1987-09-16

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, La Presse published an article on the Katimavik training centre. Overnight, Katimavik was cut off from public funding by the Conservative Government and forced to rely on its own financial resources to maintain activities at a recreational centre located near Montreal. So for the last two years the activities of what used to be one of Canada's most popular youth projects have been reduced to a bare minimum.
Yet the people responsible for Katimavik categorically state that the $19 million budget they had under the Liberal administration could be slashed down to $15 million and they would still be able to sponsor a Canada-wide trip for 150 groups of 12 young people, feed and house them during three three-month stages.
Although it seems that the private sector is more than willing to do its share, businessmen rightfully claim that the federal Government must first ante up to finance the program.
It is astonishing and somewhat disconcerting to realize that, although the Conservative Government did pull the rug from under this program, a number of OECD countries are taking a leaf out of this program to launch similar projects.
The Conservatives misled young Canadians by making them believe they would create a replacement program for Katimavik, but in fact nothing has been announced after two years.
Katimavik was once known as the university of life. Sad to say, young Canadians soon found out that the Conservative Government did not want to have anything to do with this kind of education.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to those countries which have succeeded in the achievement of an international protocol concerning regulatory measures for the protection of the ozone layer.
Earlier this afternoon in Montreal, Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), plus more than 50 other nations, as well as the European Economic Community, concluded the Montreal protocol on substances which deplete the ozone layer.
This agreement will see a scheduled reduction over 10 years of 50 per cent of the 1986 production levels of CFCs, or chloroflurocarbons. This chemical is closely linked with the destruction of the ozone layer which protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
To succeed in reaching an agreement among so many countries with different economic and production needs and obligations is no mean feat. Canada has been acknowledged for the important role it played in this achievement. Although we are responsible for only 2 per cent to 3 per cent of world production of CFCs, we took other nations to task to respond to the problem of the destruction of the ozone layer. I congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the whole Canadian delegation for their strong leadership, not only in getting the show on the road but seeing it through to its successful culmination.


CANADA CUP
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: On behalf of the New Democratic Party and all our constituents, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank most sincerely all the teams which took part in the Canada Cup tournament-

September 16, 1987

-for providing hockey fans around the world with the best hockey championship in over a decade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Team Canada kept everyone on tenterhooks every night but in the final seconds of the last game they won it, and they won it in style. Showing tremendous courage and skill and making believers out of hockey fans everywhere, they demonstrated that you do not have to be Canadian to play hockey but it sure helps. To the players on Team Canada, thank you. Inside and outside Canada, on and off the ice, you are number one. Felicitation!


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the National Parole Board study found that more than 100 killings over the past 12 years were committed by inmates released early from prison.
Recently a day pass was granted to a convicted killer serving time in the Edmonton maximum security facility so that he could spend his birthday enjoying the thrills of the West Edmonton Mall. Although he was escorted he managed to escape and remained at large for some two and a half months before being recaptured. He has now been charged with two more counts of murder which he allegedly committed during his time at large.
I do not envy the National Parole Board. Their work is the kind where a 100 per cent success rate is impossible, but I must ask how many more innocent victims must pay the price before we toughen our approach to early and temporary release?
I said it on June 30 following the capital punishment vote and I say it again today: let us turn our attention to reform of the penal system. A life sentence should mean exactly that. Let us make the law work to protect Canadians.


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the scandalous goings-on in the Immigration Department go from bad to
worse. Following the Grossmann affair I received an anony-	I
nrous letter from a department employee which stated: "This	I
note is to let you know that employees of Employment and	I
Immigration are being pressured to sign a petition supporting	I
the Deputy Minister." I also received a copy of that disgusting	-l
and intimidating document, together with a copy of a letter	I
from the President of the Immigration Union to the Deputy	I
Minister which says: " ... we would like to make you aware of	I
our indignation as a result of the pressures which are being exerted upon our members by certain management officials to make them sign these petitions. Believe me, it is extremely difficult for an employee to refuse to sign such a petition when his or her refusal is seen as a refusal to support the Deputy Minister. The action in itself constitutes undue pressure upon our members."
The Government must clean up this ongoing mess. It must dismiss officials who are at the heart of these abusive actions.
The Deputy Minister has gone too far and the Government needs to corral him in. More important, the Government must stop the haemorrhaging of public confidence in our institution and immigration policy.


REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a great decision has been made for Canada. The National Energy Board announced on September 9 a new procedure for determining the surplus of natural gas in Canada available for export. This is history being made. This is freeing the natural gas industry from government regulation.
Under the old system producers could not sell to the U.S. market unless they had a 15-year supply of gas available for sale in Canada. The Board has announced it will scrap the surplus test and allow exports to be determined by supply and demand. Market forces will operate freely as long as they are serving Canadian needs adequately and fairly. The Board can intervene if it finds increased exports could cause market difficulty in meeting Canadians' gas requirements.
This decision is a win for everyone. It shows that the free enterprise system can and will work. Congratulations to the Board and to the Chairman of the National Energy Board, Mr. Roland Priddle.
September 16, 1987


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the case of Mr. Garth Brewer, a customs officer who would like to become a provincial candidate for the Carleton South riding in the New Brunswick provincial election. This week the Public Service Commission informed Mr. Brewer that he can get leave to run provided that he agree, if not elected, to move to Halifax after the election, an intolerable condition upon which to be allowed to participate.
The Public Service Commission informed my staff today that if someone in Mr. Brewer's position living in Ottawa had sought a nomination in the Ottawa area they would have been allowed to run without being required to move. During the 1984 election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party made explicit promises to grant federal public servants the right to participate fully in the political process. I regret that those promises have not been fulfilled. It is time they were because it is not fair that men and women who work for the Government of Canada are discriminated against in the way that Mr. Brewer is being discriminated against in New Brunswick.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ted Scheilenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as Members of Parliament we all get mail, some of it positive and some of it negative. When I was in my riding this summer I received, through my home mail slot, a mailing from the postal union. It contained four separate cards that were to be mailed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and "your own MP" Each postcard demanded that the Government instruct Canada Post to improve and expand postal service and to put an end to privatization measures.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have an opportunity to write to myself, so I filled in my own name on the MP card and wrote across the front: "I think you're doing an excellent job!" On the back I wrote: "I understand what your government is doing to improve postal service". This is a photocopy of that card.
I then mailed the original card in my own riding of Nanaimo-Alberni. Much to my surprise the postcard did not arrive at my Ottawa office the next week, nor the week after that, nor the week after that, nor this week.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Ted William Schellenberg: When, oh when, will Canada Post deliver this positive message to my door? Whatever happened to the great communication with my own MP? 1 am still waiting, Mr. Speaker. It has been over a month. It should arrive any day now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, is there anything more tragic than the formerly great and historic Conservative Party of Canada so reduced in selfesteem and so removed from the values of a fundamental parliamentary democracy than to see this same Party stoop to the propaganda tactics which have historically been the hallmark of the zealous or the desperate?
The Conservative Party's Parliamentary News Service is an affront and insult to any self-respecting news organization in this country. As a former regional news reporter I want to say, on behalf of all regional news reporters, that this Tory pap will be received with the scorn, cynicism, and contempt it deserves when it comes over the satellite at four o'clock every day.

[ Translation]



Mr. Clement Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: While watching the Le Point program last night, Mr. Speaker, we heard from the mouth of Senator Jacques Hebert that the Liberal caucus strategy was for Liberal senators to do their utmost to boycott the work of the elected Members of Parliament.
The Senator even went so far as to say and I quote: The truth of the matter is that all the recent actions taken by Liberal Senators have always been discussed with the national caucus, that is to say, in the presence of the Liberal Members of the House and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner); moreover, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Leader in the Senate keep in touch at all times. He added that the Leader of the Official Opposition never asked the Liberal Senators to keep quiet and that the actions of the Liberal Senators while dealing with Bill C-22 and soon with Bill C-84, had his full support.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with such behaviour on the part of Liberal elected Members of the House who are conspiring with appointed Senators to unduly delay the

September 16, 1987
business of the House, and I think that the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to come clean with the Canadian people.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the adoption of an international protocol on ozone in Montreal is a historic step for all humanity and indeed all creatures of our planet.
Canadians can be justly proud of the role of our experts and officials in the difficult negotiations to reach this end.

As an Arctic country, Canada has more reasons than any other country to want the production of substances which are destroying the ozone in the atmosphere to be reduced or all together stopped. Our farms, fisheries, health and cities along the shores are the most quickly affected by the erosion of the ozone layer.

While we can be pleased with the adoption of a protocol, we would be fools to be satisfied with it.
Already much damage has been done and the CFCs which cause ozone destruction have a life span of 100 years.
Further vigorous measures will be required for our survival. May Canada continue to play a leading role in taking these next vital steps.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, last year when millions of people visited Expo 86 in Vancouver, they were delighted by a glittering golf ball. I am pleased to commend the federal Government for its decision to provide $5 million to transform that Expo Globe into a world-class science centre for British Columbia.
It is appropriate that the spherical structure which was a symbol for Expo 86 will now become home to Science World. Science World will be a showcase of British Columbia's and Canada's achievement in science and technology, and as a hands-on facility will offer a unique opportunity to learn about the world of science.
Science World will also provide significant economic benefits. As a major tourist attraction it will attract thousands of visitors to thrill and wonder in the marvellous setting of the Expo Globe.
I want to pay special tribute to the efforts of British Columbia's Arts, Sciences and Technology Society which has developed this project and will operate Science World when it opens in May, 1989.
Science World is an excellent example of how all levels of government and the private sector can work together to advance the interests of British Columbia and create delights for young and old alike.


LANGUAGE USED BY CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS FROM QUEBEC
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Tory Members from Quebec, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), played truant and travelled by bus to Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, how frustrating and humiliating it was to see those Members holding a press conference and using such foul language-


An Hon. Member:: A howling swarm!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, you know that it has been a degrading example set for our children and I think that such abusive language is due to the panic prevailing among the Tories. My grandmother would have said that they are ill-mannered, especially in their criticism of the legitimate action taken by parliamentarians in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the Tory Members from Quebec that this is not the way to improve their standing in the polls and they are only downgrading their own situation. And if, Mr. Speaker, that is the level of courtesy which the Prime Minister has advised Canadians to maintain, he should tell his Tory Members to learn how to improve their manners.
September 16, 1987


APPOINTMENT OF CLERK, DEPUTY CLERK, AND CLERK EMERITUS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Governor General in Council has appointed Robert Marleau, Esquire, as Clerk of the House of Commons in the place of Charles Beverley Koester, Esquire, C D., M.A., Ph.D., who has been appointed Clerk Emeritus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Before joining the House in 1975, Dr. Koester, who holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Alberta, had distinguished careers as a naval officer, scholar and teacher, and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
As Clerk Emeritus, Dr. Koester will constitute a unique resource of parliamentary insight and procedural knowledge. He will direct a critical research undertaking aimed ultimately at publishing an original comprehensive manual of procedure and practice in the House of Commons to serve as a definitive reference document for the Speaker and Members of the House of Commons. This project, known as the "Bourinot Project", was initially launched by Dr. Koester and involves an in-depth review and update of procedural reference material which has not been updated since 1916. The Project also involves the development of an extensive computerized database of procedural decisions of Speakers of the House of Commons going back to 1867.

Robert Marleau who succeeds Dr. Koester as Clerk of the House has, since joining the House staff in 1970, served in various positions in the procedural sector. In addition to Mr. Marleau's appointment as Clerk, the Governor in Council has also appointed Mary Anne Griffith as Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: She also has served the House for the past 17 years, in a variety of different positions.

I am also pleased to introduce to Hon. Members two new Clerks at the Table, Audrey O'Brien and William Corbett. Ms. O'Brien will perform the duties of Principal Clerk of the Table Research Branch and Mr. Corbett the duties as Principal Clerk of the Committees and Private Legislation Branch.
I am sure that Hon. Members will join with me in wishing the former Clerk of the House, Dr. Koester, every success in
Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerk
his new duties and in congratulating the new appointees and wishing them well in their new responsibilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with you in paying tribute to Dr. Koester whose devotion to this House has been an inspiration to all of us.
Institutions are above all what individuals make of them and this place, Mr. Speaker, this House of Commons, owes a part of its special character to the dignity, the selflessness and devotion Dr. Koester brought to the difficult position of Clerk. As a relative newcomer to this House I have special reason to thank Dr. Koester, in particular for his great assistance in preparing me to assume the parliamentary responsibilities of Leader of the Opposition and of Prime Minister.
I must confess there were moments during Question Period, to be precise, that I thought to myself: "Dr. Koester never told me there would be days like this", but I cannot fault a teacher of Dr. Koester's stature for these few thoughts. In fact, I suspect the accelerated circumstances of my parliamentary apprenticeship are more likely to be blamed, although some credit must be given to the enthusiasm demonstrated by colleagues on the opposition benches.

Mr. Speaker, I have also had opportunities to appreciate the personal qualities and professional skill of Mr. Robert Marleau, and to him I extend my best wishes of success in his duties as Clerk of the House of Commons.
I want to assure Mr. Marleau that he can count on my full co-operation and that of my political Party in the discharge of his very delicate duties.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by my friend, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner):
That the House, desiring to record its deep appreciation of the distinguished and faithful service of Charles Beverley Koester, Esquire, as Clerk of the House of Commons, designate him an Honorary Officer of the House of Commons with an entree to the Chamber and a seat at the Table on ceremonial occasions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, as are all Hon. Members on this side of the House, to second the motion and to advise the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in passing that we will not take advantage of the fact that it is debatable, something

September 16, 1987
Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerk
which might well influence the future course of the next few days in terms of what we might be able to say.
It is appropriate that the House indicate today its appreciation of Dr. Koester's services by awarding him a unique honour in his appointment as an honorary officer of the House. It recognizes not only his eight years as Clerk of the House, preceded by four as Assistant Clerk, but almost 30 years of service to the parliamentary institutions of the Commonwealth, and 45 years of service in other capacities to his country.

As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Koester was not even 20 years old when he began serving Canada as a naval officer during World War II. He was then Reserve Officer for a number of years. A learned man, distinguished educator, he had also been Clerk of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly and the Parliament of Westminster before coming to Ottawa.

We can recall when Dr. Koester was being mooted for the appointment here at the Table of the House of Commons how impressive and varied was his support. When someone receives the support simultaneously of Allan Blakeney, Otto Lang, and the late John George Diefenbaker, then we know we have something. That certainly impressed us on this side of the House.
Dr. Koester has served the House at a time when, after much struggle and much debate, both its procedural and administrative services have been moved up to truly professional standards. It was in pursuit of such professional standards that Dr. Koester made one of his principal goals the establishment of a firm career pattern for officers of the House. It must have been satisfying for him, then, that the Government appointed as his successor the first career-long employee of the House of Commons to become Clerk of the House.

Although he is still young, Mr. Robert Marleau has been serving the House almost constantly over the past two decades. He began his career here after university graduation and has worked in all major procedure sectors. The knowledge and experience he has gained over years of practice will serve him well in his new duties. He knows and understands Parliament and, perhaps more important still, he knows and understands parliamentarians. He has both the vigour of youth and the wisdom of a man of experience.

I want to add my congratulations to Ms. Griffith, Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Corbett, and to wish them a fruitful time in service at the Table.
We in the Opposition join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in wishing Dr. Koester a long, happy and healthy retirement. We are looking forward to seeing him here from
time to time. We congratulate him on his service to Parliament, his service to the Commonwealth and, more important, 45 years of service to his country.
We welcome Mr. Marleau and look forward to working with him in his new role, which is a very important role, at the Table of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I wish to indicate our complete support of the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and seconded by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
First, I wish to say that we offer our best wishes and cooperation to the newly appointed Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Marleau. He is no stranger to those of us who serve in this Chamber. We welcome him warmly, and look forward to his guidance for many sessions to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Today, on behalf of my Party, in particular I wish to say farewell and express our appreciation to Dr. Koester on the occasion of his retirement after eight years of exemplary service as Clerk of the House. Dr. Koester was appointed Assistant Clerk in 1975. He has served as a valued colleague ever since that time.
Dr. Koester has been seen, not only by Members of the House but by those outside who follow proceedings, as an outstanding officer of the House, a man who could be relied upon for accurate and fair counsel at all times. He was ever helpful, always prepared to sit down and take the time to explain decisions in detail to many of us who have what could be called less than complete expertise in terms of knowledge of the rules. He acquitted himself with honour, dignity, and a deeply held commitment to the democratic traditions of Parliament.
Dr. Koester has a long record of distinguished public service to Canada. He is a native of Saskatchewan, and was Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in his home province for some nine years. His interests and contributions to Canadian life have been wide-ranging; as a teacher, decorated member of the Canadian Navy, historian, university professor, author, and, of course, as one of the country's leading parliamentary experts.
Dr. Koester has written extensively about one of Canada's most fascinating politicians, the first MP for Assiniboia, Nicholas Flood Davin.
If I may add a particular note on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we have a special appreciation for his extensive work on the political history of his home Province of Saskatchewan, including his book, The Measure of the Man: Selected Speeches of Woodrow Stanley Lloyd.
September 16, 1987

Dr. Koester will assume new duties here. We thank him for his great contribution in the past, and wish him well for the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John W. Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you and the House would indulge me for 30 seconds.
The House may not know, Sir, that there have been some 32 or 33 Speakers, and almost as many Prime Ministers. But Mr. Marleau makes only the ninth Clerk of the House of Commons.
Perhaps the House would allow me to express-as one who knows, as only you know, Sir, the importance of the Clerk of the House of Commons-my personal best wishes to Dr. Koester, to the new Clerk, and to the new Deputy Clerk, all of whom have and will serve this institution nobly and well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is denying Canadians the right to know the most basic facts on the free trade negotiations. This Government's attitude is not open, it is even undemocratic. Now that the Prime Minister, under pressure from the Opposition, has asked Canadians to believe that the Auto Pact is not on the table but the automobile issue is, I would like to ask him what automobile issues that are not included in the Auto Pact are being considered by the Canadian and American negotiators? The Prime Minister will have to skate faster than Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux to answer that question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try in due time-not today but in due time-to do as Gretzky and Lemieux, and I think I will shoot and score, but in due time-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thank you, Michel!
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says there is an undemocratic attitude with respect to international trade, but that is not the truth as suggested yesterday by Mr. Bourassa, Quebec's premier. Quebec's Liberal Premier says that everything is proceeding in the most democratic way. He is quite pleased with the Canadian Government's position. Premier Bourassa says that free trade is in the best interest of
Oral Questions
Quebecers and Canadians, and such a negative attitude on the part of the Leader of the Opposition is passing strange.
As far as automobile matters are concerned, we have been informed that the Americans intend to refer to them and raise the question, as it is their right. On our side, our right and duty is to continue fighting, as we have been since the beginning, for Canadian interests in that area.


NEGOTIATED ISSUES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, vague as that response is, I can only interpret it as an admission by the Prime Minister that the Auto Pact is on the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister has neglected every opportunity we have attempted to give him to say no.


Mr. McDermid:: You're flogging a dead horse.


John Napier Turner: It appears that the arrangement that the Prime Minister has with the Americans is that they can put on the bargaining table anything that they want, and they can take off the bargaining table anything that they do not want.
Why did the Prime Minister allow the Americans to take off the subject of American Government procurement policies when the Americans wanted that off the table, and why allow the Auto Pact on the table because they want that item on the table?
Would the Prime Minister answer that question and explain the manner in which his priorities on these negotiations are arranged?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the Leader of the Liberal Party is against a free trade arrangement with the United States of America.
It is also well known that this Party and this Government are in favour. We are seeking to secure better access and the benefits that come from a free trade arrangement with the United States. That fact is well known.
At an appropriate time the people will decide whether the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party were correct in adopting this attitude, or whether the attitude demonstrated by the Government was an appropriate one.


Ms. Copps:: Call an election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yesterday the Liberal Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, said in supporting the concept of free trade:

September 16, 1987
Oral Questions
Mr. Bourassa told reporters before the hearings got underway. "It's not a
question of a party against another party. It's a question of economic common
sense."
That is exactly what we have been doing from the very beginning. We have refused to become the apostles of a status quo that is diminishing. We have refused to preach protectionism. We have had the vision and the courage to take initiatives on behalf of Canada that speak to the potential of this nation and the growth that is possible. That is what we have been doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: During the course of these negotiations the Prime Minister has also allowed our nation to sell out on energy, to sell out on lumber, to sell out on potash, to sell out on our book publishing industry, and to sell out on shakes and shingles.
I think Canadians will want to have an opportunity to say something about this. When the Prime Minister states that we will only strike a deal if it is in the national interest, Canadians are asking right now, which nation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we all have our moments of ambition. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will ensure that, in the future in his moments of ambition, he does not impugn the integrity and the motives of other Members of the House.
It is well known that patriotism, to coin a phrase, is the final refuge of a scoundrel. That is being proved here today.


John Edward Broadbent: No one would ever accuse you of that.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Have you read any of your own speeches?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend stands up every day and begins this litany of sell-outs, and he always begins with the question: "Did you sell out energy", presumably by getting rid of the NEP. Absolutely we got rid of the NEP, because the NEP was destroying Canada's interests, and it was very much in the interest of western Canada and the nation that we did it.
That is the kind of attitude of openness and courage that the Government will bring to the table in trying to bring about a comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States.


DURATION OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did Canada originally ask for a free trade deal with a term from 10 years to 20 years, and has it dropped that demand in the most recent stage of discussions with the United States?
If so, why has the Government caved in, yet again, to the United States without getting anything of value in return? In short, why isn't the Prime Minister willing to be a patriot? Why isn't he standing up for Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Riis:: Pat is standing up for Canada.


Pat Carney: -I think the Hon. Member is confusing the duration-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: If they do not want to hear an answer, I am not obligated to give one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: 1 think the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want to extend the appropriate courtesies to Ministers when they are responding to questions asked by Hon. Members.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still continuing on a number of issues. I think it is important for the House to understand that there is a distinct difference between the duration of an international agreement and the termination clause.
For instance, the Auto Pact, as we have said in the House, has been with us for the duration of 22 years. It has a one-year termination clause.
NORAD, which will be with us for as long as we need it, also has a termination clause of one year.
We expect that the free trade agreement will be with us as long as it benefits both countries, should we successfully negotiate one, and the matter of a termination clause will be a technicality.


BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that what the Minister used to mention as a flaw in the Auto Pact, its one-year termination clause, has now suddenly become a virtue for a general free trade pact, even though the Auto Pact is not free trade and it deals with only one sector.
Has the Government now also given up its basic demand for a trade dispute settlement mechanism whose rulings would be binding on both the United States and Canada, apart from U.S. trade remedy laws, without getting anything in return?
If that is the case, why is it continuing these talks which, each day, are leading Canada further and further into disaster for its people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying that termination clauses
September 16, 1987

are "a virtue" or "a flaw". I am saying that termination clauses are a reality.
In response to his question about whether we are giving up our position on a binding dispute settlement mechanism, which is a way of settling disputes between both countries in an impartial manner and in a binding way, of course the answer is no.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. According to a news report today, the RCMP has been running its own counter-terrorist activity in apparent contradiction to the mandate given to CSIS.
This is being done, according to the source, because the then Commissioner "decided to gather his own intelligence in this area".
Is this allegation true? If it is true, when did the Minister become aware of it, and what did he do about it?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy and pleased to be able to advise the Hon. Member that 1 became aware of this allegation this morning when I read the article in The Ottawa Citizen. So I did the normal and natural thing-I phoned the Commissioner-and asked him, and he categorically denied it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say quite sincerely to the Minister that I hope that that denial turns out to be accurate-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Poor Joe is at it again.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you accusing the superintendent of? Take a look at the record, Ed.


An Hon. Member:: Take a deep breath, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleague and friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could continue this private discussion after Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In the meantime, perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Considering that this serious allegation has been denied by the RCMP, is the Minister going to leave the matter there and accept completely, on the say-so of the person with whom he has consulted, what has been said?
The evidence, I say to the Minister as he knows, in terms of conflicting obligations and allegations of interference about which we have some evidence in other matters between the two services, is quite serious.
I want to ask the Minister: Does he intend to let the matter rest there?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is shameful.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset to the Right Hon.-


Some Hon. Members:: Right Honourable?


James Francis Kelleher: -I am sorry, to the Hon. Member and any other Member in the House who has any doubt about the integrity of the RCMP or the new Commissioner, that I do not have any doubts whatsoever in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You never read the McDonald Commission report.


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear you make an accusation, Ed.


James Francis Kelleher: Since I have denied it on the advice of the Commissioner, if the Hon. Member happens to have any information that is inconsistent with the answer I have given, I ask him please to advise me of it immediately, and I will take appropriate action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S ANSWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that we had the resignation of the head of CSIS before the weekend and that there has been, in the long and notable tradition of the RCMP, some incidents which have been anything but noble. The Minister knows that as well as I do.
Considering that the Minister wants to maintain a service which is beyond reproach in terms of concern with civil liberties-


Charles Joseph Clark: Always against the Mounted Police.


John Edward Broadbent: -I want the Minister to be quite clear. He is saying that he has no reason to pursue this matter any further; is that what the Minister is saying?

September 16, 1987
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying-and I will repeat it-is that I am prepared to rely upon the integrity of the RCMP and the new Commissioner. If the Hon. Member has evidence to the contrary, any innuendoes or suggestions-


John Edward Broadbent: Come on!


James Francis Kelleher: -then it is his duty and obligation as a Member of the House to bring that information to me, and I will see that it is properly dealt with.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Get out of the gutter Ed; you are too nice for that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Shameful.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Down, boys.


John Edward Broadbent: Take the McDonald Commission report home and read it tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it would be helpful if the Chair remarked that in the event that this line of questioning is continuing-and the Chair has been listening very carefully to the questions and the answers-the Chair, of course, would not want questions or answers to exceed the bounds of propriety in respect of the honour of any person. If any suggestions are to be made that reflect on that, then, of course, there are other more appropriate places to make them and there are ways to do so. I am sure Hon. Members would want to keep that in mind.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General's Department is in an absolute mess and he knows it. Today Canadians are outraged that a serious criminal case involving attempted murder is not proceeding in British Columbia because of a so-called technicality. That so-called technicality is the incompetence and negligence of Ministers of this Conservative Government.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, admit responsibility for this miscarriage of justice and seek the resignations of the Ministers responsible? In the name of justice, will he do that?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would get his facts straight. In the first case, the miscarriage, as you allege it, is not with respect to charges-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Minister is engaged in a lot of work during this Question Period and perhaps forgets that we do not refer to other Hon. Members as "you". I see the Hon. Minister is nodding. I know he will restrain himself.


An Hon. Member:: Jerk would be more appropriate.


James Francis Kelleher: I will not listen to the advice of some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker.
In the first instance, the charges were not attempted murder. The four people charged with attempted murder were convicted and sentenced to prison for 20 years. The charges are with respect to conspiracy to murder. The charges have not been dropped. The proceedings have been stayed. In other words, it is an "adjournment".
The charges have not been dropped. The charges have not been dismissed. There is a stay of proceedings for one year. At any particular time the Attorney General of British Columbia can continue on with the case. I spoke to the Attorney General of British Columbia this morning and he advised me that it is his intention to continue to pursue the investigation vigorously and hopefully that will enable him to continue the case.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I call on the Prime Minister to take charge and put that Minister out of his misery.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FORTHCOMING COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE-SAFETY OF INDIAN PRIME MINISTER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India is scheduled to attend the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver next month. Can the Prime Minister guarantee the safety and security of Prime Minister Gandhi during his scheduled visit to Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any evidence to place before Canadian authorities that would cause that to be a genuine question rather than a grasp for headlines, he has a duty to make that evidence available. It is about time that Hon. Member began to perform his duty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR WIRETAPS-REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Solicitor General concerning evidence which is indeed available. Is the Solicitor General now aware that on May 17, 1986, and on May 24, 1986, CSIS agents intercepted telephone communications which clearly indicated
September 16, 1987

that a visiting Punjabi Minister would be on Vancouver Island and might be subject to threat? In light of the fact that there is clear documentation of these wiretaps, why is the agent who was responsible for these wiretaps still working for CSIS? Why will the Minister not accept his responsibilities, order a full parliamentary inquiry into the activities of CSIS and finally make some sense out of the bungling of this very serious investigation?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows that the four people convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to jail for 20 years each are presently appealing their convictions and their sentences. Second, the Hon. Member well knows that the nine people including the four already convicted of attempted murder have been charged with conspiracy to attempt murder. Those charges have not been dismissed. There is a stay. The matter is still before the court. The investigation is proceeding and there is no way that I, as Solicitor General, given the importance of the case of a visiting cabinet Minister from another country being wounded, can discuss at this time the evidence concerning that investigation without jeopardizing a trial on a matter that is very, very important to this country.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely appalling that this Minister does not recognize that the fundamental issue is the bungling of CSIS and the fact that Ministers of the Crown rose in the House to state that the Government of Canada did not know that this Minister was in Canada, when CSIS was well aware of his presence because of wiretaps. This Minister does not understand that.


REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF MINISTER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the Prime Minister. In view of the history of incompetence within CSIS and in view of the fact that this Minister clearly does not recognize the seriousness of the problems within CSIS, does the Prime Minister not recognize that one of the biggest threats to the security of Canada and to the civil liberties of Canadians comes from the Solicitor General of Canada? Will he not do the honourable thing by firing this Minister and ordering a full parliamentary inquiry into the actions of CSIS?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that, first, the information with respect to the false affidavit was brought to me by CSIS itself. As soon as it discovered the error in the affidavit, it came forward. The director came to me within 24 hours. Within another 24 hours I had launched three or four investigations, investigations by the Inspector General and by the Osbaldeston committee, an independent inquiry by the Ministry itself, and also an investigation by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Give the checks and balances a chance to work.
In conclusion, if I may, let me just briefly state what the Security Intelligence Review Committee has said about CSIS.
Oral Questions
It has said that it "is an important national institution worthy of continued public support"-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


DIRECTOR'S RESIGNATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. The Minister said the other day that he felt justified in accepting the resignation of Ted Finn, the former head of the Security Service. Ted Finn held Deputy Minister status and the resignation was submitted, we are told, because of mistakes if not outright wrongdoings by someone else in the Minister's Department. The good faith and competence of Ted Finn have not been questioned at all.
When, in our parliamentary tradition, does a Deputy Minister resign because of wrongdoings or mistakes in the Department? If the Minister feels that a resignation is justified, and he said that he felt that a resignation was justified, why should that resignation not be his own?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, Mr. Finn was the Director of CSIS. He had the control and management of its operations. There was obviously a breakdown. He did the honourable thing. He accepted his responsibilities. He tendered his resignation and it was accepted.


PARLIAMENTARY ACCOUNTABILITY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true that the Director of the agency who is a Deputy Minister has control and management of his agency but it is part of the Minister's Department and the Minister is the one who is accountable to Parliament. When a resignation is in order, and the Minister obviously felt that was the case, how could he accept the resignation of a Deputy Minister? Where is the precedent? What happens to parliamentary accountability when Deputy Ministers are looked to by their Ministers as scapegoats when the individual Minister is accountable to Parliament?


James Francis Kelleher: As the
Hon. Member well knows, Mr. Speaker, the incident in question occurred several years ago. I first learned of it August 27 of this year. As I said on many occasions and will say again, upon learning of it I immediately took action. I launched approximately four different investigations. I have already instituted interim procedures to tighten up on the warrant process. I have accepted in principle the appointment of devil's advocates to further strengthen the warrant review process.
We have done everything required of us. We did it quickly and efficiently.

September 16, 1987
Oral Questions HOUSING


AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR WOMEN
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women.

Yesterday, the Minister expressed the hope that the International Conference on Housing for the Homeless will help improve the housing situation as concerns women.

Women and children suffer the most from the lack of affordable housing. The Minister has expressed her concern about the lack of affordable housing for women. Therefore, will she be proposing a specific program to her cabinet colleagues in order to relieve these women of the suffering they are enduring?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her first question to me. This is something of great concern to this Government. I am fortunate to have colleagues responsible for housing who recognize the significance of housing to women. That is one of the reasons we increased the co-operative housing program. We know that is the way women can participate.
Housing is related as well to our other policies to give women more economic independence, including training for women which will enable them to earn better salaries. All those things are related to the needs of women to participate more fully.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not see some conflict in her role of Minister responsible for privatization when we know that private developers are not building affordable housing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marion Dewar: -and the Government is not increasing its quota for affordable housing? Would the Minister please tell the House whether she is willing to work with the Minister responsible for CMHC to see there are more units on the market?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I said in this House before, that is one of the things that differentiates this Government from the former Government and other Parties, that is, the Ministers in this Government do work together and do have the support of the housing department in developing housing for women. We have the support of the Prime Minister in all our efforts for women, and that is going to continue for many years to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he ridiculed the legitimate demands of the people of Matane who want to ensure the creation of nearly 900 jobs in their region and consolidate 1,200 jobs in the sawmills.
The federal Government has been considering the Matane papermill project for months, while the province has been ready to provide assistance immediately.
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows, especially today since the Matane delegation is in Ottawa: Can the Prime Minister order the Minister involved to provide immediately the assistance required to carry out this most important project for the Matane region?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in my statements yesterday that can be interpreted as ridiculing the proposals of the Matane people. On the contrary! The people of Matane requested federal assistance for their region from the Liberal Government for 19 years. For nearly two decades, the Liberal Party refused to provide such assistance for a major project.
I am, therefore, rather surprised to hear today such comments from a former Liberal Minister who could have done a lot more at the time to help the people of Matane.
A project was submitted by the private sector to the Quebec Government, discussions are now going on with the federal authorities to examine this proposal, and in spite of the lack of action during the two previous decades, we shall do our best to help the Matane people with these concrete proposals.


ASSISTANCE FOR MATANE PAPERMILL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the statements of the Prime Minister are not very reassuring for the workers who are now on the unemployment lists in Matane and who are waiting for jobs.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. Such a concrete project has not been on the desk of the Minister for two decades. There is now a group willing to get moving. The provincial Minister of Energy has accused Ottawa of dragging its feet. What I am asking the Prime Minister is not to give me a history lesson, but to think about the present and the future right now as he is responsible for the management of public funds and for helping the have-not regions. Why is he still
September 16, 1987

dilly-dallying instead of announcing immediately some assistance for the Matane papermill project as this would create jobs?


Hon. Bernard Valeourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Quebec Liberal caucus is not as virulent in promoting the adoption of Bill C-22 which would create jobs in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is now examining the Matane project. We are analyzing all the data, and this naturally includes a feasibility study which has to be completed by the promoter before a decision can be made.


PORNOGRAPHY
John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice and concerns a lead story in Monday's Globe and Mail which revealed the findings of an American study on pornography to be presented today to the U.S. House Select Committee on Children, Youth and the Family. The study found that all forms of pornography, not just violent pornography, have a negative impact on society. In view of these findings, when can we expect the Minister to bring to second reading and speedy passage this Government's tough legislation on pornography?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in this very important topic. It is of great concern not only to his constituents but to people across the country. I read with interest the findings of the report and I know this Government wants to proceed with this legislation at the earliest possible date. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader, will be discussing the timing of this legislation with his opposition counterparts. I know I have had calls from Members on both sides of the House to proceed with it forthwith and 1 hope it will be at an early date.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN MANITOBA
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy I would like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
As of November 1 this year natural gas from Alberta, after passing through the pipeline across Manitoba, will be sold in Minnesota for $1.80 per 1,000 cubic feet while it will cost Manitobans $3.00 per 1,000 cubic feet. Given the promise the Prime Minister made at Prince Albert during the election campaign that Canadian gas would never cost Canadians more than it does Americans, how does he explain this situation? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the promise will be kept?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has just made a recommendation with respect to the pricing and export policy of natural gas which is consistent with the market oriented policies of the Government. There are clearly provisions within the ruling which provide adequate protection for consumers while at the same time stimulating the exploration, further development, and sale of natural gas.
My understanding is that there are negotiations going on between the Province of Alberta and the Province of Manitoba with regard to this. It is my view that this will be resolved on a bilateral basis between the two provinces.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, according to the first official monitoring report released two weeks ago British Columbia gas users are paying more for B.C. natural gas shipped to the western United States than are U.S. buyers. Does the Government believe that Canadian users of natural gas, either in their homes or their businesses, will believe that the Government's deregulation of the energy industry is working in their favour?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think we all know the position of the New Democratic Party. It would like to control market prices and production and phase out any export of natural gas or oil from the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Another lie. Keep it up. Do you ever tell the truth? Just once tell the truth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You'll go down to 20 per cent. Keep it up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just keep attacking the RCMP and you know where you'll go. You'll be right down.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that due to the tributes and announcements which were made, which took up a good deal of time, Question Period will be extended to 18 minutes after three o'clock.

September 16, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take advantage of your indulgence and direct two questions to the Prime Minister.
A senior public servant, indeed a man of deputy ministerial rank, resigned in honourable fashion accepting responsibility for improper action within his Department. Is it the Prime Minister's understanding of ministerial accountability and is it the style of his Government to allow senior public servants to take the heat when Ministers should take the heat?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has been fully accountable to the House of Commons and the people of Canada. He has been responsive to all questions in the House and has answered fully any questions and suggestions that have been raised.


Mr. Guilbauit (Saint-Jacques):: It takes a lot of nerve to stand up and say that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my right hon. friend has any doubt about that and would like to be more specific, I will be happy to try to respond. However, the responsibility of the Minister is to the people of Canada and the House of Commons and the Minister has fulfilled it very well.


SIGNING OF APPLICATION FOR WIRE-TAPPING WARRANT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the admission of improper action within the Department was recognized by Mr. Finn who resigned, taking responsibility for that. At issue here is the second highest ranking law officer of the Crown, ranking only after the Attorney General. That law officer of the Crown signed an application for a warrant which misled a judge.


Charles Joseph Clark: You're inventing a new theory.


John Napier Turner: In the opinion of the Prime Minister is that not grounds for a resignation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on some of the allegations which were made by my right hon. friend. I would want to ask the security service, the Solicitor General and others whether they are in fact all in keeping with the requirements of accuracy.
With regard to the issue, I have responded that ministerial responsibility has been adequately and faithfully discharged by the Solicitor General at all times and in all circumstances.
The head of an independent agency decided to submit his resignation and the resignation was accepted. The Minister of the Crown has fully and faithfully responded to all of the requirements of ministerial responsibility in a manner totally consistent with the highest traditions of Parliament.


TAX REFORM
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Recently the Board of Directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities expressed concern over the possible impact of adopting a two-stage approach to tax reform on the new system of municipal services and costs.
The Minister of Finance has emphasized the importance of extensive consultation in developing and implementing the new sales tax for Canada. Does the Minister plan to include representatives of Canada's municipalities in his discussions on the second stage of tax reform?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is yes. I have consulted with the Federation prior to each of my Budgets and look forward to consulting with them prior to any implementation of tax reform. It is still early days, as the Hon. Member knows, in the process leading up to stage two, the sales tax reform. There is ample opportunity for me to hear the views of the Federation of Municipalities.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Solicitor General. Press reports indicate that documents filed with the Ontario Supreme Court suggest that senior Canadian air security officials were notified of a sabotage threat against Air India about two weeks before the June, 1985, crash.
Did the senior air security officials notify either CSIS or the RCMP? If they did, what action was taken to determine whether or not the threat was valid or to ensure that nothing happened?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am met with a rather difficult situation at the present time. As the Hon. Member may or may not be aware, there is civil litigation presently pending in the courts in which the Government of Canada has been named as a defendant along with a number of Ministers. The matter is, therefore, sub judice and I cannot comment on it.
However, I would be more than pleased to receive those allegations. If the Member has any information to give me in that regard I will arrange for RCMP officers to be at his office within hours to obtain the necessary information and I will follow up on anything which is improper or illegal.
September 16, 1987


REQUEST THAT INQUIRY BE CONDUCTED
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it seems that CSIS is not communicating with the RCMP or the Government. We do not even know if it is talking to officials in air security. Is this not yet another reason for a full parliamentary inquiry into the whole area of security in this country? Would the Minister not agree that it is about time that he takes his responsibilities and calls a public inquiry?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say in response to the supplementary question. First, immediately upon taking office I was concerned about the lack of co-operation, as it has been termed, or the lack of liaison between CSIS and the RCMP. Within weeks of taking office I met with the parties. I have instituted new procedures. Liaison officers are now within each other's force and a liaison committee has been set up. I am satisfied today that there is a satisfactory working relationship.
I can also advise the House that as soon as the various investigations which I have instigated are completed I will be pleased, upon invitation, to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General to discuss the whole incident.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians witnessed what I believe to be a new high in international hockey, if not in international sport. Of course, I am referring to the final game between Team Canada and the team for the Soviet Union in which Canada retained the Canada Cup.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of Canada first to congratulate Team Canada for that smashing victory. I also want to thank and congratulate the team from the Soviet Union for providing us with the highest quality competition. In fact, had the competition been even a little better than it was last night, many Canadians today would be suffering from cardiac arrest.
In any event, the game itself-in fact the last three games- provided an example of sportsmanship at its best and an inspiration to all, particularly to the youth of this nation and around the world. They were hard-hitting games, yet they were fair. They were emotional games, yet they were controlled. They were entertaining to say the least, yet competitive.
Statements by Ministers
I have always said that sports, perhaps more than anything else, transcends differences between nations and between peoples. Last night, without any doubt, this fact came home in spades across this great nation and around the world. As a result, today Canadians are a bit happier and a lot prouder.
We thank organizer Alan Eagleson and all of those associated with bringing us the Canada Cup series for giving us the opportunity to share with each other the pride in Canada and Canadians. We thank them, we thank all the teams that participated, particularly those great heroes from Team Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what a great year it has been for Canada in sports-first Ben Johnson, now Team Canada.
As usual, The Toronto Star said it right: "Team Canada rules the world". Permit me for a moment to share my personal pride as a Hamiltonian in the show that I think our city gave to Canada and the world, in a fantastic coliseum which happens to be named after my father, for which I am of course very proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Last night the eyes of the world were riveted on that game, on the team on which not only Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky but all the Canadians, as well as the Russians, showed us the finest brand of hockey we have ever seen. We did not see the penalties or the violence, we saw class hockey.
As the Minister said, sport is one thing that joins us from coast to coast and country to country. I only hope that yesterday's final game in what has been an incredibly exciting series not only for Canada and Russia but other participating countries will be the first of many that will precede the establishment of an NHL hockey franchise in my great community and our great coliseum in the City of Hamilton.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member well, because I do not think Thunder Bay is quite ready to go after that kind of venture.
I want to continue the remarks I made earlier today and congratulate Team Canada and, in fact, all the teams that participated; the Soviet Union, the United States, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and Finland. I believe it is a great credit to us all that people who perhaps have ideological differences are able to put them aside and be brought together to show us what hockey is all about. I know there are not many television sets in the country that were not tuned into those games during the entire series.
I am pleased that Canada did so well. I want to congratulate the coaches Mike Keenan and Jean Perron, and the players, particularly the two stars of the series, Mario Lemieux and

September 16, 1987
Introduction of Private Members' Bills
Wayne Gretzky. We always hear about the great star from out west, but he showed clearly how much of a team player he is by making sure that he was passing to others so they could put the puck into the net. I believe that is symbolic of the series we saw and the hockey players we have.
1 also want to congratulate the Soviet Union team for its fine sportsmanship and display of hockey. To Victor Tikhonov, we say "thank you" and also look forward to seeing in future years the Makarovs, Fetisovs and Laronovs fighting it out on the ice with Canada, when hopefully we will come out victorious again.
1 also want to thank the NHL and the various clubs that allowed their players to participate in this series, as well as the organizers of the event.
In conclusion, let me repeat to the players on Team Canada: "Thank you. Inside and outside Canada, on and off the ice, you are number one".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REVOCATION OF LOUIS DAVID RIEL CONVICTION ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-265, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a Private Members' Bill calling for the conviction of Louis David Riel for the offence of high treason to be revoked.
I want to make a brief statement about a man who, for a variety of reasons, is recognized as the founder of Manitoba. He is a man who struggled for French language rights, western rights, the rights of Metis people, provincial rights, religious rights, and indeed for Metis land claims. The issues for which he fought in the 1870s and 1880s must not be forgotten. Unfortunately, to a certain extent these issues remain even to this day.
This Bill attempts to undo a deed that was in fact conferred by the House of Commons in the 1880s and suggests that the offence of high treason be revoked.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my duty to present another petition concerning the proposed tax on food. Your petitioners humbly shew that:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youth and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions Answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 16, 1987



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the coasting trade in Canada. I would like to make the linkage between this legislation and the necessity for strengthening shipbuilding in Canada, and comment on some of the things we can do to improve this Bill in order to strengthen that industry. However, before I commence my remarks, I would like to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).\nWhen that Member was part of the Cabinet in previous Liberal Governments, those Governments visited a disaster on the shipbuilding industry and coastal trade in Canada. I sat in my seat amazed at the speech he gave in this House criticizing the Government. That criticism was absolutely ridiculous. The people who heard it must have been amazed. I met with delegations from regions of the country where shipbuilding was absolutely flattened, which delegations the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), his Cabinet colleagues, and many elected Liberal Members of Parliament refused to even see. They refused to consider in any way, shape, or form the appeals they made to have some attention paid to the industry in order to have it strengthened.\nThe record of that Government was extremely bad with regard to the shipbuilding industry. It ignored and treated with contempt delegations from the industry, the communities which depended upon shipbuilding, and the workers who were laid off from the shipyards. Quite frankly, the record of that Government was disgusting.\nDuring the election campaign of 1984 there was a great deal of optimism which was underpinned by Conservative promises', 'September 16, 1987\nRoyal Assent\nmade from one end of the country to the other. Those promises were not fulfilled. There was great optimism and enormous support for Conservative candidates during the election campaign. The people in the shipbuilding industry and the communities which depend upon it feel betrayed. There is, however, still time to honour the hard and fast commitments which were made.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
September 16, 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V.J. LaForest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 16th day of September, 1987, at 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program



Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions back and forth among the Parties and I believe that you would find it in order for the House to proceed to Government Bill C-52 prior to dealing with Bill C-74 as listed on the particular order of business.


Mr. Caccia:: No, no. I am sorry.


Lynn McDonald: Why?


Charles L. Caccia: There are four speakers on Bill C-52, not just one.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 can go with either one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will shed some light on this point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if I will shed any light on this matter, however, while there have been some discussions, the understanding has been for a number of hours that we would begin Bill C-52, and when we complete debate on Bill C-52 then we will begin the debate on Bill C-74. That has been the understanding all along. It was the understanding before Question Period began. Since that is the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, that is the reason we approach it in that way. We are anticipating at this point that we will begin debating Bill C-52.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, in oral conversations with the Minister yesterday, it was understood that we would proceed this afternoon right after Question Period with Bill C-74. We have discussed the reasons for that. It is my understanding, in addition, that there will be more than one speaker from each Party on Bill C-52, There may be even as many as four from one Party. Therefore, we urge the Minister to return to the
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
original agreement and understanding and proceed first with Bill C-74.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that subsequent to my discussions, when the Hon. Member approached me yesterday, there were discussions among the House Leaders and also among the officials. It was felt that this was the most reasonable arrangement of the business in order to accommodate the most Members of the House. Obviously, the Government is in a position to go with either Bill. However, since it is on the Order Paper in this manner, we will proceed with Bill C-52.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 wish to inform the House that because of a Ministerial statement, this day's sitting will be extended by six minutes.


COASTING TRADE AND COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITIES ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-52, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade and in other marine activities of a commercial nature, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-52, which is a Bill with which most Members will not be familiar, with the possible exception of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who will be sitting on the legislative committee. I suspect, with his long experience in the House, he has run across this Bill because it goes back to the early times of Canadian history.
I know members of the committee will find it to be a fascinating Bill and I can assure members of the Opposition from both Parties-I believe they have already had delivered to their office complete briefing books with the same information I have as Parliamentary Secretary-that there is no intent at all that this be a partisan-type Bill. I think over-all it is in the best interests of the country. 1 can give Hon. Members the unreserved commitment that we are prepared to have any witnesses the Opposition Parties would like, as well as some of our own government Members, on parts of the Bill in order to have a clear explanation as to why any particular exception may be listed in the statute. I believe at committee stage we can have a full explanation of the Bill, all the same briefing information, and we will make whatever changes are appropriate at that time.
Provisions concerning the Canadian coasting trade are currently contained in Part XV of the Canada Shipping Act which goes back, I believe, to the turn of the century. Recently we adopted Bill C-39 which amended part of the Canada

September 16, 1987
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
Shipping Act to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations concerning the granting of waivers to foreign ships and the prescribing of terms, conditions and circumstances for the granting of those waivers. These amendments did not include, however, the substantive changes which are included in Bill C-52.
The purpose of this Bill is to reserve what is commonly known as the coasting trade and other commercial marine activities to Canadian ships in waters over which we have jurisdiction. Within the 12 mile territorial sea, all commercial marine activities will be reserved to Canadian ships in the offshore. Beyond the 12 mile territorial sea, all commercial marine activities related to the exploration and exploitation of non-living resources will be reserved to Canadian ships.
In my briefing, I wondered why it said: "non-living" resources. It means minerals because there is another law, the law of the sea, which applies, while the Fisheries Protection Act and other statutes apply to living resources. All of this can be clarified for any Member of the House who is interested when we get to committee stage.
I should point out that the Canadian Government recognizes the usefulness and, indeed, the necessity of allowing foreign flag ships to enter the Canadian coasting trade and the offshore to carry out work when no suitable Canadian flagship is available. Accordingly, a waiver system to ensure the availability of adequate shipping services under such conditions is an integral part of the new legislation. This waiver system reflects current practice under Part XV of the Canada Shipping Act and it is expected that no disruption to the industry will occur in the transition to the system proposed.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, you will be delighted to know that approximately 99 per cent of Canadian coasting trade is carried in Canadian ships.
"Coasting Trade" is defined in the Canada Shipping Act as including the carriage by water of goods or passengers from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada. This Bill will expand this definition to include all commercial marine activities in the territorial sea and to cover resource related activities beyond the territorial sea to the edge of the continental shelf, or 200 miles, whichever is greater. I gather that there was some uncertainty in the existing statute as to whether dredging and the laying of cables could be said to be moving from place to place within Canada. This Bill has a more clear definition bringing these matters within the scope of the law.
With respect to the waters beyond the 12-mile territorial sea, Hon. Members will know that international law allows nations to legislate only with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. We have addressed this issue in the following ways.
Bill C-52 will reserve in this area all commercial marine activities related to resource exploration or exploitation to Canadian ships, always keeping in mind that the waiver system which I described earlier in the case of there being no adequate or appropriate Canadian ship available, with the exception of hydrocarbon production platforms. Hon. Members will note that the exception is not for drilling rigs, drill ships or other vessels in the exploration phase, but only for production platforms used in the exploitation phase.
Being interested in this industry I wondered why we would have that exception. I think that other Members will also want to have a clear explanation at the committee stage in this respect. We will come prepared to give such an explanation. If it is not adequate, then we may well make changes, if that is appropriate.
Our extension of coasting trade provisions to the continental shelf is intended to make the flag regime generally compatible with the tariff regime, which has been in effect since June 30, 1983. There are three exceptions to this. They are, production platforms, large cruise ships, and seismic ships. In addition, the inclusion of activity on the continental shelf will ensure maximum employment of the Canadian supply boat fleet, which has grown in anticipation of the development of Canada's offshore oil and gas activities. For we laymen, that means more jobs for Canadians and Canadian seamen-good news for us all.
Within the 12-mile territorial sea all commercial marine activities are reserved to Canadian ships. This makes it clear that ships carrying goods or passengers from one port or place in Canada to the same port or place in Canada are part of the coasting trade.
As an example, a cruise ship with overnight accommodations for fewer than 100 passengers which leaves from Montreal and returns to Montreal will be subject to the provisions of this Bill. In the previous statute under Part XV that was not clear. The Bill specifically exempts large cruise ships, those with overnight accommodation for 100 passengers or more from its application. This exemption recognizes that international cruise ships must carry on their business in a world-wide context and not exclusively in a Canadian one.
On the matter of exemptions to the legislation, a specific exemption is made for fishing vessels covered by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and for ships engaged in ocean research activity commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Similarly, exceptions are made for ships owned by foreign Governments wishing to conduct marine scientific research in waters over which Canada has jurisdiction, if they have been authorized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This will ensure that conflicts with other legislation are minimized.
I know that Members opposite, like myself, will be seeking a clear explanation as to how all of these statutes fit together so that we do have a clear understanding of how this Bill fits into the whole scheme of legislation dealing with the sea.
September 16, 1987

In both offshore and Canadian waters ships assisting ships in distress will not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. This, of course, is normal international maritime practice.
The Bill will also eliminate the historic anomaly in Canadian legislation of referring to "British" ships rather than "Canadian" ships. Currently, only three British ships remain in the coasting trade.
I wish to address briefly the tariff implications of this Bill. At present, all tariff matters are the responsibility of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). It therefore follows that the new coasting trade Bill contains no direct tariff provisions of any kind. This Bill will make flag requirements for ships compatible with the Canadian customs regime. These two regimes while not identical are very closely aligned. In fact, this Bill will ease the situation for those wishing to operate ships in waters under Canadian jurisdiction by clarifying the flag requirements which must be observed. The tariff schedule requirements are already well known.
Department officials have consulted the provinces on this Bill and I am advised that they support its thrust.
To summarize, the proposed coasting trade and commercial marine activities Bill will extend the jurisdiction of the existing coasting trade laws to include all commercial marine activities within 12 miles, with the exceptions I have already noted, and all commercial marine activities related to resource exploration and exploitation out to 200 miles, again with the exceptions I have noted.
This Bill will protect operators of Canadian flagships wishing to work in Canadian waters and on the continental shelf. As a consequence, jobs for Canadian seamen will be protected. As markets improve more job opportunities will be created for seamen and those in related industries.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on second reading of Bill C-52, also known as the Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act. Technically speaking, this Bill will enable us to update the Canada Shipping Act, Part XV, concerning the coasting trade in Canada. As a result of the adoption of this Bill, old Part XV will be repealed and replaced by a new legislation dealing specifically with coasting trade.
The basic aim of this measure is to modernize and update a piece of legislation which has not been revised for 50-odd years. It is obvious that a law reflecting post-war realities no longer meets the needs of Canada's merchant marine. 1 am therefore very pleased to join this debate today, and I can say that in this respect we are going through what I would call a very acceptable and even worthwhile exercise.
I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Thacker) for keeping in mind that, before proceeding with the consideration of this Bill, Opposition
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
Members would appreciate receiving the kind of background information which will certainly help us gain a better understanding of the legislation. Such consideration on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary cannot however make up for the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who seems to make it a point to stay away from the House whenever we are considering a measure which concerns his department. Again I must deplore this fact, but since I have had opportunities to get to know the Parliamentary Secretary even better and to appreciate his availability and competence, I will not hold it against the Government and the ever absent Minister.
But things get somewhat sour when, over and above the mere technical provisions of this Bill, we get to the basics of this legislative endeavour which, all things considered, is aimed at promoting the use of Canadian ships for coasting trade. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this is getting interesting. It is interesting because we can now examine more closely the whole shipbuilding policy of the Conservative Government, and I shall come back to this later on.
If I may go back a bit and look at Bill C-52 now under consideration, we find that the whole substance of this Bill resides in Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3, for instance, prohibits any foreign ship or non-duty paid ship, except under and in accordance with a licence, to engage in the coasting trade or, and I quote:
(a)	in Canadian waters, engage in any marine activity of a commercial nature; or
(b)	in waters above the continental shelf of Canada, engage in any marine activities of a commercial nature relating to the exploration, development, production or transportation of the mineral or non-living natural resources of the continental shelf.
In order to obtain a licence to operate in Canada, a foreign ship must meet certain requirements set out in Clause 4, the most important being that the Canadian Transport Commission must have determined that no Canadian ship or non-duty ship is suitable to provide the service or perform the activity described in the application. In other words, it is to give priority to Canadian ships in the coasting trade of Canada.
We of the Liberal Party welcome this initiative. Indeed, we accept that it is an appropriate objective for the Government of Canada. On this side of the House we welcome any initiative which will strengthen Canada's shipping and shipbuilding industry. To ensure that this objective could be met, we had hoped that the Bill would have gone further in protecting Canada's interest in this crucial economic sector. Had the Minister read the American Jones Act of 1920, perhaps he may have been tempted to strengthen the Canadian legislation. He may have wished to fashion it in order to be more in tune with what the Americans have done to protect their shipping and shipbuilding interests.

September 16, 1987
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
As it presently stands, Americans will be able to do business in our waters on American-built ships while Canadians do not have the same cabotage rights. While we welcome the legislative initiative, we had hoped that it would have been more in tune with American law which states that domestic trade between United States ports must be carried out by vessels which are registered in the United States, owned by Americans, built in the United States, and the employees of the shipyards and the crews must be American citizens.
We had hoped that the Conservative Government, while still hungry for a free trade deal, would have had sufficient courage to say to the Americans, enough. We had hoped that the Government would have found the vision and sufficient commitment to Canada to say to the Americans; we gave you our railways through the deregulation act, Bill C-18, we gave you FIRA in the early stage of the Conservative administration, and we just gave you our pharmaceutical industry. All of this was attempting to placate you and convince you that Canadians are good sports. Enough is enough. Our shipbuilding industry is ours, and we will protect it. Ease your barriers to trade in this area and we will ease ours.
[ Translation]
Unfortunately, the Minister of Transport and this Conservative Government did not have the courage to do so. The Minister of Transport chose the middle ground. Fie provides some protection, but the Americans and other foreign shippers will still be able to operate in Canada at the expense of our own Canadian industry.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not dwell on this issue for too long. 1 presume that there will be ample opportunity to come back to it when the Bill goes to committee, where we shall be examining closely each amendment and each clause of this Bill.
However, I would like to come back to the weak commitment of this Conservative Government as concerns the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Hon. Members will probably remember that the Conservative Government approached Mr. Pierre-Paul Saunders, President of Versatile Davie Shipyard, which operates a shipyard in Lauzon, and required, in return for a contract, that he rationalize the operations of Quebec shipyards and, in particular, that he close the Montreal shipyard.
1 see the Minister of Trade has just left his seat. 1 wish he had stayed in his place because I wanted to ask him if he was doing a serious thing when he called on the president of a company which owned a number of shipyards in Canada for the purpose of pressuring him and telling him: We as a Government will give you a contract, provided you rationalize your operations and close down one shipyard, because we in the Government feel there are too many shipyards in Canada and it has become difficult to get enough contracts to go around, in order to meet the needs of a few thousand workers in the various shipyards across Canada.
The evidence is there, clear and undeniable, that this Tory Government has attempted to close down shipyards in Canada, and more especially the Montreal shipyard. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), my colleague, rose in vain on a number of occasions in this House to defend the interests of workers in the Montreal shipyard.
I must therefore suggest that, speaking of commitments to Canadian shipyard workers, that one is no great shakes. Because last year, Mr. Henry Walsh, who at that point was Chairman of the Canadian Shipyard Association, had this to
say:
"Our recommendations, requests and appeals to the Government during the past 17 months have remained unanswered". "Shipowners keep on buying abroad, taking advantage of subsidies and favourable financing terms that they do not find here in Canada". "Since the 1984 elections,
since this Tory Government was elected,
we have on a number of occasions called the Government's attention to our desperate situation, but in vain"
added Mr. Walsh, who at the same time published a number of letters and telexes sent to this Tory Government. And to quote him again:
"Those one-way communications show how much the Government has failed to honour its commitments, is looking for excuses and going back on its word-
Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is not mine, it came from the Chairman of the Canadian Shipyard Association, who says this Tory Government
"-has failed to honour its commitments, is looking for excuses and going back on its word. It is time the public was informed of the situation before a larger number of shipyards and related industries are forced to shut down. The industry is going down the drain while the Conservative Government remains inactive and unconcerned".
"Canada is the only shipbuilding nation not to offer attractive financing facilities and not to reserve Government contracts to its own industry. Our nearest neighbour, the United States, totally forbids importing foreign-built ships". "The Government should realize that the ships we need should be built in Canada, so that our shipbuilding firms may survive the world crisis the industry is now in."
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative Government has chosen to ignore these pressing requests from the President of the Canadian Shipbuilding Association.
We have heard the silly statements made by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) who managed to convince his constituents that under a Conservative Government, they would all become affluent and that the Lauzon shipbuilding yards would be awarded a whole series of contracts, while in fact there are fewer and fewer workers at the Lauzon yard.
Recently, my colleague-for the information of the public which is watching us, I had better give the name of his riding, for our Standing Order does not allow me to call him by his name-the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) rose in the House to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) and also to ask the Government why it was not keeping the promises it had made to the workers of the Maritime shipbuilding yard. Our colleague the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys could bear witness to the fact that the number of workers
September 16, 1987

presently employed by the Atlantic shipbuilding yards had considerably decreased. In spite of the promises made by the Conservative Government, the situation had not been remedied. Well, two Liberal Members of Parliament, namely the Hon. Member for Montreal-Ste-Marie and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys rose quite recently in the House to make representations to the Government on behalf of the workers of the Atlantic and Quebec shipbuilding yards who have been abandoned by this Conservative Government which, again, in this area as in many others, has not kept its promises.
May I add that as recently as June 16 last, in a press release, the new President of the Canadian Shipbuilding Association indicated that the Government should develop immediately a national shipbuilding policy. Mr. Clarke, the new President, mentioned the promises made by the Conservative Party and urged the Government to develop as soon as possible a national shipbuilding policy.
He emphasized that the shipyard order books for ships ordered or being built at the end of 1986 indicated a total of 40,350 tons, that is less than half the figure for 1985, which had been itself a record low for the nearly 25 years during which the Canadian Shipbuilding Association had kept detailed records. In other words, for the past 25 years, the Canadian Shipbuilding Association has kept data on the number of workers and the number of contracts awarded by the Canadian Government or the private sector to the various shipbuilding yards in Canada.
Well, the very worst record is that of this Conservative Government.
As President Clarke emphasized, and I quote:
As demonstrated by the closing of several shipbuilding yards and related businesses in 1986 and the fact that the labour force was down to 6,948 workers, the situation in our industry at the end of the year was the most serious.
This is a clear indictment of the Conservative Government's shipbuilding policy or lack thereof. It is also a clear reflection of the dismay of Canadians at the broken promises which have characterized three long years of Conservative Government. It has been three long years for workers in the shipbuilding industry who, like many other Canadians, had high hopes when the Government obtained its mandate in 1984. They are now very disappointed, discouraged, and fed up with a terrible Government which cannot get its act together and work constructively in the interest of Canadians.
The shipbuilding industry is in a terrible mess. The Government has done nothing to alleviate the situation, except to talk with the presidents of a few companies and ask them to close shipyards. This was a shameless act on the part of some Ministers of the Government. Indeed, they tried to convince
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
these businessmen to reduce their operations, on the backs of workers, to put some order in the shipbuilding industry.
I very much regret the actions or lack of action on the part of the Government. I certainly hope that it will wake up to its commitments and fulfil some of its promises at last.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-52 respecting the Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act.
Let me say at the outset that the concept of restricting coastal trading to Canadians is obviusly one we support. We have argued for years for the need in the marine sector and in other sectors to enhance the ability of Canadians to build, to operate, and to improve the country. The same applies to coastal shipping.
This applies not only to coastal shipping, but to shipping within Canada. Although we talk about the Great Lakes as the fourth sea coast in terms of maritime law, we cannot describe it as such. However, I understand that the Bill will clearly deal with that matter as well. Therefore all our coasts are involved.
I think it is important to put on record some of the components of the Bill so that we develop an understanding of the steps through which we go. Let me start with the definition of "Canadian ship''. In part Clause 2 reads:
-"Canadian ship" means a ship
(a)	registered in Canada in respect of which all duties and taxes under the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act have been paid, or
(b)	built in Canada and exempted from registration pursuant to section 8 of the Canada Shipping Act-
That sounds great. What it really means, though, is that it does not have to be built in Canada. It does not have to be owned by Canadians. It does, however, have to be crewed by Canadian citizens and it must be registered.
Let us compare that with the American Jones Act of 1920. When we see a good thing, I wonder why we are sometimes so slow to pick up on it. The Jones Act was enacted 67 years ago. It requires that domestic trade between U.S. ports must be carried by U.S.-registered vessels. There is no difference between that legislation and our legislation in that respect. The American legislation goes on to say that the ships must be owned by Americans and built in U.S. shipyards. Our legislation is different in those respects. The American legislation says that the boats must be crewed by American citizens and there is no difference there with our legislation.
The American law gives the maximum protection to American workers and maritime industries including shipbuilding and ship-repair facilities. We in this Party believe that we should do whatever we can to reach that same ideal. We should give the workers the maximum protection and the maximum incentive.

September 16, 1987
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
We all know that the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repair industries are in a crisis. The Government of Canada is making a conscious effort to rationalize the shipyards because their capacity is in excess of the contracts that exist.
Legislation is a tool that may be used for economic purposes. My colleagues and I believe that we should use this particular Bill as a tool to improve the lot of those people who work in our maritime industries, particularly those whose jobs and whose very existences depend on the ability of the industry to create new vessels, whether they be lakers, salters, icebreakers, fishing vessels or tugs.
We as a country have a responsibility to do what we can to help maritime facilities in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and even Manitoba which has a small shipbuilding sector. All these facilities would be enhanced by a piece of legislation that would maximize our ability to build Canadian ships, to crew Canadian ships, to own Canadian ships and not to bring vessels and crews from offshore. We should not allow vessels of other countries to trade between Canadian ports unless they get an exemption.
Let me deal with the regulations that would allow exemptions for foreign ships and for what are called non-duty-paid ships. First let us define a foreign ship. It means a ship other than a Canadian ship or a non-duty-paid ship. What is a nonduty-paid ship? It is a ship registered in Canada in respect of which all duties and taxes under the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act have not been paid.
If the powers that be have been told that there is not a Canadian vessel available or in fact even in existence to carry a certain commodity from one Canadian port to another Canadian port, an exemption can be sought. That exemption allows those ships to trade within our waters for a set period of time after paying certain dues or tariffs, I would suspect. However, this means that in the short term, that income is not available to Canadian vessels and workers.
I understand that in certain cases, there may not be vessels capable of carrying some unique cargoes. Over the last number of years, I have been aware of one such vessel that has been plying the Great Lakes during the winter months. It comes from overseas and is specially equipped to deal with icebreaking. It carries a chemical of sorts. It has been allowed an exemption for at least two years and perhaps for longer. I am not aware, though, of any attempt on the part of any arm of the Government to see an opportunity for a shipyard. Obviously there is a market for the movement of this commodity. The Government should see if it can put something together, perhaps totally under the private sector or under a mix of public and private sectors, to build such a vessel in Canada so that it can be crewed and owned by Canadians.
The situation could go on and on. It is kind of like imposing quotas to protect an industry that is either fledgling or does not yet exist in Canada. I can think of at least one industry that did not exist in Canada a few years ago, in one of the sporting goods fields. However, we never took the second step
which is to build up that fledgling industry so that it could compete not just in Canada but in the world market-place.
Let me deal with some of the other exemptions. I wish to express some concern about them. I appreciate the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary earlier today about looking at this Bill in detail when we get into a legislative committee, and I look forward to that.
Clause 3 contains a list of exemptions to this particular clause. The clause does not apply to any foreign ship or to a non-duty-paid ship that is used as a hydrocarbon production platform. For those who are unfamiliar with the nuances of the search for oil and gas in the coastal areas of Canada, a drilling rig goes in first and then once whatever energy substance being sought is struck, the drilling rig is replaced with a platform. This exemption provides permission to bring a platform to Canada from some other country. It does not force the companies to build platforms here in Canada and to create jobs here in Canada.
I understand that the kind of platform that is used in the Atlantic is made to a certain extent out of concrete and can in fact be constructed in Newfoundland. Perhaps that is the case. I hope that testimony before the legislative committee will offer us the evidence we need to tell the Government that this exemption is no longer appropriate and must be removed from the Bill so that we can create jobs in Atlantic Canada and particularly in Newfoundland.

Another area I want to deal with is one I am less sure of because I have not had the opportunity to compare this Bill with previous legislation. However, some of my colleagues have expressed concern to me, and I hope during their presentations today they will be in a position to more forcefully and more knowledgeably explain those concerns. That area is with respect to Clause 3(2) which says in part:
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any foreign ship or non-duty paid ship that is
(b) used as a fishing vessel, as defined by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, in any activity governed by that Act and that does not carry any goods or passengers other than incidental to any activity governed by that Act;
The fear we have is that that kind of exemption would allow the continued importation of fishing vessels in excess of 100 feet. I gather if they are less than 100 feet they have to be built in Canada. However, the paying of duty on vessels over 100 feet does not create jobs on the West Coast, the East Coast, in Quebec or Ontario. It is important that we look at this exemption to make sure we are not continuing a loophole which, quite frankly, I think the Government would not want to continue.
I am not talking about a vessel which might come in for a month to replace a Canadian vessel under repair. I do not think any of us would suggest that. However, when we talk about additional capacity for harvesting of our marine
September 16, 1987

resources on an ongoing basis, then clearly those vessels should be constructed here and the jobs created here.
The other exemptions I think make a lot of sense, although perhaps there might be some reason to use a particular exemption as a triggering mechanism. For example, exemption (c) deals with a ship, as it states:
engaged in cruising, where the ship has overnight accommodation for one
hundred passengers or more;
Again, it is a balancing act.
I will give you an example. The City of Thunder Bay has applied to host the Commonwealth Games. Part of its proposal is to use cruise ships to provide 5,000 beds in order to accommodate the influx of tourists to watch the games. Part of the package involves a possible cruise up to Thunder Bay, perhaps from St. John's, bringing people to the games. Those people would then leave Thunder Bay by air, rail or bus. We probably do not have available in Canada enough vessels so we would have to get an exemption. If, on the other hand, should it happen that we rekindle the days of the Noronic and other passenger vessels which plyed the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, and it became apparent that this was going to be a permanent arrangement, then that is when we say we must have a Canadian built, Canadian manned, and Canadian registered vessel. Some lead time would have to be allowed for financing and construction and you would not want to interrupt the ongoing service, but once the ships were ready we could say thank you to the people who loaned us the vessel or vessels and get on with doing our own job. We think that kind of thing is worth looking at.
Exemption (d) and (e) states:
engaged in any ocean research activity commissioned by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans;
(e) operated or sponsored by a foreign government that has sought and received the consent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to conduct marine scientific research;
I assume that is the Jacques Cousteau clause. Exemption
(0:
engaged in salvage operations, except where such operations are performed
in Canadian waters.
I suspect that means within the 200-mile limit. We might want to look at those once we get this into committee. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there may be a need to allow for some additional protection. We have an ever growing industry in Canada that deals with robotics, underwater research, underwater manipulation of equipment, mini-subs and what have you. Perhaps we have to look at that as well to see whether we should be using this legislation as a tool to enhance that fledgling industry.
I do not want to continue dealing with this Bill clause by clause. I have made my point. Hopefully I have been able to plant some seeds in the minds of officials who I know are watching this debate and who will be appearing before us in committee, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary and his
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
Minister. I recognize that the Minister is not in Ottawa, but is out performing his duties. We will take those things into account.
Let us come up with an even better Bill. Let us improve this so that when we finish third reading we can say we have done our share to promote the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in this country. We have done it for Canadians, with Canadians. That is the goal we have to aim for.
One or two of my colleagues will want to add their comments. I think the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will give us the perspective of the Pacific Coast and the impact there. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) will of course want to deal with Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. Perhaps we will even hear from the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
I do not want to prolong the debate because I think it makes sense to get this Bill into committee and give time for those concerned and who have not yet seen the legislation, which is unfortunate, to have a chance to indicate what improvements we can make. I look forward to the rest of the debate and the improvements that will ensue over the next little while.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the coasting trade in Canada. I would like to make the linkage between this legislation and the necessity for strengthening shipbuilding in Canada, and comment on some of the things we can do to improve this Bill in order to strengthen that industry. However, before I commence my remarks, I would like to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
When that Member was part of the Cabinet in previous Liberal Governments, those Governments visited a disaster on the shipbuilding industry and coastal trade in Canada. I sat in my seat amazed at the speech he gave in this House criticizing the Government. That criticism was absolutely ridiculous. The people who heard it must have been amazed. I met with delegations from regions of the country where shipbuilding was absolutely flattened, which delegations the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), his Cabinet colleagues, and many elected Liberal Members of Parliament refused to even see. They refused to consider in any way, shape, or form the appeals they made to have some attention paid to the industry in order to have it strengthened.
The record of that Government was extremely bad with regard to the shipbuilding industry. It ignored and treated with contempt delegations from the industry, the communities which depended upon shipbuilding, and the workers who were laid off from the shipyards. Quite frankly, the record of that Government was disgusting.
During the election campaign of 1984 there was a great deal of optimism which was underpinned by Conservative promises

September 16, 1987
Royal Assent
made from one end of the country to the other. Those promises were not fulfilled. There was great optimism and enormous support for Conservative candidates during the election campaign. The people in the shipbuilding industry and the communities which depend upon it feel betrayed. There is, however, still time to honour the hard and fast commitments which were made.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the Elouse went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act-Chapter Nos. 37.