1986-12-02

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that negotiations between the Parties on Bill C-22 are continuing. Under those circumstances, the Government has no intention of moving on the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) which is on the Order Paper under Government Notices of Motion dated November 24, 1986.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an Act to amend and repeal the Alliance Nationale Consolidated Act, 1945, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that, yesterday, I raised the matter of what happens when the Senate sends a message to the House. I asked the Chair to inform Members of any comments and to explain whether it was an old custom that we sometimes had to wait until the next day to have these comments and hear what the Senate had to say about the Bill in question. Regarding the Bill I have just called, are there any comments, yes or no? And if so, may we hear them today?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a point which was raised obliquely in representations made yesterday and the Chair is considering the matter and will report back to the Chamber. I thank the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions concerning the imposition of a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States but penalizes Canadian consumers, book publishers, book sellers and distributors and Canada's culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries.

Mr. Speaker, the undersigned humbly pray Parliament to drop this tariff which threatens to cause irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and to compromise federal policy on our cultural industries within the context of the free trade talks.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from residents of Winnipeg, Morden, Winkler, Portage la Prairie and others. The petitioners 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 necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these

December 2, 1986
Petitions
proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. I have-


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting petitions signed by many residents of Selkirk and Winnipeg, Manitoba, and these petitioners are opposing the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs on the grounds that the changes will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and that they will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs, and further that these proposals will result in higher costs to provincial Governments. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had another petition to present on a different topic. The Hon. Member wished to have leave to introduce that petition at the same time as he was introducing his original petition.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members know that the practice is to present all petitions at one time. However, the Chair feels that it would be appropriate to recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North again.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Gloucester, Ottawa, Russell, and others, in which they state that severe funding cuts to the National Research Council that have been imposed by the Government of Canada have caused disruption of scientific activity and threatened the economic future, as well as the health and safety of Canadian citizens. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind the funding cut-backs to the National Research Council, including all consequent terminations and cut-backs in research activities, and to provide funding for the space program from sources other than the NRC budget.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been called upon by petitioners from Unity, Saskatchewan to present a petition to Parliament. The petitioners request that the Government withdraw its legislation which extends the patent rights to 10 years for the multinationals. The petitioners are fearful of an erosion of the drug plans that exist in this country. The petitioners feel that the extra costs that the poor, the elderly, and the sick will bear will be to the benefit of the multinationals.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour under Standing Order 106 to present a petition which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
In the petition people from the communities of Gillam, Thompson, and The Pas, Manitoba, have expressed their concern about the proposed measures that will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs. In other words, they are complaining about the federal Government's attempt to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They feel that this will result in increased drug prices, especially for those who have a severely restricted ability to pay, and those who have a need to consume large amounts of prescription drugs. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals, which can only result in the increase of prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition this morning from a number of people in the Yorkton-Melville riding from the town of Preeceville in the northern part of my riding. They, too, are concerned about the Government's proposition to change the Patent Act. They say in their petition that the proposal of the federal Government will increase the cost of prescription drugs to Canadian consumers, and severely restrict the ability of the average Canadian to buy the necessary pharmaceutical drugs in this country. They also go on to state that this will hurt the health needs of Canadians, and result in higher drug costs in the Saskatchewan drug plans and, therefore, hurt the revenues of the Saskatchewan Government, and so on. I do not have time, of course, to read the entire petition, but these people are very serious. They humbly pray that Parliament listen to their request, will do what they are saying, and withdraw this particular Bill that is before the House. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, these people are from the town of Preeceville in the riding of Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a number of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106 that have been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners are concerned about the Conservative Government proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. It is their view that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners are also concerned that the proposed changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States in relation to the free trade negotiations. They ask that the House of Commons reject the proposals brought in by the Government to change the Patent Act in relation to prescription drugs.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am honoured to have this opportunity to table in the House petitions from my own riding of Windsor, Ontario, and from Regina, Saskatchewan. These petitions represent a part of the mounting numbers of Canadians who
December 2, 1986

are taking the opportunity to express their opposition to changes in the Patent Act, which would result in higher drug prices. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposals by the Government which will increase prescription drug costs for all Canadians.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition in which it is stated that the changes the federal Government wishes to make in the Patent Act will increase the price of drugs and will have a particular impact on persons whose state of health requires the ongoing use of drugs, that those changes will increase the cost of all provincial health insurance programs and that they are typical examples of concessions made by the Canadian Government to the United States in the free trade talks.
Mr. Speaker, petitioners are asking Parliament to reject those proposals.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to present a petition from a number of people in Winnipeg, St-Vital, and St. Boniface petitioning the Parliament on the matter of the generic drug Bill that is now before Parliament, pointing out that this will bear very unfairly on people of low income, including senior citizens, because it will inevitably raise the price of drugs. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals, which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: l also have a petition on a different matter. This is a petition from a number of people in the areas of Ottawa, Gloucester, and nearby. It concerns the National Reseach Council funding. The petitioners regret the recent cuts in the funding, and they point out that the cutbacks will do serious harm not only to Canadian research, but to Canadian industry. The funding for the space program does seem irrelevant as an excuse for the cuts in the NRC program.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition from a number of residents of Spadina, and other parts of the City of Toronto, concerning the post office and its action this summer and fall in removing about a third of the mailboxes, the letter drop boxes in which people mail their letters in the city. They pointed out that this was done without the proper consultation to find out which boxes were heavily used. They request that Parliament ensure that Canada Post will put the mailboxes back, and will consult with the residents of the communities affected before Canada Post removes these boxes, or any other services in the future.
Order Paper Questions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition from a number of people in Spadina, and in other parts of Toronto, concerning the Canadian Forces base at Goose Bay in Labrador, and the low-level flight training which is carried on there and over parts of Labrador and Quebec. The petitioners feel that this is not in keeping with a good Canadian defence policy, but in fact increases the risk of war, as well as disturbing the life of the people who live there. Therefore, they request Parliament to ensure that there will be an end to the low-level flight training at the Canadian Armed Forces base in Goose Bay, and an end to the negotiations with NATO for establishing a larger base there.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition. This petition has been certified correct in all respects pursuant to Standing Order 106 and it comes from small towns in Quebec, such as Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Trois-Rivieres, Shawinigan, Saint-Etienne, and so on. This petition deals with the Patent Bill. The petitioners state that the proposed legislative changes will probably increase the price of drugs and that this is another instance of a Canadian concession in the free trade talks.
[DOT] ("20)


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of a number of western Canadians. They point out that the proposed changes to the Patent Act will result in prescription drug prices increasing significantly. They suggest that the increase may even be as much as $650 million per year by 1995. They simply call upon Members of the House, particularly members of the Government, not to proceed with the legislation which would result in reducing competition in the Canadian drug industry and consequently in higher costs for prescription drugs to Canadian citizens.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 16 and 33.
1678

December 2, 1986
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): Since September 1984, have any grants and loans been approved by the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion under the IRDP program to companies within the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and, if so (a) how many (b) by year, what was the total value?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: In so far as the Industrial and Regional Development Program is concerned: for the period September 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985, two grants were approved for a total of $612,200; for the period April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986, three grants were approved for a total of $1,227,833; for the period April 1, 1986 to October 7, 1986, one grant was approved for a total of $1,250.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare been collecting data on dioxin levels in food and, if so (a) since what date (b) what levels have been measured and what is the significance of these levels?
2.	Are there data on dioxin levels in the human body and, if so, what are the recorded levels and what is the significance of these levels?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) The Health Protection Branch has been monitoring dioxin levels in food for more than 10 years. These studies have indicated that the foods most likely to contain dioxins are those with the higher levels of fat such as fish, meat, etc. Examination of fruits and vegetables has revealed no detectable amounts.
Two extensive studies of fish from the Great Lakes have revealed the presence of the most toxic dioxin isomer in some fish, primarily from Lake Ontario. A regulatory limit of 20 parts per trillion for this dioxin in fish was established in 1982. Compliance action is taken whenever violative levels are found. Studies of dioxin in fish are still under way.
A national survey of poultry and swine products revealed the presence of the higher (and less toxic) chlorinated dioxins in some products, probably arising from the use of pentachloro-phenol in and around poultry and swine establishments. Action was taken by Agriculture Canada in 1981, following discussions with the Health Protection Branch, to limit the use of pentachlorophenol in such situations. A further national survey of poultry and swine products is under way.
The Health Protection Branch will continue its food monitoring program in these and in other areas, such as a total diet program, to provide continued reassurance of the wholesomeness of the food supply. Action will be taken to protect the consumer if any problems are detected.
2. The Health Protection Branch has conducted a survey of approximately 80 samples of human adipose tissue collected nationwide during 1972, 1976 and 1980. The data indicated a general low level contamination of adipose tissue in Canada
with several dioxin isomers at levels ranging from approximately 0.005 ppb (parts per billion) for the most toxic isomer to 0.8 ppb (parts per billion) for the least toxic isomer. There were no significant qualitative or quantitative differences in contamination across regions or over the time period investigated. The source of contamination was not apparent from the general pattern of contamination.
Although the significance of this extremely low level of contamination is not known at this time it should be noted that similar levels of contamination are apparent in adipose tissue from other industrialized countries such as Sweden and the U.S.A.
Health Protection Branch scientists are presently working with scientists from other countries through the World Health Organization to more fully assess the significance and source of this contamination.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, if question No. 31 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 31 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	For each year 1984 and 1985, did the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion make any grants and awards and, if so, by province and territory, what was the total dollar value?
2.	For each year 1984 and 1985, did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts for goods and services and, if so, by province and territory, what was the total dollar value?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 2, 1986



POINT OF ORDER


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. Yesterday during Question Period the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) raised two questions, as reported on page 1641 of Hansard, in which the suggestion was made that the Government was linking the names of Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo, and Rick Hansen to the Government's Bill changing the Patent Act.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) undertook to review the matter. As reported on the same page of Hansard, he said:
-because there would be no intention of associating anyone with a proposal or a piece of legislation without his or her authorization-
We have now had an opportunity to review the news release in question. I will not read the entire news release. Of course it is available. It indicated that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) "went on to say that Canadians obviously believe in the need for medical research. Terry Fox, Steve Fonyo, and Rick Hansen had raised millions of dollars, he noted".
Obviously in the news release the Minister was referring specifically to the question of medical research. There is no effort in the news release to link these individuals to the Bill. I do not believe my hon. colleague wished to leave a false impression with the House. I am simply correcting the record, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated he would do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that I must rise in response to the reaction of my hon. colleague. In the press release to which the Hon. Member referred, arising from comments yesterday during Question Period, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Fonyo, and Mr. Fox were in a sense implicated by association. The press release dealt with the Government's plan to change the Patent Act, which would result in higher drug prices. It was a very partisan press release. It referred to opposition Parties in a very negative way and implied all sorts of negative things. Sprinkled throughout the press release were the names of these three great Canadians.
In the next press release which will presumably come out today, I submit that we will hear the names of Dr. Suzuki, Dr. Polanyi, Karen Kain, Peter Gzowski, Wayne Gretzky, or whoever else.
By implication these people were associated with the theme and thesis of the press release which was to make a case for the Government's changes to the Patent Act, the Bill presently before the House of Commons.
I submit that it is absolutely wrong and kind of sleazy for the Government to take the names of people, without their
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
approval, and sprinkle them throughout a press release. It implies, by association, that these individuals stand behind the point or the thesis being made by the particular press release. Quite frankly I think it is inappropriate.
I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated in his response that he was not aware of the press release. I am sure he was not aware of it because, if he had been aware of it, he would have said to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that to use the names of these people would be inappropriate. That is exactly what he said, and I think it is totally out of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I think both Hon. Members have had a chance to make their points. Should it be necessary, the Chair reserves a decision and the possibility to return to the point. However, at this time I think we should proceed.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary was conveying a message on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I should like very much for the Prime Minister himself to respond in the House as he indicated yesterday he would do and come clean on this question.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I concur in the comments of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). In my view it was in extremely poor taste for the Government of Canada to use the names of those three individuals.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Hon. Members should realize that I have already ruled on the question and that we should now proceed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from December 1, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I was a member of the Government that made a firm and unequivocal commitment to developing a genuine Canadian aerospace policy. This wise decision has made our country one of the world leaders in the aerospace industry. I therefore welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-25 and to say that, today, Canada has a strong dynamic and innovative aerospace

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
industry, thanks to the efforts initiated by the previous Government in the seventies.
Members will recall that the Liberal administration bailed out de Havilland and purchased the company in 1973 to save thousands of jobs in the industry in Canada. When the same situation arose in Montreal at Canadair, the Liberal Government at the time-this was in 1976-had no hesitation in intervening to save well-paid and interesting jobs at Canadair in Montreal.
At the time, we were taking over a company that was ailing, but since then, the company's administrators and its employees have made it a flourishing concern.
In fact, Canadair has become the cornerstone of the aerospace industry in Quebec, and during the past three years, its net profits have totalled several million dollars.
Unlike the Conservatives who at the time-this was in the seventies and the beginning of the eighties-were constantly criticizing the Liberal Government's attempts to support both de Havilland and Canadair, we have always believed in the future of these two companies, and especially Canadair. That is why we never had any hesitation in investing substantial amounts of money to provide a sound basis for the company's development.
Before I go any further, I would like to say that on this side of the House, we are delighted-as was the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the party critic on this matter-with the sale of Canadair to Bombardier. Canadair, Quebec's aerospace motor, will be owned by another giant of Quebec's industry, and we are very happy indeed.
We are particularly pleased to see that the Government did not repeat the mistakes it made when it sold de Havilland. It seems that for once, by selling Canadair to a Canadian company, it has acted to protect the interests of Canadians instead of those of our neighbours to the South.
I am sure that Bombardier, a pioneer in the transportation field, will be able to diversify its capabilities and skills through its involvement in aircraft after having manufactured snowmobiles, locomotives and all-terrain vehicles. I have no doubt that the company's administrators have the ability to make Canadair a success.
And that, Madam Speaker, is as far as my words of praise go. Unfortunately, they must stop here. Once again the Conservative Government has shown its true colours in handling this deal-incompetence and carelessness-shrouded in haziness as it is. First, why did the Government give confidential information to the competitors? Second, why did the Government sell without first making sure that long-time Canadair employees, some with at least ten years' seniority and others with as much as twenty or even more, would be adequately protected? How could the Government make this sale without any concern for the job security of these people? Third, why did the Government not come clean with respect to the sale price and the assets transferred to Bombardier?
One very unclear aspect of this deal is this: did the buyer actually pay the price that was supposed to be paid for the corporation?
Fourth, why did the Government mishandle the F-18 maintenance contract so badly that in many regions of the country, at least among the Halifax company workers and those of the Winnipeg firm who were misled in the contract awarding process, people are now convinced that the Government made an outright gift to Bombardier in its selection of the successful bidder? Why did the Government so bungle and mess up the awarding of this contract? As I see it, those are the four questions which have yet to be answered and which account for the fact that this deal and this Bill are not as open and as clear as they should be.
If I may go back in time, to October 1984 to be precise, when we first heard that the Government was going to put Canadair on the block, the newly-elected Conservatives appeared to be in such a hurry that we could have expected the matter to be resolved very quickly. Unfortunately such was not the case and, as a result of endless foot dragging, we had to wait for more than two years before the Government introduced this Bill to finalize the sale of Canadair.
Now then, let us first consider the consequences of this ideological haste in the early years of this new political regime which simply had to get rid of all Crown corporations regardless of cost, circumstances or terms. The one-track mind Conservatives were determined to get rid of all Crown corporations.
What happened however is that the so-called Gulfstream case turned out to be an absolutely appalling experience for Canadair employees. As we recall, American-owned Gulf-stream asked to see Canadair facilities. Should anybody be unaware of the fact, Gulfstream happens to be Canadair's main competitor on the jet and turbojet aircraft market, and its G-3 and G-4 products directly compete with Canadair's Challenger 601. Indeed, both Gulfstream and Canadair practically have the same customers.
In May 1985, Canadair board directors felt that this way Gulfstream might too easily acquire strategic data, so they unanimously refused to let Gulfstream gain access to confidential information such as the list of clients, marketing plans, research projects, customer service programs, future works, in short nothing less than the whole corporate planning of a concern in direct competition with similar companies. But what is absolutely incredible is that the Conservative Government, through Canada Development Investment Corporation which is the parent corporation of Canadair, ordered Canadair's Board of Directors to reveal all this information to Gulfstream, its competitor. With the list of its customers in its possession, Gulfstream, as early as July 1985, sent to the customers of Canadair a telegram totally detrimental to the sales of Canadair, and I should like to quote this telegram which is quite revealing and demonstrates to what extent this Conservative Government is either naive or incompetent. I quote:
December 2, 1986

which is quite revealing and demonstrates to what extent this Conservative Government is either naive or incompetent. I quote:
"With your involvement in the investment business, I have to ask if your pending purchase of the Canadair CL-601 is really best for you? CDIC's plan to sell Canadair is public knowledge. When that happens, to whom will you look for support? Spares? And what will be the effect on your long term investment in that product?
We can offer new Gulfstream Ill's now and Gulfstream IV's downstream, and we know who will be there to fully support your investment."

That is the kind of letter which was sent to the prospective clients and purchasers of Canadair. Although the newspapers of this country obviously denounced this situation, the Conservative Government found nothing wrong with it. Quite the contrary. CDIC again forced Canadair a second and even a third time to open its doors to Gulstream's experts. Well, having obtained all the strategic information it wanted about Canadair, Gulfstream, thus confirming the fears expressed by the Board of Directors in May 1985, announced in October in a very despicable fashion that it had changed its mind and would not buy the Challenger program from Canadair.
For this reason, I do not hesitate to say that the Government's slowness in proceeding with the sale of Canadair has probably resulted in several prospective buyers turning to products made by its United States competitors. There is no doubt in my mind that the Conservative Government must be held responsible for this serious situation. And I do not hesitate to say that the Government's indecision and administrative irresponsibility have certainly resulted in the loss of major contracts for the Ville-Saint-Laurent company. Its lack of concern has fed the employees quite legitimate worries. Indeed, Canadair's employees have mentioned three major concerns during the Government's discussions to sell Canadair.
First of all, in the area of job security, the employees feel that the guarantees are not strong enough. In fact, it can be said that there is practically no guarantee in that respect. Here is the commitment made by Bombardier in its memorandum of understanding and accepted by the Government.
The Bombardier company has committed itself to maintain existing levels of employment at Canadair, subject to cyclical shifts and sound business practices. What does that mean? In practical terms, that does not mean anything at all as far as the job security for thousands of Montreal workers is concerned. The Government has decided not to ease their fears, not to satisfy their request which I deem quite legitimate, and I accuse the Conservative Government of having abandoned Canadair employees to their fate.
Hon. Members will recall that during the seventies and in the early eighties, the Conservatives were against maintaining the large subsidies granted by the Liberal Government to
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
ensure the survival of this company. Now, the first thing the Conservative Government does is to sell this profitable company to the private sector and to tell the employees: We are no longer responsible for your welfare; you have to rely on the new owners; good luck and goodbye. The Canadair employees are worried not only about their jobs, but also about their pension plans. The Government is refusing to provide the explanations which are absolutely essential in my opinion because these people, who have worked for this company for dozens of years and have invested their time, their talent, and also part of their income to prepare an adequate pension for themselves, are now faced with uncertainty about their pension plans. They have not been told whether their pension plans will be transferred to the new management of Canadair. The Bombardier commitments deal with the amount accumulated in the pension fund but the future use of these amounts is left completely vague, and nothing is said about the plan itself. I refer, Madam Speaker, to the commitment made by the Government and Bombardier: "CDIC and the Government garantee that the Canadair pension) plans will be fully funded at the date of closing." But what will happen after the transaction? In addition, Bombardier and the Crown acknowledge that amounts in the Canadair pension plans will be for the sole benefit of the Canadair employees. Once more, we would have expected more forthrightness and clarity from the Government on such a major issue. Finally, the employees are also worried about the fact that nothing would prevent Bombardier from moving part of its Canadair operations to other plants in Quebec, elsewhere in Canada or even abroad. Obviously, these workers, who have been the key of the success of this company over the years, could have obtained better guarantees of a job and security for themselves and their families in the Montreal region. However, I am not surprised at the vagueness of the approach taken by this Government since it did nothing a while ago to save thousands of jobs in Eastern Montreal. One company after another had to close or to lay off employees who had worked for many years in transport related industries in Eastern Montreal. For weeks and months, the Conservative Government did absolutely nothing to counter this disaster in the Montreal region. And in the case of this transaction which turns over to the private sector a Crown corporation that could, through the Government, provide those people with thousands of jobs, the Government has done nothing to ensure that the purchaser, a private corporation, would remain as good an employer as the Government has been for its many employees over the years.
In conclusion, I would simply like to ask, as I did earlier in my remarks when I raised four questions: Why did the F-18 maintenance contract lead to such controversy? It is clear to me that at the time Bombardier was negotiating with the Government the takeover of that corporation, everyone knew the F-18 maintenance contract was to be awarded to a Canadian corporation as provided by the very deal that was struck when the F-18 contract was signed. The previous Government had included in that contract a commitment that phase two of the F-18 maintenance work would be done in

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Canada by a Canadian corporation. That was in the original contract itself. And certainly Canadair's purchasers, Bombardier, did discuss that with this Government.
In conclusion, I will say it is clear in my mind that the people in Halifax and Winnipeg were taken in, because there was no other way than the right one, which was to give that maintenance contract to Canadair, the company that was the best prepared and the best equipped for the contract. I find it absolutely disgraceful that this Government should have decided on that tender process, the only effect of which was to deceive people in Halifax and Winnipeg since, from the outset, the contract was to be awarded to Canadair in Montreal. So this piece of legislation will have to be scrutinized in committee, because there are too many questions the Government has failed to answer.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, can the Hon. Member tell us what he believes should be done to ensure that the employees of the corporation are not disadvantaged in the turnover? Is it necessary to have further negotiations, or is it just a matter of delineating the areas of concern?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the question of the Hon. Member. I am ready to support this legislation at second reading stage in order that it be sent to committee where we will study it clause by clause. In committee we will have a chance to ask the Government more questions about the intricacies of this contract and, hopefully, obtain satisfaction. However, if we do not obtain the answers to our questions, the onus will be upon members of the Opposition to submit amendments which would give the employees of Canadair greater guarantees.
I know many of these employees. Some of them live in my riding. They have been working for Canadair for years. These people deserve better treatment than the Government wants to give them. I believe the onus is upon Members of Parliament to ensure the continuity and vitality of this organization. It has provided a very useful service and a number of well paid jobs in Montreal. It would be a disaster if these people were not guaranteed future employment.


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member today and to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) yesterday. They made the incredible claim that Gulfstream had some confidential information which no one else had and that it got this secret information through a telegram from Gulfstream to someone who is purchasing an airplane. That is the greatest red herring that has ever been brought up in the House of Commons.
A salesman for a company which is trying to sell an airplane will naturally use everything at his disposal to sell the airplane. It was public knowledge that Canadair was for sale. A salesman would tell the client not to buy the product of a company which is for sale. That is exactly what we are talking
about. It is totally untrue to say that they have some confidential information. Gulfstream had no confidential information. It is absolutely ludicrous to try to tie it in with a salesman doing his job for Gulfstream. I believe that the facts should be presented as they are rather than as the Liberals see them.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I regret that I must disagree with the Hon. Member. However, it has been established that the members of the Board of Directors of Canadair were forced by the Government to give Gulfstream the list of potential clients of Canadair and those who have already purchased Challengers. They also had to give Gulfstream their research plans and marketing plans. I cited a letter which was sent. It is quite clear that in order to send such a letter Gulfstream would have had to have the list.
Therefore, three vital pieces of confidential information were given to a competitor. They were given to a competitor because, regardless of cost or risk, the Government wants to get rid of Crown corporations. The Government more or less gave de Havilland to Boeing. It was an absolutely scandalous sale. Fortunately Bombardier made a good offer for Canadair. If the employees had not objected and people of Montreal had not become furious with the Government, Canadair would have been sold to Gulfstream.
Day after day we see the Government's madness to sell Crown corporations at any price. The Government is selling CN Route for less than its book value. All across Canada employees of CN Route are being told that they will lose their jobs due to this sale. I am afraid the same thing will happen with Teleglobe. The Government has twisted the rules of the game three times already. It is so desperate to sell Crown corporations that it will sell them at any cost. We resent this and object to it. I want to say clearly and unequivocally that the Government was foolish to give so much confidential information to Gulfstream, the prime competitor of Canadair.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Liberals established approximately 400 Crown corporations during their years of so-called service to the country. As the Hon. Member knows, there is no mad rush to buy these Crown corporations. However, the Canadian people want Crown corporations which are not serving the public policy of the country to be in private hands. They told us that clearly on September 4, 1984. The Government is carrying out its promise in a reasoned and reasonable way.
I suggest that the Hon. Member talk to the workers at de Havilland today and ask them how they feel about the deal. They will tell him that there is more employment and more activity. They are doing very well. Approximately 1,000 of those workers live in my constituency and they are thanking me because, for once, there is some certainty and, for once, they now know they can have jobs. They are telling me that they are selling planes and they do not have the Government using them as a toy.
December 2, 1986


André Ouellet: I remind the Hon. Member that this very viable Canadian company is now an American company. When things get tough, I want to see the Hon. Member come back and tell us what that American company will do to the workers.


John Horton McDermid: Who owns the technology?


André Ouellet: The other point he raised concerns the number of Crown corporations. Yes, the Liberal Government created a number of Crown corporations, all of which were legitimate, all serving a useful and important role.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


André Ouellet: From CBC, to Air Canada, to Teleglobe, to a number of Crown corporations all across the country, like the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Where private sector business did not create the jobs and was not there to take the initiative, the Liberal Government created Crown corporations to ensure employment in every region of Canada, particularly in areas where the private sector will never go.


Mr. Gerin:: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member rise in debate?


François Gérin: No, Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to make a comment on the speech-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The period for questions and-


François Gérin: I might add, Madam-


André Ouellet: No, it is over.


François Gérin: It would not have been a favourable comment.


André Ouellet: Have respect for the Chair.


François Gérin: What a sophistical speech!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would ask the Hon. Member to resume his seat. Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, a number of my colleagues have pointed out some of the details that need to be considered in this divestiture of the Crown corporation. I want to comment on the direction the Government is taking in the divestiture of Crown corporations. We oppose this Bill for a number of specific reasons that do not necessarily relate to the particular Crown corporation in question but rather, relate to the policy and philosophy of the Government in its approach to privatization.
Its approach seems to be based on ideology that is quite different from the Canadian tradition with respect to Crown
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
corporations. The provincial and federal tradition has been to deal with Crown corporations as part of the economy of the country. For example, that tradition has led to a mixed economy in Canada because Crown corporations have been able to assist the development of private corporations.
Previous Conservative Governments contributed a great deal to that mixed economy through the process of establishing Crown corporations. For example, the economy of the entire nation was developed as a result of the Conservative Government's establishment of Canadian National Railways, a Crown corporation. It contributed to the development of the manufacturing industries of Ontario and Quebec by being able to deliver the resources of other regions of Canada to those industries.
The Conservative Government is breaking a tradition that Conservatives themselves established, and it has not explained how the ideological reasons behind this decision will help develop the country.
Furthermore, this divestiture is against the mandate that it requested during the election in September, 1984. At that time, the Conservatives sought and received a mandate not to sell corporations like Canadair and de Havilland because they are key to an aerospace industry that the Conservatives wanted in Canada. In a press release on August 27, 1984-one week before the election-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that this organization would be responsible for the aerospace strategy, so that Canadair and de Havilland will become commercially viable and will continue to be so into the next century. When the Government was elected, its mandate was not to divest itself of the aerospace industry and put it into private hands, but to establish it as a viable industry that would take us into the next century.
It should be noted that even the ideological reasons behind this divestiture are confusing. The Government does not seem to be consistent in how it will treat the Crown corporations that it is selling. The Government will use any excuse, regardless of whether it makes sense, as a basis for its divestiture of these Crown corporations.
Crown corporations have been established in Canada as instruments of public policy. Every Crown corporation has been established for good reasons such as economic development, job preservation and regional job development. While there are many examples of poorly operating Crown corporations, the reasons for that include the unfortunate policy of former Liberal and Conservative Governments over the years that these Crown corporations should be free-standing and at arm's length from the federal Government once they have been established. The Crown corporations seemed to take on a life of their own, which was not necessarily the objective when they were originally established. Therefore, rather than continuing to be instruments of public policy, Crown corporations had a tendency to become commercial enterprises bringing no basic benefit to the country. If that happens and if it is impossible to change the direction of those corporations, then I, and I suppose my Party, have no real quarrel with the idea of selling

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
them to the private sector as long as it is done in a way that does not disturb the basic economy.
When a Crown corporation stands alone commercially and starts to operate as if it were a private commercial enterprise, then it need not be sold automatically. We must look at it and decide if it was established for a policy reason and, if so, there must be some way in which it will affect the economy of Canada if it is removed from the public sector. Rather than putting it on the block for sale, we should ask why it was set up and see if we can return to the reason for its establishment. We should ensure that the people of Canada are getting the policy development for which the particular Crown corporation was established.
Sometimes successful Crown corporations are filling a need. Those needs are broad and many. Crown corporations have been used to develop resources and regional industries. They have been used as a window into a particular industry, an opportunity for the Government to know what is occurring in the industry and to know what kind of development is needed. This makes it less necessary to depend on multinational corporations whose reasons for being are quite often not necessarily of benefit to the Canadian people. If a corporation is put in place and does have an impact on a particular sector of the economy, the private corporations are forced to get in line in a competitive way.
As well, in the past, Crown corporations have often been leaders, either in a positive or a negative way, in examples of environmental control. Quite often these Crown corporations have also been used to establish the regulatory structure which is necessary in the development of an economy. The Government's privatization program is in place only for ideological reasons. The Government suggests that it is better for a private corporation to operate these industries rather than for a Crown corporation to do so.
For many years, the Government of Saskatchewan was involved in establishing a number of Crown corporations. Many people in the House and across Canada have suggested that the formation of Crown corporations is a basic principle of socialist Parties, while in fact there have been fewer Crown corporations developed in the Province of Saskatchewan than there have been in Conservative Alberta. Conservative Alberta has been much more prone to the development of Crown corporations so it may control the development of its industries. Saskatchewan confined its Crown corporations to the development of utilities and resources.
Tommy Douglas had a favourite saying which was: "You don't have to own an industry in order to have some control over it". He felt that it was quite possible to set up a structure which allowed a fair, easy and worth-while development of the economy of the province or the country without putting Crown corporations into place. That was the basic philosophy under which the Saskatchewan Government operated for those 30 years that Tommy Douglas was the Premier.
During the time Tommy Douglas was the Premier of Saskatchewan, the amount of private investment in Saskatchewan was very high. It contributed tremendously to the development of the province. Saskatchewan went from being a have-not province to being a have province. It went from having the highest per capita debt to having the lowest per capita debt in those years. It also ended up with a diverse economy.
This Government really does not know why it is pursuing privatization. I think that is the basic reason we feel that we cannot support this kind of divestiture, as much as we think that there are reasons in some cases for supporting the divestiture of Crown corporations. Until the Government has in place a policy which we can follow, we feel that we cannot support this kind of divestiture.
Canada is not the same as the United States. We would not have developed in the way we have if we had not had in place over the years Crown corporations like CNR. We would not have developed culturally in the way we have if we had not had in place another Conservative Crown corporation, the CBC. These Crown corporations contributed immensely to the development of Canada. To a great extent, the resources of Canada have been developed by Crown corporations.
It is not as if the Government had suddenly decided that certain Crown corporations were no longer commercially valuable, although that is what occurred with de Havilland. We are now told that de Havilland is producing tremendously and there is no reason to believe that it would not have produced just as well if it had remained a Crown corporation.
Canadair is the fourth, the fifth or the sixth Crown corporation the Government has sold off. It started out by selling off the Northern Transportation Company. I would venture to guess that the subsidies being paid to the present Northern Transportation Company are just as large as they were when it was run as a Crown corporation. The service to northern areas which was a requirement under the Crown corporation's mandate has diminished. Many communities in the north are no longer able to depend on the Northern Transportation Company for transportation.
The Government also sold the Kidd Creek Mines. The Kidd Creek Mines were to close down, but as I understand it, there was a need to keep a number of jobs in that particular area. There was no particular reason why the Kidd Creek Mines should not have been sold. Since it was part of the Canada Development Corporation, it did not require legislation to sell it.
We went through the process of selling de Havilland. Again, as with Canadair, it looks as though we will sell another corporation at a value much less than the people of Canada should have expected for the type of investment that they had made.
December 2, 1986

The Government sold Canadian Arsenals. Again, I think that the reason was ideological, and had nothing to do with the commercial aspects of the situation, because there were really good reasons for keeping Canadian Arsenals. There are many people in this country, and many people in the world, who would like to take the development or the production of armaments away from the private corporations that operate on a straight profit basis, and instead give it to the state that will then make it part of its keeping of the peace, rather than the making of war.
The Government needs to look very carefully at why it is doing what it is doing. We are different from the United States. Many years ago the Conservatives stopped the making of the Avro-Arrow, and by doing so eliminated the aerospace industry from Canada for many years. We still have not caught up to that Conservative mistake.
What the Government needs to put before this House is a plan for privatization, which we can accept and know that it will work and be for the benefit of Canadians.


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


John Horton McDermid: I wish to make one brief comment on the Hon. Member's speech. It worries me when I hear an Hon. Member like my friend from Prince Albert stand up and talk about how great nationalization is, and how well the Government can run everything. It is obvious that the philosophy of the New Democratic Party is different from the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party. That is well known throughout the country. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member can stand up and say that all 400 odd Crown corporations that were created by the Liberals all served a very useful purpose and did a great job. Has the Hon. Member taken the time to look at those Crown corporations to which he refers in a very wide-ranging manner, and examine them like this Government has, and found some to be not serving the public policy position, and not doing the job for which they were intended?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Hon. Member has enlarged on the exact point that I have been trying to make, and that is that Crown corporations were established in the past for some reason. If that reason was good then, it should be looked at again before we divest ourselves of Crown corporations. I recognize that the 400 corporations that were established are not necessarily valid to the economy now. In fact, many of those Crown corporations were subsidiaries of Crown corporations that were purchased for a particular reason. For instance, there are 82 Crown corporations which are subsidiaries of Teleglobe. Because they were established in a variety of countries, they all contribute to Teleglobe as a Crown corporation which is viable and which is doing something for Canada. It is also providing service not only to Canada but to many other nations. The idea that a Crown corporation, because it is not making money or doing any good, should be kept or sold, is something that the Government needs to look at. I recognize that, and I suggest
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
that the Government does a better job of looking at these Crown corporations. I do not think much of the idea that if it is making money, sell it; if it is not making money, then nobody wants it, so you keep on. If this continues, before long the costs of operation of Crown corporations will be much greater than at present because the Crown corporations that are being sold because somebody will buy them, will be the ones that make money. The Crown corporations that end up being operated by the Government will be those that are losing money.


John Horton McDermid: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for endorsing this Government's position on Crown corporations, that is, to review those Crown corporations that are in existence, and if they are not serving the public good, either fold them up, sell them or dispose of them in a manner that is right and proper. I wish to thank the Hon. Member for endorsing the Progressive Conservative policy on Crown corporations, and encouraging the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) to get on with her job.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: As I pointed out earlier, we opposed this particular divestiture for three reasons. One, we have been given no reason why it should be sold. Regardless of whether it has been reviewed or not, the Government has not told us any good reason why it is to be sold. If you put a for or against situation here, there would be a long list of things against the divestiture, and a very short list for the divestiture.
Second, there has been no guarantee of jobs. There is no basic plan in place for privatization. We are asking that a plan be put in place for privatization, and then we can criticize the plan and know what the Government is doing.
Third, the price is wrong. It is a bad deal. There are three good reasons for keeping the company, and no good reasons for selling it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. Is the House ready for the question? On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate of a very important subject which affects all regions of the country. It is certainly one that has been the cause of substantial concern and interest, particularly in my home Province of Manitoba.
The debate that we have listened to about the relative merits of privatization versus nationalization are worthy of some comment from this side of the House.
The reason for the existence of public corporations is that they are there to serve a public interest purpose. Certainly, in the case of Canadair, when the Liberal Government purchased it in 1976, it was clear that we were engaged in a major effort to maintain a substantial air frame manufacturing component in Canada itself. This was compared to some of the past

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
egregious mistakes made by previous Governments. We all have long memories of the serious problems caused by the sale of Avro-Arrow, and the disbanding of that capacity in the Canadian aerospace industry to produce airplanes.
The fact is that it was a government policy at the time to maintain and to preserve Canada's competence and capability in aerospace production. There is no question that Canadair is and was a major force in the development of the aerospace industry. Therefore, it can be justifiably said that there was a very definitive public interest to be served.
I wish to echo the comments that have been made that privatization for its own sake that simply proceeds from a preconceived, predigested notion of a market economy that has no place for government involvement simply does not make sense. In the case of Canadair, the involvement of government purchasing, marketing, and investment was the primary reason a major aerospace firm was able to continue in the City of Montreal. I would hope we would get away from the sterility of debate itself. The test must be whether there is a public interest to be met. If so, quite rightly the Government has a responsibility to assess where and how it can be most effective in its support.
In the case of Canadair, the Liberal Government of 1976 felt that it had to become a Crown corporation in order to survive. At the same time it was the clear intent that when, if and how management could be restored to the private sector, our Government was prepared to do it if all conditions involving research and development, job retention guarantees, and the maintenance of activities were met. Under the rubric of CDIC there was active development of the basic foundations of looking for a private sale.
This brings me to the specific initiative of the Conservative Government about which we are talking now-the actual sale to Bombardier. Is the sale proper and correct? Does it live up to the rules? In that respect I draw to the attention of the House correspondence which I directed to the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) on August 20 of this year. I thanked her for sending me information on the proposed sale and the letter of intent. I also drew to her attention a condition incorporated in the letter of intent which indicated that there was a direct relationship between the sale of Canadair to Bombardier and the awarding of the CF-18 contract. I indicated that in the letter of intent the conditional nature of the royalty was far from apparent. Instead, the CF-18 systems engineering support contract was listed as an element of the Canadair sale price and given an estimated nominal value of royalties based upon Canada's share of program revenues. In my letter I went on to say that the transfer of the CF-18 systems technology would cause Canada to pay Crown royalties equal to 1 per cent of Canada's share of the program revenue.
I was really drawing to the attention of the Minister on August 20 that quite clearly in the bargaining and negotiations
the Conservative Government had decided to provide the CF-18 work as one condition of the sale in order to get cash flow into Canadair sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Bombardier.
After August 20 there were repeated statements by various Conservative Members and Ministers declaiming any kind of connection or responsibility. After a two-month delay, the Minister of State for Privatization wrote back to me on October 7. Perhaps answering correspondence is not one of her strong points. In her letter she indicated that there was no connection between them. On September 4, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who acts as a nominal regional Minister for the Province of Manitoba, indicated that the awarding of the CF-18 contract had nothing to do with any kind of prior commitment or sale, and that it would be done purely on the basis of its merits and on the basis of a fair tendering process.
I should like to indicate in the House today one reason the tendering process was skewered, biased, and unfair. Also it is one reason the contract was not awarded on the proper criteria. Clearly the Government of Canada had made it a conditional part of the sale when it negotiated with Bombardier. It is duplicity. It is a clear, unmistakable example of a Government not prepared to deal openly and honestly in the House and with Canadians. It says one thing and does another; it makes one claim and takes action in the opposite direction.
I do not have to tell the House the response generated by that particular action. Across the country there is clear recognition that the present Government of Canada cannot be trusted. There is a deep sense of betrayal and a deep sense of indignation.
I should like to refer to the results of a public opinion poll. They indicated, not surprisingly, that over 40 per cent of the persons polled in western Canada felt that it was an unfair and unacceptable practice on the part of the Government. It is also interesting to note that there was the same recognition in other parts of Canada not directly affected by the awarding of the contract. For example, 54 per cent of the people polled in the maritime provinces felt that the decision was unfair. In Ontario the figure was 48 per cent. The national average was 56 per cent.
What must be done to correct an incredible shabbiness which has in effect tainted the particular sale and has caused people to wonder what other kinds of deals and fixes are underneath the table? Obviously the Government of Canada should state clearly some time soon its intentions with regard to the Canadian aerospace industry. Does it have any real intention of ensuring a proper and continued development of Canada's aerospace capacity? I raise that question because two events have since occurred which give some cause for concern. One was the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). When commenting upon the awarding of the CF-18 contract, he clearly stated that it was a decision of the Conservative Government to concentrate and focus the development of aerospace technology in one
December 2, 1986

region of Canada. This raises a question because obviously it has not been the historical pattern up until now.
Since World War II the development of the aerospace industry has been in the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. There has been a substantial portion in the Province of Manitoba, with a number of subcontracts being done in Vancouver, Halifax, and Calgary. If indeed it is the intention of the Conservative Government to begin to consolidate and concentrate the aerospace industry in one or two regions, then it should say so. It might find some capacity to be honest with Canadians. If that is the decision, it should be prepared to spell it out. However, at this point there is no aerospace development plan. There is no strategy. We have no idea what it is, other than the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That was then followed by the task force report on the City of Montreal. In its own way that was an important and laudable achievement. However, why was it not done for other cities and regions? Why only for one? Why are all the other regions ignored when it comes to trying to develop an effective plan for federal involvement in regional development? I applaud the efforts to bring together business and labour with federal, provincial and municipal leaders to develop a strategic economic plan for an important region of this country. However, surely to goodness it should be done in all major regions of Canada. That would ensure that the principle of fairness is applied. It would show that we recognize the importance of equal sharing of the development in all regions. That principle is particularly important in the aerospace industry which is highly dependent upon government investment, contracts and research and development incentives. It is not a market-based industry. It would be nice if it were, but in fact it is highly sensitive to government decisions. A large part of its work is defence related and dependent upon government programs for research and development and expansion.
Right now there is a high level of uncertainty and anxiety in the industry. My City of Winnipeg has major aerospace manufacturers like Boeing and Bristol. They do not know what is coming next. They do not know how to proceed. They do not know if they should bid on contracts because they do not know the rules of the game anymore. Even after the CF-18 contract was awarded, tenders were put out on other government related aerospace work with the same kind of criterion, it being "social economic benefits", a one line criterion with no further elaboration. That is contrary to the demands we made in this House at the time the CF-18 contract was awarded. We said that if the Government was going to introduce new criteria such as that, it has a responsibility to ensure that the companies bidding on those contracts at least know what test they will be required to meet. However, that has yet to be done even though Ministers of the Crown must surely know by now what an egregious and stupid mistake they made in the way they handled that contract. Yet they have done nothing to correct it. As a consequence, the major players in the industry
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
do not know whether to expand or whether to put money up front in the bidding for new contracts because they do not know whether the game is going to be played by the rules set by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his interview with La Presse, or by the rules of the tendering process set out in the manuals.
Here we are, in a climate of deep uncertainty, talking about the need to sell Canadair to a private company. The industry has no way to focus on its future direction. I had hoped the introduction of this Bill would afford the Minister responsible an opportunity to spell out how she sees privatization as part of an over-all plan for Canada's aerospace industry. How would she see it fitting in to relationships between Governments? Were there any other "favoured status" agreements that Canadair can use? What other understandings exist? The only way to clarify and clear away the lingering suspicion and skepticism about the way the Government does business is to put on the table exactly what it is the Government expects to happen. Yet nothing like that has been done. We have not received any kind of guarantee about what the future responsibilities and obligations of the federal Government will be to Canadair and the other major aerospace companies. The Government is seeking approval for the sale of a major aerospace company, and that is why I believe the onus is on the Government to provide to this House and the Canadian people, particularly the 45,000 workers in the industry, a clear indication of what the future will be.
The sale of Canadair raises no specific problems so long as we can clearly see that it was done by the proper rules and in the public interest. However, it was not done that way as the correspondence I have read in the record clearly shows. There has been no definition of what the public interest is. As a consequence, this sale will simply further muddy what are already very murky and troubled waters.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, you are getting to know my riding very well. It is a great riding.
I enjoyed listening to my hon. friend and there are three things I would like to talk about. He spoke about workers and employment. It is interesting to note that when the Government owned de Havilland, employment went from 5,400 down to 2,800. It is now back up to some 4,800 employees, 600 of them hired since Boeing took over de Havilland. In the period of time when the Government controlled Canadair, employment dropped from 7,200 to 4,800 where it stands today. Obviously what the Hon. Member said about a Crown corporation providing a certain amount of certainty to its workers is totally untrue.
The Hon. Member also talked about uncertainty in the industry. He said the companies do not know what to do. If the companies are so uncertain, I want to know why they are hiring people in record numbers. Why did Boeing announce on

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
May 21 that some 250 new jobs were being created in the Hon. Member's City of Winnipeg? Why did de Havilland have record sales in June? That was due to the world-wide marketing program of Boeing which I think the Hon. Member will agree is one of the best in the world.
Finally, the Member suggests that there is linkage between the CF-18 contract and the sale of Canadair. Innuendo is very difficult to defend against. The Hon. Member has absolutely no proof that there was any linkage. The fact is that there was no linkage. As a matter of fact, I understand that Canadair had been involved for some time in the CF-18 proposals. I was somewhat involved in the CF-18 deal at its inception many years ago. We were talking about the servicing contract at that time. I think the Hon. Member will agree that there is no proof whatsoever of linkage in this particular sale.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to the three points raised by my distinguished and hon. colleague opposite. He raised the question of whether it is better to have private control or public control with regard to the retention of jobs, research and development. I will remind him that it was only the purchase of de Havilland and Canadair by the Government of Canada that saved those companies. Had that not happened there would be absolutely no jobs in those industries. The foreign companies which owned de Havilland and Canadair were going to close them down. The Government faced a tough decision in the mid-1970s. We realized that the only way to preserve a major component of the aerospace industry was to put these companies under public ownership.
During that period of time both those companies were engaged in the development of new airplanes. They realized they had to keep up with the newly competitive market and had to invest large sums of money in the development of the Dash-8 and the Challenger. Development is not nearly as employment-productive as mass assembly. The private owners of de Havilland and Canadair will now reap the benefit of that major public investment which they acquired at fire sale prices.
The taxpayers of Canada put a lot of money into those companies to keep them contemporary in the very tough and competitive aerospace market. I believe that since the private owners can now utilize the technology which was developed they are obliged to give some guarantees. No one can say that we received proper and acceptable guarantees in the sale of de Havilland. In fact, it was reported recently that fixed-wing technology may be transferred from north to south rather than the other way around because the previous Minister did an abominable job in negotiating.
I am prepared to say that there was an improvement in this case. However, it cannot be argued that the way in which the ownership was directed indicates the superiority of the private side. It only shows that in this case the public sector lived up to its responsibility.
I was very interested in the comments about all the wonderful new jobs that are being created. My hon. friend ought to tell the workers at Bristol about that. The management of Bristol is contemplating closing down its air maintenance division unless it receives some work very soon. The way in which the contracting procedure was ruptured in the CF-18 decision was a clear transgression of these rules and has caused uncertainty. It will be very difficult to get boards of directors to authorize bids on contacts in the aerospace industry when they do not know whether the decision will be based on political muscle or proper criteria. That is the cause of the uncertainty at this time.
I do not know whether the Hon. Member was in the House when I referred to the correspondence which I sent to the Minister of State for Privatization on August 20. Bombardier's offer of 1 per cent royalties was included as part of the letter of intent. Based on that clear evidence, it is difficult not to see that there must be some connection.
I cannot prove what went on inside the Cabinet room. I was not there and I was not a direct party to the negotiations. However, when the letter of intent arrived on my desk on August 20 and I read the condition, the bells began to ring and alarms went off. I immediately phoned the people at Bristol Aerospace and told them they had a problem. That was a very clear indication that something was going awry. While I do not have the definitive proof which I wish I had, a good detective could see from the circumstantial evidence contained in that letter of intent signed by the Minister of State for Privatization that there was something more than smelly taking place in this deal.


Mr. Redway:: Madam Speaker, during debate the Hon. Member spoke at length about and was highly critical of the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair of Quebec as opposed to Bristol Aerospace of Manitoba. If the Liberal Party formed the national Government at this time, would it have awarded that contract to Bristol Aerospace of Manitoba rather than to Canadair of Quebec?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am more than pleased to answer that question. First, a Liberal Government would honour a fair and proper tendering process. It would not screw around with it as the Government did. The clearly recognizable distortion which was engaged in would not be acceptable. As I said in my remarks, it is equally important that the Government of Canada establish a clear aerospace policy which would outline the proper development and maintenance of the aerospace industry for the country.
Members of the Government have not said how they will provide support and sustenance and ensure a fair distribution of aerospace work. That also would not be tolerated by a Liberal Government. We believe that the entire country deserves care and concern with regard to regional development. That would be the policy of a Liberal Government. We believe that regional development must be the preoccupation of the entire country. Coming from the city from which he
December 2, 1986

does, and based upon those two criteria, the Member should have the same worries as we have in Winnipeg.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is over. With the consent of the Elouse I would like to call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will table the Forget Commission report recommending that the Minister make up for the unfair treatment meted out by this Conservative Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to 50,000 early retirees in Canada.
As everybody recalls, Mr. Speaker, last year at this time people who were being forced to take early retirement to enable younger workers to keep their jobs were entitled to withdraw their private pension funds and apply for unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it was getting close to Christmas time so this Conservative Government-on the sly and without warning, as usual-decided that these people would no longer be eligible for UIC benefits. Commissioner Forget will strongly urge the Government to redress such unfairness, and I would hope that all Hon. Members will support Mr. Forget's recommendations.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to focus on another social measure of the Conservative Government, namely the Minister of Health's Canada Pension Plan amendments which will be in force as of January 1, 1987.
Under the new policy, Canadians will benefit from more flexible retirement conditions, the extension of the survivor's benefits in case of remarriage, and new rules on the sharing of credits and pensions between spouses.
Contributors will thus be eligible for CPP benefits between the ages of 60 and 70, and benefits will be reduced or increased according to the age of the contributor.
As well, disability benefits will increase from $87.56 to $224, up to a $588.58 monthly maximum. Benefits for survivors and retirees will also be going up.
These changes reflect the new needs of Canadian society and are one more proof of our Government's sense of equity and fairness.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, are Canadian passports being marketed in Hong Kong? The recently formed Alberta World Securities Fund ran afoul of the Hong Kong Securities Commission with an unauthorized press conference. Even the presence of Alberta's Minister of Career Development and Employment failed to save them from having to apologize and withdraw their public offer of investment and immigration services.
But it seems that Canadian passports are the real investment. The South China Morning Post quotes the fund's marketing expert as saying that anyone with $500,000 would be more concerned with the passport than with the return on investment.
She said: "My belief is that the immigration option is their first priority".
Current Canadian regulations can admit anyone who passes health and security checks, has half a million dollars, and invests $250,000 in Canada.
This and the entrepreneur program are taking staff time away from processing Canadians' applications to sponsor their relatives to enter Canada. This causes slowdowns for family applications, one reason why the Government has failed to meet its 1986 levels for family reunification.
The Government puts dollars ahead of people.



REFUGEES


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with immigration, the Government has a responsibility to consider each case on its own merits.

December 2, 1986
In recent weeks the Opposition has put the Immigration Minister on trial through a series of misrepresentations which I would like to correct.
The case of the Iranian in the United States is entirely under American jurisdiction. Not only has he lived in the United States for the past eight years, he was found not to be a convention refugee by both American and Canadian officials. Contrary to what the Member opposite is suggesting, I am informed that neither he nor members of his family, his parents, brothers or sister, have ever suffered any persecution in Iran.
Does the Opposition not realize that to allow this person to enter Canada on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds where none exist would simply invite increasing pressure for us to do so in other similarly undeserving cases?
In the case of the Hungarian and his family, the Minister's permit has now been issued and, of course, these individuals must pass the necessary medical and security checks before they are allowed to come to Canada.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in early May of this year a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport tabled in the House a report on the Canadian National Railways Pension System. The Committee recommended, first, that a measure of inflation protection be a priority item at the next round of contract negotiations between CN and the railway unions and that the matter be bargained with a serious intent to reach a solution and, second, if the parties fail to reach a solution, or if the solution fails to provide a reasonable measure of inflation protection, the Government itself should introduce legislation providing a reasonable measure of inflation protection in the CN plan, the cost to be borne by CN and its employees.
The Committee was asked to examine this problem at the request of CN pensioners. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), after the report was tabled, asked CN to respond. I would call to the attention of the House that six months later the CN pensioners are still awaiting a response from the corporation. I would ask the Minister of Transport to follow through with CN as to the timeliness of its reply.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, in his bill on drug patents, the Minister has totally ignored Dr. Eastman's recommendations. The Minister is still arguing that the prices will not increase by a single cent following the passage of his bill. It is a fact that the presence of generic products tends to decrease prices, said Dr. Eastman. He has also stated that in 1983 Canadians paid $200 million less for medical treatment because 32 generic drugs were available.

In answer to the Minister's denial of price increases, Dr. Eastman said:
My expectation is that the proposed legislation will delay generic competition for some of the new drugs and in consequence delay the reduction in their prices which such competition causes.
What this Bill is doing is removing the competition in the market-place. That is why we are against it.

That legislation will have serious consequences. It will remove all competition for 10 years. The Minister uses the sick to try to create jobs. How disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the House how the Mulroney Government is planning to devastate Canada's rural mail service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must call to the attention of the Hon. Member that the use of the words as used is improper. Would the Hon. Member continue.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Consider the few facts which are available so far. Over 9,000 jobs with the Post Office will be lost in rural communities by 1991 at a time when unemployment is already high, 2,000 post offices in communities of less than 1,000 people and 1,500 post offices with less than 75 points of call will be turned over to the private sector, and 1,700 smaller post offices will be amalgamated with larger ones. Thousands of hamlets across Canada which are not incorporated municipalities will lose their postal and community identity forever. People living on rural sideroads will lose the rural route service they have had for the last 50 years and have to travel some 50 miles to "super" boxes to get their mail.
The handling of postal services is just like everything else the Government does, it makes a super mess of it. I call upon the Government to abandon this plan to destroy rural mail service in Canada.

December 2, 1986



HUSKY HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT-ADDITIONAL SUPPORT ADVOCATED

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government to give consideration to additional support for the Husky upgrader at Lloydminster. We should not, of course, support uneconomical private undertakings, but if an oil price of $20 U.S. per barrel returned within a year or so, as quite reliably forecast, the upgrader would be an economically viable project. With Government support, the scheduled start-up date of 1990 could be achieved.
It appears that the need for government support is being dictated by the financial institutions due to the size of the project. If support is not forthcoming, developments such as this may, and I repeat "may", only be undertaken by major oil companies, and independent small Canadian companies will be shut out.
The technological expertise is being rapidly dissipated and we could well face the situation where, to undertake such a major project, we would need substantial foreign technical
assistance.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Cindy lies of The Pas, Manitoba, did not receive an advance child tax credit payment last month. She was eligible under the new program but Revenue Canada has not been able to update her records.
In October of 1985 Mrs. lies had bankruptcy proceedings against her discharged and this information was forwarded to Revenue Canada. However, one year later when the prepayment cheques were issued, Mrs. lies was disqualified because Revenue Canada's computer still had her listed as a bankrupt.
Mrs. lies and her husband have three children. Her husband was on sick leave for eight months this year and the family is financially strapped. Without exaggeration, it can be said that because of Revenue Canada's incompetence they will not have a very merry Christmas this year.
How many thousands of other Canadians are also facing a bleak Christmas for this same reason? It is up to the Minister to make sure that the records of the Department are up to date. To be one year behind the date is completely unacceptable.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Law Reform Commission will table the first instalment of its proposals for a new Canadian Criminal Code. Canadians are anxiously awaiting these proposals having made it clear that they expect the Government to take effective action to deal with crime and the criminal element.
I have received many calls and letters on this issue, both from my constituents and from people across Canada, demanding the imposition of stiffer penalties, particularly against those crimes which endanger life and property. Canadians are tired of being victimized and are angry that the justice system provides little protection for victims of crime while providing criminals with every possible consideration and safeguard.
Canadian citizens deserve adequate protection from the legal system. I urge the Government to ensure that any legislation resulting from the Commission's proposals will reflect the views of a growing number of Canadians who demand justice for the victims of crime.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government seems to be intent on destroying the economy of Cape Breton Island and the will of its people. At a time when the Government talks of encouraging investment and building the economy of the Island, it has announced that air traffic control service will be cut at the Sydney airport.
Service by professional air traffic controllers will only be available during the daytime hours between 8 a.m. and 4.30 p.m., a reduction of six and a half hours. Officials attribute this decision to intermittent air traffic. However, flights have increased by 15 per cent in the past year.
This move will result in the loss of jobs on Cape Breton Island and will increase the risk to the travelling public. Furthermore, it will further discourage economic investment in Cape Breton. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to reconsider this terrible decision which will result in the saving of only $60,000 to $80,000. Obviously money is more important to the Government than people.

December 2, 1986



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, while watching the Liberal Convention on television this weekend, I was amazed by the Party's resolution to declare Canada a nuclear-free zone for the sake of peace. This resolution must have come as a shock to our allies in western Europe and the United States of America.
What this resolution really means is that we would abandon NORAD-no more air defence for Canada-and pull out of NATO-no more defence for Canada against the Warsaw Pact nations. In short, we would become a puppet for the Soviet Union.
Canada's policy should be, and according to this Government is, to bolster its defences so that it can make a meaningful contribution to NATO in order to preserve peace and forestall the expansion of the Soviet empire as witnessed in Elungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, after long and difficult negotiations Ontario finally obtained an agreement with the Government of Canada to improve Ontario's capacity to provide high quality training for its citizens, particularly its young citizens. That agreement included provisions to ensure that community colleges in Ontario would receive a fair chance to bid on training contracts funded by the federal Government.
In these days of high government deficits that refuse to decline, why, I ask, would Canada allow half of those purchases for training to be made outside the college system where the costs are very much higher? Not only is this bad management, something for which the Government now has a reputation, but it is wasteful of taxpayers' dollars and violates the agreement with Ontario, underscoring again that the Government in Ottawa is rapidly losing public trust.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this Progressive Conservative Government has now, and has always had a clear-cut unified policy on Cruise missile testing, and
most especially the necessity of maintaining our strong participation in the NATO Alliance.
However, it will take me several months to try to sort out and analyse the varied hypocritical statements and policy motions made at the Liberal Convention. Thank goodness that Party is not in a position to attempt to put into effect some of these fuzzy, fuzzy suggestions.
The best statement was by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who is quoted as saying that "Convention policies while highly persuasive would not be binding." However, divisions in the Liberal Party would appear to be deepening as Liberal Members of Parliament say the Leader must adhere to those policy resolutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members would, I know, wish me to call attention to the fact that the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) will rise on a short statement concerning a long-time friend and colleague of all of us.



HON. STANLEY KNOWLES FORTY-FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO HOUSE OF COMMONS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members of Parliament will join me in wishing the best to Mr. Stanley Knowles who, on Sunday, November 30, celebrated the forty-fourth anniversary of his election to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wish to add that Mr. Knowles has taught us what one Member of Parliament can do. Not only did he serve his constituents with great dignity, but he became known as "Mr. Parliament" because of his love of this institution. He also became known for his fight for pensioners and medicare across the country.
If I may borrow the words of the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith): "Stanley, you are first in our hearts".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: wish to thank the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for reminding us of this very happy occasion. Mr. Stanley Knowles was dean of the House of Commons. He is a great authority on parliamentary procedure and on the rights of Parliament, and a great crusader on behalf of the rights of our pensioners.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Knowles accompanied me and others, including the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), to the funeral of the
December 2, 1986

late Don Jamieson a short time ago and we had the opportunity to renew our friendship. Everybody in Newfoundland appreciated the courtesy of his visit. I had the honour of dining with Stanley Knowles, which reminds me of the famous remark by Grattan O'Leary, "Although he votes with the NDP, he prefers to dine with the Grits".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: We will accept it that way.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I just assume that Stanley had to pay for another dinner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: How are the prices at Winston's?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: "Winston's in St. John's", says the Leader of the Opposition.
I would like to add a word of congratulation to a most distinguished parliamentarian, a man of genuine accomplishment who has done a great deal for his constituents, for his province, and for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Knowles, on this occasion we are extending to you our congratulations and best wishes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, after that last intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), he owes Stanley a dinner at the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, and I have given his office notice. It relates to a question put yesterday, and earlier, by my colleague from York West.
The Prime Minister is aware that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has refused to extend a ministerial permit to a 25 year old Iranian who will be deported from the
Oral Questions
United States back to Iran. Given that this young man, at least to my knowledge, has no criminal record and may well face death upon his return, would the Prime Minister tell the House what compelling reasons prevent the Government of Canada from giving him the right to life in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think Canada has a record of great distinction over the years in dealing with refugees. Most recently I think that was established by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in helping to bring a number of refugees from Afghanistan to Canada.
In the case at hand, I am informed that the gentleman is a resident of the United States where he sought refugee status. I am informed there is nothing in his record which would warrant that status in the United States or pursuant to UN convention. We have many thousands of people seeking admission to Canada for legitimate reasons. We have objective criteria which are administered by public servants at all times with fairness and compassion. I think that has been the manner in which this particular case has been administered to date. If, however, my right hon. friend has any further information with regard to the case which he would care to impart to the Minister, I am sure the Minister would be happy to consider it and to review the decision in light of the information.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the Prime Minister his very eloquent words with which I agreed at the time of the entry of Tamil refugees on to the shores of Newfoundland. At that time the Prime Minister said:
If we err, we will always err on the side of justice and compassion.
How can the Government of Canada give the gift of citizenship to a man with 20 admitted convictions and yet refuse the gift of life to a man who will be deported by the United States back to Iran where he faces almost certain death unless Canada offers sanctuary?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the conclusion which my right hon. friend draws may in fact be quite inaccurate. Be that as it may, my right hon. friend draws an analogy to a group of citizens who arrived in boats off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador last summer. Indeed I indicated that such people would never be turned away from Canada. They were hopeless people seeking exile and some possible future in Canada.
There is a big difference with someone who has been a resident of the United States since 1978 and, I understand, is married to an American citizen. He has sought refugee status repeatedly in the United States and has been turned down because of its internal objective criteria. He has been denied by the UN for the same reasons. I think there is a world of difference between the two cases, which is not to suggest that if my right hon. friend has new information to impart in this

December 2, 1986
Oral Questions
regard to the Minister it could not be beneficially reviewed by the Minister.


JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend knows, Canadians in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, are willing to receive this young man and to offer him a job. Perhaps it is up to the Prime Minister to explain the following to the House. In view of the circumstances set forth quite clearly by the American Embassy, how does he justify not extending a hand to this person who, if he does not intervene, will be left to his own and, I believe, hopeless resources when he is sent back to Iran?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says "I believe hopeless resources" and that something untoward will happen should he be returned to Iran. If there is any information we would be happy to review it. We would clearly want to avoid any difficulty for anyone, including this gentleman who has been a resident of the United States since 1978, who, I believe, is married to an American citizen, and whose case has been reviewed many times by the Americans and by the UN. If my right hon. friend knows of anything at variance with what I have said, the Minister will be happy to review it.
Canada welcomes legitimate refugees at all times. This Government has increased the number of people eligible for refugee status, and we shall do more. We are committed to a progressive and open policy which will help refugees come to Canada, but that means being fair with other legitimate refugees who are lining up to come to Canada. That means applying objective criteria as fairly and compassionately as we can. That in turn means from time to time that not everyone can get in. We regret that. However, we must have a reasonable policy which guarantees access for those most in need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs has allowed his office to be manipulated by Frank Moores' lobbying firm in aid of multinational drug companies, yet he refuses to meet with the Ontario Minister of Health or his officials who have waited eight weeks for a reply. How can the Prime Minister defend those actions? Is he suggesting that the Ontario Minister of Health has to hire Frank Moores to get an appointment?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have never refused to meet with the Ontario Minister of Health. The letter read out in the House some days ago from that Minister to me was replied to some few days later. In that reply I indicated the position of our Government. There is no truth to the accusation the Member has just made.
As to lobbying, there is in fact a group of former Conservatives, lobbying very hard of behalf of the generic companies, with whom I have met. I have never met personally to discuss this subject with anyone from GCI.


REQUEST FOR MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ONTARIO OFFICIALS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister therefore instruct his department officials to meet with the Deputy Minister of Health for Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -and the Minister as well-don't worry about it, folks-and bring with him the estimates of the cost impact on provincial health budgets as a result of higher drug prices?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly in the House that if the Opposition allows this Bill to go to committee we will have ample opportunity to discuss all those cost estimates. I think that would lead to a better informed public, more so than any meeting of officials. However, I have no objection to any meeting between officials, and if he is making a representation on behalf of the Ontario Government then I will take it as such and see that the meeting takes place.


POSITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Thousands of Canadians, senior citizens as well as others, have protested Bill C-22. It will mean an increase in costs for medication by up to $650 million a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Their protests are increasing. Furthermore, we have today in Ottawa from southwestern Ontario a group of senior citizens who want the Government to back down on this legislation. Considering all that, will the Minister tell the House how many Canadians he has to hear from before he will come to his senses?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be meeting with that group of senior citizens tomorrow. I have received telexes today from the First Seniors Resource and Research Society of British Columbia, the past President of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, the Treasurer of the Montreal General Hospital, the Canadian Society of Industrial Pharmacists, the Alberta Council on Aging, and the Federation of Senior
December 2, 1986

Citizens of Quebec, all of whom urge us to go ahead because they recognize that medical research is absolutely important to their future health and well-being.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I assure the Minister that he will hear from many thousands of Canadians, representing the majority, who are on the other side of the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CREATION OF JOBS-INQUIRY CONCERNING MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has referred to jobs I have a very specific question. We have dealt to some extent with the issue of prices and the Minister has now raised the issue of jobs.
Will he confirm that a lobbyist representing multinational drug companies from the United States was in direct contact with officials in his Department during the summer requesting the removal from any legislation in this field of any requirement about specific performance for jobs in Canada?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the preamble of his question the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested that millions of Canadians are opposed to more medical research in Canada. He is suggesting that millions-


John Edward Broadbent: Deal with the question, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: -of Canadians are opposed to 3,000 research jobs in Canada. I do not believe that, and I have ample evidence to support my contention.
I do not know who met with whom this summer. I have certainly never met with anyone such as the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party describes. I can assure him that if he will co-operate in sending this Bill to committee he will see that it is good news for Canada. We should give it passage because it is in the health and economic interests of Canadians. We would be fools to turn down this kind of benefit.


PROVISION IN DRAFT LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, after I saw the American spokesperson on television a week or so ago I did some checking. I am sure the Minister saw the program. In the draft Bill which the Minister was to present in the House last June there was a clause which would have required drug companies to produce jobs in Canada within two years or they would lose their monopoly. Why was that clause removed from the Bill just as the American lobbyist said on television that it was?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question in the
Oral Questions
House already. It was removed from the Bill because the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, which represents the generic companies, asked that it be removed. The provision to allow manufacturing in Canada after seven years will allow Canadian generics to go on the market after seven years. This will give Canadian drug manufacturers the opportunity which they requested. In response to a lobby by people here in Canada I put that provision in.


GOVERNMENT PROVISION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have here a press release signed by ten senior citizen and consumer associations from Quebec who object to the proposed amendments to the Patent Act. These groups believe that prices will go up and that they will end up paying the bill through the provincial governments and their pharmacists, through their taxes and insurance premiums. Why is the Prime Minister using the ill supposedly to create jobs?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens. It reads in part:

"We believe that this change in the Patent Act is necessary to stimulate research and thus discover new drugs to treat diseases for which there is no cure yet, such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS and cardiovascular diseases."


REQUEST THAT GUARANTEES BE MADE PUBLIC
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, you will not let me read the names of these associations, so I will send a copy to the Minister. I have ten here from Quebec.
There is nothing in the Bill to guarantee those 3,000 jobs. There is nothing in the Bill to guarantee investments totalling $1.4 billion. Could the Minister disclose the guarantees he received?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to. Only yesterday I announced $70 million in new spending in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: That brings the total so far to approximately $550 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I am also aware of and very sensitive to the fact that the Quebec National Assembly, under two different

December 2, 1986
Oral Questions
Governments, passed unanimous resolutions asking us to do exactly what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister is aware of the impending takeover of Canadian Pacific Airlines by PWA resulting in one less competitor in the airline business. Is this the kind of free enterprise competition that the Minister and the Government have in mind for a deregulated transportation environment?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the takeover by PWA of CP has not yet been confirmed. It can be looked at in several ways. It may lead to more competition in the air transporation industry by establishing two strong national airlines. If anyone believes that this may not be in the public interest, all they need do is make a complaint to the Canadian Transport Commission which will investigate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: That will be a big help.


John Carnell Crosbie: I really do not like being interrupted by catcalls, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: How times change.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is simply no civility in this House.
The Canadian Transport Commission can review the matter and decide whether or not to hold a public hearing.


Ms. Jewett:: What do you think about it?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member has a lot to say and I have very little to say in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order! The Chair can advise all Hon. Members that so far there has been nothing unparliamentary. Would the Hon. Minister continue?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I really dig your new regime.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Canadian Transport Commission finds that the acquisition is not in the public interest, it can disallow
it. The Cabinet will have the final say if there is an appeal. I might add that it will be possible to do the same kind of thing under the new legislation which we have introduced and which Hon. Members should pass on to committee.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the actions of the previous Government, most industry people have given up on the ability of the CTC to review such things.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Iain Francis Angus: Would the Minister agree to having Cabinet refer the proposed acquisition-assuming a deal is made-to the CTC with instructions to review it with regard to the benefit or lack thereof to the people of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government has a policy developed by my predecessor, the distinguished Deputy Prime Minister, under the heading Freedom to Move. We believe in that policy and will stick to it. Therefore, I will not be referring that matter to the Canadian Transport Commission as the Member suggests. However, if any other member of the public believes there is any anti-competitive feature to this, or that it is not in the public interest, he or she may register a complaint and the Commission will do its duty.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the incredible problems of "superbox", or should I say "blooperbox", have overshadowed the fact that hidden in the postal plan approved by the Cabinet is the elimination of 8,700 jobs in rural Canada. How can the Minister responsible, who presented this plan to Cabinet, justify a plan which would eliminate 8,700 jobs in rural Canada and square it with the fact that his responsibility is regional industrial expansion?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that Canada Post is faced with a deficit that has been increasing steadily, a deficit that must be reduced. That is why the Corporation has submitted a corporate plan.
The Hon. Member is alluding to matters that concern daily operations. He knows perfectly well that these matters are now before a committee, for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member, who in fact sits on that committee, put his questions about these daily operations to the president of Canada Post.
December 2, 1986

Oral Questions TRADE


SUPERMAILBOXES REPAIR COSTS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have. The only people handling the mail in the future will be merchants who already have a job. They do not have a job but it is machines, "a super-duper box", as they described to us, a box that talks, uses Visa, mails cards automatically, and even heats the ground on which you stand. Has the Minister made an estimate of the cost of continually repairing the superbox- the one with the lousy locks-and now purchasing super-duper box, the one that talks and warms your toes, and is it not cheaper to reinstate these 8,700 jobs and put back the handling of the mail into the hands of the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to take the subject of Canada Post very seriously.
We have just set up a committee that will be responsible for examining the corporation's operations, and if the Hon. Member made his representations before the committee, we would give him the appropriate answers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Clark, Minister of Justice for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAIRMAN OF NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTRIC POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Speaker:: Also, I would like to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Leslie Hull, Chairman, New Brunswick Electric Power Commission.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that I take special pleasure in drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. David Carter, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER QUERY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first I want to welcome the Minister of International Trade back to the House of Commons after her long absence.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister promise, after four flip-flops in government policy on the lumber issue, that 15 per cent truly is a final figure, or is she prepared to give up more ground and cost more workers their jobs?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take the opportunity offered by the Hon. Member to report to the House on my very successful trip to Japan, following the Prime Minister's trip earlier this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Since he has shown such interest, I should add that I was able to follow upon the KANAO mission which found a new Canada here for direct investment since this Prime Minister and this Government took over. I was able to follow up with important amendments to the Japanese building code which will increase our lumber shipments abroad, and to defend our coal contracts by making our point about long-term commitments. This trip was further to our two-track policy for trade, where we place emphasis on our relations with our GATT partners as well as the U.S.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister not see that she demeans herself and this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -by not directly answering a question which is paramount in the mind of every Canadian-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Get to it.


Steven W. Langdon: Is this 15 per cent a final offer, or is she prepared to give up yet further ground?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the only one who is demeaning the House is the Hon. Member, who is suggesting that our trade with Japan, our second largest trading partner, is not important and not worth reporting to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What about the answer?


B. Keith Penner: Is that it?

December 2, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. By reducing the assessment value of Mrs. Karen Faschauner's house and giving her a $50 per year tax reduction on her tax bill for having a supermailbox in front of her house, the City of Winnipeg recognizes that supermailboxes reduce property values. Will the Minister admit that supermailboxes reduce property values?


Michel Côté: Again, Mr. Speaker, I must repeat the same reply which I gave earlier to the Hon. Member's colleague. These are issues of daily operation which are to be referred to a committee. I suggest my hon. friend would be better advised to make his representations to that committee.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The issue of the postal superboxes is not a matter of daily operation but a policy of the Government. It is the Government which is installing these superboxes, this superfiasco. Are you going to admit that it is a disaster? So much so that you have to buy ads on TV to sell the superboxes to Canadians who just do not want them.


Michel Côté: Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. This campaign is simply to make sure that Canadians are getting accurate information instead of the misinformation which is being spread by Hon. Members opposite.


HOME OWNERS' ANXIETIES
Cyril Keeper: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We have already directed this question in Committee to the President of Canada Post who did not reply satisfactorily. Will the Minister acknowledge the concerns of home owners who are afraid that the installation of these postal boxes in front of their houses will reduce the value of their property?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, within the corporate plan, there is no indication whatsoever that property value will be affected by the installation of these superboxes, and we have no indication so far of any loss in property value.


IMPACT OF MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS
Cyril Keeper: Whenever there is a new installation in a municipality, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to verify that your action does not go against zoning by-laws to protect the property value. Is the Minister prepared
to make the installation of these postal boxes subject to zoning by-laws of any local municipalities?


Michel Côté: Again without going into the detailed operation of Canada Post, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the Corporation has always been very sensitive to that and that whenever particular problems arose, there were always discussions and arrangements with the municipalities involved.


IMMIGRATION
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Recent reports indicate that approximately 5,000 illegals entered Canada through Mirabel International Airport in 1986, compared to 1,500 in 1984. On the other hand, individual cases of family reunification that proceed through normal channels are being stonewalled by his Department. What does the Minister intend to do about it?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been an abuse of the integrity and credibility of the Canadian system. Of course the remedy is the new refugee determination process that I will be proud to bring forward very soon. Innocent citizens of Turkey are now apparently being made to make misleading or inappropriate statements. If that is found to be so-and they will be treated in our fast-track system-they will likely be returned to their country of origin.


ARRIVAL OF TURKISH IMMIGRANTS-UNSCRUPULOUS CONSULTANTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We now learn that an immigration scam is taking place in Montreal with respect to Turkish immigrants, similar to the one that took place in Toronto in the spring with respect to Portuguese immigrants. On July 24 the Minister promised the House he would take quick action against those unscrupulous consultants and lawyers who are promoting this system among innocent people. It is now December, he has done nothing, and the cancer continues to grow. When is the Minister going to do something about the real cause of this problem, those who are promoting this illegal immigration into Canada.
[ Translation]
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed stated in July, when the subject of the Tamils came up, that the Government
December 2, 1986

of Canada would take specific steps. In view of his experience in this House, the Hon. Member will know that when we deal with various countries on an international level, a number of factors must be taken into account. At present, with respect to the Turks, the Government of Canada is maintaining contacts. We have someone in External Affairs who has just returned from Turkey. We are attempting to, and hopefully will manage to solve the matter with the Turkish authorities, at the same time as we are preparing amendments to the refugee status that will soon be introduced.
The Hon. Member will have no difficulty appreciating that we are working on exceedingly delicate matters requiring a tremendous amount of attention, in view of the excessively open nature of our Canadian law with respect to the status of refugees.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister has not dealt with my question. On July 24 the Immigration Minister promised to take action against those unscrupulous consultants and lawyers who are promoting this illegal immigration. It is now December and we have seen nothing happen. It has also been more than a year that the Government has been promising amendments to the Immigration Act to deal with the refugee problem. Most recently they were promised for the fall. The fall has gone by and we are into December. When will we have those amendments?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, do I have to remind the Hon. Member that the lawyers he is referring to are Turkish lawyers. They are not lawyers who deal with... I am sorry, but if the Hon. Member wants to co-operate, I will provide him with the information he needs to ask a question that contains correct information.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister, the Minister responsible for DRIE, perhaps. My question has to do with the fact that the city of Winnipeg, which is still reeling from the CF-18 contract, the railbus business, et cetera, learned this morning that Canada Packers in Winnipeg will be shutting down its hog and beef kill
Oral Questions
industry at the cost of some 475 jobs. What does the Government intend to do about this closure? Is the Government prepared to admit now that the kind of economic development policy it has in place for Manitoba is one whereby a $1 million grant went to Neepawa and contributed to this closure? And will the Government adopt a coherent economic development policy for Manitoba?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think I will simply put matters back into context, and also mention to the Hon. Member that, first, this is a corporate decision, a decision that was made because we were told the plan was very old and it was becoming hard for the company to modernize the system. We have always entertained an interest in the matter, and we have indeed asked to meet the corporation's president in order to explore the possibilities. If the company is interested in proceeding with a modernization plan, I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government is very much concerned about regional development and we will keep on pursuing that goal.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the company had made a request to the federal Government for assistance in modernizing its plant. Instead the federal Government chose to give money to the new plant in Neepawa, which contributed to the situation before us today.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I want to ask the
Minister and the Prime Minister, as I have asked them before, when will someone in the Government stand up and say exactly what the Government has in mind for Winnipeg besides denial of contracts, closures and postponements of other things which would have been accomplished by now had it not been for the election of a Progressive Conservative Government?


Michel Côté: May I restate once more, Mr. Speaker, this Government's intention and commitment to work at all times at helping regional development, and again our interest and determination to meet company officials and examine the alternatives with them, in order to save the jobs involved in Winnipeg.


GRANT AWARDED TO NEEPAWA PLANT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the same Minister. When the DRIE grant was given two years ago to the plant in Neepawa, assurances were given by Conservative Members of Parliament and Ministers from Manitoba that it would not in any way have an effect upon the employment base of Canada Packers. We have now lost 470 jobs.

December 2, 1986
Oral Questions
Why was a grant turned down for Canada Packers at the same time a grant was given to the plant in Neepawa? And why has the Government not taken action since then to ensure the modernization of that Canada Packers plant?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, once more, I repeat what I said in the first part of my answer. The decision is a corporate one which was made by the management. It is appropriate and in keeping with market conditions. We are always willing to meet with the management of the company to find alternative solutions so that we can continue to protect jobs as we have been doing in all regions of Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to point out to the Minister that it was not market conditions, it was a direct government grant to a new competing plant-


Mr. Mayer:: That's not true. You know better than that.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which took away the business from that organization. Surely the Minister must recognize that.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSIST IN MODERNIZING PLANT
Lloyd Axworthy: The
Minister says the Government is prepared to co-operate. Can we have a guarantee today that the Government will give assistance to Canada Packers to modernize its processing plant so we can at least save the 300 jobs which are being retained even though we have already lost 470 jobs? When is the Government going to show some sign of interest in the economic development of Winnipeg?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, once again, I think that the commitment of this Government to regional economic development throughout Canada has always been obvious. I also remind my colleague that, if the company should decide to implement a modernization plan, we are always willing to discuss forms of assistance and alternative solutions to protect those jobs.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


An Hon. Member:: He is going to try again.


John Edward Broadbent: It is about a serious bit of misinformation. Earlier in the Question Period I asked the Minister why a specific clause which would have required the drug companies to manufacture in Canada within two years was taken out of the Bill. The Minister at that time said he did so because he was requested to do so by the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. That struck me at the time as being absurd because the Association said the opposite to me. I have since checked with the Association. Will the Minister now correct what he said and point out that its request was for exactly the opposite? It wanted that clause which would guarantee jobs in Canada be put back in. Would the Minister correct the record now?


Harvie Andre: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I had answered precisely this question some weeks ago for perhaps one of the Hon. Member's colleagues. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association representing generic drugs sent me a letter asking:
-that compulsory licences to manufacture domestic synthetic fine chemicals be granted earlier than 10 years at for example, 5.6 years in order to ensure "a window of opportunity" for meaningful industrial activity.


John Edward Broadbent: That's different. That's not the same thing.


Harvie Andre: In other words, the provision about which the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party was talking would not help-


John Edward Broadbent: No.


James Ross Fulton: No, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Well, Mr. Speaker, they obviously will not allow me to answer, but perhaps they will co-operate and send things to committee so we can get into all of these facts in the right and proper forum.


John Edward Broadbent: I say quite seriously that the Minister said something quite the opposite about this Association earlier in the Question Period.


GENERIC DRUG INDUSTRY'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I would ask the Minister to answer this substantive question. Will he agree with the generic drug assocation of Canada that the one clause in the Bill which would have required the drug companies to produce jobs in Canada was removed from the Bill contrary to what the Association wanted and very much in the interests of the drug companies of the United States?


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the restoring of patent protection will generate 3,000 research jobs in this country.


An Hon. Member:: Here we go again.
December 2, 1986


Harvie Andre: That is precisely the type of research jobs, the generic companies are interested in-


John Edward Broadbent: You are the master of the half truth, Harvie.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is nothing too low for you, is there, Ed?


Harvie Andre: -getting into manufacturing. They asked for a window of opportunity so they could get into the manufacturing. We provided a three-year window of opportunity at the direct request of the generic companies.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister has acknowledged receipt of the report of the Forget Commission and he is certainly aware that the Commission has recommended, first, the creation of a Crown Corporation similar to the Canada Post Corporation or Petro-Canada to administer the Unemployment Insurance Plan, and second, the lay-off of 3,000 public servants.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Conservative Government intends to abandon its social responsibilities towards Canadians by accepting such a recommendation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday to the representative of the New Democratic Party that it would be unwise to comment on the Forget report before it is tabled in the House. That will occur tomorrow afternoon and we shall then be able to comment on the report.


PROPOSAL TO CREATE CROWN CORPORATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister or the Minister responsible can tell the House that he rejects the creation of an arm's-length Crown corporation to deliver unemployment insurance. The Government has one fundamental role. Will it now begin giving up medicare and creating Crown corporations for unemployment insurance? Will the Minister give us at least that guarantee vis-avis the Forget Commission?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he will answer tomorrow afternoon.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since 1981, producers of incubated eggs have been asking for a national marketing board.
Could the Minister give the House a progress report, to ensure that the final stages of this project reflect the demands of the producers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question of the Hon. Member for Drummond. I am sure he was pleased when I indicated that later today we will be releasing the information. We have been working with the broiler hatching egg association for quite some period of time. We have cleared all stages and will be in a position to announce the formation of a national agency for that commodity. This is another example of the Government keeping its commitments.


INVESTMENT CANADA
[Stage Direction]
GLC PUBLISHING COMPANY-ACQUISITION BY GULF & WESTERN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. He will know how concerned Canadians were by the abandonment of the Canadianization policy for book publication through the decision on the takeover by Gulf & Western of Prentice-Hall. Will we be seeing a replay of that decision, or is the Minister prepared to tell us that in the case of GLC, another direct acquisition by Gulf & Western, the Minister is prepared to stand behind the Canadianization policy and tell us that he will not accept a takeover by Gulf & Western of another Canadian publishing company?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may point out to the Hon. Member that the Government has always been concerned about increasing investment in Canada.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, since we introduced the Investment Canada legislation, we have had some tangible results, and I can inform the Hon. Member that today, investment in Canada has increased 17 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, this is one more instance of the wisdom of a decision made by the Government in January 1985, and it demonstrates our concern for sustained economic renewal.

December 2, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIANIZATION POLICY INQUIRY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, more precisely, will the Minister affirm his commitment to the Canadianization policy and inform the House that Investment Canada will require Gulf & Western to sell GLC to a Canadian buyer, something which is required by the Government's own Canadianization policy for the book publishing industry?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we have an abiding interest in the question she raised about the publishing industry. We are still discussing the issue with Investment Canada officials and the companies in question, with a view to finding appropriate solutions and making the appropriate decision, and, I repeat, to safeguard the interests of Canadians.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology who, I gather, is in hospital for tests. I am sure my colleagues in the House would join me in wishing him well.
On November 7 the Minister of State for Science and Technology set up a task force to review the cuts at the NRC. The task force, though, has no formal terms of reference and is not authorized to reverse the Government's decision to cut $20 million from the budget of the NRC. Will the Government give the task force the power to reverse the decision to cut $20 million from the budget of the NRC?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of the Hon. member and once again wish a speedy recovery to our colleague on this side of the House who is now in hospital.
I should like to give a more detailed answer to this question. True enough, the task force does not have the power to reverse the decision, but I am sure the Minister will consider the recommendations and consult with National Research Council with a view to making a decision in the best interest-


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Berger: I am asking the Minister to authorize the task force to review the decision concerning the
$20-million cut-back. Surely he can make this recommendation to the Minister.
Secondly, will he undertake to release the task force recommendations as soon as they have been submitted to the Minister?


Michel Côté: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of these two questions and refer them to my colleague.
As to whether the information should be made public, I think my colleague will take the matter under advisement. With respect to giving more power to the task force, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that my colleague intends to give the task force the responsibility and authority to reverse a decision, but he will certainly take the recommendations under consideration before making a final decision.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, there have been earlier discussions with representatives of the opposition Parties and I simply want to confirm that tomorrow will be designated as an allotted day.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period relating to a couple of questions that were asked. One such question was asked by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), and the second group of questions was asked by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).
Beauchesne's Citation 360(3) indicates that a question may not seek information about proceedings in a committee which has not yet made its report to the House. In light of the reforms that have recently taken place and the new role and influence that I believe committees of the House of Commons now have, I think it is absolutely imperative that any questions on those particular issues not be raised in the House of Commons. The reasons for this are very simple. If those questions are raised and the Minister responds to them, it prejudices the ability of the committee to operate freely. It also very much prejudices its chance of making a clear, free and independent decision.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it has long been understood that it is quite acceptable to ask questions in
December 2, 1986

the House during Question Period about matters which may in one way or another also be under some kind of consideration in committee as long as there is not a direct reference to the committee as such or to discussions which would be identified as those taking place in the committee. When members of the Conservative Party were in opposition, there were many occasions on which questions were asked in the House and accepted by the Speaker which were about matters which were also under discussion in committee.
1 would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you not accept the point made by the Hon. Member because at any one time, almost any possible matter that could be raised in the House could well be, and often is, under discussion in one form or another in a standing committee or a legislative committee. I am informed by our Whip that there are over 19 different committees meeting today. If one took the Hon. Member's point of order seriously, it would have the effect of shutting down Question Period. Now, this may be what the Hon. Member wishes. He may fear exposure of the flaws of the Government through the questions from this side of the House. Therefore, he may be raising this point of order in an effort to avoid these questions, arguing that the questions may have something to do with matters that take place in committees. I conclude by saying that the point of order is not valid.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) would not wish to impute the motives of any other Hon. Member. Perhaps the Hon. Member could continue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to impute motives. I am simply trying to point out to you the effect of the Hon. Member's point of order, if it is accepted.
I conclude by saying that the practice of the House, which was accepted by Members who are now on the government side when they were on the opposition side, and which was accepted by yourself, Sir, and your many distinguished predecessors, would cause you to have very sound grounds to reject the Hon. Member's point of order.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the question that I asked today had to do with the installation of postal boxes, which is part of the plan of Canada Post, and part of its activity. This plan has already been approved by Cabinet. What was referred to the committee, in the words of the Minister, was the postal rate package. When we questioned the President of Canada Post beyond that, he simply refused to give additional information.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was rising at the time the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) rose. I was intending to respond to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when he put forward his thesis that it has long been understood, and then went on to say that the House could ask questions on those same subjects
Point of Order-Mr. Cooper
that were before committee. The fact is that is the tradition, and it should be recognized that it has long been understood. It also ought to be recognized that the McGrath report, and its adaptation, is very recently before us. It was accepted by Parliament as recently as this past year. It does set forward new sets of priorities and powers for private Members in the House of Commons.
If that type of responsibility for private Members is to be as the McGrath committee recommended, then clearly there needs to be a position within that committee under the new structure of what a standing committee ought to be-a group that can investigate matters without referral from the Minister, and that does not require any obligations of the Minister for the matters which it studies-and obviously the point of order that was put forward by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) ought to be taken seriously and not be reflected back on precedents in the period prior to the introduction of the McGrath committee report.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the point must be made that since this House has adopted new rules, the Government majority could indeed shut down Question Period by sustaining the argument that the committees are more important than the House. That would not stand up to scrutiny.
I wish to make the point that since the rule changes, there have been situations where a few Members of Parliament could call any matter before a committee, because that was essentially what we did when we changed the rules. We allowed committees more flexibility to call several questions before them thereby making it very difficult for the Official Opposition, or for the other opposition to ask questions, because the Government could always invoke that the matter is to be studied by a committee, or is being studied by a committee.
I submit first that it is not for the committees to supersede the authority of the House. They are subsidiaries of the House and, therefore, by extension subject to the House. Second, I do not think that since Beauchesne's was written, and since we have amended our rules, that it would be proper for any group of Members, or any Member of the opposition, or the government side to entertain the argument that because a subject matter is before a committee there could be no questions about it during Question Period. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will rule that this spurious point of order has absolutely no value; and that indeed the prime objective of Question Period is to direct questions to the Ministry to elicit information that is supposed to be forthcoming and is of some urgency.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is obvious that under the new Standing Orders that committees can investigate anything they wish at any given time. As Members of the House of Commons, we must retain the ability to raise questions that are in the public domain. Obviously, the questions raised by both the Liberal

December 2, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
caucus and the New Democratic caucus with regard to the concerns of how the postal service will be changed over the years are legitimate questions for the House of Commons. They are legitimate questions that should be raised and directed to the Minister at this time. If we accept the proposal or thesis that is being put forward by government Members, then the ability of members of the opposition to raise any question at any time would be jeopardized.
The House Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned the number of committees that he believes are meeting today. Obviously, with the large government majority in the House, there can be a number of committees meeting on a constant basis. That would mean that the number of topics that could be raised in Question Period would be severely limited. I believe that the House of Commons is the body where these issues should be raised. That must be retained. I do not want to impute motives, but we must be careful and leery of any attempt by government Members to restrict the types of questions that can be raised by members of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened attentively to the representations made, and the position of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). The Chair will consider the remarks and report back to the House. I thank all Hon. Members for their contribution.


REQUEST THAT LETTER BE TABLED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) referred to a letter, and he did quote from that letter. I would ask that the letter from the Drug Manufacturers Association, to which the Minister referred, be tabled in the House as is the custom and the rule.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not in the House and therefore cannot respond. His Parliamentary Secretary is not here. The Minister will now have received notice of the Member's request, and it can be dealt with accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 hope that the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will accept that undertaking on the part of the Government and that it will be brought back to the Chamber.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on Novemember 18, 1986, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) raised a matter of privilege in which she sought Mr. Speaker's guidance as to whether or not
the intent of Standing Order 104 is being subverted because of an arbitrary decision by the committee.
I was on official business and not in the House that day, and was not aware of this matter until last evening. If I had been in the House, I would have spoken in the debate as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the committee in question. Your Honour was generous on November 18 in permitting eight Members to speak in that debate, and I ask that the same generosity be extended to me today, which is the first opportunity I have had to contribute to the discussion.
It is clear that the committee acted within the terms of Standing Order 104, which authorizes a committee to call appointees or nominees to appear before it "if it deems it appropriate". If it deems it appropriate, the committee may call all the appointees, as it did in the case of Canadian Human Rights Commission appointments.
It is entitled to call only some of the appointees as it is doing in the case of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Some committee members disagreed with the number being reduced from 16 to 7. My own views on that question are on record. However, no members argued that the committee was obliged to call all 28 appointees or any other number. Clearly the committee has the right to call all or some or none if it deems it appropriate.
The committee's action was taken as an amendment to a steering committee recommendation. In the manual entitled Committees of the House of Commons of Canada, Practical Guide it is made clear that the main committee has the authority to "send for persons" and that the steering committee has authority only to recommend "the next meeting of the main committee for its consideration and approval". Our steering committee hoped it might gain by a telephone poll a consensus supporting the steering committee's intended recommendations. When no such consensus was forthcoming, it was necessary to submit the recommendations to the next meeting of the committee. This was done in accordance with the manual on committee procedure. When the committee itself by majority vote decided on a number different from the recommendation, it was acting within its rights.
It has been a long respected practice that rulings by a committee chairman may not be appealed to the Speaker but only to the committee. In 1889, the Speaker of the British House of Commons so ruled. In 1920, that tradition was confirmed by the Speaker of that same Chamber who said:
I am not a court of appeal from the chairman of a standing committee.
In 1975, the Speaker of our House of Commons declared:
There is a well established practice that the Chair ought not to sit as a court of appeal in respect to the proceedings in a standing committee.
In the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's, the following is indicated:
The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee.
December 2, 1986

Within the rules of the House, a committee has a life of its own and is subject to one master-the House itself. I submit that the Standing Committee on Human Rights has acted within the rules and traditions of this honourable House and has not offended the privileges of any Member of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I advise the House that the proceeding at this time arises out of a matter raised some days ago. The Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) indicated that he had been away from the country and wished to contribute to the debate. I indicated to him that rather than send the Chair a letter or discuss the matter directly with the Chair, it was more appropriate that he raise the matter in the Chamber. I know the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was notified of that and graciously acceded to the suggestion. However, I just want Hon. Members to know that they may seem to have heard this debate some days ago. They did, but as the Hon. Member for Scarborough West had returned, I thought it appropriate that he be heard.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not repeat the arguments made at the time of the original point of order. However 1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the remarks of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) today. He said-and I quite agree with him-that the decision about whom to call is a committee decision.
If we look at the follow-up to the original motion to call only 7 people before the committee as opposed to the 16 originally agreed upon, 7 names were not supplied. Therefore, an executive decision was made by the chairman that he would call certain names without having them approved by the committee subsequent to the initial meeting. If he is arguing in the House that the committee makes the decision on whom to call, that particular provision has been clearly violated by his decision to choose or hand-pick certain members to appear before the committee today. They were not chosen by the committee. They were chosen by the chairman outside the committee. The committee has not approved them. He has violated the premise which he put forward in his statement today.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, had the Hon. Member attended the last meeting of the committee, she would have been aware that such authority was given to me as chairman by the committee, that is, the authority to replace the names of members who would not or could not be present by selecting from the list of available nominees. It was a decision taken by a majority of the committee. The committee has the authority to give the chairman such authority, and it was supported by the member of the committee representing the Hon. Member before the committee that day.
1 had the unanimous support of the committee to make the selection. Certainly it is entirely out of order, as well as entirely incorrect, to call into question my exercising an authority granted to me by the committee and my responding to a request by the committee without which we would not be
Privilege-Ms. Copps
able to hold the meeting which is to occur in five minutes. I invite the Hon. Member to join me.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on my part to impugn the integrity of the Chairman. I was pointing out that in the consideration of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you must consider all arguments.
Earlier this afternoon the Hon. Member for Scarborough West put forward the argument that it was the committee which was to name the people to come before it for examination. I am simply pointing out that I hope he withdraws that part of the argument because it does not bear up to scrutiny. The committee in fact abrogated that responsibility. It handed it over to the chairman, and he was allowed to hand-pick the people to appear before the committee this afternoon without any further consultation with the committee. Either the committee chooses or the chairman chooses or the Conservatives choose, but they cannot have it every which way.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is not deliberately misleading the House. Unintentionally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assure all Hon. Members that the Hon. Member is correct. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is not deliberately misleading the House.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Let me say this for the information of the House and in view of the remarks made. The point is that the committee did not grant me the right to decide the number of members who would be called.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The names.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: That was a committee decision. That was what we were debating in terms of the point of order raised two weeks ago. At that time there was not a single reference to the names of the appointees to be called.
The procedure to which the committee agreed at its last meeting was that each of the seven members, including the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, would have the right to select one appointee. If that appointee did not or could not come, and if the Hon. Member in question did not name another member, the Chairman could select from the available appointees another person to take his or her place.
I was responding to and complying with that ruling of the committee. The principle which I put forward in my remarks regarding the point of order remains germane, namely, that the committee made a decision within its rights to change the number of appointees to be called. That is the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to this additional argument on a matter of concern to a number of Members and to the Chair. I thank the Hon. Member for Scarborough West for his total co-operation with the Chair's suggestion that the matter be heard in the Chamber rather than in the Chair's office. I also thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East for her co-operation.

December 2, 1986
1706______________________________________________
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
The Chair has not made a decision as yet on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I thank all Hon. Members for their patience and their interest. The Chair will report to the House as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I waited patiently to begin my speech just before one o'clock. I am pleased to participate in the debate. However, I am sorry to see the Government's decision to pursue ideology without looking at the alternatives and therefore to go ahead with the privatization of Canadair.
A number of Government Members have criticized the NDP for the position it takes on this Bill. They seem to have short memories. I remind them of a press release issued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) during the 1984 election campaign. He said:
We will set up a separate Crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland with a mandate for the development of the aerospace industry and not merely financial control. This organization will be responsible for developing in conjunction with the aerospace strategy so that Canadair and de Havilland will become commercially viable and will continue to be so into the next century.
It appears the Conservatives had a conversion after they came to power. It appears that the predilections of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion convinced the Government that privatization was the way to go. As a consequence, an election promise enunicated by a senior member of the Conservative Party, the man who is now the Minister of Finance, was totally forgotten.
What was it that led the Conservatives to support continuing Crown corporation status for Canadair at that time, and what now leads them to change their minds? I do not presume to understand what goes on over there, but I want to put on the record that two and a half years ago they saw nothing wrong with continuing public ownership for Canadair. Since then we have seen them privatize first de Havilland and now Canadair. In the process they have put forward the argument that things have started happening with de Havilland and things will start to happen with Canadair. Of course. The reason things are starting to happen is because a decision has finally been made and the uncertainty surrounding those two Crown corporations is or has come to an end. That does not say the course of action
taken was the only one available. Far from it. However, they have at least ended the uncertainty and that is why there was a recovery in the number of jobs, for example, at de Havilland under its new owner, Boeing.

Well, Madam Speaker, the question of Crown corporations goes far beyond the restricted approach taken by the Government. Ignoring the commitment made by the Progressive Conservative Government during the election campaign, some of the previous speakers in this debate told us that privatization is a good thing for the companies involved as well as for Canada. The policy of the New Democratic Party relates to the fact that we are against this Bill to privatize Canadair because we do question the ideological position of the Conservatives, bent as they are on privatizing all Crown corporations.
Perhaps I might ask a few questions, Madam Speaker. Are Canadians prepared to endorse the privatization of Air Canada and CN, two national companies which played a leading role in the development of this country, or do they have reservations? Did the Conservative Government itself have privatization in mind when offering tax concessions to the Reichmanns to facilitate the dismemberment of Gulf so as to enable Petro-Canada management to acquire some of the Gulf assets and add about 800 service stations to their own network?
In fact, Petro-Canada invested about $800 million in business expansion with the blessing of the Conservatives. Now will they say whether they are for or against privatization?
Some of the Members who took part in the debate on Canadair's future have implied that privatization was good because there was something basically healthy in private ownership, and that it was not easy in fact for Crown corporations to manage their affairs efficiently.
Now, Madam Speaker, I might suggest to Hon. Members opposite and also to those on the Liberal benches that the problem we face with Crown corporations in this country is to a major extent a management problem, the main reason for which is that neither Liberals nor Conservatives would admit that there is in this country a culture in Crown corporation economy. The main difference between our society and economy here in Canada and the ones in the United States is that we have used Crown corporations in a most creative way to set up important industries, develop the country's economy and provide Canadians with jobs.

We have used these Crown corporations in a very creative way. That is what sets us apart from our friends in the U.S. It puts Canada, in this area as in so many others, midway between the American way and the European way of doing things.
The problem has been one of management. I and many other Members read the criticisms in the report on public
December 2, 1986

ownership and Crown corporations by the Auditor General a few years ago. The report suggested that these Crown corporations were effectively out of control. That led to an important report on this question which suggested a new regime of accountability. However, the former Government did not move beyond a form of accountability which effectively put a number of Crown corporations into a pattern of ownership little different from that of the private sector.

Now, Madam Speaker, I would surely like to see in the public sector a management system that would be different from that in the private sector, that would recognize that Crown corporations of course have some functions similar to those of private sector groups-the need to survive, to pay employees, to produce goods and services, to reach certain goals in terms of viability. But the public sector could also have goals that would be different from those prevailing in the private sector-regional development, national development, carrying the Canadian flag outside the country, developing target industries such as the aerospace industry as we see it now with the purchase of Canadair, the de Havilland Corporation, and so on and so forth. Crown corporations also have a potential for being managed differently from private corporation, as a model for the private sector.
I am wondering, for instance, whether it could be possible within our Crown corporations to ensure worker participation at all levels by sharing the information needed, by sharing responsibilities and then making decisions. Instead of that, we see that the Government has actually allowed those Crown corporations to be managed as if they were in fact private corporations. The same is true under both Liberals and Conservatives-there is no understanding of the fact that there really is a difference.

Then they criticize these Crown corporations for not having achieved all of the private sector goals when they have not understood there is a difference between private sector and public sector management.
I am very disturbed that the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the parent company for Canadair as it was for de Havilland, in looking for a new future, was neither directed nor took the initiative to look at options other than a simple takeover in the old-fashioned form of privatization. What about the possibility of joint ventures? What about the possiblity of consortiums with Canadian or foreign corporations? What about the possibility of an employee buy-out or participation in running these corporations? None of that was done. Instead the Government took advice from the private sector.

They sought the advice of people who had to make recommendations for the age-old form of privatization, that is selling to the private sector, to individuals from Bay Street or la rue Saint-Jacques and, of course, since they are working in the
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
financial and private sector, the same people are advising the Government by way of the Business Council on National Issues and other such organizations. They actually gave the advice sought by the Government which effectively was to forget those investments, to forget what Canadian taxpayers have paid for the development of those very important corporations.
At the beginning of this year we were dealing with the sale of de Havilland. It is fortunate that the House of Commons is at least being asked to debate the sale of Canadair. That is a positive move compared to the stonewalling which took place in this House in December, 1986, which finally led to the Government's decision to allow the matter to go before the committee on regional development in January of 1986, only 10 months ago.
Of the $155 million which was nominally paid for de Havilland, only $90 million was paid in cash. In return, the Government of Canada gave a whole series of concessions. Boeing received $90 million in various deferred grants in return for the $90 million it paid for de Havilland. They were allowed $400 million in tax write-offs to reduce the cost of the airplanes they sold within Canada. There were other concessions under the various industrial productivity programs.
That is how we gave away de Havilland, a corporation in which the public had invested hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government is asking us to do the same thing with Canadair. I want to remind Members of the House that the investment-

-the investment of taxpayers in Canadair is approximately $2.2 billion. This is the amount of money that was invested in that corporation. Now Canadair is worth, according to experts, about $300 million. We have lost all that money as a result of bad management under the former Liberal Government. This corporation is worth, according to all the estimates, between $250 and $400 million. How much are we asking for Canadair? A mere $120 million. This is the price to be paid by Bombardier. Plus what? Plus payments for the technology used in the Challenger jet built by Canadair. Those payments have a nominal value of $173 million, but the alternative is to sell all those rights for only $20 million to be paid within the next two or three years. Therefore, a total of $140 million paid by Bombardier-for what? Well, Canadair will get $31 million in grants under the defence production industry program, as well as $20 million in grants for the CL-289 airplane; then, Canadair has been promised another grant of $30 million for other projects, including the CL-215 airplane and the Challenger jet. Now, if we add up all these amounts, we find a total of approximately $80 million which are effectively a compensation for the $120 million which Bombardier will have to pay. Moreover, the taxpayer will assume Canadair's debt and will share in the liability insurance risk

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
for the next fifteen years on Canadair's aircrafts which are now being sold. This is a package deal which is very profitable indeed for Bombardier.

If it is a good deal for Bombardier, is it necessarily a good deal for Canadians? I would say it is not. We should think this through again. I remind the Government that in the policy it enunciated on the privatization of Crown corporations in the May, 1985 Budget we were assured that Crown corporations would not be sold at distressed prices merely to transfer them quickly to the private sector. We were told that privatization would take place "at a measured pace", that there would be careful consideration of all the issues, and that there would be a fair and reasonable price for each asset. I must ask whether $120 million is a fair and reasonable price for an asset which cost Canadian taxpayers $2.2 billion.
Have all the issues been carefully considered or has the Government decided that in order to please a few rightwingers it must do something to show that it is really a rightwing Government which accepts all the advice we have been getting from the corporate sector and right-wing ideologues in the United States? It may have been appropriate to take advice from right-wing ideologues a couple of years ago, but these are the people who brought us President Reagan's dealings with Iran and the cloak and dagger work from the basement of the White House. This is the kind of thinking which underlies such an ideological move as selling Canadair for $125 million, regardless of whether or not it is a good investment for the Canadian people today.
I would like to remind Hon. Members opposite of an old adage with regard to investing. Whatever happened before, you should look at the current situation before deciding whether to buy or sell. I notice that the Minister of State responsible for privatization is delighted that I have entered into the area in which she used to work. She knows that if an investment has dropped by half, on the one hand you should not hang on to it in the hopes that it will go back to the price you paid for it, and on the other hand, if it is a good investment at the current price, you should keep it rather than sell it because you lost money on it before.
The former Government lost the money on this investment. The latest profit figures indicate that Canadair has currently made a profit of $20 million. That is not bad for a company which the Government values at $120 million. On those grounds alone it would make a lot of sense to consider keeping Canadair in public hands rather than proceeding with the proposed privatization.
My colleagues have raised other questions.

My colleagues have raised other issues which I should like to address also. They said that the Bombardier Corporation has a certain management and marketing ability which will help Canadair. But they used the very same argument concerning the purchase of de Havilland by Boeing.
I submit that Bombardier is not familiar with the marketing of jet airplaines abroad, because it has never been involved in the past in this area of activity.
I have visited the Canadair plant in Montreal. It is a well managed plant, with good managers and good workers who have an esprit de corps which is probably much stronger than the one that existed at de Havilland's.
But we wonder why it is necessary to proceed with this privatization sale when this corporation as it exists now seems to be doing all right.
Although the time allocated to me has nearly expired, Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister responsible for privatization, as she appears ready to stand up to answer questions. My question is this: What is really this Government's policy concerning the aerospace industry? The Minister of Finance has promised us a policy concerning the aerospace industry, but the only policy we get is that of sell, sell, sell.
Let me remind the Minister that most other countries have a substantial public stake in the aerospace industry. They have seen the necessity to do this because of the high technology and jobs involved. It seems to me that the Government is doing the opposite by selling out the two companies which together made up 25 per cent of the total volume and employment in this important industry.
I believe I have given a number of reasons why we are extremely disturbed over the sell-off of Canadair at a fire sale price. The Government did this with de Havilland and is doing it with Canadair. I call on the Government to stop implementing its ideology just for its sake, and to look at the consequences of what is taking place.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments about the opinion of Canadians on privatization in general. I suppose my constituency may not reflect the average Canadian constituency, but it seems to me that it problably reflects the average Canadian urban constituency. It is a riding that is entirely within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. It has residents who come from a very modest level in the socioeconomic scale, up to a reasonably high level in the socioeconomic scale. There is a cross-section of over 60 different cultural backgrounds in my constituency.
I recently put a series of questions to my constituents, among which dealt with the question of privatization of Crown corporations. In fact, I was somewhat surprised by the results. First, I asked: "Generally, do you favour the selling of Crown corporations?" I found that 72.5 per cent of my constituents who responded said that they favoured the selling of Crown corporations and only 17.5 per cent said no.
I asked some specific questions about specific Crown corporations, one of which was Canadair. Although the
December 2, 1986

Government had already made a commitment to sell it by that time, the legislation had not been introduced. I found that 69.6 per cent of my constituents who responded said to sell it and only 17.7 per cent said no. On the question of selling Petro-Canada, 64.3 per cent of my constituents said to sell it and only 28.8 per cent said no. On the question of selling Canada Post, 62.3 per cent of my constituents said to sell it and only 30.2 per cent said no. On the question of selling Air Canada, 55 per cent of my constituents said to sell it and only 34.4 per cent said no. On the question of the CBC, 49.5 per cent of my constituents said to sell it and only 44.5 per cent said no.
Will the Hon. Member tell us whether he believes that I do not represent a typical part of Canada, and whether there is some peculiarity in my constituency that is not reflected in the other 281 constituencies in this country?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member that since his Government announced this policy of privatization it has fallen in the polls from approximately 50 per cent of the support of Canadians to just over 30 per cent. In the Province of Quebec, where the Progressive Conservatives won a smashing victory in 1984 with 57 seats, they have been standing in third place according to public opinion polls, behind the New Democratic Party as well as the Official Opposition. I believe that seems to reflect the fact that Canadians are extremely concerned and reserved about the kinds of policies which have been advanced by the Government, including the policy of privatization.
The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has received responses which presumably reflect a fair number of people who elected him. I am not sure of the situation in his constituency, but I would point out to him that there are many fewer people in his constituency who are prepared to vote Conservative today than actually did so a couple of years ago.
I also point out to him that it is the responsibility of Governments to govern and not simply to bend with every wind, and change policy with every opinion poll. My party has taken positions for the long term which on many occasions have raised questions among certain Canadians. However, we have stuck to our guns on matters of principle and we have been proven right again and again. We have not allowed ourselves to be deflected because one or two opinion polls suggested that today we will not necessarily be popular.
It is up to the Government not to sell Canadair in response to the opinion of a few people in a Member's riding, but to implement an aerospace strategy which will ensure that Canadians can continue to participate in this important industry in the next half century. That is the question that needs to be answered. It is my opinion that by withdrawing totally from the aerospace industry, the Government of Canada is making it almost impossible for Canadians to have an industry that will be viable, effective and vibrant at the turn of the century.
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I want to comment on what the Conservative Member, whose riding I believe is York East (Mr. Redway), has said.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Much as I would love to hear the Hon. Member's comments, I understand that it is contrary to the rules to comment on a comment, and that in fact we should be commenting on the principal speech that was given in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will be commenting on the comments of his colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just wanted to know his riding.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is York East.


Alan Redway: It is about time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member will know that there was a Member from York East who sat in the House for 23 years. His name was "Silent Bob McGregor". He was a Tory whom I believe sat here until 1958 and never said anything for 23 years. He made a bad mistake by standing up to make a speech because he was promptly defeated in the next election. I know my political history of York East, but the present Hon. Member for York East is very loquacious and makes speeches all the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would much rather hear questions about his speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question. The Hon. Member spoke about the history of Crown corporations in Canada. I point out to him that Canada has about 12 per cent of corporations in the public sector, which is not any greater than most successful industrialized countries in the western world.
The Hon. Member for York East conducted a poll in his riding. I, too, conducted a poll and I will attempt to provide him with the figures. I recall that selling Petro-Canada was very unpopular. Privatization has been a great part of Tory rhetoric. I suggest the Hon. Member read my speech. I referred to Professor John Langford, who is Professor of Public Administration at the University of Victoria. He is an expert on privatization and indicated, in a summary of his speech, that the support for privatization among the public was by those people who make more than $50,000 a year and tend to be in private business. I suggest that these are the people who like to profit by selling Canadian Crown corporations. They can buy them at fire sale prices, as will happen in this case.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) about the alternatives he mentioned and what the Government could have done instead of selling the Crown
1710

December 2, 1986
Adjournment Motion
corporation to Bombardier at a fire sale price. The Hon. Member outlined a few, but, I wonder if he could go into further detail about what alternatives a Government has in dealing with a Crown corporation it wants to change, reform, make more efficient, and so on? I think this is an important question.
I have just had a chance to read the Minister's speech. She really does not get into anything about why the Government is privatizing. She talks about the best interests of the company, about using private resources and how the private sector's potential as a dynamic and competitive sector can best be achieved. I can point to private sector companies like Massey-Ferguson, Dome Petroleum and Maislin Industries where there have been all sorts of problems. It seems to me that Canadair was being turned around by a massive injection of Government funds and had made a profit, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre indicated in his speech. Perhaps the Hon. Member could outline this again for the House so we can have a proper debate on privatization.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments is really over. I believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would want to answer the question of his colleague, which was a very long question, so I will allow one minute for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to reply.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would not dare to outline all of what needs to be done with respect to privatization in the course of just one minute. I would point out, however, that we have some several hundred Crown corporations which need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Many, if not most of them, will prove to be worthwhile to keep in the public sector. However, what the Government is doing is starting with the ideological bias of: "Let's get rid of it" and is not prepared to look at the other options which also include joint ventures, turning these corporation into co-operatives and studying means by which these Crown corporations might enter into consortiums or co-operative arrangements with other Canadian or foreign corporations. These are the kinds of options which are a lot more creative than simply "sell, sell, sell". That is the Conservative way, and it is not just "sell", it is sell out.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada	Post	Corporation-(a)	Apparent
contradiction in Government policies (b) Apparent inequities concerning postal services; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Trade-(a) Announced closure of lumber mill at Nairn, Ontario (b) Restoration of jobs-Government position; the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)- Pharmaceutical Industry-(a) Request that cost impact studies be released (b) Request that Minister promise to release studies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question? Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on a very important subject, namely Bill C-25, the privatization of Canadair and the sale of Canadair to Bombardier, a big Canadian company in the private sector in Montreal.
To me, Madam Speaker, what is important is the future of this country and how it is affected by privatization. It is important to know what we want to do as a country and what kind of future we want for Canada.
The privatization matter was raised two years ago by the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Mr. Sinclair Stevens. The former Minister referred to the possibility of privatizing Canadair and de Havilland. Madam Speaker, as you know, de Havilland was sold several months ago to a big private company in the United States, the Boeing Corporation.
Madam Speaker, the current situation is a bit different. We now have a proposal to sell Canadair to a large Canadian company instead of a large foreign company. That may make a slight difference in this case. Something else is different as well. We have a new Minister-he just left the House, Madam Speaker-and I think the new Minister-and I speak well of the Minister because, Madam Speaker, he is being more open with the House than Mr. Stevens was. He has given Members a lot more information than they had on de Havilland. Nevertheless, I have a number of major questions. The issue is an important one for the employees, men and women, in Montreal. It is an important one from the point of view of the role of Crown corporations in this country.
December 2, 1986

Madam Speaker, do we have guarantees from this Government that safeguard the jobs of employees working for Canadair?
Do we now have guarantees that major technologies will be developed here in Canada for the aerospace industry? Do we have major guarantees for the Montreal area? And is the price a good price for Canada? During the last ten or fifteen years, Canadian men and women have paid about $2.2 billion into Canadair. And now the Minister is suggesting we may get only $120 million for Canadair.
What is the history of Canadair, Madam Speaker? Canadair was bought by the Trudeau Government from General Dynamics in 1976, ten years ago. The Government bought it because General Dynamics had a problem. People who worked in the industry saw a possibility that the company might go bankrupt. Canadair is now No. 1 in the Canadian aerospace industry. And since 1944, that is 42 years ago, that industry has built something like 4,000 aircraft here in Canada. Of those 4,000 aircraft, it has built 600 jets here in Canada. And I know. Madam Speaker, that you agree with me when I say that one of Canadair's great successes was the building of its Challenger aircraft. The Challenger was a success, a great success because the Government massively subsidized research and development for that important aircraft which was sold around the world.
There is something else about Canadair: this Canadian corporation, like many other aerospace industries, has many contracts with the military, not only the Canadian military but also the Pentagon in the United States and NATO.
One other thing, and I already mentioned it, this is an important issue for Montrealers. There are four Canadair plants-three in Ville-Saint-Laurent, a suburb of Montreal, and a fourth one in Dorval where there are now 4,500 jobs. Madam Speaker, that industry is extremely important for Montreal, for the Province of Quebec and for Canada as a whole. And as I said, this is an important aspect of our overall philosophy of developing this country's future.

It is a very important industry in terms of technology and in terms of where we are going as a country. We must have some real development in the aerospace industry in the future. If one looks around at most countries in the world, one finds a great deal of public investment and involvement in the aerospace industry.
I would like to ask my friends in the Conservative Party to consider why they are privatizing this company and indeed why they are setting out on the course of privatization. I am concerned that some members of the Government Party have bees in their bonnets and want to privatize, as much as possible, some of the great Crown corporations in Canada. Perhaps some of those Crown corporations should be privatized. I am not arguing that all the Crown corporations should
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
stay that way forever. However, let us not privatize in a carte blanche fashion.
Let us look at the history and ideology of the Conservative Party of Canada. Going back to Sir John A. Macdonald through to John Diefenbaker, Conservatives have believed that there is a role for the state to play through Crown corporations.


Mr. Boyer:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One of my Conservative friends has said: "Hear, hear", and he is right. It was a Conservative Party that brought the CBC, the CNR and many of the other great national Crown corporations to Canada.

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well as the Canadian Wheat Board and other Crown corporations of major importance in Canada today were established by the Conservative Party a long time ago. However, that was a different Conservative Party, a more Progressive one than the present Conservative Party.

It was not only the National Conservative Party that had an interest in public institutions. A few years ago, Premier Bill Davis of Ontario bought shares in Suncor. Peter "The Red" Lougheed started PWA in Alberta. As well, he put public funds into the oil industry and took out equity in that industry for the Province of Alberta. There is a tradition in the Conservative Party to recognize the importance of public participation of Crown corporations in the economy.
I would plead with my friends in the Conservative Party not to get carried away and try to privatize many of our important national Crown corporations and institutions. For example, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) said he sent out a questionnaire in his riding and received responses indicating that 51 per cent of the people wanted this privatized, 65 per cent wanted that privatized and 70 per cent wanted the other thing privatized. I tell the Hon. Member not to be fooled.
When the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was elected Prime Minister in 1979, he wanted to privatize Petro-Canada. Because he wanted to privatize Petro-Canada he lost a lot of public support. He also lost a vote of confidence in the House in December of 1979, and that resulted in his defeat as Prime Minister nine months after he was first elected. When Canadians realized that Petro-Canada might disappear they turned en masse against the Conservative Party led by the former Prime Minister and they voted for a lot of New Democrats and Liberals.
I remember very well the history of Petro-Canada. I remember the minority Government of 1972-74 at which time one of the conditions members of the New Democratic Party gave for making Parliament work was the establishment of a Crown corporation in the oil industry. I am very proud of the role played by Stanley Knowles, David Lewis and others in

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
1972-74 in getting Mr. Trudeau to accept the idea of a Crown corporation in the oil industry, which was eventually called Petro-Canada. I was very proud to work for some time on the committee discussing that particular issue.
There was nothing but opposition from members of the Conservative Party, day after day, week after week, month after month, to Petro-Canada. Just as they are doing now about the Canadair and de Havilland questions, they would rail, rant and rave against public participation in the oil industry. Then when they won the election, they wanted to privatize and the Canadian people said no. They reacted by electing a new Government and more New Democrats from western Canada. We took seats from Conservative Members in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was elected federally for his Party for the first time. One of the reasons for this was the Conservative Party's stand on Petro-Canada.
Members of the Conservative Party realized that they were wrong in trying to privatize Petro-Canada, just as I hope they will soon realize they are wrong in trying to privatize some of these other big Crown corporations. Early in the spring of 1980, the former Leader of the Conservative Party, the then Leader of the Opposition, announced that the Conservative Party had changed its mind on the Petro-Canada question. It would no longer privatize it. Conservatives would keep Petro-Canada as one of our national Crown corporations.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Not true. He doesn't know what he's talking about.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see that the Hon. Member from Montreal does not agree at all with me, but if he examines, as I hope he will, the minutes of the House, Hansard, he will find a speech by Mr. Clark who was then leader of the Opposition and said that the Conservative Party had changed its mind and wanted Petro-Canada to remain a Crown corporation. However, Madam Speaker, now that the Conservative Government has purchased Gulf and Petro-Canada has become bigger than ever under a Conservative Government which now agrees with the idea of having the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada-

-which is of course a nationally-owned oil company.
That is the history of privatization under the Conservative Party. As well, it is a history of the reaction of the Canadian people to public ownership in Canada. Canadians are very proud of many of their national institutions and they realize the need for a mix between private, co-operative and public ownership.
Before I sit down, Madam Speaker, I want to say a little more about the principle of privatization. I will do so as a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. I noticed that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was here a few
moments ago. Perhaps he is still somewhere in the House and would like to comment on my remarks later on.
I come from a province which probably has more public ownership and Crown corporations than any other province in Canada, the Province of Saskatchewan. Many of those Crown corporations were started up back in the 1940s when Tommy Douglas was Premier of the province. Our Party was in power for some 20 years. In 1964 when the Party was defeated the Liberal Premier, Ross Thatcher, kept most of those important Crown corporations. He privatized a few of them but he kept the basic and fundamental ones. Then Allan Blakeney became the Premier for another 11 years. At that time, there was once again an expansion of Crown corporations in Saskatchewan. Now under Grant Devine, the Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan, the major Crown corporations have been kept, once again showing that the Conservative Party realizes that there is a very important role for Crown corporations to play in Canada.
In Saskatchewan there are publicly-owned utilities like the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Saskatchewan Transportation Company. As well, there are many very important economic Crown corporations, including Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation and one of the biggest Crown corporations, the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. None of these corporations has been privatized by a very Conservative, right-wing Government headed up by Premier Grant Devine.
I would argue that there is genuine support for very strong publicly-owned corporations. Corporations like Canadair should remain in the public sector and de Havilland should not have been sold to Boeing. Indeed, these corporations should be publicly owned. I think there is a very important role for the public sector to play in our society.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Vote Liberal.
[ Translation\


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not a Liberal at all, I am a Social Democrat, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member for Montreal East was a Liberal, which I was not, and if I am not mistaken, he was active with the Liberal Party for a long time.


Mr. Della  Noce@: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) on a point of order.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague is unintentionally and inadvertedly misleading the House, for I never belonged to any political party, Liberal or other, before I was elected in 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Yortkon-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I accept the remarks of the Hon. Member for Montreal East. Maybe it was another Conservative Member, I apologize. Maybe the Hon.
December 2, 1986

Member was not active with a political party, maybe he just stuck with a deep admiration for Mr. Trudeau, I do not know.
1 was making the argument that there is a very important role in this country for Crown corporations, and for public ownership. Saskatchewan is a very good example. There is very broad support for that in our province, and in our country as a whole.
Not only do we have Crown corporations, in our province we have a great tradition of another form of public ownership, which is the co-operative movement. The biggest grain company in Canada is the wheat pool. The wheat pool is owned by the farmers of Canada, the producers who ship the grain. There is no move whatsoever to have more and more grain going to the private sector be it Cargill, or any other company. In Saskatchewan there is tremendous support for the co-operative movement and the credit union movement. There is tremendous support for the whole co-operative movement, whether it is in retail stores, or what have you. There is a great tradition for the co-operative movement and for public ownership.

And I know that in Quebec, it is exactly the same thing; the co-operative movement is very popular in Quebec. Caisses Populaires are very popular in Quebec. I also know that since 1960 there is a major participation in the Quebec public sector. I am thinking of Rene Levesque who, at the time he was a Liberal minister nationalized Hydro-Quebec, a large public corporation which is now making substantial profits.

There are many other big Crown corporations in Quebec. There is a great tradition in this country to have Crown corporations.
My main reason for intervening in this debate was to raise with members of the Conservative Party, who I believe are good friends of mine, these questions of privatization. I would like to remind them of their tradition that goes back to Sir John A. Macdonald, and follows through to John Diefenbaker. They initiated many of the Crown corporations that we have today.
I would like to remind my friend from York East that he may have received some answers in a questionnaire from constituents, but I think those answers would be different if those constituents heard a real debate about Crown corporations in Canada, just as it was during Petro-Canada's days of great debate in the House. The former Prime Minister of Canada back in 1979 wanted to privatize Petro-Canada. The people of this country reacted against that. One of the reasons the then Prime Minister lost the election was because he wished to privatize Air Canada. Once the public became sensitized to that they reacted in a very negative way. In fact, it was so negative that his Party was soundly defeated. A lot of
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
ground was lost in western Canada where the supposed support for privatization was very great.
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of people in my riding and province do not want Petro-Canada privatized. They do not want it privatized because they understand the issue very well. Of course, the Conservative Party realized that when it changed its policy on Petro-Canada and decided it should be kept as a Crown corporation.

I would now like to thank you, Madam Speaker, and I hope that the federal Members of the Conservative Party will agree with me in the forthcoming weeks that we need Canadair as a Crown corporation, a state corporation belonging to all Canadians.


Patrick Boyer: I listened with interest to the Hon. Member who, like his colleague the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who spoke a little earlier this afternoon, has urged that the question of privatization not be proceeded with as a matter of ideology. That is interesting, because if those spokesmen for the New Democratic Party are urging the Government not to proceed with something as a matter of ideology, it is most assuredly the other side of the coin that applies to members of that caucus where nationalization and state ownership is a fundamental part of the platform of that Party. Through a number of decades there had been clear examples of that policy being proceeded with on the basis of ideology, and not with particular regard to the practicality of state ownership in a specific case. For example, in the Member's own Province of Saskatchewan the CCF set up a shoe company which was state-owned, and which turned out to be a bust. There was a perfect example of something not working.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We haven't heard about that one for years.


Patrick Boyer: It is in the Hon. Member's interest to actually come at this question in a more accurate historic perspective than he has, because it is most assuredly an important part of the Conservative Party's tradition in this country, that when it is necessary for the state to become involved in social or economic activity that is done through Crown corporations, or Government departments where appropriate.


David Orlikow: You're right. Why are you changing now?


Patrick Boyer: Because times change. What is good in one instance cumulatively can make a difference over time.
In the United Kingdom in two days the deadline closes for people to subscribe for shares in the state-owned gas company. That public offering, as part of a privatization effort in that country, is being over-subscribed by individual citizens who are picking up on this opportunity to see privatization proceed, with the people of the country having a more direct stake in what is involved.

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
In other words, there is a creative way that one can approach these questions of state ownership or private ownership. The key thing is that the people of Canada are served. In doing so, no Government should be a slave to outdated ideology. The response that is coming from speakers for the New Democratic Party when they approach this question of privatization shows a clear knee-jerk reaction to these questions of state ownership. The Hon. Member's remarks, although they do refer to history, fail to take into account the movement of history, and the cumulative effect of vast numbers of Crown corporations that were created under previous Liberal administrations, to the point where what once was a useful adjunct of Government, a useful state purpose, has been over-used and abused. It has seen Government active in areas where it is counterproductive. That is why this Government is beginning the process of bringing some rationality and order into the mixed economy that will continue as part of this country's approach to economic regulation and commerce.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I appreciate the Member's question and comment. He says that we are being "ideolized". I would argue instead that the Conservative Party members are the ideologues, not members of this Party. For example, here I have an editorial from the hometown newspaper of the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), The Toronto Star of July 8, 1986, which states that the Government's privatization campaign is not a response to public pressure. Rather, the effort seems to stem from neo-Conservative ideology. Madam Speaker, it is neo-Conservative ideology. They are the ideologues.
The Hon. Member mentioned a shoe factory in Saskatchewan that closed many years ago, in the 1940s or early 1950s. Sure, there have been some failures in public enterprise. I would like to ask the Member about his own riding and his own city. What about the closure of Goodyear in his own city where some 1,500 jobs have been lost? That is a private sector company that is closing down. That is in the private sector. Today in Winnipeg Canada Packers announced that they were closing down part of their St. Boniface plant. This is a private sector failure. Part of its plant is being closed down in Winnipeg, and over 400 jobs will be lost. Every day in this country there are private companies going broke, so it is not just the public sector that has a failure once in a while. There are many, many failures in the private sector.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thousands every year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As I mentioned before, the Hon. Member is the one who is being the ideologue. It is the neo-Conservative ideology that the people in this country are now starting to reject. As the last poll showed, that Party is sitting at some 29 per cent support. One of the reasons is the neo-Conservative ideology we see across the way.
I made it very clear in my remarks that I support, and the history of the CCF-NDP Government in this country in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia has been to
support not just Crown corporations, but also to support a cooperative movement of small business. I know that the Member for Assiniboia would agree with me, because he is a great red Tory who comes from that tradition in Saskatchewan that believes that we need a mixture of co-operative and public enterprise along with small business and the farm economy. That is the history of the CCF. That is the history of the Government of the CCF when it was in power. The Member across the way knows that. I said that this afternoon, but he chose not to listen.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the Hon. Member, and he said that, as Conservatives, it is our policy to privatize Crown corporations while, in fact, this industry had suffered losses since 1976 and had an accumulated deficit of $2.4 billion which had to be borne by Canadian taxpayers, which is quite enormous, and while it is a fact that state-owned corporations are being privatized increasingly in other countries.
For instance, we know that France has privatized its pulp and paper industry and that part of it has been purchased by Canadians from the Drummond constituency, the Lemaire brothers. Now, instead of record deficits, there are record profits, which is to the advantage of the whole French industry. The same would happen in this case for Canada and Canadians.
In my opinion, it is insulting for the Bombardier administrators for someone to say that they are not offering an innovative and efficient management since we know that Bombardier began as a small snowmobile industry before building the New York and Mexico City subways and that this company will have engineers and the advantage of all the specialized workers of Canadair.
I must say that Crown corporations often have problems because of a top-heavy operation. Someone said earlier that this was a management problem and that you need one type of management in Government and another in the private sector. The question of productivity is always related to industrial management. The best way to guarantee productivity is to go to the private sector.
Some of the Members who went with me to Great Britain saw that even the prisons are being privatized over there, as well as all large Crown corporations.
In my opinion, it is quite wrong to say that the Conservative Government is privatizing haphazardly. I would like the comments of the Hon. Member on this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member said that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member has only one minute to give his answer.
December 2, 1986


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -in England they are privatizing the prisons. That might be the reason why the Prime Minister decided to move the penitentiary from your riding to Manicouagan.
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member said that I questioned the management of Bombardier. It was not me: maybe some other Members did, but I never questioned it.
I often asked questions like: Did Bombardier give any assurance they will protect the jobs presently in Montreal? Do we have guarantees for the technology and so on? These are important questions for the workers at Canadair, in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec.
We need time to ask important questions and the Hon. Member for Montreal East agrees with me. This afternoon I asked precisely that kind of questions and I know I have the support of all the workers, men and women.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the proposed sale of Canadair which we are now discussing and the earlier sale of de Havilland are perfect examples of the blind commitment of the Conservative Government to its free enterprise ideology that ignores completely the question of what is best for Canadians. We in Canada have hundreds, if not several thousands, of Crown corporations, not only at the federal Government level but also at the provincial Government level. Conservative Members seem to suggest that somehow Crown corporations are useless and inefficient. They seem to suggest that we do not need them and that we should be rid of them as quickly as possible. I remind them that most of the existing Crown corporations were created by Governments at the federal and provincial levels. They were not socialist Governments or wild eyed Governments. They were Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit, PQ, and occasionally CCF or NDP Governments.
I should like to put on record some examples of what I am saying.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Pacific Western Airlines.


David Orlikow: As the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) reminds me, the Conservative Government of Alberta under Premier Lockheed bought 100 per cent control of Pacific Western Airlines.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And now CP.


David Orlikow: Yes, apparently Pacific Western Airlines is to purchase CP Air. In any event, it was done by the Conservative Government of that province to keep control in Alberta. It was an important consideration.
Also I remind them that the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, R. B. Bennett, established the Canadian Broadcasting
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
Corporation as a Crown corporation. In 1908, the Conservative Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Sir Rodmond Roblin, the grandfather of a later Premier, Duff Roblin, who is now a Senator, established the Manitoba Telephone system as a publicly owned Crown corporation. A Conservative Government of Ontario established Ontario Hydro as a Crown corporation. A Social Credit Government of British Columbia, when W. A. C. Bennett was Premier, established B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail as publicly owned Crown corporations. It was a Liberal Government of Quebec with Mr. Lesage as Premier which bought out private power companies and established Quebec Hydro as a Crown corporation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Alberta Telephone?


David Orlikow: I could go on and on. My colleague reminds me of Alberta Telephone. There was also Saskatchewan Telephone.
Why did these various Governments establish Crown corporations? They established them because there was a need for certain types of services. The private sector did not believe it would realize a profit from the services and was not interested or ready to go into those fields. Therefore Governments established the hundreds, if not thousands, of Crown corporations now existing in Canada.
I am not saying that all those Crown corporations are now necessary. I am not saying that all of them are operating as efficiently as they should be. They are like any other public or private organization. Sometimes they are not performing their functions as they should. However, to sell off federal Crown corporations, not because they have outlived their usefulness or because they are not being operated efficiently, is simply to follow an ideological view not based upon reality.
In the establishment and operation of Canadian Crown corporations we have historically done things in a way which is very different from the way they were done in the United States because our needs and abilities are different. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that socialists are so in favour of public ownership we are critical of all private sector operations. It is not true. It is not the position of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It is not the position of all Social Democratic Parties in countries throughout the world. This is particularly so in western Canada where its Social Democratic Parties are allied with our Party. As is the case with our Party, they belong to Socialists International. They have also accepted the reality that, for the foreseeable future, their countries will operate with a mixture of public and private ownership. Indeed, in Sweden, where the Social Democratic Party has governed for 50 of the last 60 years, there is much less public ownership than in Canada. That is because their needs are different from ours and they have not moved as quickly into public ownership as we have, whatever Government has been in office nationally or provincially.

December 2, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
How did we come to own Canadair? The people of Canada, through the Government of the day, bought Canadair in 1976 from General Dynamics, a multinational corporation whose centre of operations is in the U.S. We paid $48 million. Why? Because General Dynamics was losing money and not prepared to operate the company any longer. The Government had a choice. It could let the company close down with a loss of thousands of jobs and the technology associated with the company, or it could, as it decided to do, I think quite correctly, buy the company and avoid the disappearance of such an important part of Montreal's technological base.
Government involvement in and ownership of the aerospace industry is not unique to Canada. It is a fact of life in most countries with an aerospace industry. The only country where this is not the case is the U.S. The reason is that the demands of the U.S. for production of military aircraft is so great that the privately-owned industry is profitable and able to function. That is not true in other countries. In Great Britain, France and West Germany, to mention just three, a substantial part of the aerospace industry is owned by the Government. Why? Because they know it is in the public interest.
We have to ask ourselves if we had to buy Canadair in 1976 because General Dynamics was losing money and was not prepared to continue, what happens if the aircraft industry has another slump? What happens if sales decline precipitously in the 1980s or 1990s? What happens if Bombardier decides it cannot show a profit, which its shareholders rightly require, and continue to operate Canadair? Will we have to repurchase Canadair at what will probably be an exorbitant price after having virtually given it away with this legislation?
Canadair is Canada's top aircraft manufacturer. It now has 4,500 employees. Since it was first established it has produced over 4,000 aircraft. Its latest and successful product is the Challenger executive jet. That plane was brought to its present state of excellence in large part due to substantial federal expenditures on research and development. Without that assistance Canadair would probably have been shut down in the 1970s. At that time world aircraft markets were depressed. Sales dried up and by 1984 the Government had put over two billion of taxpayers' dollars into Canadair. I do not question that assistance. Without it Canadair would no longer be operating. However, in recent years the market has improved. Sales are being made. Canadair could begin to recoup some of that $2 billion. Yet now the Conservative Government, for purely ideological reasons, proposes to sell Canadair to the private sector at a fire sale price. Members of the NDP will never agree to that decision.
Let us look at the financial situation of the company. Experts have placed its value at between $300 and $400 million. Bombardier will pay only $120 million to take over Canadair. Right there we have a tremendous loss. We have lost the $2 billion and somewhere between $175 or $200 million we would get if the company was priced at its proper value.
That is not all the Government has done to persuade Bombardier to take over Canadair. Under the proposed agreement, if Bombardier enhances its research and development efforts it will get, without further payment, special shares in the company which are being kept by the Government. The Government fattened up the offer by approving $30 million in DIPP assistance for the production of the CL-227 system and $20 million to assist Canadair in its participation in a joint venture with West Germany on the CL-289. In other words, Bombardier got another gift of $50 million. Canadair also got the F-18 defence contract which will be worth $1.5 billion over the next 20 years. I could deal with this issue for more time than I am allowed for my entire speech. Canadair was awarded that contract even though the bid of the Winnipeg consortium was lower and was evaluated by 75 senior civil servants as better technologically. I must assume that was partly in order to persuade Bombardier to buy Canadair.
In summary, this is a great deal for Bombardier. I cannot blame Bombardier for being the recipient of a great deal for itself and its shareholders. However, I believe it is a terrible deal for the people of Canada. What will happen if the market for aircraft goes soft and Bombardier decides that it does not want to continue the operation?
I have one other point to make with regard to this deal. This deal is contrary to the promises made by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he was in Opposition. On August 21, 1984, in regard to such a proposal, he said:
We will set up a separate crown corporation for Canadair and de Havilland with a mandate for development of the aerospace industry and not merely financial control. This organization will be responsible for developing in conjunction with the Aerospace strategy so that Canadair and de Havilland will become commercially viable and will continue to be so into the next century.
Having made that promise, the Minister proposed that we sell de Havilland, which we did. He now proposes that we sell Canadair. As I have indicated, we opposed the sale of de Havilland as we now oppose the sale of Canadair.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add a few words to the insightful statements of my friend from Winnipeg North. He has explored in depth the issues involved in the privatization of Canadair.
I was talking to a friend in Thunder Bay on the weekend who was active in the Conservative Party not long ago. He indicated to me his sense of alienation from his Party, his disaffection with what the Government is doing. I explored his views while appreciating that, although he may be disaffected from the Conservative Party, that hardly made him a candidate to join the New Democratic Party, given his rather harsh views on how small Government should be.
The aspect of his comments which is immediately relevent to what we are discussing today deals with the integrity which should characterize Government and the breaking of faith carried out time after time by the Conservative Government.
December 2, 1986

He commented on the fact that in the summer of 1984 he campaigned with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). At that time he asked why they were not saying what they planned to do, why they were not telling the people of Canada what their policies would be if they formed the Government. The Minister of Finance told him at that time that they would not get elected if they did that, that he should not press them to be explicit on these matters. In effect, I guess he was following the Crosbie strategy.
That is immediately relevant because on August 24, 1984 the present Minister of Finance issued a statement about the Canadian aerospace industry. He said explicitly that he envisaged the two Crown corporations, Canadair and de Havilland, being brought under the direction of a new entity, one Crown corporation, which would ensure that the substantial public investment in these companies, particularly in Canadair, did not go to waste, that the corporations were effectively managed, and that they carried out their operations in a business-like way. He suggested that there might be some participation by the private sector in sales of aircraft. He clearly indicated something of his dislike for public enterprise with regard to ideology.
In the statement made during the election campaign there was a very clear promise to the employees of Canadair and de Havilland, to people in Montreal and Toronto, and to the people of Canada that a Conservative Government would use the public enterprise forum to ensure that substantial investments in the aerospace industry were made to the benefit of the people of Canada.
In light of that, what is one to say of what was actually done? When this gentleman became the Minister of Finance he issued a budget paper on privatization in which he said explicitly that Crown corporations will not be sold at distressed prices merely to transfer them quickly to the private sector. My friend from Winnipeg North has pointed out how cheaply Bombardier acquired this company in relation to its value as determined by experts in the industry, its book value and its break-up value. By all those standards Bombardier has been given a gift. Canadair is being privatized merely for the sake of ideology.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE FAMILY GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM-THE FAMILY AND MARRIAGE
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: The Family
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of sponsoring, with the provinces, a communications program, including the use of television, that will affirm the importance of marriage and family life.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak while you have been in the chair. Belated as my remarks may be, may I offer my compliments, congratulations and hope that you will enjoy the House as much as I am sure the House will appreciate your presiding over us.
The motion I introduce today was introduced earlier this year in a debate during Private Member's hour that occasioned so much enthusiasm on the part of Members that at six o'clock they were still talking. Therefore, I have brought the resolution back to the chamber so that we may have another opportunity to address it. However, I do offer the caution that I hope Members will be restrained in their enthusiasm sufficiently that we might conclude the debate today with an affirmative vote.
Having said that, I must offer a word of explanation and apology to you and other Members of the House. As luck would have it, I am chairing a meeting of a Standing Committee of the House and have just come from its session which is still progressing. Due to the nature of the agenda, I must go back after I conclude my remarks. I regret that very much because, otherwise, I could look forward to the contributions of fellow Members from all parties. I regret that I will have to delay that experience until Hansard is printed and I can read their contributions.
The motion before us would have been debated yesterday, but the House will recall that the agenda for last Friday was postponed until yesterday, and yesterday's until today because of a very worthy cause last Friday, as some would see it. Consequently, there has been a conflict in my agenda, having a committee meeting at the same time as my Private Member's motion is debated.
I want to begin by reminding the House of the fundamental importance of the family, not only to the persons who comprise a family unit but to society itself. Regardless of other changes in our society, social history shows that the family is permanently the foundation upon which any society must rest. The family offers a unique satisfaction to the basic permanent universal human need for belonging, regardless of what culture, what region of the world. We have a common humanity with certain common needs, including the need to belong to each other, the need to care for one another and be cared for by one another. The family has met that need to an extraordinary degree, since time immemorial.
The form of the family has varied from time to time. We have had the patriarchal family, with its stretched out membership. We have had the narrower domestic family, and in latter years we have had what sociologists have called the

December 2, 1986
The Family
nuclear, atomic family of the mother, father and perhaps one, two or three children.
We have seen the development of other forms of the family. For example, there is the family in which there are perhaps three generations sharing and caring for one another. We have seen a family of just adults, providing the satisfaction for that need of belonging. We have seen sibling groups form family communities and relationships.
The point I wish to emphasize is that regardless of the form of the family, of how it has changed even in our own lifetimes and how it may change in the balance of this century and into the 21st century, some form of the family will be needed. Therefore, it behooves this Parliament and the Government to take the required steps to strengthen the capability of families, regardless of their varied forms in this country, to meet the needs of men and women of all ages, as well as children.
A major phenomenon of our changing society has been family breakdown. There has been a remarkable increase of divorce, separation and other disruptions of previously normal family ties. That has brought a cost as well as a benefit. It is a cost to the persons who have had to undergo that kind of breakdown. They certainly do not merit judgment by anyone, for I have met so many who have had to suffer more than their deserved share of pain and disappointment. There is a cost to children who very often lose, not only their sense of stability in the society immediately around them but the sense of credibility of those relationships and the credibility of the humanity to whom they want to turn.
I am not unmindful that sometimes, hopefully often, a family breakdown brings benefit. I can only support those who felt they had no other reasonable choice than to bring to an end a relationship that was injurious to them. However, I say that we should not be unmindful of the cost that is borne by the persons participating, and we should note the cost to the national society itself. There is a cost to us all.
What can we do about it? Part of the answer lies in legislation. We have addressed that through reforms to the Divorce Act that provide, among other things, for tighter administration of court orders for support. We have addressed those problems that legislation can solve, but legislation cannot meet every need.
There are some needs that can be satisfied much better by education. We need to remind ourselves over and over again that the law is not only a regulator, it is an educator. The law, by means open to it, transmits ideas, convictions and understanding that are part of developing a healthy society.
We have seen in our time that education is not only a matter of that which is communicated in classrooms, but that there is a great classroom that has no walls-the classroom of the country itself. One of the most powerful means of education today lies in television which, for good and often for ill, educates the populous throughout the day and night.
This motion calls on the Government to seriously consider adopting an education program, of which television would be a part, to communicate the values of family life to our people. I hope that the House will support this motion. I hope the Government will take the required steps to realize it and thereby fulfil a commitment contained in the Throne Speech when, on the advice of the Government, Her Excellency said: "My Government will take steps to strengthen the family in Canada". Such an education program as I suggest in this motion would bring about such a strengthening.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully, and I have every respect for the Hon. Member's views on the family. However, it seems to me that his motion was addressed mainly to the traditional family and marriage.
I think that if the present Government-if the Hon. Member wants communications programs on the family, we would have to ensure that the image presented by these programs is not just the traditional one. And I say this because when we look at the report published by the Quebec advisory committee on family policy last year, one of the major reports on the subject, it says that the majority of families today are not traditional, and that for the past ten years, if I am not mistaken, only 20 per cent of families in Quebec have been two-parent families. I think the national figure is 19 per cent. So I don't mind sponsoring a communications program on marriage and the family, provided it would also consider what is happening in 1986 and what will happen in 1990. Another point is that we should not force these values on Canadian men and women. Today, I think the supportive approach is preferable. We must remember that the majority of our families are single-parent families headed by women, and that when we present the image of a traditional family, it is one where the wife or mother stays home.
I want to be very clear on this. Let there be no mistake about my intentions. I am not condemning the traditional family, on the contrary. But I think that in society today, there are very few families where women have the option of staying home. When we consider the economics of the issue and when we consider the cost of educating children-we should remember that in 42 per cent of married couples with children, the woman has to work outside the home.
Talking about marriage is fine, but I think it would be advisable to look at the report on the family published last year, where it discusses the traditional marriage, the life expectancy of a marriage, and so forth. The family is very important, and it is definitely the wellspring of society, but in 1986, there are more nuclear families than traditional families.
When we talk about the family, I think it is very important to consider the parents' jobs, the women's jobs. We must discuss the position of women on the labour market. We should discuss the possibility of part-time work for most working mothers who have to supplement the family's
December 2, 1986

earnings, and I think the Government, since the federal Government will be sponsoring this program with the provincial Governments, should come up with a number of answers. 1 am referring to day-care, a very important point, part-time work and work sharing.
It would be possible to make a program with this approach and to say that, in 1986, we have the traditional family unit, but also the nuclear family, and ask what can be done to help a family or a couple that wants children to survive in the eighties. In that case, I could support the proposal of the Hon. Member. However, if we simply do a program to promote or encourage traditional families, I do not think that it would meet the needs of the majority of Canadians.
We also have to recall that, in the 21st century, two thirds of the Canadian population will be senior citizens. Our young people will make up the families we will need to help us. What type of families, of services and of society will they need?
In my opinion, before setting up such a communications network, we should have answers to all these questions. You cannot promote one type of family more than another. There are now many women's groups, including one called REAL Women, which support the traditional family. That is all very well, but they often forget that the majority of women who are on the labour market and who must use day-care services have no other choice but to earn a living. They often suggest that if a mother puts her children in day-care, she is not a good mother.
I cannot support this view and I have to point out that it is not because you are not a traditional wife that you are not a good wife, and more important, that you are not a good mother.
The image is often what remains the longest in people's minds. Children will watch these television programs. I am quite in favour of having a television program, but it should be done with an open mind and I am concerned that the attitude of this Government as far as the family is concerned does not quite correspond to my own attitude or that of other Members. I do not think that this Government is really open-minded about all types of families. Before doing such a program, I would encourage all the members of the Conservative Government to read the report on family policy published last year by the Champagne-Gilbert Commission. If they agree with most of the recommendations of that Commission, it would mean that the Conservative Government is very modern in its views and I could then perhaps agree with the request of the Hon. Member and support such a program.
Otherwise, I do not think it would be possible to have such a program, unless it were very open and dealt with the nuclear family, the different types of families, the support and childcare services, work-sharing and also the remuneration of homemakers.
This is therefore another aspect which should be dealt with. So if we are prepared to discuss such a report and put forward quite "avant-garde" ideas, then I think it would be alright, but
The Family
if the approach and the purpose of this communication program is simply to promote the traditional family, I am afraid I could not support it, not that I am against the traditional family, being the eldest of seven children, and I think that it is very important. In 1986, the outlook must be different, and people must know and accept the fact that there are different sorts of families, that children now may have stepfathers or stepmothers, and that this is now part of our life style.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). I want to commend him for raising such an important matter in this House. I do not think we spend enough time debating really crucial questions, such as the survival of the family as well as its well functioning. I am certainly very pleased to support his proposal that the Government should consider the advisability of sponsoring, with the provinces, a communications program, including the use of television, obviously, the most important and influential medium at our disposal, which will affirm the importance of marriage and family life.
I note that in addressing his remarks to the House the Hon. Member stressed the great diversity of Canadian families. He did not just talk about the traditional family which is declining numerically as other forms of families emerge. He did recognize the different kinds of age configurations and talked about single parent families. Of course, we see the traditional family is now a minority and so many families have only one parent. There is, of course, blended families and great kinds of extended families. All of these families are part of the richness and diversity of Canadian life. These are facts of life that we must indeed accept.
We also know that many families in Canada are in a lot of trouble. There are single-parent families headed by women, and these particularly have a great possibility of living in poverty. More than a million Canadian children are living under the poverty line. These are very sad facts that ought also to be addressed.
The family certainly needs better presentation on television. There should be greater psychological and social supports for marriage and the family. However, we also need economic supports. It is a scandal to have a million children living in poverty.
Why are so many elderly women living in poverty? It is because they were traditional homemakers and there is no pension plan for homemaker spouses. Women who have devoted their lives to raising their children in a traditional fashion are told what a great job they have done, yet they are told that it is not important enough for them to receive pensions in their own names, and they can jolly well live in

December 2, 1986
The Family
poverty because there is no economic recognition for the contributions they have made. That too is a scandal in society. I wonder what kind of advertisement it is for marriage and the family when people who have devoted themselves to supporting the family are living in poverty as a result of society's lack of gratitude for the important work they have done.
One in 10 Canadian wives is beaten by her partner, either her husband or her common-law spouse. What kind of advertisement for marriage and the family is it when a family cannot even be a place of safety for one out of 10 women, an astonishing proportion? Certainly this is a problem we must address. Marriage and the family must be places of refuge, strength and satisfaction for people. Certainly male roles must change. We must get at the one in 10 Canadian husbands who considers it appropriate to beat his spouse. There must be nonviolent resolutions of family disputes. These are issues that we must address.
Current portrayals of the family on television do not help. Of course, there is a great deal of violence on television and there is a great deal of trivialization of violence. In particular, American programming is more violent than Canadian programming or programming that comes from other countries. It trivializes violence by showing that there are no important consequences, when of course real pain and longterm psychological scars emerge from being beaten or being the victim of other violent acts. The television programming we now have is not very favourable to family life and is not a very good advertisement for marriage and the family. I think the Hon. Member's proposals in this regard are very well taken.
Let us look for a few moments at the family as it is portrayed on television. Very often it is the traditional family that is seen. The male is the bread-winner and the female is the parent at home full time with the children. Usually the family is richer than average. The problems of a typical Canadian family in making ends meet and having both parents working in order to pay a mortgage are not shown on television. Reality is not a very important theme. People do not see real problems portrayed on the screen. They see highly glamorized and very rich families, and they see families with some quite astonishing problems surrounded by a great deal of violence. I do not think any of this helps develop a healthy family life in Canada.
Thanks to the pressures women are putting on the CRTC and Parliament, women are increasingly being portrayed in other family roles on television. This is a refreshing change, because when watching television 10 years ago one would not have thought that women held jobs as economists, Parliamentarians and scientists, or that they did anything else but look after the family. One would have thought that their roles were confined to the family, and that of course was quite an inaccurate reflection of the roles of Canadian women and indeed the roles of women in any other country.
There has been greater realism in the portrayal of women's roles on television. However, I must say that there has been no corresponding change in the portrayal of men's roles on television. We still see the traditional male who does not have much responsibility in the family and whose role is outside the family. If we want to encourage Canadian fathers and husbands to play an important role in the family, to be involved with their children, to share in child care tasks and to have the joy of being with their children, we need not look to television because it does not help in that respect. Television still flogs the old example of a highly divided family with the wife full time at home and the husband full time outside the home. It does not show that many families are trying to meld these roles. Of course, it would be desirable to make it possible for parents to share these tasks. It would be desirable for both parents to have a shorter work week so they could share in the child care tasks within the family. We cannot change the roles of women without changing the roles of men. That must be true in how men and women are portrayed on television as well. There has been a slight improvement in the portrayal of women, but men are still portrayed in a very traditional way.
Of course, the trivialization of violence on television is not helping at all. REAL Women have protested that we do not see enough traditional women on television. I would like to quarrel with that argument in one respect. Statistically, it does not hold up. In fact, we do not see very many women on television at all, but we still see a disproportionate number of traditional women. I think REAL Women do have a point and this is a point that has been made by feminists for many years. That is that women in traditional roles have been denigrated on television.
Think of all the advertising that shows women in domestic roles looking, quite frankly, like idiots. Women are portrayed as being inordinately concerned with pleasing their husbands by shining up their homes. This obsession with cleanliness is one which no normal Canadian homemaker has ever had. No one believes that this is the way to success and happiness. These advertisements portray the stupidity of women in their deference to male experts who tell them how to clean their houses. These are roles which have been the mainstay of advertising over the years and, although there have been some improvements, this denigrates the role of the traditional woman and the role of all women. I think we must all complain about that. It is certainly not a very good advertisement for marriage and the family to show these roles in such unflattering terms.
If we accept that the problems I have enumerated are real problems for the Canadian family, we have to look at some solutions. Unfortunately, when we begin to look at solutions we see that they will cost money. The violent television programs that do not help promote family life are imported at a relatively cheap cost. They are mass produced and production costs have already been absorbed. They are for sale for retransmission in Canada at very cheap rates relative to production costs in Canada. It is expensive to create new material in Canada
December 2, 1986

that is non-violent and pro-family. It is expensive to show Anne of Green Gables rather than to import some violent American programming. It will cost money to produce our own Canadian content shows which portray our different values.
Anne of Green Gables is an example of a very fine program which has been widely shown.
I would hope to see more such programming in Canada, but it does cost money. The main source of Canadian programming, the CBC, has had to cut back on Canadian programming. There has been very little Canadian production on the part of the other networks. The CTV, the English-speaking private network, produces almost no Canadian drama or entertainment. Of course, it is out to make money. It can make money by importing these relatively cheap American and very violent shows. It can get away with importing these, rather than producing its own. We must look at the economics of television broadcasting. If we want solutions, we must have better rules on violence. I note that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is developing some guidelines on violence. They are not very strong ones, and I do not think they are adequate. These must be developed. There must be Canadian content regulations that will be good, strong ones. We need good public television, and it will have to be funded.
I see that my time is almost up, Madam Speaker. In closing, I wish to congratulate the Member and say that I certainly support the intentions of his motion, but we will have to look at the economics of broadcasting as part of the solution. There are no easy solutions. I am with him in spirit. We should be looking toward the solutions. We must look at how we will manage our own broadcasting, if we are going to have a television communications policy that actually does support the Canadian family.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to debate the motion introduced today by my colleague from Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) because it enables me to repeat and comment further on some of the last throne speech observations pertaining to the family. In the speech, Madam Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General emphasized that the Government is resolved to defend and strengthen the institution of the Canadian family.
Because the well-being of Canadians generally is predicated on the well-being of Canadian families, we must remain ever aware of the current evolution of family structures and expectations.
Most Canadians look upon the family as the institution which can most influence the education and social upbringing of children. Fortunately, most of them equate as well this influence with the sound physical, affective and intellectual development of the family members throughout the various
The Family
stages of life, and a healthy family will always foster the physical and psychological well-being of its members.
No one can deny that, in recent decades, the tensions harboured by Canadian families have given rise to new family structures, as evidenced by the ever increasing number of single-parent or reconstituted families.
The growing number of incidents which attest to the existence of violence against children, older people and women, as well as other family problems, prove that such tensions did have a very strong impact on the family's capacity to adapt and function. Fortunately, those families have shown the strength and flexibility needed to face that kind of problems. But some of them need help in times of strain in order to continue adjusting themselves, and it is towards the latter that governments have a special responsibility for providing the kinds of support that are appropriate to their new requirements.
I would like to mention two achievements that illustrate what is being done now in support of families. The first is a study conducted in Montreal, with funding from the Department of National Health and Welfare. The study dealt with a program of family enhancement. It had interesting results because it showed that consolidating adjustment potentials within the family has preventive benefits. The study showed that one is not born a parent. Child rearing techniques can be learned and should be taught, and those basic techniques that can solve problems can apply in a number of situations. The study also showed that early action and information reduce the need for later treatment to reduce the devastating and long-lasting effects of family breakdown.
The second example I would like to point out is the result of work done at the Health Promotion Directorate in the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is a unique program entitled "Family Passport" aimed at getting family members to carry on together various activities related to the family group's health and welfare. The program was tried in the field, results are very encouraging and developing work will be further advanced next year.
It is often said there is a danger that the government may ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers and act accordingly when trying to solve a problem. My view is that that is not necessarily the case. Quite the opposite, I believe that the more co-operation and consultation there is, especially when the welfare in a society is involved, the less chance there is of that kind of error happening. It is also obvious that in an atmosphere of strong co-operation, the government and nongovernment sectors can form a powerful alliance to do what neither one could achieve by itself. That is exactly what the Government of Canada, through its National Health and Welfare Department, has done in various respects to support marriage as an institution and the family.
For instance, the Department co-sponsored a series of workshops on marriage preparation and family mediation in divorce cases. The objective was the gradual building of a

December 2, 1986
The Family
Canadian network of leading competent people who could in turn train others and promote the creation of services.
The Department's Health Services and Promotion Branch accomplished considerable work to develop collective strategies concerning programs designed to strenghen the family's strong points. Thanks to both extramural research programs, the essential financial assistance has been provided and measures to support the family have been assessed.
In the last few years, the National Clearinghouse of Family Violence succeeded in raising in all sectors a record level of interest about the problem of violence against women and children. As for the National Day Care Information Centre, it helped keep up to date the information base and the necessary specialized councils to promote the development and growth of day-care services in Canada. Of course there is room for more work and co-operation in that Field as in others and there are opportunities to implement new means to co-operate with associations which will enhance the efforts of the Government, professionals, the volunteer sector and the public.
Despite a freedom to choose other lifestyles, many people in our society recognize the benefits and values that family life embodies. Therefore, we must ensure that our programs follow the movement initiated in order to support the family. We must also examine as rigorously as possible the resources we put to work to support marriage and family life are used.
I do not think a lengthy debate is necessary to determine our needs; we know what they all are, to some extent.
What the Government cannot and must not do directly could however be done with its help by numerous other organizations of the social system. We will then have developed a strong and permanent framework for the survival and well-being of the family.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, for me, the family is the backbone of our society and the Government must continue to act to support that institution.
I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salabery (Mr. Hudon):
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of sponsoring, with the provinces, a communications program" and substituting the following therefor: "the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be empowered to study the feasability of a federal-provincial communications program,".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg), seconded by Mr. Hudon, moves the following amendment: That the motion be amended by striking out the words "in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of sponsoring, with the provinces, a communications program" and substituting the following therefor: "the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be empowered to study the feasability of a federal-provincial communications program,".
The debate is on the amendment.
The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).


Lucie Pépin: Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to support a proposal or an amendment of this kind. However, I want to be sure-and I have been listening to my colleagues-that when we talk about the family, we do not forget the issue of unmarried mothers and teenage pregnancies.
Today, one of our major problems in Canada is teenage pregnancies. The percentage is very high, and it seems not much or at least very little is being done to help these young mothers.
In a number of provinces in Canada, especially in certain regions, and I heard this when I was travelling with the Commission on Day Care, it seems that when these teenagers who may be 14, 15 or 16 become pregnant, their parents turn them out of the house. They go on welfare, they have to drop out of school and often they keep their children. The children are taken in by the family, often unemployed or on welfare. The young mother cannot find work, and if she does, it is usually poorly paid, and in many cases this means another generation of Canadians will be living on welfare.
We spent a lot of time discussing the possibility of giving parenting courses to these single mothers.
I also think these young people should be taught contraception. Every time the word contraception is mentioned, people blush or otherwise react. Everybody is dead set against adding this particular item to the program because they say it is being permissive. When we see children of 14 and 15 get pregnant, have children and then fail to give them an education, I think that when, first of all, they are not given a chance to finish high school and second, they are given no information at all about contraception, it may not be permissive, but it is just encouraging them to get pregnant and have a second and a third child that in turn will be dependent on Government assistance.
So if we are to have one of these communications programs, I hope we will be able to talk about the traditional family, the single-parent family, violence, support services such as day care, and that we might also talk a lot about single mothers and teenager pregnancies. Indeed the Government has to get involved and create a special program for these young mothers, first and foremost to help them avoid having more children out of wedlock, at least not when they are still teenagers. We do need a prevention program.
So I would hope such an education program might be included so as to enable single mothers to continue their secondary education, perhaps in general and vocational colleges, and then that they have access to sexual education programs.
I hope this recommendation will be considered and integrated into the program. Nobody can skate around this issue, especially when we know that 19 per cent of all childbirths in one of the Atlantic provinces last year involved teenagers. Whenever we want to raise this problem in committee everybody is embarrassed and they all say: We should not talk
December 2, 1986

about this because recommendations of this nature might be construed as a sign of permissiviness on our part.
On the contrary, I suggest we would show that we do assume our responsibilities and that we must encourage young people to continue their studies, give them means, day-care and support services so they will be able to keep their children. But then we must also provide them with whatever is necessary to make it possible for them to become self-supporting just so they will be in a position to bring up those children.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. It provides me with an opportunity to reaffirm my support for the Canadian family and its importance in society. It also provides Hon. Members with an opportunity to reflect upon the role which Governments have played in the past and will play in the future. It is an important opportunity for those of us in the House.
I have a plaque in my home of which I often think. I should like to paraphrase what it says. Essentially it indicates that if an individual is right within himself, there will be some harmony in his home. If there is harmony in the home, that harmony will continue out into the community, extend across the nation, and ultimately affect the entire world. I often think of it because it reaffirms the importance of the base unit we are discussing today.
As Members of Parliament we must consider the significance of families and their role in society. Also we must consider the impact of families upon the nation. There has been a tendency for some time for us to take the family unit for granted. As a result we have often neglected it by not proposing legislation which could be of assistance, or by simply ignoring it and some of the problems surrounding it.
The debate today has been indicative of the problems we face. All Members of Parliament have examples in their constituencies of problems and stresses experienced by families. I refer to wife battery and its impact upon communities. I can think of the impact it has had upon families in communities and towns in my area. One frustration I have experienced as a Member of Parliament is that in some communities there are now homes to which women can come with their children for security and protection. However, there has been no support for men, support in the sense of counselling or helping them address a serious problem which is hurting the family unit.
I am certainly pleased to be involved in this debate. I do not want to take up too much time because I should like to see the House of Commons reach a decision this afternoon. It is important for Governments to provide leadership based upon a clear understanding of the problems and the kinds of threats faced by families. Governments should look toward solutions to help alleviate the problems. They should not divert them
The Family
momentarily or side-step them or come up with band-aid solutions. It is important for us to be involved in informed discussions.
I am also pleased with the amendment offered by my colleague to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. I certainly support it because committee stage would provide us with an opportunity for discussion and informed debate. It would also provide us with an opportunity to draw upon the arguments and concerns demonstrated this afternoon. Hopefully the committee would consider looking at the experiences of various families throughout Canada which have dealt with frustrations and problems. It should look at the solutions they have come forward with and the activities in which they have involved themselves.
I should like to refer to an example which I think speaks well of what we are trying to accomplish-some families in Vancouver with the common problem of dealing with disabled family members. Often they were told that there was no choice but to institutionalize their children. Of course it was a real frustration for them. It did not seem to matter which way they turned. The common piece of advice they received from the bureaucracy providing the service was: "We are the experts. We know how to handle the situation. The only solution is to institutionalize your children". The parents began to say: "Wait a minute. We have a right to be involved in the process. We have a contribution to make. We have some decisions we would like to see taken". They formed a society called Community Living Society and began to lobby to try to improve their particular situation. With a fair amount of effort they were able to obtain funding from the Province of British Columbia, which further enhanced their ability to do something. The net result was that they were able to start providing services and facilities and take into their own hands the resolution of a problem which had caused all of them so much hardship. That is the kind of leadership we want to look to. It speaks well of the kind of potential Canadians have.
As well, their experience was the subject of a film produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is available to the Canadian public and we can now sit down and see their struggles firsthand, and how they overcame their problems. We can then begin to realize how isolated we have become from the difficulties people face on a daily basis.
I know other Members wish to speak on this matter so I will not take up any more time of the House, other than to say I am very pleased that this motion has given us the opportunity to reflect on a problem fundamental to our society. We have had the opportunity to stop and think about what we as Members of Parliament can do to address the problems faced by a most significant part of our society. I am pleased to see the motion and indicate my support for the amendment, as well as the main motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).

December 2, 1986
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of this well-intended motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). Let me focus on what I believe is the foundation of our country, that being the family unit. I know others wish to speak so I will be very brief.
This evening I have heard various comments about the organization known as REAL Women. I regret that there are people in this country who look upon the traditional views of that organization as an attack on the family unit. They are in fact reinforcing family values. I regret that this has happened, but we see attacks on the family unit from every direction and that is why it is so important to have legislation such as this. It will reinforce and refocus our attention on this very important issue.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leo Duguay (Saint-Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support both the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) and the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif).

I wanted to make only one or two simple and straightforward comments in order to emphasize the importance of this resolution. Contrary to the myth, and it is a myth, the high marriage and remarriage rates in this country indicate that neither marriage nor the family has gone out of style. The family is the principal means through which we care for one another. It is the primary unit of learning, education and socialization. It is a source of emotional sustenance and support, and a significant unit of both economic production and consumption. If we lose sight of the family we will be weakened as a society. All of our efforts to promote the wellbeing of the Canadian family must be maintained. Families remain the primary care givers for children and the primary providers of emotional support for adult members. They remain the primary context in which human values are cultivated. The family today in Canada is being rediscovered and our commitment to family life in its various forms must be maintained. That is why I take pleasure in supporting this resolution and the amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Stackhouse) as amended agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.