international competition among grain exporting countries that have sought to expand their markets for their domestic grain production. Despite this intensified level of international competition, Canada's grain exports in the 1985-86 crop year increased by some 1.2 million tonnes, or approximately 5 per cent, compared to the previous crop year.
In the 1985-86 crop year, our prairie grain farmers began to rebound from the effects of a severe drought in the previous year which greatly reduced the total crop. In that same year, 1984-85, we began to see the effects of greatly expanded production in other grain-growing regions of the world, especially in the United States and the European Economic Community. This contributed to a growing world surplus which drove down international grain prices and intensified the degree of competition among major grain exporting countries.
As we all know, the degree of international competition has continued to heighten over the past year, with grain exporting countries seeking to expand their share of the world market. These are the circumstances in which Canada has to compete to market the produce of our prairie grain farmers, and these

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
are some of the market realities we must keep in mind as we consider the necessity of the Bill before us.
The West Coast ports exported approximately 12.2 million tonnes of grain in the 1985-86 crop year. The volume of grain which passed through the ports in this period represents a significant improvement of approximately 15 per cent over the volume exported from the West Coast in the previous crop year. While the level of grain exports in 1985-86 was below the previous record for the West Coast of 12.5 million tonnes reached in 1983-84, it was only marginally lower, and this gives us an indication of the solid performance in the industry in the past year. It should also be noted that grain exports from the West Coast have more than doubled the levels of only a decade ago. This gives us an indication of the progress that has been made over the years in expanding our capacity to handle the continuing growth in grain production.
I should also mention the significant role of the new, highly automated terminal grain elevator facilities at Prince Rupert, and especially the fact that almost a quarter of the increase in West Coast grain exports in the past year has been derived from the increased throughput of the new facilities at Prince Rupert. I might also add that as a member of the Transport Committee 1 was privileged to see that terminal firsthand. It was built by a consortium of grain-handling companies from the Prairies, including Cargill, the United Grain Growers, Pioneer Grain, and the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta Wheat Pools which, along with the Province of Alberta, formed a consortium and provided the ownership of that world class facility.
The significance of the West Coast ports to the ability of western Canada's grain producers to ship their crops to international markets is widely appreciated. However, it is worth reminding ourselves of the pre-eminent role Canada plays in the world's grain markets and of the fact that our total grain production gives Canada a rank of sixth place among the largest grain-producing countries in the world. This comparison takes into account the huge land masses of China, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Wheat accounts for approximately one-half of Canada's total grain production and is our single most important grain commodity. Not all of the countries mentioned are exporters of wheat and it is in wheat exports that Canada ranks second in importance as a source of this valuable food commodity. Canada ranks second only to the United States in wheat exports, and it is this significant fact which gives an indication of the extent to which the rest of the world depends on us as a reliable supplier of this commodity which is so vital to world grain consumption. Seen in this perspective, Canada's role in the international grain trade and the actions we take to ensure its continuation must be viewed as of vital importance to the many nations that rely on us.
The 23.7 million tonnes of grain we exported last year was the product of many thousands of grain-producing farms which rely upon a complex infrastructure of trucking, rail and
shipping modes which constitute the grain industry's transportation system, and a vast elevator network which performs the essential functions of storage, inspection and weighing of grain, the cleaning and treating of grain and the transfer of grain forward. Prairie grain is processed through a network of some 2,000 primary elevators licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission to receive grain for storage and forwarding. This elevator network is linked by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways to Thunder Bay and to the six terminal elevators in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia.
The terminal elevators on the West Coast have a combined licensed capacity of approximately 1.1 million tonnes of grain. Of the 23.7 million tonnes of grain Canada exported in the 1985-86 crop year, 12.2 million tonnes, or approximately one-half of total grain exports, were cleared through the West Coast terminal elevators where the grain is weighed, cleaned and stored before being loaded into ships docked next to the elevators. The longshoremen have the important task of directing the huge spouts through which the grain flows to the appropriate hold in the ship, and of trimming or levelling the grain as it enters the ship. The longshoremen are dispatched by the B.C. maritime employers to the docks to perform this essential function as the final and critical step in the transfer of grain before ships embark for their specific destinations, the largest of which are the U.S.S.R., China and Japan. Other important markets served through the Pacific Coast are South Korea, Egypt, Taiwan, Peru, Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia.
It is the abrupt halting of this critical function performed by longshoremen in Vancouver and Prince Rupert in loading grain into ships that threatens to disrupt the flow of grain. It is paramount that Parliament act expeditiously to pass this Bill and have the West Coast ports resume operations without delay. I might add that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) ably stated the fact that it is not the longshoremen who have withheld their services but that the ports have been closed down. So not just has the handling of grain been affected but the whole operation of the ports of British Columbia has been affected.
The Minister of Labour has provided Members of the House with a detailed perspective on the issues and on the opportunities the parties have had to resolve their differences in this dispute through direct bargaining through the conciliation officer, the Conciliation Commissioner and mediation assistance. The Minister has also pointed out the record of collective bargaining disputes in the West Coast longshoring industry and the fact that since 1970 legislation has been required to terminate work stoppages on the docks on three previous occasions. That is not a very good record for us to look back upon. Consequently, it has required the intervention of the Minister today.
If there were some reasonable grounds for optimism in the belief that the parties could resolve this dispute without inflicting harm on those who depend on the ports for their livelihood, I am sure we would be dealing with other pressing
November 17, 1986

matters of the Elouse at this very moment. Elowever, the delivery of grain to our customers in other nations is essential to the well-being of our grain producers and to all components of our grain transportation system.
It is unfortunate that the net cast by the parties to this dispute is so widespread as to include grain-loading operations in B.C. ports. Hon. Members will recall the earlier remarks of the Minister of Labour in which he indicated the critical difficulty in the dispute between the B.C. maritime employers and the longshoremen as being the resolution of the container clause. That clause concerns the packing and unpacking of containerized cargo.
The transference of grain to ships at docks is conducted in bulk by a conveyer spout from the grain elevators and certainly bears no resemblance to container cargo, as we have heard before. Yet a primary issue in dispute has precipitated a course of action by the parties which reflects a disregard for the importance to the local and prairie economies of an interrupted flow of export grain. Nevertheless, all Members of the House should recognize the candid assessment given by the Minister of Labour on the container issue, which has been in contention for some years, and the fact that it warrants the special attention of an industrial inquiry commission. The difficulty the parties have had in resolving the complexity of this issue warrants a full opportunity to present their points of view to a skilled commission.
I might add that in the creation of this Bill there was certainly no limitation on how the parties can enter into drawing a conclusion to the situation. The provision is there, but the Minister has placed some time limits on when he expects them to come to an agreement. If that is not possible then a referee will be put in place to arrive at a solution.
The Minister has given serious consideration to the resolution of this dispute and has chosen a course of action which is fair to both parties. Passage of the Bill before us must be viewed by all parties as being fair to all sectors affected by the dispute. Hon. Members of the House should be aware of the Government's commitment to the role of collective bargaining and its adherence to the belief that the constructive settlement of disputes through meaningful negotiations can take us further as a society in pursuit of the common well-being.
Part V of the Canada Labour Code places the prime responsibility for the resolution of labour-management disputes on the parties to collective bargaining and provides them with third-party conciliation assistance to aid them in difficult circumstances in the resolution of their differences through the bargaining process. In rare instances, as is the present case, the Government must intervene to prevent the parties to the dispute from inflicting irreparable damage to the public interest and to the economy.
I have given Members of the House some of my reflections on the more salient dimensions of the grain export industry, particularly as it relates to our export markets and the prairie economy. The measures contained in the Bill are intended to
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
accomplish an immediate resumption of port operations, which is of vital importance to the people affected by the disruption of the port. The Bill will also impose the terms of the report of Conciliation Commissioner Dalton Larson, which is a reasonable and fair compromise on the issue in dispute and allow for a comprehensive study of the sensitive container clause.
I urge Members of the House to support the Bill and to work toward its passage without delay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the Hon. Member's views with respect to Clause 13(2) which provides that punitive actions can be taken against union officers and representatives of the union. They can be denied the right to be employed by the union for five years following any conviction under the punitive section. Does the Hon. Member agree that this subclause should be removed? Does he think that the same type of punitive measures should be taken against company officials and company officers or their affiliates in similar situations?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, if one reviews the history of the operation of the ports in British Columbia and looks at the various times there have been disputes caused by both sides of the issue, I think the Hon. Member will agree that there has to be some teeth in this legislation. I appreciate the Hon. Member asking whether or not both sides should be part of this situation. I think that there should be something provided for both sides. I would support such an addition to the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Subsequent to earlier discussions with regard to the process for the expeditious passage of Bill C-24, there were discussions with the representatives of the two opposition Parties, and those discussions have concluded. I think, Mr. Speaker, you would find that there would be unanimous consent to adopting the following proposal:
That the business to be considered between 5.00 o'clock p.m. and 6.00 o'clock p.m., this day, shall be the continuation of consideration of Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenanace of ports operation;
That on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, when Government Orders have been called, the Order of the Day shall be consideration of Bill C-24;
That, not later than 4.45 o'clock p.m. on that day, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House, and shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of all of the remaining stages of Bill C-24;

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
Private Members' Business originally scheduled for Monday, November 17, 1986, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport, shall be considered on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, between the hours of 5.00 o'clock p.m. and 6.00 o'clock p.m.
That upon the completion of the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 66, on Tuesday, November 18, 1986, Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to Bill C-24; and.
That, upon the giving of Royal Assent to the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated, we are in agreement with the order. I would only raise one caution and that is that during the course of second reading debate thus far, several proposals for possible amendments to the Bill have come forward. I am not sure if the Minister is disposed to this or not, but members of the Opposition have been putting them forward in the spirit of genuinely wishing to improve the Bill.
I just hope that the House Leader will keep in mind when establishing the time allocation that there may be possibilities for amendments to be accepted along the way. I hope we do not end up with a very short time available to us to consider what might be useful amendments to the Bill before it passes at 4.45 p.m. I simply raise that as a matter that ought to be taken into account when allocating time among House Leaders.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, of course, I confirm that we agree with the order and there is certainly consent in this corner of the House to it. I would like to support the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that we informally ensure that we allocate enough time to agree on amendments if there are some on which we can agree.
We heard an example a few moments ago of a member of the government Party suggesting an amendment, one which we on this side of the House would support. There may be several amendments to that effect, and if we had some kind of informal agreement that we would have a lot of time to do that later on, I am sure we would all benefit from it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to look at any suggestion to amend the Bill if it is to improve the Bill. There is no problem with that. I note that the Member from the NDP has already indicated that we would be given amendments in advance so that we would have time to look at them. If by tomorrow morning we have all the proposed amendments from both Parties, I would be more than willing to look at them and to allow time in order to dispose of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Further to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) has just said, I hope as well that should he feel there are some amendments to be made, he would provide us with copies in advance so that we may discuss them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Very well. Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Mazankowski) agreed to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, I seek the co-operation and consent of the House for another matter, if I may. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) made a very important statement in the House this morning. There have been some developments in regard to that and he would like to make a further report on it. He has contacted the critics of the two opposition Parties. I understand that the representative of the New Democratic Party is here but the representative of the Liberal Party may not be here. Perhaps the Minister could wait until the critic arrives or perhaps he could proceed now. It is a very short statement simply describing a new development that has occurred. Consistent with the spirit of keeping the House up to date, he would seek your support and co-operation so that he may make that statement now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we would like to have our critic present. I know he is on his way to the House so perhaps we could continue with debate and then proceed in another five or 10 minutes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, perhaps any time used by this statement and replies to it could be added on after six o'clock so that we do not lose any time to discuss the ports issue. Is that agreed?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MAINTENANCE OF PORTS OPERATIONS ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a few points to make with regard to Bill C-24. The problem that is before us today and which is occurring on the West Coast
November 17, 1986

where the port is completely shut down to shipments including grain shipments from the Prairies is a very serious one. It is one that has been before the Government since January 1 when the old collective bargaining agreement ran out. Somehow or other, this time has been spent getting to the point where legislation of the lock-out by the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association is being called for.
The problem with regard to container shipments is even older than this problem. I understand that this issue has been before the parties concerned for some 16 years. In any event, the port has been shut down due to the container issue and of course all parts of the port are shut down even though container shipments make up a very small portion of the total shipments that go through the port. In fact, I believe that between seven million and eight million tonnes of general cargo have been handled at the Port of Vancouver since 1977 but only 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the total was containerized. It is a relatively small portion of the port's activity.
As illustrated today by the problems of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Government is governing from crisis to crisis. In fact, this particular crisis was not a crisis at all last spring, last summer or even this fall. It is now, however. The need for emergency legislation was telegraphed to us over the weekend by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux).
It is interesting that these issues are left to fester for so long by the Government. There was a strike at the Port of Thunder Bay beginning September 1. That went on until early October. The Government took no action, even though we are facing the worst crisis in history in the grain-handling industry, until early in October. When the Government did get around to appointing a mediator, Mr. William Kelly, one of the most distinguished mediators in Canada, the strike was resolved in a matter of five or six days.
If a strike like that could have been resolved in five or six days, why did the Government wait a month to do so? Of course, that is the same question we are asking today. Why did the Government wait for nine and a half months to bring this legislation before the House?
In any event, we have to deal with the situation as we see it today. The Bill provides for the legislation of a conciliator's report. The report was completed in early September by the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Larson. That report makes provision for a long list of outstanding issues in the negotiation including wages, deep-sea ship gangs, bulk terminals, welfare plan, pension plan, automation protection, and hours of work. It also contains the contentious report on container shipments and the handling of it. The original Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Dalton Larson, in his report of September 3 provided for the removal of the container clause, Article 26.05, on the condition that the B.C. Maritime Employers Association guarantees that the number of hours available to be worked on containers be fixed at 725,000 hours per year. Any shortfall
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
was to be paid at straight time rates to trustees for the benefit of active members on the basis of work opportunities lost. This guarantee is to continue indefinitely. That is the clause which was not acceptable to the parties concerned. It is proposed that it be sent to a labour conciliation inquiry under the labour legislation and authorized by this Bill.
As we look through this legislation we see a number of concerns. It is not a precedent for a conciliation report to be authorized by legislation. This in fact has been done previously, I believe in 1975 in the Montreal strike, and also again in 1968 in the western grain industrial dispute. We do have a precedent for this.
The concern with this legislation is twofold. One relates to Clause 7, the Industrial Inquiry Commission. This commission would be set up by the Minister. It is provided in Clause 7(1) that he may establish this commission. However, that is where the dispute comes in. The union believes that it will lose some 300 jobs if that container shipment clause is removed because of the provisions provided in it. The B.C. Maritime Employers Association is arguing that if that container clause is removed, some 80,000 additional containers will be handled by the Port of British Columbia. There is great uncertainty on both sides of this industrial dispute. When we get to the clause in the committee stage we will be recommending that the Government deal with the provisions in the Bill now. Under Clause 7(1) it states:
On the coming into force of this Act, the Minister shall refer the matter of the container provision set out in article 26.05 of the collective agreement to which this Act applies and such other matters related to that provision as the Minister deems appropriate-
We will be suggesting that the Government include provisions for job security, development of the Port of Vancouver, rail facilities, and improvement of the competitive position of the port. The employers are not agreeing to take this clause out of the collective bargaining agreement, but if this legislation does that for them, then what they are concerned about is the loss of jobs. The employers' associations are saying: "Take it out. We will bring in 80,000 additional containers a year. That will create more jobs in the Port of Vancouver". But you cannot necessarily handle 80,000 more containers in the Port of Vancouver. There is the question of the efficiency and the operation of the port. There is the question of the development of business. There is the question of job security. We want to see some provision in the legislation in that regard.
In the Western Grain Transportation Act there is provision for improvements to the port and the railway facilities both by CN and by CPR in the Port of Vancouver. Yet the Government has not acted on that, even though the former Minister of Transport is now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski), of whom they are all terrified of. Still they have not acted and put in place those additional facilities. So it is not certain whether the B.C. Maritime Employers Association can actually put in place those additional jobs and handle those additional containers.

November 17, 1986
Statements by Ministers
I am receiving signals, Mr. Speaker, from my House Leaders. I understand that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) now wishes to make a statement and have the other Members respond. I would agree to interrupt my speech for a few moments, so that the Minister can make his statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do I have unanimous consent to revert to Statements by Ministers?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank my colleagues for the courtesy that they have afforded me.
I wish to inform the House that at 3.30 this afternoon my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), informed me that the RCMP had recovered a package of microfiche at or around two o'clock this afternoon. The Commissioner of the RCMP has informed me that he is satisfied that this material is indeed the missing microfiche which was removed from the offices of Revenue Canada on the evening of October 30, 1986.
The RCMP are continuing their investigation. As Members of the House understand, it would not be proper for either myself or the Solicitor General to comment further on this matter until the investigation is complete.
However, I do want to assure Members that the investigation will continue in respect of the motivation for the removal of the microfiche, whether the information it contained was put to any use whatsoever, and whether the microfiche was duplicated in whole or in part while outside the control of Revenue Canada.
While I am sure the House is as pleased as I am at this fortunate turn of events, this in no way lessens the concerns I expressed to the House a few hours ago over the lapse in security that allowed this loss to take place.
Again I wish to assure the House that the investigations which I have asked the RCMP to conduct into the security of microfiche data held by Revenue Canada, and into this particular incident specifically, will be expedited. I will report back to the House as soon as possible.


Alfonso Gagliano: Today really is an exciting day. This morning we found out that we
had lost 16 million tax filers' data had been lost or stolen. I thank the Minister for bringing the information to the attention of the House, but the fact remains that 16 million taxpayers' files were missing or stolen. Even though they have been found 17 days later, there is no guarantee that the information contained in those files or microfiche was not used or copied.
[DOT] (DIO)
We will definitely await the result of the investigation. However, I urge the Minister to keep on top of the investigation because the integrity of the tax system, as I said earlier, is in jeopardy. We should not enjoy what has happened; it is really a sad day.

Our taxation system is based on the voluntary filing of returns by all Canadians, and if the confidentiality of these returns is no longer respected, obviously Canadians will start thinking twice about filing their income tax returns. I hope an inquiry will prove we can have a more secure system in the future, and that the Minister will report back to the House as soon as possible.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in expressing the sentiment that it has been quite a day. One comes to the office in the morning and expects to do one's normal duties, but then one is hit with the fact that 16 million names and social security numbers are missing from the Revenue Canada office in Toronto.
We can all give a sigh of relief. Canadians can go to bed tonight feeling a little more secure in that the drama has ended. The microfiches have been recovered. However, as the Minister indicated, we do not know whether improper use was made of the microfiches or whether they were copied. Hopefully we will obtain those answers in a short period of time.
The situation indicates that there was an opportunity for individuals to take the documents. There is an obvious lapse of security but, as one of my colleagues indicated, it is good to know that the RCMP always gets its microfiche.
I assure the Minister that we will co-operate in any way we can to help devise a more secure system so that the confidentiality and privacy of Canadian taxpayers will be maintained. I am sure every Hon. Member of the House will co-operate in that effort so that our tax system is a secure and fair one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, this day's sitting will be extended by six minutes. Therefore, the adjournment debate will begin at 6.06 p.m.

November 17, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has seven minutes remaining in his speech, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations. Earlier I mentioned that the Government seems to be governing from crisis to crisis. The announcement this afternoon that the microfiches have finally been found after a three-hour or four-hour delay indicates that it governs from crisis to crisis. Perhaps that is why the Goldfarb poll published in early September indicated that two-thirds of the people who responded felt that the Government governed from crisis to crisis.
I should like to return to the Bill before us. I mentioned that we wanted to see the appointment of the Industrial Inquiry Commission so that it can deal not only with the question of containers but with the operation of the port itself. The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association is holding out the prospect of dozens or perhaps hundreds of jobs, whereas the employees and their union are fearing the loss of some 300 jobs. We want to see the terms of reference of the commission as well as a provision in the Act for a review by the Industrial Inquiry Commission of job security, the development of the port, rail facilities, and improvement of the port's competitive position. If those physical structures are not in place, obviously the estimate of the employers association indicating that an additional 80,000 containers per year could be handled will not come about. Naturally the employees union is very concerned about the situation.
I hope the industrial commission will comment on the lack of action by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National in terms of their responsibilities under the Act governing western rail transportation and their commitments to improve and enhance their facilities. I understand that those commitments have not been kept.
I should like to turn to subclause 13(2) which deals with punishment for offences. They seem to vary from $500 to $100,000 and include the loss of the privilege of serving in a union capacity. Surely officers in the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association should be subject to the same sanctions. If they break the law and are convicted under the Act, they should be subject to the same sanctions as union officials or executives.
I think subclause 13(2) should read as follows:
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
No officer or representative of a union or of British Columbia Maritime Employers Association who is convicted of an offence under this Act that was committed while the officer or representative was acting in that capacity shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union or the association at any time during the five years immediately after the date of the conviction.
Without that provision, we would come down in a very uneven manner on the side of the employers association.
This is not a strike; this is a lock-out. The action is being taken by the employers association to block the shipment of grain and other commodities from a British Columbia port. The port desperately needs every ounce of economic activity it can get, now that Expo 86 is over and the realities of the lack of that activity are so apparent in British Columbia.
We want to see the piece of legislation go forward. We have agreed to the House order to conclude consideration of the legislation tomorrow. We would like to see a number of things introduced at committee stage, but for now we want to see the legislation go forward.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24 with a great deal of feeling as the Hon. Member for Vancouver East wherein the port is located. We are very proud of our port. It is important to Canada. I also speak on behalf of my constituents who are both directly and indirectly affected by the legislation. By far the greatest source of employment in my riding is in port related industries and shipping.
We know that the Port of Vancouver is a major link for Canada to the Pacific Rim. Every day we see ships at that port carrying bulk goods such as grain, potash, lumber, and coal. Last year the Port of Vancouver handled over 59 million tonnes of bulk cargo, resulting in many jobs for workers in Vancouver.
In addition to bulk goods, in recent years there has been a tremendous increase in container goods-smaller goods and general merchandise which go from Canada to the Far East and Pacific Rim countries and those which come in from such countries. There has been a great increase in container traffic, but not nearly as much as there has been in ports to the south of Vancouver. Only 12.6 per cent of container traffic through the Port of Vancouver is affected by the controversial container clause. I will return to that point later.
We know that the Port of Vancouver is crucial to Canada's economy, as it is to our future trade and our future economy. It is essential not only to people on the West Coast and western farmers. It is also essential to the total nation. It is very important that we keep the port open. It is very important that we have a competitive port. It must be able to handle our goods efficiently and increase our trade with the use of modern technology.
I would like Members of the House and Canadians to know, particularly western farmers, that the problems in the Port of Vancouver go far beyond a container clause which affects only

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
a very small fraction of the container traffic. There is enormous competition from Seattle and Tacoma to the south of us. I want to mention that these ports are very highly mechanized. The Port of Vancouver has only five cranes to handle containers, whereas Seattle has 21 and Tacoma has 10. We have only four container berths, whereas Seattle has 21 and Tacoma has 8. The growth rate to the south of us is pulling Canadian goods southward, not only goods from the Orient, because the American ports are better equipped. This is a major point of which we must be aware in this debate.
I do not think there is anybody in this Elouse, and certainly very few Canadians, with the regrettable exception of the ship company employers on the West Coast, who want the Port of Vancouver closed down. This is a lock-out. It is a lock-out by employers who had a choice. Even if they chose to lock out the workers, they also had a choice to keep the grain from the Prairies moving at a very crucial time of the year. They have not used that choice. I am very concerned at the action taken.
We all want the Port of Vancouver to be working. We do not want it closed down. On the other hand, 1 am very concerned with Bill C-24 because it is not just legislation to make sure that the lock-out is removed and the Port is open and working while collective bargaining takes place. It is an arbitrary act which imposes a list of things that have been part of a contract, that are part of the Larson Report and are part of collective bargaining. I hope people will realize it is much more than just dealing with the immediate situation of getting the port working. That is why we felt it was very important. We could not possibly look at this Bill and automatically pass it without looking at the considerable ramifications contained within the Bill.
I would like to say also, speaking for my constituents, that they haved faced enormous unemployment. The shipping has closed down, the lumber industry has closed down and jobs are disappearing all around us. I can be extremely sympathetic to the legitimate concerns of longshoremen. They really have to protect the jobs, unless they are sure that there are alternative secure jobs to replace some of the existing tasks they are performing.
If the container clause is removed, they will not have that security, unless the port is improved and there are real guarantees that there will be permanent jobs to replace those on the containers. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, containers have to be emptied. It is not as though they did not have to be emptied. I like to point out that in the United States the container clause has recently been approved by the courts. It is not an unreasonable clause at all. I am not speaking for or against the container clause per se, but I am trying to present the position so that people will understand that workers in my riding are concerned about jobs. They want to make sure that there is some alternative if that clause is to be removed.
There are much greater problems affecting the port. I just gave a couple of examples that our own Crown corporations are contributing to the competition because they have policies
or want policies to ship Canadian goods through the United States.
The CNR is giving incentive rates to move Canadian goods south from Ontario through Chicago and to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. It is immoral and absolutely wrong that a Canadian Crown corporation should be doing that. Why should CNR not improve its service? It is a criticism of its service. CNR should be making competitive arrangements and upgrading its services here, including double-decker trains which are needed and are available in the United States to carry containers. We have a lobby also trying to change the Western Grain Transportation Act which will allow shipments of Canadian grain through U.S. ports. I cannot for the life of me see how this is in the interests of Canada. We have to make sure that that does not happen.
Bill C-24 has one provision which is to get the port working. This would have removed the lock-out. We never like this kind of legislation because it is arbitrary. Sometimes it is necessary. That part is not quite as bad as the other part. The part about which we are very concerned is that it imposes very arbitrary conditions on both parties. I am speaking for my constituents, so I will be biased. These conditions will have a serious impact on the workers. It overrules the collective bargaining process. It sets a precedent for other disputes. One cannot help but wonder whether this is the kind of tactic that the Government will use to impose settlements on other measures. My colleague has asked that if there is a safety concern, does it mean that there will be no chance of dealing with it?
The Government wanted to impose very complex legislation in one day. I hope it realizes now why it is still very important that all of us learn more about the implications and consult the various persons affected by it.
Clause 7 is a particularly bad clause. The Minister will appoint an Industrial Inquiry Commission to resolve the container clause. At first I thought maybe that was better than having it imposed by the Larson recommendations. On the other hand, one cannot help but wonder-and I hope the Minister will clarify it-who this commissioner will be. Will it be one person or several persons agreed upon by the parties concerned? How can all parties, particularly the workers in my riding, be assured that they will have an objective review? Will this person or persons be appointed in consultation with the parties concerned?
Subclause 13(2), as has been pointed out in questions already, is a most discriminatory anti-union clause. There is no question about it. It reveals the government philosophy. It states that the punitive measures can take a job away from a union officer for five years. There is no mention of taking a job away from the industry if it breaks the law. This shows again why amendments are so important.
As I say, I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. I make no apologies for that. They include more than longshoremen. They include grain workers, shore workers, warehouse workers, retail operators and their families who are very much
November 17, 1986

affected by what happens in the Port of Vancouver. The longshoremen are located in my riding as are all maritime unions.
I have been in consultation with the ILWU and want to put on the record some of the concerns it is raising. I hope we will have more details on that. Its concern is that if the Larson Report is imposed, as proposed in this Bill, there will be only a 1 per cent increase in wages. The cost of living has increased by 4 per cent. There will be an increased workload. On the bulk shipments they may have to work 12-hour days, which is a very retrograde step. Pensions are very much left up in the air, and the question has been raised whether the referee would define this further.
The unions are also concerned about the container clause. The Larson recommendations were bad enough, in their view, but this leaves it wide open, and that is even worse. At least Mr. Larson advocated some job security. He says that the container clause has diverted traffic to the U.S. only to some extent. The union has offered to give up the clause if jobs are retained. There can be no doubt that the container clause constitutes a legitimate mechanism to serve and preserve bargaining unit work, not unlike clauses under other collective agreements. He also notes that if Vancouver wins new business because of the elimination of the clause, few if any of the displaced workers would get the new skilled jobs operating cranes and so on. Therefore, there are legitimate reasons for not giving up this clause unless there is some guaranteed job replacement.
The union is also concerned that the legislation takes away the right to strike for two years. There are many issues besides those here which waterfront workers will be concerned about. If safety on the job becomes an issue, for example, there is no way to protest the situation. This Bill appears to supersede the Canada Labour Code concerning the right of workers to refuse unsafe work. It is excessively punitive. Unfortunately, the container clause has been used as a scapegoat because it is really a very small symptom of a much larger problem. Even if the clause is removed, the evidence is clear that it will not make our port competitive unless a whole range of improvements are made.
I would like to refer to a backgrounder paper which was circulated to all Members today. It was prepared before the current crisis and quite apart from the issues at stake today. It is put out by the longshoremen's union. It says that Vancouver will not recover the lost business nor win new business unless the railways, the federal Government, the Vancouver Port Corporation, and the western provinces make major improvements in the transportation and goods handling systems in Vancouver and across Canada. We have spent a lot of time and money ensuring that we have the most modern state of the art facilities not only in North America but in the world, said Mic Dinsmore, Director of Marine Operations, Port of Seattle, but, "You have done none of that in Vancouver".
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
The report talks about inadequate port facilities. We need at least three new modern container cranes right now. The federal Government has to contribute to the capital cost involved because it is a very expensive investment. However, we must invest in this for the future or we will have no future. Why are there no more cranes? Apparently because of an incredibly slow-moving bureaucracy in Ottawa which has not made a financial commitment.
There is also concern that despite the Canada Ports Act of 1981, the Port of Vancouver has not implemented a port user committee as recommended to look at the problems and come up with solutions. It is desperately needed. There is very little port autonomy as well. A port users committee is a very critical ingredient to any changes. It would bring together business, labour and municipalities, shipping lines and railways, in short all those concerned with the port. There must be an upgrading of railways. Our railways are not competitive with the railways in the U.S. We have to invest for the future. We have to have double-decker cars to transport containers rapidly to connect with the ships at our port. Yet our own railways have not committed resources. Instead, they are giving incentives to carry Canadian goods through American ports. There must be a firm commitment from freight forwarders and shipping lines. The shipping lines are winners, whether Vancouver or the American ports are used. They should be requested to issue a clear statement of intent respecting future use of the Port of Vancouver.
I have spoken to shipping line operators. I know they would rather ship through Vancouver, but they use Seattle or Tacoma. We need to have facilities to accommodate them and get a commitment that if money is invested in the Port of Vancouver, that will be their priority shipping point.
The federal Government also has to protect shipping and make sure the policies are pro-Canadian. I referred earlier to the Western Grain Transportation Act. The grain transportation agency is apparently recommending sweeping changes to the Act, including one to allow these cargoes to be transshipped through American ports for shipment overseas. We have to bring in provincial Governments as well.
What I am trying to explain to the House and the people who may be watching is that this is a very complex problem. We need to have action on many fronts. We have to make sure we have a modern competitive port. That in turn will guarantee permanent jobs, as well as an increase in jobs in the future so our young people can get involved.
There is the option of removing the container clause. There has to be job security, as I have said over and over again, if the parties concerned are going to do that. However, there has been no guarantee to date. As was pointed out very adequately in this report, which I urge Members to read, there is no guarantee whatsoever that containers being diverted to Seattle and Tacoma will come back to Vancouver. Just removing a container clause would not guarantee that. We need to have a competitive, modern port.

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
I know that my time is up and I just want to say once again how very important this issue is. It is important not only for today but also for the future, not only of the West Coast, but that of Canada. I can tell you as the Member for Vancouver East that it is tremendously important to thousands of ordinary people in Vancouver and their families. They need the jobs and they have the skills to make our port very effective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) expressed some of my own thoughts on this occasion. It is not often that we agree, but there are a number of things she said that we do agree on. However, I would ask her one specific question. Her whole speech seemed to indicate her thinking and I would like a little confirmation.
If the commissioner comes down with the rule that there will be job security for the longshoremen to the extent that it involves destuffing, would it be her opinion then that that clause be removed from the contract in order to make the Port of Vancouver at least a little more competitive? I suppose that could be answered with a yes or no, but I do not expect it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but note that the Hon. Member, whose riding encircles the Port of Vancouver, like mine does, has not been very vocal on many of these issues. I certainly hope he is going to be the next speaker to tell his constituents what he intends to do about this situation and the Port of Vancouver generally.
The destuffing clause is going to be referred to a conciliator. It has been a part of the collective bargaining process to date. I have listed some of the pros and cons. It is not my job that is at stake, at least I do not think it is. I think it is incumbent upon a conciliator who is going to be very objective and careful and will consider the views of both sides as a result of this Bill to deal with it.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the situation of containers and destuffing is extremely complex. She likes to tie it to job security. Is the Hon. Member aware of a move in the U.S. to build a 28 acre port facility between Blaine and Bellingham to handle only Canadian trade? If that happens, I do not see how we will save jobs in British Columbia if we do not get rid of that clause. It is my understanding that many shippers would move their freight to Vancouver if that clause were eliminated.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware that this clause has been in existence in the United States and was just challenged in the courts? The courts upheld the clause, which affected the longshoremen there. That should indicate something about the competitiveness.
I would like to quote as follows from the Larson Report: "There can be no doubt that the container clause constitutes a legitimate mechanism to secure and preserve bargaining unit work, not unlike provisions against contracting out or nonaffiliation clauses under other collective agreements". That is an expert in the field saying that this is legitimate.
I do not speak as a union member, but my understanding is that there has been a history of the union being willing to look at this clause. If there were real guarantees of permanent jobs, perhaps there might be some changes. However, you must understand how jobs for longshoremen are dealt out in the hiring hall. A person released from this job will not be hired to man a crane. There are specific jobs for real people who are affected. I hope that answers the Member's question.


Gerry St. Germain: The Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) said there were no plans for improvement to the Port of Vancouver. Is the Member aware that there are presently bids out for cranes, which are contingent upon resolving this container clause? I do not blame either labour or management. They are both responsible for resolving this situation. However, I think members of the NDP, the socialist Party, are making innuendoes that the Government is not taking a responsible role in providing for future planning for the port. In fact, the Government is doing that.
The Member referred to a port user committee. The Vancouver Port Corporation is in place. It is planning effectively. The establishment of a port user committee would be redundant and would add to the bureaucracy and confusion. You would not be able to find the crane among the piles of paper which would be established as a result of forming another committee.
Is the Hon. Member aware that plans are under way? I would like the Hon. Member's reaction to the long-term operating agreements which have just been put into place by the Vancouver Port Corporation which awarded these longterm contracts which will give stability to the port. Did the Member know these things were taking place?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I know that there has not been a major improvement in the port since that Member's Government has been in charge in Ottawa. I know that there were two or three years of planning for a master plan which has remained on the shelf of the Vancouver Port Corporation office. The community people in my riding are extremely concerned about all that wasted effort. There have been three different port managers in the last two or three years, which must indicate something.
The Member should be studying the Bill on which we worked very hard in 1981 which said that there should be port users. Does he not realize that the Vancouver Port Corporation consists of political patronage appointees to the board by the Government? Through a port user committee we would bring the railroads, shipping companies, workers, municipalities and the grain industry from the Prairies together to study the inter-
November 17, 1986

modal connections of transportation. Such a committee would come up with a comprehensive plan for immediate implementation rather than a master plan for 25 years in the future. I urge the House to make this a top priority item for the agenda of the Transport Committee which is meeting tomorrow. This Member had better go to the committee meeting and speak to this.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, government Members seem to be indicating that they want to keep the port open and that the way to do that is to remove, through legislation and the process which follows, the container clause from the collective agreement. It is interesting that the Government acts so vigorously when faced with a labour dispute. Although this sort of crisis management approach to the port may keep it open, I wonder whether it is going to keep it competitive and keep business flowing through it. Is there not more to having a good, competitive port than simply fiddling around with a collective agreement?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to remember that this is a lock-out. Over a month ago the employers chose to lock out. I commend the Minister for intervening. They were persuaded to have a 30-day cooling off period. Unfortunately, nine days before the cooling off period was over they were talking about locking out again. That was not very conducive to settling anything.
I agree with my colleague who talks about crisis management techniques. That is exactly what I was saying earlier. Positive solutions demand a careful analysis of the problem and a comprehensive approach involving a number of different levels of transportation and port users. I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Crosbie) and the Government in general to do what they can through the Transport Committee and the Port of Vancouver to ensure that planning is done to solve the problem. This band-aid approach is no good for anyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-24, the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986. We all recognize that decisive action is required given the widespread consequences of further disruptions to West Coast operations. I want to praise the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) for his concern, compassion and prompt decision and sound leadership in handling this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerry St. Germain: Certainly the issue has been referred to as a crisis. Logically, we would not be taking this action if it was not a crisis, but would be allowing the parties to resolve the situation.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
As has been pointed out by the Minister of Labour, Governments should intervene in the collective bargaining process only as a court of last resource, and only after all voluntary, mediation and conciliation efforts have proven ineffective, and only where the parties have clearly failed.
As one who has represented labour as a union president, I understand this fact better than most in the House. This type of action should only be taken as the last resort. No government can continue to allow unresolved private differences to impact on the public interest so seriously.
Part V of the Canada Labour Code which governs industrial relations at the federal level sets out a structure to regulate union-management relations which provides the parties directly concerned with every opportunity to resolve their differences with minimal government intervention. The Canada Labour Code has evolved over the years, taking into account different social and economic circumstances, always recognizing that parties directly involved are best able to resolve their differences.
In view of the fact that in some circumstances the parties may need assistance in resolving particularly difficult problems, the Code makes available the provision of conciliation and mediation mechanisms to facilitate union-management resolution of sensitive and complex issues.
Negotiations for a renewal agreement between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union-Canadian Area began in October, 1985. There followed a series of direct negotiations between the parties themselves, and then there was a series of meetings at which conciliation assistance was provided. Following the unsuccessful efforts of the conciliation officer, the Department of Labour appointed a Conciliation Commissioner to make further effort at bringing the parties together.
The Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Dalton Larson, conducted hearings and received briefs and finally submitted a report to the Minister of Labour, which was released to the parties in early September. At the beginning of October, the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association implemented a lock-out, which is their legal right under the Canada Labour Code. Shortly thereafter, the lock-out was ended to give further collective bargaining a chance. Toward the end of October, the Minister of Labour showed the leadership to which I referred in my opening remarks and appointed two mediators in an effort to help the parties find a solution to their differences. This effort unfortunately did not succeed and neither have admonishments by the Minister of Labour to both disputants.
In the situation before us, as can be seen, the parties have made use of extensive conciliation and mediation assistance without a successful outcome. It is in such exceptional circumstances that a Government must take action in the best interests of the general public. An extended work stoppage on the West Coast could only damage Canada's international

November 17, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
reputation as a reliable trader. In the present circumstances, the country cannot accept any further deterioration of our standing in world markets.
Clearly, in the absence of any reasonable hope for settlement, and in the absence of any practical alternatives to the crucial role played by West Coast port operations, the Government is required to act with due dispatch in the interests of the economy. I am referring to the local port area economy, the British Columbia economy and the Canadian economy as a whole.
There are many workers whose economic position is directly related to high levels of activity in the West Coast facilities directly involved in this dispute. They include the longshoremen, the grain handlers, the railroaders, the truckers, and other associated transportation industry workers. The extent to which their income base is undermined by a prolonged work stoppage is of direct importance to the local economy, and particularly to the numerous small businesses and entrepreneurs who rely upon the consumption of goods and services generated by these workers.
The local port operations and the local community are not the only economic units inherently dependent on a smoothly functioning port system.
British Columbia is a major exporter of forest products, mineral resources, and manufactured goods, and also serves as a vital transit point for the marketing of grain, the resources and products of western Canada. British Columbia's major ports are an irreplacable link in the transportation infrastructure needed to move the vast quantities involved.
Furthermore, our port system is a major gateway for the importation of goods from major trading partners in the Pacific Rim. Our country's future depends upon the rentention and expansion of such mutually beneficial links.
The survival in the new trading environment of the late 1980s of our markets for western and central Canadian products and resources, and of our reputation as a dependable and efficient trader, is certainly at stake. We in Canada must maintain a reasonable balance of trade through an efficient, reliable and smooth functioning transportation system. Otherwise, our national economy will suffer, our standard of living and our quality of life will inevitably deteriorate and we all will be the losers.
From past disputes at the West Coast facilities, we recognize the short and long-term consequences of disruptions to port facilities. The scheduling of ships for loading and unloading at our West Coast ports is a complex and costly operation. The logistics involved in arranging crews, routes, departure and arrival times function well only in a predictable environment. Down times for ships and crews are immensely expensive, not to mention the costs associated with lost sales or unfulfilled contracts. It is costly to have those ships docking in Burrard Inlet or English Bay. Our economy cannot tolerate its continuation. Unfortunately, we have been victimized by this type of situation in the last while.
In a similar fashion, the vast and costly rail infrastructure that transports grain, bulk resources and general cargo for export involves a highly sophisticated marshalling and routing system designed to provide fast, efficient and economical transportation. It is quite apparent that unpredictability in port operations creates havoc in this system, with major cost considerations involved. Extra costs, of course, weaken our competitive position and contribute to a loss of markets. I am directly concerned with rail transportation because my new son-in-law works for the CNR. During the first round of walkouts-as members of the NDP have correctly identified it-he was laid off because of the lack of work. He has ten years seniority in the system. Chuck Tanner and others cannot afford to be locked out by management or put on strike by labour because the economy and these individuals cannot afford it.
From the point of view of the railways, the losses associated with their disrupted operations render them less able to respond to the transportation needs of the economy.
For the year 1985, the Vancouver Port Corporation reports encouraging progress in positioning the port as a major gateway for export cargoes to the expanding markets of the Pacific Rim and for imports bound for western and central Canadian centres. In 1985, for the third consecutive year, the Port of Vancouver set new records for the number of containers handled and for the total tonnage of containerized cargo moved in and out of the port. That is a clear indication that we are managing the port well as a Government and that the people whom we have placed in those positions are doing an excellent job.
Containers handled through port facilities rose by 17.5 per cent. The total tonnage of all cargo shipped was 56.1 million tonnes, a decrease of 5.3 per cent from the 1984 record tonnage. Declines from the previous year were recorded in coal, grain, lumber and potash. Sulphur exports reached a new record level of 6.1 million tonnes and wood pulp shipments increased 7.7 per cent to 888,000 tonnes. The Prince Rupert Corporation reported that 1985 set new records for traffic growth.
Under reasonable circumstances the British Columbia economy is expected to grow this year in the 4 per cent range, one percentage point above last year's rate. Expo 86, strong consumer spending and growth in the forest products sector should play an important role. It is estimated that in 1986, the forest, manufacturing and goods producing industries will grow by 5.3 per cent, 9 per cent and 4.8 per cent respectively. Average weekly wages are expected to increase by an average of 3 per cent in 1986, and the Consumer Price Index to remain in the 3 per cent range. Employment is expected to increase by some 5.5 per cent. Concurrently, the provincial unemployment rate should decline to about 11.7 per cent from 14.2 per cent in 1985. However, this figure will remain significantly higher than the national average. Real growth in 1987 will be largely

November 17, 1986
determined by the strength of the province's resource-based industries and our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive international market-place. The current strike in the forest sector, unfavourable U.S. protectionist policies, and an inadequate competitive response could dampen the province's prospects for the coming year.
Regional wage settlements reported by Labour Canada showed that the average annual increase in base rates for Ontario in 1985 was 4.9 per cent and 2 per cent for the West. The figures for British Columbia are the lowest of the four western provinces for the second quarter of 1986 at 1.8 per cent. For the same period, Ontario settlements reached 4.5 per cent. These differences reflect the varying economic environments in our country. Regional disparities have to be dealt with. This area is a clear indication of where we have to become competitive in Vancouver. The port has to become competitive, and all industries have to become more competitive. As a federal Government we have shown the initiative and the intent to deal with these regional disparities. I bring this point forward at this time because I think it is of prime importance to all Canadians, especially to British Columbians.
Uninterrupted operation of the ports and stable industrial relations are imperative for the continued movement of our western grain and resource-based products. Enterprises and producers facing an increasingly competitive world need to operate in a more predictable and efficient environment. The problem areas in the country are based upon our resource-based industries and our commodity items. We have to diversify but we cannot lose those traditional markets in these areas. The protection of existing jobs and expansion of our markets depend upon our response to present challenges.
It is vital that we all take seriously the responsibility we have to ensure that the British Columbia economy reaches its potential. New investment, expansion of our markets, increased efficiency, growth in personal income, expansion in employment opportunities and reduced unemployment are best fostered in a positive and predictable industrial relations environment.
The Bill before the House orders the resumption of long-shoring and related operations in the West Coast ports. With the exception of the container handling issue, the longshoremen are to return to work under the terms contained in the report of the Conciliation Commissioner, Dalton Larson. I am confident that the proposed Industrial Inquiry Commission on the container handling issue will resolve this serious problem and provide the ports of British Columbia with the necessary stability to fulfil their key role in the province's crucial transportation infrastructure. The local economy, the province, the nation and the disputing parties will, I believe, all be the beneficiaries of this particular resolve.
Again, I compliment the Minister of Labour for his leadership and his compassion in dealing with labour and management. Let us be on record as saying that we understand
Adjournment Debate
that this is a lock-out. It is an initiative taken by management, not by labour, but it has to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we go into the adjournment debate, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that he has 10 minutes on questions and comments when Orders of the Day are called tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 1986, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) the following question:
When may we expect a decision on the use of Canadian low sulphur coal in Canada?
The Minister replied with the following answer:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Mines, the Minister of Transport and myself are trying to formulate a decision or response to the task force report which was released on August 20, 1986.1 hope that we will be able to make some sort of preliminary decision on the whole question of displacing American high sulphur content coal with low sulphur content coal from western Canada before very long, perhaps before the end of the year.
On the same day, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), asked the Minister of the Environment the following question:
Bearing in mind the Government's interest in environmental protection, improvement for the western economy, and the enhancement of Canada's balance of payments, what action is the Minister undertaking to encourage the use of low sulphur coal in the industrial heartland of Canada?
The Minister said that it did not make sense for the Government of Canada and the country as a whole to be encouraging the importation of high sulphur content coal from the United States when low sulphur content coal is available from western Canada with all of the attendant environmental and economic advantages inherent in displacing American coal. He then said:
-to the extent that the federal Government can do anything about the problem, we are acting on it.
Let us note the following major relevant points as confirmed in the report referred to by the Minister: first, western coal has one-half of 1 per cent sulphur content whereas U.S. coal has 5 per cent sulphur content. The $7 million the federal Government is now providing to clean up the acid rain mess in Ontario could have helped to haul hundreds of tonnes of western coal from Alberta to Ontario and we would not be in this terrible acid rain mess. Second, the Government of Ontario has made a commitment to reduce acid rain in that province by 50 per cent of the 1980 emission levels by 1994.

November 17, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Third, without emission controls, Ontario Hydro will exceed the provincial limit on acid gas emissions by 1994 when the emission limit of 215,000 tonnes per year nitrogen-oxide, N08 and S02, comes into effect. Fourth, Ontario Hydro can meet the provincial emission limits until the year 2000 by using more western Canadian low sulphur coal or by a combination of the use of more western coal and U.S. coal with flue gas scrubbers or solely with the use of flue gas scrubbers on American coal. Fifth, Ontario Hydro is required between now and December 1988 to submit its methods of emission control to the Government of Ontario.
The coal report states that the use of western Canadian coal will have a national benefit through the creation of 13,000 jobs with an income of $41 billion in 1985-dollars.
How can we make our western low sulphur coal competitive with U.S. coal? There are several ways to do so. We can do it by using unit trains to haul the coal and by finding ways to reduce the mining costs. These items alone account for 58 per cent of the estimated price of $88 per tonne. Second, increasing the cost of scrubbers by 20 per cent would make Canadian coal 10 per cent cheaper than the U.S. coal options. Third, we can do it by upgrading the heat values of western coal through research and modern technology.
Ontario will benefit through jobs and taxes, as will the federal Government. In addition, both governments will benefit and save thousands of dollars because of much less acid rain. Also, we will be developing a Canadian industry with all of its economic benefits. If necessary, both governments should provide some financial help for transportation and research.
In the light of the facts presented in the report, it is high time that both the federal Government and the Ontario Government took all necessary actions to substantially reduce the amount of U.S. coal imported into Canada, and to develop our coal resources for the benefit of Canadians. I am satisfied that the capital is there to open and reopen our own low sulphur coal mines in Alberta, and elsewhere in the West. For years Canadians like the late Jessie Gouge and Mr. Omar Patrick and his father worked and pleaded for an opportunity to provide coal to the East, but to no avail. I hope that this latest coal report, which substantiates everything that westerners have been saying for years, will not be another cave-in.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question regarding the use of low sulphur western Canadian coal.
On August 20, 1986, the federal-provincial task force on the use of low sulphur western coal released its report. It was in October, 1984 that the federal and provincial environment Ministers set up the task force to determine the costs and benefits of increased use of western coal in Ontario. The study focused particularly on the role that low sulphur western
Canadian coal could play in reducing acid rain causing emissions.
Ontario Hydro is the largest consumer of coal in eastern Canada. The utility must reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions-the principal cause of acid rain-by more than 50 per cent by 1994, in accordance with regulations adopted by the Ontario Government.
The task force report is, therefore, timely for Ontario Hydro, as the document offers comprehensive information for the federal and provincial governments that is frequently not available when evaluating emission control options. This is socio-economic information, information on Canadian jobs and income in different Canadian provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. Each of the four options proposed in the report has different benefits for job creation and stimulation of industry in the mining, transportation and public utility sectors.
The report strongly recommends co-operative follow-up initiatives by industry and federal and provincial governments to improve the economic attractiveness of western Canadian coal to Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro is now in the process of preparing its emission reduction plan to meet the sulphur dioxide emission limits imposed by Ontario for 1990 and 1994. As the Hon. Member stated, that plan is to be submitted to the Government of Ontario by December 31, 1988. The western coal task force report is timely in that regard. It will permit the socio-economic information developed to be considered in Ontario Hydro's decision-making process.
However, it is not only up to Ontario Hydro to take action. The federal-provincial task force recommended that governments and industry study methods to increase the use of western Canadian low sulphur coal, by investigating means to reduce production, mining, and transportation costs; and by allocating more funds for the research and development of new, more efficient techniques to improve coal quality.
The question of increased use of low sulphur western Canadian coal now requires a resource development focus. In this vein, on October 30, 1986, the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources assumed the lead role in directing and co-ordinating the activities needed to put into effect the task force recommendations. To achieve this goal, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources must act in co-operation with provincial resource departments, as well as with federal and provincial departments of transport and regional development. Together they must choose the best means to increase demand for low sulphur western Canadian coal in Ontario.
In recent weeks representatives of Transport Canada and Ontario Hydro discussed problems related to the cost of transporting western Canadian coal to Ontario. Discussions of this type will continue in order to resolve the situation. In fact, on November 19, 1986, the Alberta Coal Development Adviser
November 17, 1986

is meeting with the Coal Association of Canada, representing coal producers as well as Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. Also, on November 25, Transport Canada and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be meeting with Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and Thunder Bay Terminal and Great Lakes freight operators.
Furthermore, in September Environment Canada initiated a macro-economic study to build upon the socio-economic information generated by the task force. The study will deal with some aspects not addressed by the task force, such as the effect of increased electricity prices in Ontario on product prices and markets.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-FUTURE OF WINNIPEG RAIL SHOPS. (B) AEROSPACE INDUSTRY INQUIRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question which I directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the week before we recessed. It concerned the future of the Winnipeg economy and, of course, the awarding of the contract for the maintenance of the CF-18 to Canadair in Montreal instead of to Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg where a great many people thought it ought to have gone on the basis of financial and technical merit.
Having just spent a week in Winnipeg, and after shovelling snow, I had an opportunity to meet with many people who lived beyond my particular street.


Mr. Marehi:: I was there too.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member was there for a conference on immigrant women. He had the opportunity of experiencing something which occurs once in every 20 years in Winnipeg- the blizzard.
In any event, 1 wanted to report to the House the incredible unanimity with which Manitobans regard this decision, the incredible unanimity of contempt for both the process and the outcome of the particular decision.
I rose in the House to ask the Prime Minister whether or not a Minister would make a statement about just what the Government had in mind for Winnipeg. There is a great deal of general rhetoric about western Canada. We hear a lot about the $1 billion farm aid program for grain producers, which is all well and good. We hear about the things which have been done for the oil and gas sector in Alberta. However, 1 was asking the Prime Minister whether or not someone would stand and give Winnipeg an idea of what kind of future the federal Government had in mind for it.
We in Winnipeg are certainly in a position where we have grave doubts about whether the Government has any future at all in mind for Winnipeg. Our only experience since September, 1984 has been bad news. It is not like the joke about first the good news and then the bad news, or first the bad news and then the good news. There has been nothing but bad news. The awarding of the CF-18 contract to Montreal was really the icing on the cake.
Adjournment Debate
In that context I said in the House, and I say it again: What does the Government have in mind for Winnipeg? All we have seen is the seemingly indefinite deferral of the VIA Rail shop which was supposed to have been built in Winnipeg. It was planned to have been built but it was cancelled by the Conservatives.
We saw the cancellation of the manufacturing technology centre. The building is there but the program is not. We had a provincial Government willing to contribute, but a federal Government that wanted to go ahead only with rehabilitating one-third of the 1,000 boxcars which could have been used in Churchill. CN said that was all it needed. Then, just a few months ago, sure as shooting, when there was trouble in the other ports, CN said it did not have enough cars to take all the grain to Churchill. We have seen the putting off from one year to the next of the needed building of a new diesel or motive power shop in Transcona.
The Government talks about giving money away here and there, the latest being I do not know how many millions of dollars which may be going to preserve an automotive plant in Ste. Therese, Quebec. Yet the one thing we know we are going to have for the foreseeable future is the railway. We know it needs new facilities. People are working in shops built in 1909 and 1910. How much foresight does it take to say that rebuilding these would be an investment well made? Yet the money that CN would like to spend on that keeps getting delayed from year to year by the Government. It is an investment that will never go somewhere else. It will not trail off down to the U.S. There is no risk at all involved in building the necessary infrastructure for our transportation system. Yet it is put off and put off and put off. There is just a total lack of foresight and it is becoming very, very irritating to anyone who knows anything about it. There is continued reluctance by the Government to go ahead with the things we know need to be done to develop and maintain the Port of Churchill, as well as the building of lightweight hopper cars.
I am also interested in the future of Versatile in Winnipeg. I met with representatives of the Canadian Auto Workers while I was in my constituency last week. They have been trying to get a meeting with the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to discuss what the Government is doing to make sure the 1,000 unemployed there now find their way back to work through arrangements which we hope the Government is working on. They have been unable to get a meeting with him. I can understand why Tory Members from Manitoba are not in a big hurry to meet with anyone these days, but these people have been trying to get the meeting for weeks and I hope this does not turn out to be another example of how Manitoba is neglected by the federal Government.
I repeat what I said in the question I am following up today. We need a statement from this Government about how it sees the future of Winnipeg. There were certain understandings between the federal and provincial Governments that the

November 17, 1986
Adjournment Debate
strength of Manitoba was transportation. There were agreements with Alberta which reflected that province's strength in energy. However, all we have seen is the undercutting of Manitoba's transportation sector since the election in 1984. I would like to know just what the Government has in mind.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised a number of questions and I would like to deal with them as quickly as I can because I have only three minutes and you will have to cut me off.
First, by 1980 Transcona will be the main shop for heavy maintenance work and equipment refurbishing in the CN system. Transcona is located within the riding presently represented by the Member and it will benefit enormously from that work. There will be many new jobs and people transferred from other parts of Canada who wish to work in that facility. That is one example of good news for the residents of Winnipeg.
The aerospace industry is obviously of concern to the Member. There are three major aerospace companies in Manitoba which represent about 5 per cent of the total sales of the aerospace industry of Canada and 5 per cent of the employment of the industry.
As one example of what we have done for Manitobans and Winnipegers, Boeing now has the contract to do the wing ferry construction for the Boeing 747s. I understand that creates about 250 jobs, which we hope will be permanent. That is one of the good results of allowing de Havilland to purchase Boeing. I wonder whether the Member has taken a position with respect to that purchase. I seem to recall that his Party was vehemently opposed to that. If that had not happened, those 250 jobs in Winnipeg would probably not exist today.
I was born in Winnipeg and lived there for a quarter of a century and have very strong feelings about Winnipeg, as has the Member. I understand that Manitoba now has an unemployment rate of about 6.9 per cent, the lowest of all the four western provinces.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It's an NDP Government.


David Kilgour: Would the Member tell us how it makes any sense for the NDP Government of Manitoba to have a payroll tax? If there is any better disincentive for having employment in a province, it seems to me that the NDP Government tax would be at the top of any intelligent person's list. I do not know how that Government can talk about creating jobs when it does everything it can to make it harder for people to create jobs.
We have helped to create an atmosphere in which 75,000 new jobs have been created on the Prairies since the election. We have reinstated VIA Rail which is important to Winnipeg and westerners generally. We recently declared that the Yellowhead route would be part of the national trans-Canada
system. We committed $1 billion to the hard-pressed grain farmers. We announced the red meat stabilization plan. There was a major commitment in the Throne Speech to diversify the economy of western Canada.
I will conclude on the very important issue of preserving the 2 million to 2.5 million Canadian jobs which now depend on our trade with the United States. We are doing everything we can to preserve access to that market against the daily opposition of the Member's Party. Approximately 200,000 western Canadian jobs now depend on that market. If the Member's leader continues to do things which will make it harder to maintain a continued access to that market, it can only result in harm to a great many men, women and children in our part of the country.


IMMIGRATION-AWARDING OF MINISTERIAL SPECIAL ENTRY PERMIT. (B) REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVOKE DECISION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to review a series of three questions which I asked the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) during the sittings of November 4, 5 and 6. They were with regard to two questionable and very frustrating judgment calls made by the Minister to grant two ministerial permits to two different individuals. One individual, who had a criminal record of over 20 convictions, obtained a ministerial permit from the same Minister to remain in Canada as well as a recommendation that this individual be granted landed immigrant status. Another decision which came to light involved a Hungarian immigrant who was known to have given to the Hungarian Secret Police secret and politically damaging information on Canadians with ties in Hungary.
The most frustrating aspect with regard to immigration policies and programs in this country is the fact that Canadians cannot sponsor loved ones and relatives from abroad to have them join families in Canada. This is despite the fact that under Liberal Governments, family reunification was the cornerstone of our immigration policy.
With the announcement of the 1987 levels, we see that the Conservative Government has lowered the threshold for family sponsorship and family reunification to some 30 per cent. They were considerably higher under Liberal Governments. Second, if they are successful, it usually takes years.
It was no coincidence that there was such outrage and frustration expressed by Canadians across the country when we learned that an individual with a record of over 20 criminal convictions was not only accepted to the country and received a special ministerial permit to allow that person to remain in Canada, but that the Minister had the temerity to recommend him to the Government and Cabinet for special landed immigrant status.
That is shocking because there are thousands upon thousands of legitimate and meritorious individuals who wish to come to this country, as my family and many others did, to
November 17, 1986

create a better life-style and, in the process, create a better Canada. They want to join in the construction of a new country. It behooves the Minister to give out ministerial permits to individuals who merit such consideration, not to individuals who, such as in the Hungary case, give secret information about Canadians who have ties with Hungary. In fact, it is testimony to the fact that these individuals should not be granted status in this country. That status should be offered to those individuals who warrant and deserve immigration here.
Furthermore, both cases do not come out of the blue. With respect to the individual having over 20 criminal convictions, three previous Ministers of Immigration rejected the lobbying efforts that were made on his behalf. The bureaucracy and the Deputy Minister continue to this day to react negatively and are at odds with the ministerial decision.
With respect to the Hungarian case, again, two previous Ministers of Immigration rejected the lobbying efforts on behalf of this gentleman, particularly by the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). We know about these two cases and perhaps there are others which will become public. The Minister has made a very serious call, he went against the advice of his Department, and it seems that while he is probably well intentioned, he has difficulty saying no to lobbying efforts. Previous Ministers and departmental officials clearly rejected special ministerial permits to these two individuals. The present Minister somehow found it possible to grant such ministerial permits.
Canadians are asking, as I did during the week of November 4, what has changed to allow the Minister to contravene his departmental officials and go against the recommendations of three previous Ministers, not all of whom were Conservatives, because the first case goes back to John Roberts when he was Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I am anxiously waiting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the Minister granted special ministerial permits in these two particular applications. What were the circumstances that changed since the last Ministers made their recommendations? What has changed in the advice of the Department to warrant special ministerial permits?
Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can give legitimate reasons for these two cases receiving ministerial permits, I believe that he, the Minister for whom he is speaking this evening, and the Government should clearly revoke such ministerial permits. It is only in this way that we can send a strong signal to Canadians and those wishing to enter Canada that they follow proper procedures and regulations because there is no watering down of ministerial permits to people who
Adjournment Debate
simply and quite frankly do not deserve them. I look forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would be much more impressed, as would all Canadians, with the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) if it were not for the number of inaccuracies, false innuendos and the number of downright questionable comments the Hon. Member makes, both in the House and outside the House, comments which he cannot substantiate.
First, I will deal with the question of whether or not the Minister did or did not follow the recommendations of his Department. If the Hon. Member for York West was open and forthright, or if he really knew what happens in the Department-and I can forgive him for not knowing since he has not had the experience of being in government-he would know that the Minister was provided with options. The fact is circumstances change.
An interesting notion is the one that this person who has been in Canada now for a number of years was all of a sudden created out of thin air by the Minister or by the Government. We have been in government for two years now and this person has been in Canada for a number of years. If the Liberal Government and the policies which the Hon. Member would like to support were really concerned about this particular case, then I do not know how this person can still be here in Canada to be considered by the Minister.
The point I would like to make is that the Minister has acted legally. He has made recommendations to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) with respect to his consideration. Cabinet determination must be given with respect to whether this person should be considered under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1976 as a person who has been rehabilitated. I challenge the Hon. Member to take a look at this person's record, since he likes to judge. I hope that some day people can judge him as fairly as the Minister is trying to judge this person. The Government will in fact take due consideration of all elements of this case, some of which have changed in the last year.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, November 18, 1986