1987-03-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to thirty-nine petitions, Nos. 332-945 to 332-983 inclusive.


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons from citizens of Petit-Rocher, Beresford, Robertville, Madran, Alcida, La Plante, Nigadoo, Pointe-Verte and Free Grant. Canada Post management have been reducing the quality of rural postal services and shown they intend to pursue systematically their plan to close a great many postal offices in small municipalities. People in rural areas protest vigourously against cuts to the staff and services they are entitled to and cannot accept in any way that small parishes be penalized as to the extent of postal services.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are two motions that I would like to present at this time. They have been discussed with the other Parties. They are both motions for travel. I think you would find general agreement in
the House to have the motions put at this time and passed. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Energy Mines and Resources be authorized to travel to Pinawa, Manitoba, on April 1 to 2, 1987, inclusive, to visit the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment and the underground research laboratory to study the storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and that necessary staff accompany the committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.', 'March 26, 1987\nTeleglobe Canada']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion is the following:
That, the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry be authorized to travel to Pinawa, Manitoba, on April 1 to 2, 1987, inclusive, to visit the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment and the underground research laboratory as a part of their ongoing examination of the storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and that necessary staff accompany the committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 26, 1987
Teleglobe Canada



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 25, consideration of Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Tobin (p. 4569).
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak on the amendment to Bill C-38 proposed by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) which reads as follows:
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at
page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"35. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation but not until an agreement incorporating an employee compensation program has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the new corporation established pursuant to section 4 of this Act."
Today's discussion on Bill C-38 bears a strange resemblance to what was discussed in the House some months ago when we had to come to grips with an identical problem dealing with Canadian Arsenals. I took part in that debate because of my interest in public service pension plans and because I thought at the time that the Treasury Board was not playing fair ball with the employees. We were asking that the Treasury Board come to an agreement with the employer before the deal went through, and we got that. The employees were satisfied, everyone was happy and the Bill went through.
This time there seems to be some resistance. In this new situation, the Government is essentially pleading that it cannot meet with the request of the employees to give them the $10 million they require to fund their new pension plan fully because of what is called streamed actuarial assumptions. It is a little difficult for most of us to understand what is meant by that because the figures are not forthcoming from the Government. It does not seem to be too generous with information. I would like to relate to the House my experience with actuarial assumptions.
As we know, assumptions are made by actuaries based on certain things such as the interest rate anticipated to be paid, the anticipated cost of living index and the increase in salaries of the employees which will, of course, become a cost to the employer. Many other things are considered but those are the main considerations. We know that until last year, the so-called experts in the insurance department of the Government were telling us and the Auditor General that the combined Public Service Superannuation Acts including Canadian Forces superannuation, the CFSA, the RCMPSA and the elementary retirement benefit plan had a combined unfunded actuarial liability of some $16 billion. We were told how terrible that was because with an unfunded liability of $16
billion, public servants were receiving pensions which were based on poorly funded sums of money.
That is a lot of nonsense, and most of us know that today, because these so-called streamed actuarial assumptions have been changed in the last year. We are now being told that there is not $16 billion in unfunded liabilities but it could possibly be that because of new assumptions, there is $4 billion but they are not so sure. As a matter of fact, the Treasury Board told me not very long ago that it could amount to $3.7 billion. That is a $12.3 billion error in assumptions made by professionals under circumstances which are easily understood to me as being a sham.
I would like the Government to tell us how we can reconcile a deficit of some $16 billion a year ago with a deficit of some $3.5 billion to $3.7 billion now, because the same people are using another method called streamed actuarial assumptions.
I cannot blame the employees of Memotec for telling the Government that they do not buy that junk and nonsense. Neither do we. That is why we put forward the amendment. Until the Government comes up with assumptions that are believable and that we can understand, and we are not that dumb, until the Government comes up with assumptions that we can publicly quote as being reliable figures, assumptions that are defendable, we will continue to ask that employees and the Government be able to negotiate before the final signature is put on this transaction. In that way what the Minister yesterday called the mirror pension will have the actuarial stability required so that the employees can depend on the plan.
The $15 billion or $16 billion figure mentioned by the Auditor General in his report, and used repeatedly by Treasury Board until recently, was fictitious, to say the least. It was an estimated assumption based on what is called market trend. That, essentially, is the debate we will be getting into when Bill C-33 is called. That should be a very interesting and long debate. I can tell you that based on the figures we have been given, we will not buy a pig in a poke and easily go along with the Government when it tries to tell public servants that their pension fund, which is nothing less than their money set aside for future use, will be fiddled around with by the Government to suit its purposes. We will not sit idly by while the Government tells its employees what they should be getting from these plans. It has to be a joint effort and it has to be done in a fair manner. I hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). I hope he will speak in the debate and give us his views. It is very important for these employees to know what figures the Government is using and the assumptions it is making. If the Government changes the assumptions to fit its purpose, that is wrong, and I think he will agree with me on that.
In closing my remarks I would like to say that indeed I hope the House will see fit to approve this motion to incorporate in the agreement an employee competition package which would
March 26, 1987

look after the interests of those employees regarding their pensions. We will then have dealt fairly with these people.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to realize that, if the House does not pass this amendment that will contradict what the Minister, with whom I have just been chatting, indicated publicly in her statements at the time this privatization was announced, that there was acceptance by the employees involved to the pension plan suggestions which had been made. I am not sure where the mix-up in communications took place, and I certainly accept it as just that. However, it is quite clear from testimony we heard in committee that that is not the case.
1 would like to review for the House some of that testimony we heard from a group which calls itself the ad hoc pension committee representing all the employees of Teleglobe. They described to us their meeting with Treasury Board officials, at which they hoped to clarify a series of important questions, as having been something like the James Bond movie Dr. No. In their view, each question they asked was answered with a negative. That left them without assurances and without satisfaction.
They asked first that the Canadian Arsenals case be a precedent for their pension plan. We are told by Treasury Board that this is not possible. To give a sense of just exactly what this means, we later questioned Treasury Board officials and they conceded that the difference was some $7 million which would not be transferred to the funding for this pension plan. That money would have been transferred had the Canadian Arsenals example been used. That figure, when divided among the number of employees at Teleglobe, amounts to a reduction in benefits of something like $10,000 per year, per person. In all fairness and justice that is not something this House can accept.
The employees stressed the fact that there were other concerns as well. First, it was necessary for Memotec to say that it retains the right to change the pension plan. Memotec was quite honest and forthright in saying so. Frankly, it is a good pension plan, but the company retains the right to change the plan's conditions and reduce benefits if there are changes in business conditions affecting Teleglobe. Of course we know there are various risks facing Teleglobe. There is the risk of being bypassed by other telephone companies, especially the provincial companies. If that occurs, Teleglobe could very easily face a serious decline in its business prospects. It is also quite conceivable, and this is in fact envisaged in this privatization move, that the monopoly presently held by Teleglobe on overseas telecommunications will have to end in five years' time. It is possible that the termination may be extended a little bit longer, but in any event, we are faced with the likelihood that the monopoly will be eliminated. That gives serious cause for concern to the employees of the company and Memotec itself. That is why Memotec says it cannot guarantee that this generous pension plan will be maintained.
Tele globe Canada
In addition, the employees talked about the possibility that Memotec itself is susceptible to a takeover. This privatization has been financed in an extremely risky way. An individual bank has put up most of the capital. In such a situation it is quite likely that at some time in the future Memotec itself will be a potential victim for takeover. If it is taken over, of course, there is every possibility that the pension plan which it will have established for its employees can be changed.
In addition, in the Bill itself there is no explicit or even implicit commitment to job security for the workers. For that reason workers have quite rightly said that they want a funded pension plan provided which will guarantee to them the benefits which they believe they have already earned under the public service superannuation system of which they are part.
When the Government brought in its plans for the privatization of this company it said that it had solved these pension problems. Therefore, it seems to me perfectly sensible that this amendment be accepted. The amendment does not stop the privatization but, rather, puts into place one of the conditions which the Government itself stated was important to have in effect at the start of the privatization process.
The Minister has stated her belief that this legislation gives workers an extremely generous set of pension options. Unfortunately, this view is not shared on the other side. We heard from three groups of workers, the union itself, the supervisors, and the ad hoc representatives of those concerned about pensions in the company. Every single one of them stressed that they were not satisfied with this pension and were concerned about a potential loss of at least $7 million in benefits and a loss of some specific benefits explained to us by the head of Teleglobe, Mr. Delorme. Those specific benefits which the workers now have will not exist under the new plan.
In those circumstances I cannot see how, in conscience, this House could pass legislation for privatization which runs counter to that to which the Government is committed which is still a large question mark at this stage. It is for this reason that my colleague, the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), seconded this motion. It is for this reason that we sought in committee to suspend hearings for 10 days to permit an agreement to be worked out between workers, the company and the Government with regard to pensions.
Unfortunately, there is an inordinate thrust on the government side to get this legislation passed, which I can only interpret as an effort to get the money received for Teleglobe into the national accounts for this year in order to make the deficit look better. I cannot understand a Government putting those kinds of public relations concerns before a commitment to which it gave effect in its statements and to which we should all be party, a commitment that workers be satisfied with the pension arrangements in a privatization deal such as is occurring here.


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

March 26, 1987
Tele globe Canada


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some further comments to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). His amendment deals with a very specific and important anomaly, in fact, an important omission by the Government in dealing with the rights of the employees of Teleglobe. As other commentators have pointed out, the amendment raises broader questions about the purpose and objective of the Government in bringing about privatization.
The most disturbing aspect of the privatization movement of the Government is that it is not related to any policy other than the recovery of funds for the Government. It is not related to a policy dealing with telecommunications or transportation or to trying to put together an economic agenda which seems to make sense with regard to how we should develop the regions and the country and how we should develop better relations between workers and employers.
Privatization can be legitimate if it can be proven that the operation of an industry in the private sector is a more effective way of achieving goals than having it under government ownership. However, the only rationale we are given by various spokespersons for privatizing existing Crown corporations is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants to make a money grab to pay the bills. We are selling off companies simply to acquire funds to help the Minister of Finance reduce his deficit or meet some other obligation which he thinks is important.
As a result, there is no rationale, raison d'etre, blueprint, or form of useful framework to analyse why we are doing this. No one has yet explained to anyone's satisfaction why Teleglobe will be a superior instrument in the private sector to what it is in the public sector for the pursuit of Canadian objectives in the area of telecommunications.

I have read the Minister's speech and other commentary but one cannot find enough wit in the Conservative mentality to give even some explanation of how this measure will assist the growth of telecommunications in this country. While everyone recognizes the limitation of the Conservative mentality by now, one would have thought that there would be some appropriate rationalization behind this move. However, it is simply a money grab to fatten the consolidated revenue and it has nothing to do with telecommunications.
This is most evident when we look at the treatment of the current employees of Teleglobe. One of the primary responsibilities of any company, public or private, is to ensure that the employees are properly treated when there is a major dislocation. They have a responsibility to ensure that employees are not the victims of that change, or treated in a cursory or arbitrary way.
One would have thought that the federal Government would try to provide a model of how to deal with employees properly
and effectively and would have made an effort to set a standard of responsibility and fairness to be applied to other companies, rather than simply attempting to chisel and niggle away a few extra dollars. The Government is miserly in trying to short-change its own employees while carrying out a policy that has no purpose. The Government is deliberately ignoring the necessary consideration it must have to form a proper relationship with its workers, and is even taking the further step of overturning previous standards that have been set in the allocation of pension benefits.
The purpose of the amendment moved by my colleague is to rectify a very clear mistake by the Government. It also attempts to point out that the Government, in pursuing its privatization plan, must be required to do so in a far more legitimate, effective and humane way.
We will not be able to correct the program at least for another 18 months or two years until we are back in power to do things properly, so we believe that it is at least important to point out how the Government can proceed without treating its employees in this shabby way.
I suggest that Conservative Members, especially those who represent public employees in their ridings, should demonstrate some sensitivity to this matter.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: We are always sensitive.


Lloyd Axworthy: They should at least show some responsibility to their constituents. Perhaps they have become so inured to the kind of insensitivity that characterizes the Government-


John Napier Turner: Baloney!


Lloyd Axworthy: -that they have lost that capacity for sensitivity. I see certain Members in the House who represent Ottawa constituencies. They know, perhaps more than anyone, how this Teleglobe Bill is a transgression of public service rights. Therefore, one would think that they should be compelled by a sense of conscience and obligation to convince the Minister that there is no shame in admitting a mistake and accepting an amendment when it is legitimate and workable. So far, there has been no such indication on the part of those Members, and certainly no interest on the part of the Minister to respond to such representations.
We can only conclude that they do not care and are unwilling to use Parliament as a way of debating issues, exposing legislation to public scrutiny, and having the ability and wisdom to correct mistakes. It is the only Government I have seen that is somehow congenitally unable to make amendments to its own legislation. Perhaps it believes it has inherited a divine right, but that is not how this institution is supposed to work. That is not how it has worked in the past because there has always been a willingness to accept amendments and change legislation.


Philip Derek Lewis: I remember when Pierre did it all the time.
March 26, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) seems to be having an attack. He was a Member of the House when we brought in the Western Grain Transportation Act. Some 25 amendments were proposed and accepted at that time. I give that to him as an example which may prompt him to go back and read history. Those who do not learn from history will repeat its mistakes. Also, there are some good historical precedents in the House which the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), as a reasonably new Member of the House, might be well advised to consider as well.
Before the report stage of this Bill is concluded, I hope the Minister will reconsider the very wholesome and positive amendment put forward by my colleague.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to a matter of this magnitude, and to the two consequences it will have, and I am referring first of all to the effects of privatization. Perhaps I may say right away that I have no objection to privatizing, or returning to the private sector, enterprises that were formerly Crown corporations, but I don't think privatization should be the end-all and be-all. When we are talking about businesses that were set up with taxpayers' money and which have become competitive, viable and prosperous concerns, I don't think we should necessarily hand them over to the private sector to let it make even more profits. Teleglobe was making a profit and this was benefiting the Canadian taxpayer.
The reason why my honourable colleague is moving an amendment is that there will be consequences for the future of employees who were with Teleglobe and who are now working for the new company, Memotec, and I am referring to their pension plan. It is common knowledge that, unfortunately, the Conservative Government is not particularly concerned about vested rights. We saw this in their approach to de-indexing Old Age Security pensions. We also saw this with unemployment insurance benefits where they again ruled against employee/employer pension plans, the private pension plans. In fact, what my hon. colleague is proposing is quite simple. It is that Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 35, by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 19 and substituting the following:
"35. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation but not until an agreement incorporating an employee compensation program has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the new corporation established pursuant to section 4 of this Act."
Why the Liberal Party is moving this motion? Because it is in line with Liberal philosophy to protect the rights of the individual. Institutions and corporations are fine, but the individual is more important still. The purpose of the Liberal Party's motion is, although we may not agree with the privatization of Teleglobe Canada, to ensure that as little damage as possible is done in the process. In other words, we have to prevent this from being privatization with no holds
Teleglobe Canada
barred, without safeguards for the employees. I think we should consider that if people, both management and support staff, had known when they paid their contributions to the employer's pension plan for Teleglobe Canada, and when they started working for the corporation, that the corporation would be privatized and their pension fund would not be fully protected, they might have made arrangements for another retirement plan.
When Canadian Arsenals was privatized, there were negotiations involving the Government, the new buyer and the union representing the employees. They managed to agree on a formula that was satisfactory to all three parties, namely the Government, that was selling the company, the new company that was buying the corporation and the employee representatives. All three were satisfied with the safeguards, not just for jobs but also for the pension plan to which both employees and the Government had contributed. Now the question arises, and last week I had the pleasure of meeting with the representative of the employees' union: Why isn't the Government making the same offer it made to Canadian Arsenals employees? Why isn't the Government applying the same rules and the same procedures in this case? Why is it changing its mathematical assumptions? Why this double standard? Unfortunately, that has been typical of what the Conservative Government has been doing, the double standard. We see it in this case. They found a solution to a problem, but instead of simplifying procedures so that all other privatizations, although one may not agree with the principle, would include safeguards for pension plans. There would be the same rules, the same calculations and the same safeguards. But no, they had to come up with a different offer, and typically, we saw the same attitude with unemployment insurance benefits.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration decided to create two classes of elderly workers. The first group which is entitled to receive payments from the employee/employer pension plan is penalized because it cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits, while in the other group we see elderly workers, exactly the same age, who are drawing benefits from their own registered retirement savings plan and are entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is similar in the case of Teleglobe Canada employees whom we are talking about now. The Government does not guarantee full protection, certainly not to the satisfaction of Teleglobe Canada employees, the union which represents them, and the Official Opposition. My colleague moved this amendment strictly to ensure fairness and justice, and because the Liberal Party is intent on protecting people. I can appreciate that the Conservative Party may be more enclined to say that it is now a question of dollars and cents. We sold Teleglobe Canada for so many dollars and this will boost our image once the money has been paid into the public coffers and we can make people believe that we have reduced the deficit. This is a minor consideration: what counts is the individual and human aspects.

March 26, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
If the Government were to say in the end-and the intent of the motion, the purpose of these interventions by Liberal Members is to tell the Government: You want to privatize Teleglobe Canada, go ahead, you have the majority, but we do not agree. If you want to claim that it is a sound financial deal, that is your privilege. But do say as well-and this is where we want to help you-that you have protected the rights of the people who work for this company. Although I am not quite convinced, you seem to have guaranteed and maintained job security as well as the same pay increases opportunities in the company, but all people now on the Teleglobe Canada payroll should be assured that they will continue to benefit from their vested rights in the good pension plan to which they have been contributing all along.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only one minute left. I would conclude by expressing the hope that some Conservative Members from Greater Montreal as well as elsewhere in Quebec and other regions will support this motion and urge the Minister to show every consideration for the working people and put less emphasis on the purely economic aspects of the deal.
[DOT]	(1150)


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), is specific and clear. It states that the proposed Bill C-38, which deals with Teleglobe:
-shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation but-
And this is the important part:
-not until an agreement incorporating an employee compensation program
has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the
new corporation established pursuant to Section 4 of this Act.
Yesterday the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) in her intervention made the point that until the Act is proclaimed, a new corporation cannot be established and the amendment preconditioned for proclaiming the Act cannot be satisfied. This is where we differ on both the question of procedure and the question of policy. We say to the Minister that this can be done. As put so well by my colleague, the Hon. Member for	Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart), and earlier in the morning by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the interest of the employees must be protected. That was the main thrust of the speech made yesterday by the mover of the amendment, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.
[DOT]	(1200)
What we face today is a Government in its third year in office which is set in favour of privatization of Crown agencies. Yet in its third year it is incapable of coming forward with a set of principles or guidelines, a general policy, for the protection of its own employees when it privatizes. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that the way to run a Government? The
Government has left these people hanging loose. Then, at a certain point, it has said, as the Minister said yesterday in her intervention, and I hope I am paraphrasing fairly, that we cannot cross every t and dot every i before the demands of each employee has been met. This is not just a matter of crossing t's and dotting i's. This is a matter that concerns the future of a number of employees. Therefore it should not be relegated to the category of small items. As the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe reminded us yesterday, there are some 1,107 employees involved here. We are talking about a substantial number of Canadians who have worked for their country in this Crown corporation. Not only have they worked for the Crown corporation, they have made it into a success story.
We on this side of the House regret very much this Bill coming forward. We do not think the Government of Canada should sell this success story. If anything, it should keep Teleglobe and ensure that it becomes a model for other Crown corporations. The fact remains that what we on this side of the House are endeavouring to do, if we cannot stop its insane policy of privatization, something to which we object in the first place, is hope that it will come to its senses in the treatment of these employees. That is what the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe is fighting for. I am more than happy to join him and my other colleagues in support of this social rescue operation.
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe indicated to the House that the Government has not come to a satisfactory conclusion in terms of Treasury Board and Memotec, which is what prompts this motion at third reading. Therefore a situation has been created which creates a vacuum in the minds of everyone concerned, hence our initiative.
Evidently, what is at stake here is the fact that the employees of Teleglobe could see anywhere between $7 million and $10 million less being transferred to the new owners of Teleglobe in order to cover, as the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe put it so well yesterday, their acquired pension rights. How would Members of Parliament like to see something like this undertaken with respect to their pension rights? There would be an outcry from back-benchers to front-benchers and back again several times. There would be a tidal wave sweeping this place.


Mr. Keeper:: That is what the Government will do next.


Mr. Caccia:: Maybe it is setting a precedent, who knows? However, I do not think it will do that because it is too conscious of its own majority rights. But because of that it should not apply different standards to the employees of the Government of Canada and, in particular, as it does in this case to the employees of a Crown corporation that is being sold.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier put it very well this morning. He said the Government, not as an acquired new theology but as a political commitment during the last campaign, committed itself to the desire of selling to the
March 26, 1987

private sector corporations that are owned by Canadians through the state, so in its third year in office it would not be unreasonable or outlandish to expect it to establish ground rules when it comes to privatization. In this way those who are affected would know from the beginning that the Government is protecting some basic rights, including pension rights.
It is in that sense that I join the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier in putting forward this amendment which, as I mentioned earlier, is a very sensible one. It is intended to provide protection to the employees in relation to their pensions. It is an amendment which we hope the Government with its majority and overwhelming power in the House will have enough sense to listen to and actually support when it comes to a vote in a few moments' time.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I took my time getting to my feet in the hope that one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party might enter the debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: We do that in caucus.


Cyril Keeper: My hon. friend says that they do it in caucus. We know that they discuss these types of questions behind closed doors. What we want to know is whether they are prepared to discuss the question in public. Is the Government prepared to answer questions that have been put to it by members of the Opposition in broad daylight so that everyone can know where it stands?
The Government has decided, and I think foolishly, without due regard for the interests of Canadians, to privatize Teleglobe. Such a move will take our telecommunications industry from the public sector and place it in private hands. This move will make us the only country in the world that will rely upon a private profit-making company to handle its international communications.
There are serious questions of public policy involved here, including questions with respect to national security. There are also questions concerning economic development, as well as the national economic interests of Canada. It is important for us to deal with the amendment which is before the House in the context of our serious questions concerning the direction in which the Government is going.
Since it has decided to turn over Teleglobe to the private sector, what implications are there in this legislation for the people who work for Teleglobe Canada, in addition to the interests which I have already mentioned in terms of the public? What we are being told is that the people who work for Teleglobe Canada are very worried and concerned. What they are concerned about is their pensions. Over the years that they have worked for Teleglobe they have negotiated pension arrangements. After working a lifetime they should be able to enjoy a secure retirement. This is an ideal, a goal, and a dream of all Canadians. Of course it is the reason that my Party has
Teleglobe Canada
fought over the years for pensions for average Canadians, so that they can be secure in their old age.
The pension before us is not a public one. It is a private pension which has been negotiated between the parties-the employees and the employer. It is important that the security of the employees be protected. They have earned their pensions. Year after year they sat down at the bargaining table to negotiate. The pensions have been costed out, and they have been a part of the deal between the employees and the employer. These people are not asking for something for nothing; they are asking for that which they have already earned. They are also asking that it be protected.
However, the Government plays its political games to satisfy its own ideological drives. It seeks to fly the flag of privatization and to convince Canadians that it is good for all Canadians. While it is playing these political games, the people who work for Teleglobe Canada want to be assured that they will be treated fairly. They want assurance that their pensions, for which they have worked so hard and negotiated each year, will be protected and secure so that in their old age they can enjoy the fruits of their labour.
We have been called upon by the employees of Teleglobe Canada to indicate to the Government that they are very worried about present pension arrangements. They are concerned that there is no satisfactory agreement to protect their pensions. In fact, the pension arrangements are such that if demand or the forces of the market-place change, the company has a right to change the pensions. If we know anything about markets, it is that they are shifting. They are like the sands of the Sahara; they shift with the winds. A guarantee which depends upon no change in the market-place is not a guarantee at all. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms.
These people are genuinely and legitimately concerned that their pensions are being put in jeopardy by the privatization of Teleglobe Canada and that their interests are being sacrificed on the altar of privatization, because the Government wants to pursue a policy for which it has no mandate but which simply satisfies its particular ideological inclinations.
There are some pension precedents which are worth while noting. When Canadian Arsenals was sold by the Government to a private company, or put into the private sector, pensions were provided on a generous basis for the employees. It is possible to provide adequate protection of the pensions of employees who are presently public employees and will soon be private ones. According to Treasury Board figures, the difference between what is being arranged for Teleglobe employees and what is in place for Canadian Arsenals employees amounts to S7 million.
What does that mean? It means that each employee at Canadian Arsenals has $10,000 more in the kitty to secure or bolster his or her pension than those at Teleglobe Canada. There is a measurable and quantitative difference between the

March 26, 1987
Tele globe Canada
pension arrangements of employees at Canadian Arsenals and those at Teleglobe Canada.
Let us challenge the Government to provide at least equal arrangements for the employees of Teleglobe Canada, as it has already provided for employees at Canadian Arsenals.
Let us deal with why people at Teleglobe Canada are feeling insecure about their pensions. Of course, the first reason is that the company has the right to change the pensions if demand or the economy changes. If we know anything today, it is that the economy is changing, does change, and will change.
Also the monopoly enjoyed by Teleglobe Canada is being phased out. It will be more subject to the whims of economic circumstances, which will undercut the security of pension arrangements. Provincial telephone companies are talking about bypassing Teleglobe Canada and using American systems. That will weaken the economic base upon which the pensions of employees at Teleglobe Canada rest. Some of the employees are afraid that Teleglobe Canada can be subjected to takeover. If the company were taken over, and given the fact that the pension agreement includes a clause allowing the company to change it, a new management may exercise that right and thereby undercut the pensions which they negotiated over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I stress the fact that the pensions which Teleglobe Canada employees seek to protect represent fringe benefits they earned through collective bargaining. They are not looking for gifts, they simply want to protect their rights, to protect the fruit of their labour over the years.
I strongly urge the Government to negotiate a commitment with the employees to safeguard their pension benefits so they will be able to look forward to secure retirement years.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have only one minute left. I simply want to say that we question the Government policy to privatize Teleglobe Canada because sound public policies do militate in favour of keeping Teleglobe Canada within the public sector. However the Government has decided to privatize Teleglobe Canada. Even so, it has to protect the interests of the current Teleglobe Canada staff, just as it must be fair with them and make sure that the pension rights they have already acquired will not be frittered away.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that the Government take both time and care to negotiate an equitable arrangement to protect the pensions of these employees.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not favourable to the sale or privatization of Teleglobe Canada. It is not because we are against privatization. It is because we are against privatization at any cost.
However, the Government has decided in its poor wisdom to sell Teleglobe. That being done, we are very pleased that
Memotec is the purchaser and that Memotec saw fit to offer the employees a pension plan which would be identical to their present one. There is a small problem with that, Mr. Speaker. One has to look at the fundamental flaw in the way the Government dealt with Memotec and the employees in this instance. The Government has again found a way to save itself money, but at whose cost? If it were at the cost of Members of Parliament we would be screaming blue murder, but the saving is at the cost of the 1,100 workers or more who work for Teleglobe and who will now be working under the Memotec leadership. They are not complaining about that. They are happy and are looking forward to the creative and dynamic leadership with the synergy that will come about as a result of this decision.
One has to look at Canadian Arsenals Limited and what happened to it. We should look as well at the chief actuary's report and at the financing. What about the workers who are transferred as a result of the sale and privatization of this company? We should see if we have been fair and equitable to the workers of Teleglobe. In my exchange with Mr. Kingsley from the Department I said:

Mr. Kingsley, first, do you agree that an assumption has been changed through pension evaluation, that you changed your calculations, and if the interest rate for the first five years is changed, do you not agree that the amount transferred is no longer the same? In other terms, you were trying to save Government money when you said those transfers involved $7 or $8 million. However, the actuary hired by Teleglobe Canada employees indicated that those transfers were rather in the order of $10 million. This means you are trying to save Government money by changing the plan's financing terms and the end result is that your evaluation upsets the symmetry of actuarial assumptions, which explains the transfer difference between the evaluations made by the Government actuary and by the employee actuary. This means the pension fund would have a deficit, and that deficit would not be made up immediately. As you know, the deficit should be made up over 15 years.

The question is, will the company be able to make it up? Is the Government being fair to Memotec, which in all good faith and good will is prepared to present, give, support and supply those workers with fair and equitable treatment? With an enriched pension plan it will meet its commitment. The Government will thereby save itself money, underfunding Memotec's initial investments. I think this is all unfair, unconscionable and unacceptable. With that thought in mind, my colleague moved:
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at
page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
35. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by
proclamation but not until an agreement incorporating an employee
March 26, 1987

compensation program has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the new corporation established pursuant to section 4 of this Act.

Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, since the outset when 1 was really involved in that matter, before there was a shuffling of our responsibilities, on a number of occasions I met representatives of Teleglobe employees. I also spoke with the Minister involved. I have always indicated that in the contents of the sale, in the memo of intent that is in the legislation, there were serious flaws. One concerned the monopoly and another the pension fund, especially with regard to long-time employees. And it is not acceptable that the line of thought, the philosophy of the Conservative party should be reflected here, because Conservatives want to sell and privatize all Crown Corporations without any reason whatsoever and without consideration for Government employees. It is those employees who have made that corporation profitable, so profitable in fact for the Canadian society that they have contributed for Canada as a whole significant amounts of money to our country's general revenues.
Each year, it was possible to count on significant amounts of money which could be used to reduce our deficit. Which means, Mr. Speaker, that even if this government feels that privatization is a good thing, they do not realize what they are doing.

This is not fair play for the worker nor for the company which bought it. The Government would be well advised to review what it had to say.
There are no provisions for ensuring in law an employee compensation package with respect to acquired pension benefits. The Government is attempting to rush this Bill through the legislative committee process and through the House of Commons, despite the fact that negotiations concerning pension benefits between Teleglobe employees, Treasury Board and Memotec are incomplete.
That is why I believe this House must support the amendment which I just brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker. What is the big rush? Is it because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants about $500 million to keep his word to the Canadian public? Is that what is motivating this big rush? Is that what allowed the legislative committee to decide it would rush this whole thing through in one day? It took a conscientious and concerned Member of the Liberal Party to say "Wow. Hold back. We are not rushing this thing through. These are workers who built this marvellous company for Canada. This is our only international voice in the telecommunications world. We are proud that we have been able to work compatibly with communications companies around the world and across our land". But the committee and the Minister decided to rush the whole thing through without giving careful consideration to all the players in the game. This is an indication of the ridiculous language, the hyperbole, which the Government has been so busy using by saying, "Yes,
Teleglobe Canada
we are great at consultation. We believe we should talk things through. We listen". But in reality the Government goes its merry way and listens with blocked ears. The Government is like the three monkeys: see not, hear not and say nothing.
I would like to recommend strongly that the Minister go back to the drawing board. I would recommend that the Minister, with the good will and intent demonstrated by Memotec, with the concerned interest and good will of all the employees-and by the way, Mr. Speaker-

I suggest we should commend these working men and women and tell them: Come on, you have done your duty, you have decided to become the mouthpieces of all working men and women, while trying to save your skins because the Government has forgotten to balance things out for all current Teleglobe workers. That is the reason why I congratulate the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).

-for the excellent work he was able to do together with the employees, in the interest of Memotec and of all Canadians to ensure that when you are about to change the rules of the game you let everybody know. If the chief actuary's figures we were prepared to use for Canadian Arsenals are no longer relevant, that should have been public knowledge. If the Government is going to change the money to be vested into the private plan, that should have been public knowledge. Everyone should have been playing fair ball in this game.
This is obviously a Government that is not so good at keeping its promises. It is great at using words and the fanciest of its rhetoric is enough to turn my stomach at times.
Will the company be able to make up this kind of money? Will it be secured? If it needs continued viability, how can we ensure that it gets it? The request of the employees was that the Government use the same assumptions that were used for Canadian Arsenals.

The employees had asked you to use, when computing the amounts of these transfers, the same actuarial assumptions as those which had been used for Canadian Arsenal employees, but you decided against it. They want the same treatment, which was refused to them, but I think it is their right. Back to square one, I am sorry. Fairness is of primary importance, and this matter must be settled before we start considering this bill.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would be most inappropriate to let this moment pass without commenting on the eloquent and excellent speech that has just been given by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). It has simply taken us away on wings of destiny, seeking justice and truth-

March 26, 1987
Teleglobe Canada


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Elon. Member for his comments.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it never fails to surprise me that an Hon. Member would rise to emphasize-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Quality.


Raymond John Skelly: He says quality. Things that are of quality are generally self-evident and, as good as he is, we do not need the Hon. Member to call it to the attention of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We'll get up after your speech too.


Raymond John Skelly: Of course, the Hon. Member's willingness to rise after my speech to point out its jewels could be forgone as well.
The amendment before the House is one that makes good common sense and should be supported by every Member of the House. It calls on the company to recognize established pension benefits that have been earned to date by its employees in a satisfactory pension program. Certainly that makes common sense and is worth support in every quarter of the House.
In a letter to the Minister, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union drew the Minister's attention to the fact that during recent telecommunications privatization processes in the United Kingdom, France and Malaysia, employee concerns were satisfactorily resolved before any bids were entertained and the union sees no reason why this just and equitable method cannot be the norm in this country. 1 believe we really should put in place in this legislation a guarantee that would protect the employees. Although this did not occur in advance of the bids, there is certainly still time to do the honourable thing and to ensure that pension protection provisions are developed in a negotiated way by the employees and the company. We can ensure that this happens by prohibiting completion of the transaction in advance of those negotiations.
The question of the privatization of Teleglobe is an interesting one. It is my understanding that Teleglobe, operating as a Crown corporation, handled international telecommunications. It was almost a public utility which guaranteed that Canadians controlled their communications linkages. In the present Government's rather undignified haste to fulfil its right-wing philosophical point of view, it would appear to be casting off an extremely important Crown corporation. It is placing into private hands a virtual public utility. The main customers of this organization will now have an option to use Teleglobe's Canadian operations or simply to bypass them. It would appear that down the road, those companies in Canada that depend upon that communications linkage can use the United States or other places in order to bypass that linkage. It does not seem to be very desirable to remove this control Canadians have over their communications linkages.
In the mood of privatization, we are anticipating down the road the Petro-Canada and the Air Canada manoeuvres. I understand that an announcement will be made on April 10. I wonder if the Minister might enlighten us as to some of her plans so that initial discussions with Canadians about these two very important Crown corporations can take place.
The precursors of this Government's actions have already occurred in British Columbia. No common sense was used in the disposing of government assets; there was simply a philosophy that the Government cannot own assets in the private good, and the B.C. Government wanted to dump as many as it could. It certainly did. The BCRIC experience harmed employees, caused unemployment and caused economic dislocation. All those people Bill Bennett was going to treat to a lesson on how the free enterprise system worked bought shares at $6 and then experienced a disaster. Now Bill Bennett's successor will take privatization a step further. He is attempting to privatize the B.C. ferry system and is talking about selling it off piecemeal.


Mr. Andre:: Gorbachev and all kinds of people are doing it.


Raymond John Skelly: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), in his usual helpful manner, has diverted the entire discussion into outer space where he generally spends most of his time. In any event, the British Columbia precursors to this Government's endeavours have been complete disasters. I would predict, as have many others in the House, that the same kind of disasters will be experienced by the federal Government on a national basis.
There has been talk of privatizing Petro-Canada. There was a massive inquiry into the petroleum industry done by the competition branch. The upshot of that was that Canadians should have a window into the industry, an effective control over the development and direction of that industry. It would appear that the Government opposes that. The Government would just as soon turn control back to the seven major oil companies, the seven sisters.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Back to industry.


Raymond John Skelly: Back to industry, the industry that controlled this country and shafted it beyond anything that could ever be considered reasonable. We see where the Government is in the polls. Somehow there is a lapse in the Government's logic. It does not seem to see that its philosophy and actions have created in the minds of Canadians a reputation so low that we must ask if the Government still has the right to govern this country. When the Government is at 20 per cent and change in the polls, can it make decisions that have such fundamental negative impacts on Canada? The privatization activities, the failure to consider employee pension plans and the failure to consider long-term economic impacts on Canada have led the Government into a position in the polls which indicates that it no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of Canadians. The Conservatives are the fourth Party in Canada. From having had a massive public endorsement and from having
March 26, 1987

been in first place they have dropped to fourth place. The two opposition Parties are well ahead of them in the polls, then come the undecided, and then comes the Conservative Party at somewhere around 20 per cent. With that level of public confidence, they are going to make massive fundamental changes in the structure of the economy and privatize Air Canada and Petro-Canada. That should not be allowed to happen. That is not a democratic procedure. Because those people lack logic in their operations we really should have an election. 1 hope logic will return to the individuals on the other side. I hope they will join with the Opposition in supporting this very worth-while amendment to the legislation before us. Possibly the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) will rise in his place and overrule the Minister. That would show that the people on that side of the House have regained their reason, logic will prevail, and this amendment will pass.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his obvious common sense. Frankly, he carried out a valuable political analysis and I thank him-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know all Members make good speeches.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mr. Tobin, seconded by Mr. Murphy, moved:
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at
page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"35. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation but not until an agreement incorporating an employee compensation program has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the new corporation established pursuant to section 4 of this Act."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Teleglobe Canada


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mrs. McDougall moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were to enquire I think you would find there is unanimous agreement to apply the result of the previous division to this one, just so we might recess faster.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier to whom he was referring in his point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was not here for the last vote but I would like to be counted in this one on the government side.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear my colleague say it, although I am sure he meant to say it, that this vote be applied in the reverse to the previous vote.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is for you to say, not me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 1.25 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.25 p.m. the House took recess.
March 26, 1987



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

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


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial conference on aboriginal peoples opened today. I should think that everyone is aware that the Premier of Quebec has no intention of attending the conference. Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind Canadians that the Premier of Quebec has chosen to stay away from the conference because the federal Government and the Prime Minister of Canada have failed to understand that settling the claims of the provincial Government would make it a lot easier for Quebec to sign the Constitution.
It must be remembered that the federal Government has not shown open-mindedness with respect to Quebec's claim concerning the power to select its immigrants and financial compensation under established programs.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House ought to know that, should the conference fail and the Prime Minister attempt to shift the blame to the Quebec Government, the person responsible for the absence of the Quebec Premier at the conference is the Prime Minister of Canada.



BEAUCE REGION


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, recently, Radio-Canada broadcast a series of programs on the public school system in Quebec. I want to register my indignation and that Of the members of the Chaudiere regional school commission at the lack of objectivity reflected in these programs. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unconscionable that the network should select certain facts and events to give an unnecessarily negative picture of the polyvalentes, the high schools across Quebec, and especially in Beauce. We have some excellent high schools, and we are not alone. Radio-Canada has no business casting doubts on the quality of the curriculum and the services offered, and on the behaviour of our students.
In Beauce, we are proud of the standards of all our high schools and of the quality of both administrators and students. Our teachers, who are a conscientious and dedicated group, deserve our support, Mr. Speaker, and I think that applies to many teachers in Quebec. We have suffered as a result of the bad publicity generated by these broadcasts which seemed to
generalize on the basis of just one situation. Our teachers and students in Quebec and in Beauce deserve our continuing support and encouragement.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has ignored two promises it made last year for family reunification of immigrants. First, it promised to put information packets in all immigration offices. A sponsor could pick up a packet at an office in Canada with an application form and explanation of immigration rules to send to the relative overseas, or the relative overseas could pick up a packet at the visa office there. This would have saved staff time and speeded up service, yet the Government did not do it. Why?
Second, the Government promised to reduce overseas processing time after the file is complete to six weeks for spouse or minor child, and to 12 weeks for other family members. Still there is no sign of progress. Why?
These are promises made by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) last October after the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration studied and consulted with immigration officials and tabled these recommendations in June.
By ignoring these promises to immigrants and Parliament, the Minister increases the frustration of immigrants, which the Government then tries to blame on refugees.



TAX ON LUMBER EXPORTS-EFFECT OF EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR

Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency to the residents of my riding engaged in the softwood lumber industry. The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association in a brief to the legislative committee on Bill C-37 of the House of Commons raised two problems which I feel the Government should address immediately.
One is the rising value of the Canadian dollar which, since the agreement was signed, has turned the 15 per cent export tax into an approximate 20 per cent tax. I would suggest that the value of the Canadian dollar be fixed for the purpose of this tax as of December 30, 1986, the day the Canada-U.S. agreement was signed, and that the 15 per cent tax be tied to the value of the Canadian dollar on a sliding scale.

March 26, 1987
The other problem is the difference in stumpage fees in the various wood-producing provinces. I suggest the Government continue talks in earnest with the provinces to set a common stumpage fee so that all the companies from all provinces are playing on a level playing field.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal rights conference taking place today and tomorrow is an important period in Canadian history. Our aboriginal peoples are seeking their basic right, the unrestricted right of self-government. On Friday in this House, in the form of an amendment, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated the Liberal position by asking the Government to fulfil its constitutional obligations to protect and guarantee the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada, the inherent right to self-government, and that it be recognized in the Constitution.
Erica-Irene Daes, a human rights official from the United Nations, said earlier this week:
That the United Nations and the international community is watching very closely ... I will underline that the Canadian Government has ratified the international agreements on human rights and is legally bound to honour them.
The aboriginal people have been in Canada before the white man ever appeared but they are forced to fight for their basic human right to handle their own affairs. The Canadian people have given their support to the aboriginal people, and I now urge the Government to stop its ambivalent approach and take a stand to provide our fellow Canadians the right to determine their way of life, to make decisions, manage, control and direct their own affairs.

[ Translation]



LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of a letter dated February 23, 1987 and sent to various mayors and elected municipal officers in the federal riding of Saint-Jean. The letter is from the Liberal Party of Canada.
The letter is quite clear. It orders the elected officers of the riding of Saint-Jean to attend a benefit where the guests of
honour will be none other than the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and Senator Rizzuto. The letter says, and I quote:
The presence of elected municipal officers at political events organized by the
Liberal Party of Canada has been exceptionally discreet since the general
election in September 1984.
Bearing this in mind, your presence-
Mr. Speaker, this is a letter to our mayors.
-or absence will most certainly be noticed at our May 1 benefit supper.
Are the Liberal Party's finances in such a sorry state that the party feels it has to resort to blackmail to get people to attend its benefit events?
To prevent similar occurrences, I now ask the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides to make amends for this attack on the freedom of speech of elected municipal officers.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, for non-native Canadians the time has come for us to decide whether we see ourselves as conquerors or as co-inhabitants with the aboriginal peoples of this land. It is clear that at the time of the signing of treaties the idea of cohabitation was the legal framework for the relationship between native and nonnative people. But the cultural and political context was far too often, and still is, one of non-native Canadians seeing themselves as essentially a superior culture that would eventually overrun and eliminate aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples, and the way our various Governments have acted has reflected this belief.
In recent years through seeing the shortcomings of our own way of life, and through new insight into native culture and spirituality, we have come to regret past attitudes. But regret is not enough. The fact is that continuing inaction in recognizing aboriginal rights and the inherent constitutional right to selfgovernment makes us no different from those of our ancestors who used force to subdue the legitimate rights of native peoples. We have the luxury of being able to do this by simply letting things go on without resolution as the status quo is on our side. The law is our law. But morally we will be no better than those who used force in the first place. Unless, unless today the First Ministers decide to break with a shameful past, recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to selfgovernment, and commit themselves to meaningful negotiations on how this long-overdue justice can take shape in a new and an exciting Canada where conquerors are no more.
March 26, 1987



CANADA EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Edmonton the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced the Canadian Exploration and Development Program. While all energy companies will benefit, it is the hundreds of companies in the service sector and the smaller oil and gas producers that will benefit most from this program. An important feature is the provision to allow oil and gas companies to offer flow-through shares which will attract capital and offer Canadians an opportunity to invest in exploration and development in this country.
The drilling of 2,000 wells will result in 4,500 direct jobs and over 12,000 jobs in the service and supply sectors. While the immediate benefits are obvious, it is vital that the expertise in manpower and technology that Canada's energy sector has developed over the past four decades be maintained. This announcement should not be considered a short-term solution but an investment in the future security of energy resources for the benefit of all Canadians.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Prince Edward Island Legislature unanimously passed a resolution condemning the federal Government's new inspection fees on potato exports. Agriculture Canada intends to operate its inspection programs on a full cost-recovery basis. Under this plan, potato inspection fees will rise from 3 cents per hundredweight this year to 15 cents per hundredweight by 1990.
Prince Edward Island potato growers export 90 per cent of their crop and one of their major markets is Ontario. With these extra costs, the exports will not be able to compete with Ontario-grown potatoes which are not subject to those fees. This is actually a tariff that Prince Edward Island potato producers must pay in order to market their products. In effect, the fees will act as a barrier to interprovincial trade.
Why does the Government continue to treat potato producers with utter contempt? I call upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to cancel these unfair fees now.



S. O. 21 HOUSING PUBLIC LOAN INSURANCE IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke in the House last week to point out that the Bank of Canada rate of 7.14 per cent was the lowest it has been in 14 years. This trend creates record low mortgage rates enabling young couples to buy homes.
Two days ago the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced significant changes in public loan insurance which will also encourage tenants to buy homes. Starting May 1, 1987, the federal Government will increase its guarantees to mortgage lenders accepting lower down payments. For example, the minimum down payment for a $150,000 home will decrease from $22,000 to $7,500.
For the first time, insurance will be provided for second mortgages to buy a home or to fund renovations. As well, borrowers will now be able to transfer RRSP holdings into their own second mortgages. The Canadian Real Estate Association is meeting in Ottawa today and its President, Robert Pedler, agrees that these positive changes demonstrate a recognition of and sensitivity to the changes taking place in the market-place.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Conservative MLAs have again proven themselves to be totally insensitive to native issues. Although they have had time to debate the Manitoba Budget since its introduction, the Conservative Leader late last night chose to stage a petty grandstanding bell-ringing session. Because of this deliberate delay, Premier Pawley and the relevant Ministers could not make it to the First Ministers' Conference last night. They were unable to be here to speak on a very important issue because of petty politics in Manitoba.
It is very important that on this extremely important issue, politicians of all stripes work together. Manitoba Tories have proven time after time that they will never let a greater dream interfere with lesser politics.




Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Manitoba has complained bitterly about, to use the Premier's words, the federal Government's mechanical pursuit of deficit reduction no matter what is gobbled up in the

March 26, 1987
process, whether it be family allowances for children, education for young adults, or health care for all. The Premier also makes an issue of fairness and standing up for Manitoba. That is why I am rising today to stand up for Manitoba.
The Manitoba Government's deeds betray its words. Last week's provincial Budget raised an already insidious payroll tax to 2.25 per cent. We know that this tax discourages job creation and chases away business. Worse, it taxes hospitals and independent schools.
This tax on the sick will cost St. Boniface Hospital some $1.6 million and it will cost the Health Sciences Centre some $3 million in this year alone. All of us in the House will understand what the NDP means when it talks about fairness: say one thing but do the opposite.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, recent allegations concerning the network of phoney immigration consultants attest to the inaction of the Conservative Government.
Last year I urged the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to control such scandalous activities. The guilty individuals implicated in these operations related to false applications from Portuguese refugees are well known, but the Government has failed to take action. The Government missed an opportunity to send a strong signal indicating that those operations will not be tolerated. It would rather blame the immigrants who have been misled, and it chose to impose visas on friendly countries instead of going to the source of false statements.
Mr. Speaker, time has come to put an end to these illegal activities, and all Canadians expect immediate action.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of this House a great injustice perpetrated against my constituent Rosemary Barber, and other
disabled persons, by the London Life Insurance Company and George Weston Ltd. Rosemary Barber has incurable bone cancer and has been receiving disability payments since 1983. The insurance company disability payment is integrated with that of the Canada Pension Plan.
Last year this House recognized the serious problem of disabled people and decided to increase the CPP disability payment substantially by up to $150 a month. At that time George Weston Ltd. elected to grab that money for itself and instructed its pension insurer, the London Life Company, which went along with the deal, to reduce Rosemary Barber's pension by the full increase in the Canada Pension.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The benefit paid to Rosemary Barber was actuarially sound before the Canada Pension was increased. The effect of the change is to enrich George Weston Limited at the expense of a disabled person.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the obvious lack of concern the Government of Canada has for the people of eastern Nova Scotia. You will recall that in July of 1984 the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave a clear undertaking to those people that he and his colleagues were committed to the second phase of the modernization program at Sydney Steel. Eighteen months elapsed only to have an announcement by the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, given front page coverage in local newspapers, that once again the Government was committed to modernization and had signed the agreement.
In June of 1986 the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) said in this House that the Government was in receipt of the business plan, was reviewing it, and would have an answer forthwith. We then waited an additional 12 months to hear from the government benches that they are once again going to review the plan. In fact, the Government has taken it upon itself to have five Ministers of the Crown review a commitment made in July of 1984. I say this is totally irresponsible behaviour by the Government. It should live up to its commitments or it will leave the people of Cape Breton with one alternative, that is to believe the Government is made up of nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
March 26, 1987



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, for environmentally conscious Niagara I strongly support the Government's "Made in Canada" program to fight acid rain by using western coal in Ontario. If we can get that province to go along with the federal-provincial task force recommendation regarding the use of low sulphur western coal in Ontario's hydro thermal generating plants, we will see large reductions in Ontario's acid gas emissions, create much needed cargo for the St. Lawrence Seaway, and create 13,000 jobs across the country, 40 per cent of which will be in Ontario. Who is dragging his feet?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of sick and elderly Canadians find the Government's decision to raise drug prices a very bitter pill to swallow.

Senior U.S. officials have admitted they put pressure on the Canadian Government to amend our patents legislation for pharmaceutical products. However, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs denies such pressure was exerted. My question to the Minister is therefore: Why does he not at least have the courage to admit what he has done to the elderly and the sick in this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to misrepresent what the Bill will accomplish. He asks what pressure we responded to. For example, the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec under two different Governments unanimously passed resolutions asking us to do this. That is pressure to which we responded.
In fact for 17 years all of our partners in the western industrialized world have been asking Canada to get in phase with the rest of the world with regard to respecting intellectual property. The fact is that we as a Government believe that Canada should be involved in this vital area of high technology and research. If the Liberal Party thinks it is appropriate that the rest of the world does health research while we in Canada do not, we disagree with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER ALLEGATION IS FALSE THAT GOVERNMENT IS AMENDING PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS LEGISLATION AS CONSEQUENCE OF PRESSURE
John Napier Turner: just heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, he said that the information contained in this sworn statement was false. My question is therefore directed to the Secretary of State. Is it false that Mr. Pratt is the President of Pfizer, a U.S. pharmaceutical company? Is it false that Mr. Pratt met with our Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Gotlieb? Is it false that Mr. Pratt put pressure on Mr. Gotlieb to amend our patent legislation? Is it false that as a result of such pressure, the Canadian Government amended our legislation as a favour to Mr. Pratt and others?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is false.


REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO CANADIAN AMBASSADOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the glare of the truth blinds the Minister. I will direct a further question to him. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs first read the text of the affidavit which was deposited with our Embassy in Washington 72 hours ago, did he inquire as to the position of Mr. Pratt who was not only the president of a leading American pharmaceutical company but also the President's Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations? Did he inquire whether that placed undue pressure upon our ambassador?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not make those inquiries. The ambassador has made it clear that his recollection of the events referred to in the affidavit differ from that of the person who signed the affidavit.


REPRESENTATIONS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO GOVERN MENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We know that Canada and in fact the ambassador in Washington were lobbied on the drug legislation by the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations who also happens to be the president of one of the most influential and profitable drug companies in the world.
How can the Minister reconcile his persistent statements in this House that he received no representations whatsoever from the United States when the document says unequivocally that there were representations made to the Canadian Government? Will the Minister explain to the House that this is in fact a contradiction made by him and his Government to cover up the fact that the multinational corporations are writing Canadian legislation affecting our senior citizens?

March 26, 1987
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Haddad visited Canada and made a number of public statements which were patently false. Presumably he can do in writing that which he can do orally. That is the only explanation I have.
If the Hon. Member has been doing his homework he will be aware that the Government he supported in 1983 announced its decision to restore patent protection for drugs-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: Nonsense!


Harvie Andre: -because the 1969 Bill had gone too far. 1 ask the Hon. Member what American multinational forced the Member for Papineau in his then capacity to announce the Government's decision to restore patent protection in this important area?


REQUEST THAT AMBASSADOR APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say with great regret that the Minister has persistently and consistently refused to acknowledge in the House that representations have been made to the Canadian Ambassador in Washington. On Monday I met with the Canadian Ambassador and he admitted to receiving representations from the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee and the chairman of one of the most profitable corporations in the United States. Will the Minister, as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, agree to have the Canadian Ambassador come before the External Affairs Committee and testify about an obvious contradiction which is being perpetrated by the Minister?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, and as the Member well knows, Canada has been under pressure from the rest of the western industrialized world for 17 years. Our ambassadors and high commissioners in Britain, Switzerland, Germany, France, the United States, Japan and everywhere have been under pressure in this regard. That is no secret.
The fact is that this legislation will improve the health care of Canadians. It will produce 3,000 high-tech jobs and $1.4 billion in extra research and development. The only Party that is preoccupied with what the Americans think is the Party opposite. Why do they not read the Bill as it is and give it a factual and honest examination? They will see that the benefits to Canada are extraordinary and it should be passed forthwith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will
the Minister advise the House whether the Canadian Wheat Board and other marketing agencies, as well as postal rates, copyright protection, and pharmaceutical patents are all part of free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that 1 heard the whole list. He asked if all on that list were included. I am reasonably confident, subject to reading the whole list, that the answer to the question would be no.


U S. REPORT ON FOREIGN TRADE BARRIERS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a copy of the foreign trade barriers report from the office of the United States trade representative, which lists all of those items I just mentioned as being part of the negotiations between Canada and the United States. Will the Minister advise the House whether this information that we received from the United States Embassy is, in fact, correct?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would have to read the document, which I will do with care, as I try to listen with care to the question of the Hon. Member. However, I believe that my answer stands.


PATENT PROTECTION QUERY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On December 8, 1986, my colleague, the Member for Windsor-Walkerville, asked the Minister whether patent protection was on the table for negotiation. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said, as reported at page 1879 of Hansard:
The fact is that this matter has nothing to do with the free trade talks.
Why would the United States trade representative specifically mention patent protection in his report and say that they were continuing to discuss this matter at the free trade negotiation table with Canadian representatives?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times it is necessary to repeat that this legislation was introduced because it is of benefit to Canada.


Neil Young: Is this part of free trade?


Harvie Andre: The whole question of intellectual property, which includes copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial design and so on, is in fact within the ambit of the free trade discussions. There is no question. There may be in fact other aspects of patents which may be discussed; I do not know. However, I am telling the Hon. Member, as I told the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, that this legislation, Bill C-22, was brought in because we are concerned about Canada's research and development capabilities and future. We are
March 26, 1987

concerned about the health of Canadians. We have introduced the Bill because it is of benefit to Canada.
Why are the New Democratic Party and the Liberals so preoccupied with what the Americans think? We do not care. We are doing this for Canada's benefit.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to Dr. Schindler of the Freshwater Institute of Winnipeg, up to
600.000	lakes in eastern Canada are vulnerable to acid rain damage, not the 300,000 as estimated so far. As many as
28.000	lakes, not 14,000, are already acidified. Will the Deputy Prime Minister relay Dr. Schindler's findings to the Prime Minister and urge him to find the courage he needs to get up from his prime ministerial knees and demand from the President, in the name of good Canada-U. S. relations, specific reductions in acid rain pollution which is coming into Canada in deadly quantities, when they meet on April 5 in Ottawa? Will he do that?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have no interest whatsoever in debating with the Hon. Member for Davenport the sciences of acid rain. I think it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Government that it is a very serious transboundary problem. Acid rain is the number one environmental priority of the Government of Canada. It is one of the top priorities on the government-wide agenda. Whether 300,000 lakes are being destroyed, or whether it is 600,000, we could not make it any higher a priority than it already is.


Charles L. Caccia: If that is the case, why does the Prime Minister not openly say what Canada wants in the interests of Canadians, rather than dancing around?


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PRESS ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: In view of the increasing economic damage to the United States and Canada in terms of agriculture, forestry, the fisheries, human health, buildings and structures, will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment urge the Prime Minister to stop applauding President Reagan and start pressing the economic arguments with the President, which are so convincingly in favour of acid rain cuts, in Ottawa on April 5? Will he do that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that acid rain would be the last
Oral Questions
issue on which the Liberal Party of Canada would moralize, given its record over a quarter of a century.
When I was environment critic for the Official Opposition for three years, I used to ask the Liberal Prime Minister at the time, after every single meeting he had with the President of the United States, through bilateral discussions or multilateral discussions, whether or not he had used the occasion of his meeting with the President of the United States to raise Canada's very serious concerns about acid rain. The reply of the Liberal Prime Minister was always: "Well, I can't raise just every bilateral issue". Under the Liberals acid rain was just another bilateral issue. For us it is the number one priority.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARDS QUERY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I do not care which one answers. Over many months this House has been assured a number of times in answers to questions that under no circumstances would the Canadian Wheat Board or other marketing boards be part of or on the table in negotiations on free trade. Can the Government assure us that that is still the case and that they are not part of the free trade talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: I can, I will, I do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the facts, I am glad that was not a marriage proposal.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the office of the United States trade representative states: "The role of the Canadian Wheat Board and other Canadian marketing boards will- not "maybe" or anything else but "will"-be discussed during the bilateral free trade agreements negotiations". What is going on? Can the Minister tell us with certainty that our representative has been instructed that they are not on the table and they are not negotiable and that he will not discuss those items with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: The only people who raise these matters are the New Democratic Party. We are not going to be negotiating the question of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the principle of supply-management, as I said in the House before, is not a matter involved in the trade negotiations.

March 26, 1987
Oral Questions
With regard to the other part of the question, 1 know something about NDP marriage proposals and we have no interest in them at all.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been wondering why the French metropolitan fleet is being given fishing quotas in Canadian waters after its treaties ran out last year. We now learn that not even the French in France believed they had any rights to Canadian waters when their treaties expired last year. Why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs write on February 14 of last year to the Assistant Delegated to Maritime Affairs, City of St. Malo, France, saying:
-the Prime Minister asked me to thank you for your letter of December 23,
1985, in which you made known to him your concerns about the rights to fish
by French vessels, and especially those from St. Malo, in Canadian waters.
-Canada has not abandoned the people of St. Malo-these people will be
able to continue to fish Canadian waters in 1986 and well beyond that.
Why did the Minister write that when the French did not even know they had fishing rights here until his letter of February 14? Did he get carried away on Valentine's Day?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that an Hon. Member with such dramatic talents would not apply them to reading the whole letter instead of simply part of it. If he read the whole letter he would see that the letter makes reference to the 1972 agreement. It says: "It is by virtue of that 1972 agreement that the French metropolitan trawlers will fish in future in Canadian waters". That 1972 agreement is known otherwise as the "Liberal Government agreement".


George Baker: It is nice to know that this Government is now educating the people of France that they can fish forever in Canadian waters. The letter did not go to St. Peter's in Prince Edward Island, St. Andrews in New Brunswick, St. Ann's in Nova Scotia, or St. Anthony in Newfoundland; it went to St. Malo in France.


MINISTER S POSITION
George Baker: Under what legislative legal authority did the Secretary of State for External Affairs guarantee fish to France in this letter of February 14 when he says: "Oh, we won't forsake the people of St. Malo"? It sounds like he is running an election campaign in France. Joe Blow for St. Malo!


Charles Joseph Clark: In France, they say: "Joe Qui?"

The facts are that the Liberal Government in 1972 signed a treaty which gave fishing rights to France. That was a Liberal treaty. I was sent a letter by a citizen of France. I replied to that letter. My habit when I am replying to letters from people anywhere in the world is to tell them the truth. I do not know what the habit of the Liberal Party is.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. DOCUMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to a question just a moment ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs flatly contradicted an official U.S. document.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: As the Minister will realize-


An Hon. Member:: But we are a sovereign country!


John Edward Broadbent: As the Minister will realize, it is no joking matter for the Government of Canada to say one thing and the Government of the United States to say another about what both see as historically important trade negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until Members opposite quiet down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Next question!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Oshawa. I would ask that Hon. Members give proper attention.


John Edward Broadbent: I will now read to the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the official U.S. document says and ask him if it is the truth or not. In this document it states:
The role of Canadian Wheat Board and other Canadian marketing boards will
be discussed during the bilateral Free Trade Agreements-negotiations.
That is the official U.S. policy. Is it true or not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the only thing that would shock the United States administration more than having the Leader of the NDP acting as its spokesman in the House of Commons would be if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition were to do it again.
March 26, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Take us on one at a time, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The reference in the document was to discussions. The document then went on, as was just read to us by the new spokesman for the U.S. trade representative, to talk about negotiations. There is a difference between discussions and negotiations. We cannot help what is raised at the table. If somebody wants to raise something at the table, and they might want to raise something at the table, we have to answer it. We are prepared to discuss it. What we say about the Canadian Wheat Board, so there can be no misunderstanding, is that it is not negotiable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in reply to an earlier question that is not what the Minister said. The earlier question was with respect to whether it was being negotiated and talked about and the Minister said no. If I understand him now, the Americans are correct when they say that if they put in on the negotiating table they are talking about it. Is the Minister prepared to confirm that or not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is not being negotiated in the trade discussions between Canada and the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Slower, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Canadian Wheat Board is not being negotiated in the trade negotiations between Canada and the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ACID RAIN CONTROL PROJECT COORDINATOR
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in our gallery of an American friend of Canada from the Izaak Walton League of America, the Acid Rain Control Project Co-ordinator who has and is working with Canadians and the Government of Canada for a joint Canada-U.S. acid rain program, Mr. Paul Hansen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


LAY-OFFS IN SAINT-HENRI-WESTMOUNT RIDING-MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In my riding, in Saint-Henri-Westmount, we have had another disaster: 300 lay-offs. What does the Government intend to do to protect these workers who are desperate?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that in a period of change, as I am sure the Hon. Member would be quick to admit, there will be changes in employment in different companies. Some companies may shut their doors. But the important thing is that we keep creating new jobs on an incremental basis. We have been creating new jobs. We have created over 700,000-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Part-time at minimum wage.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says "part-time". He knows that 80 per cent of the jobs that have been created since September of 1984 are full-time jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: Where?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In the Province of Quebec
175,000	jobs have been created. So while there have been shutdowns, and we understand that, the important thing is that net of any of the shut-downs, any job losses, there have been new jobs created, 175,000 in the last two-and-one-half years.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is not really an answer to my question, because in the industry, at Coleco in Saint-Henri, today there are 300 workers who are desperate. In fact, there have been quite a few plant closings recently in this industry.
I would therefore like to know whether the Government intends to do something such as setting up a specific program to protect these workers and stimulate the economy in this sector, in order to create new jobs in the south-west section of Montreal.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear our Government has stimulated the economy across Canada, and that includes Quebec.
I said in my last answer that 175,000 jobs had been created since September 1984. That is the purpose of this Government's economic policy, and we have had a great deal of success with this policy.

March 26, 1987

Oral Questions



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Albert Girard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. Recently, the Standing Committee on Government Operations presented its second report to the House. The report stressed the importance of consultation. During hearings the committee was presented with horrendous stories concerning the lack of consultation between Canada Post and the population it is supposed to serve. Will the Minister instruct Canada Post to confirm its commitment to service by undertaking meaningful consultation with all communities affected by its decisions?


Harvie Andre: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. There certainly were mistakes made in the past. But, as I have indicated to the House, the consultations are to be meaningful and to involve the Member of Parliament from the start. As an example, in the town of St. Albert in the constituency of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell the Member for that riding was actively involved in discussions, as there was a change in the postal services there. 1 understand from the Hon. Member, from Post Office officials and others, that it went very well and everybody was involved. The consultations were meaningful and to everyone's satisfaction.
I hope that that will be the pattern for the future. I hope that Members of Parliament will keep me apprised if in fact we slip off that pattern since we all have a responsibility in this regard.



VICTORIA-CASUAL EMPLOYEES-PICKET LINE POLICY

Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I wonder why, when the Minister gives an example of a community giving consent for a change of postal service, he does not elaborate on it as policy. My question relates to a news report which states that in Victoria the Post Office is making it a condition of employment for casual employees that they be prepared to cross a picket line. I wonder if the Minister would indicate that that action is provocative, and would he dissociate himself from it and call upon Canada Post to seek to reach an agreement rather than to provoke a strike?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, all parties-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Not during Question Period.



BABY GIRL BORN TO MEMBER FOR HAMILTON EAST

John Napier Turner: 1
am pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to your comment on Tuesday regarding the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, your prediction has come true. There are now two of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: At the Ottawa Civic Hospital the Hon. Member for Hamilton East made history. She is the first sitting Member of the House of Commons to give birth-to an eight-pound baby girl.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think all Members will join me in offering the Hon. Member and her husband, Ric Marrero, our warm and heart-felt congratulations and best wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is also the first Member to manage to get a point of order raised in Question Period for many years. The Minister may continue his answer.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think I remember the question, but first let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on this tremendous occasion.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is aware that all 28 contracts which various bargaining units have with the Post Office are up. They are under active negotiation. They are at the table now. It is in his interest, in our interest, and in everybody's interest that we try not to involve ourselves in those issues and thereby inadvertently provoke some action which could only be damaging to the collective bargaining process and to Canada.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the first time the Minister has been protected by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



MINISTER'S POSITION

Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
March 26, 1987

Ele failed to address the question, that is, that Canada Post is hiring casual employees and making it a condition of employment that they be prepared to cross a picket line. Does that not appear to him to be provocative action rather than action which leads to agreement? Will he not take action so that the postal service can be maintained and we have good labour relations in the Post Office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that good labour relations in the Post Office are not contributed to by involvement in the House in the negotiations and the issues. I know that the Post Office, like every other appropriate corporation, is bound by the Canada Labour Code and must follow it in all its dealings. I would assume that whatever it is doing-and the Hon. Member talks about some press report-it is obeying the law. 1 would expect it to obey the law. If there is some evidence that it is not obeying the law, I would appreciate knowing about it, and I will see that it does.



INDUSTRY


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance follows that raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount. Next Monday in Montreal Members of Parliament and their provincial counterparts, as well as municipal councillors representing the Montreal East area, will meet with Montreal's new mayor to discuss the development of that region. The Minister is well aware that his Government has set up many committees, including the Picard Committee, the de Cotret Committee and the Pichette Committee. So far, nothing has happened. Could the Minister tell us before Monday's meeting, whether the Government together with the provincial government and the City of Montreal is prepared to grant fiscal benefits to make Montreal East into a designated or business area? Is the Government going to do its share to help Montreal East economy recover and create new jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is quite well aware, the President of the Treasury Board is the chairman of a committee which has been doing a considerable amount of work in reviewing various proposals. When those proposals are ready, they will be coming forward, and we will be able to make a decision based upon the facts at that time.
Oral Questions



REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATE FINANCIALLY IN ESTABLISHING NEW ENTERPRISES

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is true that the President of Treasury Board has spent much effort, gone through a lot of paperwork, been involved in many discussions, organized many panels, done a lot of on-the-spot running, with no concrete proposals to put forward. Only ten employees out of 650 are reported to be working at the Hearst plant. At the Bombardier plant, they do not know whether in three months from now they will have work for the 650 employees. Would the Minister accept a concrete proposal from the Quebec Government and the City of Montreal to participate financially in establishing new businesses through tax shelters granted to a designated area. Yes or no?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board):: As
my friend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has just indicated, Mr. Speaker, we have indeed done a lot of work, carried out many studies and consultations. But above all we have created jobs.


An Hon. Member:: Where?


Robert René de Cotret: We have, above all, made considerable investments in the Montreal area. Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we have created 175,000 jobs. In the Montreal area, thousands of jobs were created over the past year. In Montreal East, significant financial help has been provided. As I indicated to all the spokesmen for the area Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is there to support financially all new business ventures which could create permanent jobs in Montreal East, Montreal West, Downtown Montreal, as well as in the area represented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount: our money and jobs are there to prove it.



FINANCE


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. The bank rate has fallen again. This time it is down 9 bases points.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Major credit card institutions and department stores are defying low interest rates, a parliamentary report, and public opinion by keeping their rates at excessive levels. What action is the Minister ready to take to remind these institutions and stores that there is such a thing as good corporate citizenship?

March 26, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, again I commend my hon. friend for his interest in the subject. I think it is his interest and the work of the House committee which led to a close examination of the problem he raises. Given the fact that a number of financial institutions have made it clear in the last few days that their interest rates are under review, I am more hopeful. Also I should like to say that the provincial Ministers will be discussing the matter shortly at the federal-provincial level. It is not just a question of financial institutions, but it is broader than that. If rates do not come down, as I have said before, we will consider the best way to proceed.



INDUSTRY


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. It concerns Coleco. It has just been reported, according to the American vice-president of Coleco, Barbara Wruck, that the Montreal shutdown was part of a restructuring plan devised in 1982, and my question is this: Since the Government approved a $500,000 grant to that company last year, did the company mislead the Government in negotiating that grant?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was not part of the negotiations, so I am unable to answer the question. I presume the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was the Minister responsible, although I am not quite sure the Hon. Member stated specifically what program it was under. However, I will bring the matter to his attention and will get an answer back to him.


Steven W. Langdon: It seems to me that the case is self-evident, that a serious and very unfortunate misleading took place.



CLOSURE OF AMERICAN SUBSIDIARY PLANTS IN CANADA

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. What assurance can the Government give us that this will not be the pattern which takes place under any free trade agreement right across the board in Canada, with subsidiaries shut down here to keep plants open in the United States? What possible guarantee can be given to the people of Canada?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if that is to be used to link it to free trade negotiations, the Coleco situation in Montreal is this-the grants that were extended generated in Montreal at the time investments of $8 million by that company. The $1.5 million in grants the company received were extended
under applicable standards and there is no question of any trickery. In fact, for the last project for which Coleco accepted a grant, it exceeded its job creation goal by 150 per cent.



WAR CRIMINALS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United Nations is currently holding 38,000 closed files on war criminals from World War II. Access to these files has been requested by Israel, and the United Nations Secretariat consulted member states on their advice about whether the files should be opened. This weekend, The New York Times printed the names of the countries which recommended that Israel not be given access. Why is Canada on that list? Why did Canada refuse Israel access to these files?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada has been that files should be open to access by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and official investigative agencies, which is the usual safeguard, as the allegations in the files have never been subjected to judicial process or legal evaluation.



REQUEST THAT CANADA AGREE TO ALLOW ACCESS

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the result of that tortured answer is that the files may never be open. Is Canada prepared to say yes and allow a responsible member of the United Nations to have access to those files?


Charles Joseph Clark: We would be prepared to allow those files to be open to access by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Not Israel?



FISHERIES


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Today we have reports that the federal Government will ban Danish vessels from fishing shrimp in Canadian waters. In Labrador, two co-operatives provide jobs for 1,300 workers in communities such as St. Mary's Harbour, Cartwright, Rigolet, Nain and L'Anse-au-Loup. They do that in exchange for a sufficient
March 26, 1987

supply of shrimp from the Danish vessels to allow them to process year round. Can the Minister tell this House what specific proposals and suggestions he has to maintain employment, 1,300 jobs, in these communities?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1
certainly can, Mr. Speaker. The decision, several years ago to develop the northern shrimp fishery off the coast of Labrador in particular, was taken to advance the opportunity and the income potential of that resource to the benefit of northern communities, both native and non-native.
Just recently we decided to introduce enterprise allocations and to increase the number of shrimp licences. This will enable Canadian fishermen in Canadian-owned vessels to catch and land shrimp at Canadian operated plants, and to end, as has long been the policy of the Government of Canada, the practice of royalty charters whereby foreign vessels take our shrimp away for nothing more than a cash payment to some particular organization. Our objective is to produce jobs to the benefit of the unions and the native people of the coast of Labrador and in northern areas of Canada.



PRACTICE OF JOINT VENTURES WITH DANISH TRAWLERS

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister. In light of the fact that these co-operatives presently employ 1,300 workers who are prepared to enter joint ventures with the Danish fishing trawlers to continue these jobs, would the Minister consider this arrangement which would, in effect, Canadianize the trawlers and maintain employment for 1,300 people?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking of the practice of the Labrador Union Fishermens Shrimp Co. Ltd. and the Torngat Fish Producers Co-op of bringing foreign vessels in each year for several years against our policy and taking nothing more than a cash payment for their own purposes in exchange for renting the right to take a Canadian resource out of Canada and process it out of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not the question.


John R. Rodriguez: I didn't say that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I know what the past practice has been. The policy has been to replace that practice with the encouragement of Canadian participation in the direct harvesting and processing of this resource. We are facilitating the kind of joint venture which the Hon. Member mentions, which will use Canadian vessels landing that resource at Canadian processing plants.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise Hon. Members that the following question will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead REVENUE CANADA



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TAX CREDIT DEFRAUDERS-REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. As he is well aware, there are a number of Canadians who have defrauded the Canadian Government of tens of millions of dollars as a result of using the scientific research tax credit. Many of these people are now living in the United States or in other countries.
Will the Minister look at having these individuals extradited from the United States? If not, will the Minister propose changes to the Income Tax Act in order that these tax dollars can be recovered?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member in this matter which is causing so much difficulty and which has given rise to so many abuses. I can tell him that in cases where our Income Tax Act does not facilitate bringing offenders before the criminal courts, we will certainly utilize the provisions of the Criminal Code, including any extradition processes which are inherent in it. These processes are sometimes difficult. We are receiving good co-operation from the RCMP and from the Department of Justice in this regard.



POINT OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An answer I gave to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) may have left an incorrect impression. With the permission of the House, I would like to correct that impression.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs have the consent of the House to do so?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada and the decision of the UN Secretariat would allow a quasi-judicial body of Israel to have access to the files. The distinction is between publishing the files and allowing quasijudicial bodies, including of the State of Israel, to have access to them. Under that decision, such quasi-judicial bodies of Israel obviously would have access to those files.

March 26, 1987
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. Will he give us a statement of the government business he intends to call for this afternoon and for the next week?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon we will proceed with Bill C-41, amendments to the Judges Act, followed by Bill C-28, amendments to the Criminal Code, followed by C-2, which is Canagrex, and Bill C-37, which will depend upon the arrangements we can make with the spokesmen for the opposition Parties. On Bill C-37 we are subject to negotiation. That should take us to the end of the week.
My understanding is that arrangements were made to call Bill C-41 first, the Judges Act, and then Bill C-28, the torture Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I had been expecting Bill C-28, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements have been made for Bill C-28 to be called first. Perhaps we could make that change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to have this matter referred not to a legislative committee but to Committee of the Whole?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, an understanding has been reached with both opposition Parties.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in light of the confusion opposite, I might say that I have given notice of an amendment which I would like to make at the proper time and I would like to make a speech on the Bill, and so would one of my colleagues. We do not require that the Bill be referred to a committee other than the Committee of the Whole after second reading. I hope that is of some help.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, we agree as well that the Bill in question can be debated at second reading. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), will be speaking to this legislation briefly and then it will be dealt with in Committee of the Whole. That is the understanding that has been reached.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (torture), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, state-inflicted torture has been a fact of life since ancient time. Torture is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it limited to a political system, a regime, a culture, a religion, or a specific geographical region. A good many societies have resorted to torture with a view to obtaining information, meting out punishment, and discouraging opposition to power wielding authorities.
The connection between law and torture has been an evolving process. In earlier times, throughout the world, torture was not prohibited by legislation. Laws covering certain forms of torture were passed gradually in only a few states: some laws banned torture, others created such general offences as acts of violence or intimidation. And yet some societies continued to consider torture as being an acceptable form of interrogation or punishment. Nowadays a number of governments and human rights organizations severely criticize and denounce torture. Many states specifically prohibit torture or similar treatments in their constitution, and many international conventions condemn and prohibit it as well.
In this respect I should like to remind Hon. Members of the House that our Constitution prohibits the use of torture. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 12 states that "everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment".
And yet, despite these denounciations on a national scale, several international human rights groups do have information to the effect that torture is still a common practice is many states, at the instigation of their leaders or with their expressed or tacit approval. Torture is all the more insidious that it is practiced by state authorities against their own people-the very people they are expected to protect. People in certain parts of the world still believe that torture is acceptable in some cases, to the extent that sometimes it makes it possible to reach other objectives.
The present campaign against torture is being conducted on several fronts. At the international level, negotiations are taking place and conventions and other instruments are being signed to oblige member states to take the necessary steps to prevent torture. At the national level, individual states are criminalizing torture and providing better training for police officers, prison staff and military personnel. Furthermore,
March 26, 1987

national and international human rights groups are taking an active interest in the campaign against torture. Concerted action is necessary if we do not want torture to be tolerated or covered up.
The United Nations is taking an active part in this campaign, and Canada is giving it energetic support. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, the U.N. National Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Subsequently, the General Assembly asked all member States to reinforce their support by proceeding unilaterally with declarations against torture. Canada did so in 1982.
However, feeling that the Declaration was not enough, in 1977 the U.N. Assembly asked the Commission on Human Rights to prepare a draft convention against torture, based on the 1975 Declaration. Canada was active on the Human Rights Commission's task force and supported this initiative which was a concrete manifestation of international action against torture.
Canada has always been of the opinion that the Convention should not simply repeat the 1975 Declaration but also contain provisions for actual enforcement. In fact, the provisions give a broad definition of torture and provide for universal extraterritorial jurisdiction to prevent safe haven being offered to torturers, and also include a mechanism for compulsory enforcement consisting of an international committee authorized to proceed with investigations and submit comments.
In 1983, Canada jointly supported a procedural resolution, enjoining the Commission on Human Rights to give top priority to the preparation of a draft convention. The text of the draft convention was brought before the General Assembly and adopted by the Assembly in December 1984. The U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was ready for signing on February 4, 1985 and was signed by Canada on August 23 of that year.

Under the convention, an obligation is put on parties to the convention to criminalize acts of torture as well as acts constituting complicity or participation in torture. A definition of torture is provided. The convention also provides that neither exceptional circumstances nor orders by a superior officer may be raised as a defence to torture. Any statement made as a result of torture may not be admitted as evidence in legal proceedings.
In order to enforce the convention, a system of extraterritorial jurisdiction is created to prevent safe havens for torturers or for their accomplices. States are obligated to investigate allegations of torture and to prosecute alleged torturers. With respect to a foreign torturer found on its territory, each state is obligated to either extradite or prosecute the alleged torturer. A state may refuse extradition if it fears that the person will be tortured if returned to another country.
Criminal Code
In addition to these criminal enforcement provisions, the convention also obligates states to take other legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent both torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that does not amount to torture. These include regulatory directives, education and systematic reviews concerning arrest, detention and imprisonment. Victims of torture shall have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation.
The convention also provides for the establishment of an international supervisory committee to monitor the implementation and operation of the convention and to receive reports. The implementation provisions further contain two optional procedures enabling the committee to consider complaints against state parties. I will not go into the details of the committee or its powers since this involves matters of international relations. They are not directly relevant to the implementation of the convention within Canada. The convention will come into force once 20 states have ratified or acceded to it. To date, over 50 countries have signed the convention and 16 have ratified it.

Mr. Speaker, Canada supports that Convention which enables us to better develop the legal obligations undertaken under the International Civic and Political Rights Pact. Let me indicate for instance that Section 7 of that Pact forbids torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading penalties or treatments. Further, those obligations are also constitutionnal-ly recognized under Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under which everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
By implementing the Convention, Canada would be more committed to promoting human rights internationally, and more specifically to eliminate torture. The Convention's provisions, which for the most part are compatible with Canadian criminal standards and practices, could easily be adapted to it. However, the Criminal Code would have to be amended to make torture a new offence and to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction in this area.
The Bill would enable us more specifically to attain the following goals: it would create a new offence, torture, committed by officials such as police officers, public servants, members of the Canadian Forces and foreign officials performing similar functions under foreign laws.
The new offence would also apply in the case of anyone acting with the express or tacit consent of those officials. Torture would be defined as any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for various purposes or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
Although it is possible to punish torture under existing provisions concerning assault and battery, what is required is the establishment of a new offence. In the first place, torture is

March 26, 1987
Criminal Code
an offence more limited in scope than assault and battery. It applies only to torture that is intentionally inflicted by officials, that inflicts severe pain or suffering and that is inflicted upon the victim for a purpose or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Since Canada has agreed to extradite torturers and, in certain cases, to institute proceedings against them, it is important that such extraditions and proceedings be aimed at the offenses defined by the Convention and be consistent with our international commitments, without however exceeding them. The best way to achieve this is to define a new offense, torture, rather than deal with aggravated assault, an offense wider in scope whose definition is not as narrow as that of torture under the Convention.
Second, we must define a new offense because current provisions dealing with assaults do not apply adequately to the notion of purely and simply inflicting mental pain or suffering, in the absence of violence, or if the acts inflicting the mental pain or suffering are not otherwise illegal.
Third, we must define a new offense because the current legislation would not apply in the case of civil servants who would take an action otherwise lawful, for instance, the lawful imprisonment or interrogation by the police for the purpose of obtaining information from a person, for punishing this person, for intimidating or coercing the person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind during which these persons would inflict severe mental pain or suffering.
I should like to emphasize that the definition of torture both in the Convention and the Bill applies only to an act causing severe physical pain or suffering, which is intentionally inflicted on a person. Therefore, under this Bill, a great many lawful police or non criminal activities which could unfortunately or inadvertently cause to a suspect or prisoner some degree of normal anxiety will not be deemed to be crimes.
In addition, the Bill, in accordance with the terms of the convention, also excludes pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. In light of the history of the convention and other international instruments in the human rights area, 1 think it is safe to say that this exclusion shall be interpreted generally in accordance with international law and standards.

Fourth, for Canadian officials the creation of this new and specific offence of torture will have an educational dimension.
Pursuant to the convention, the Bill provides that it is no defence to a charge of torture that the accused executed the orders of a superior, or that the acts of torture were carried out in such exceptional circumstances as a state of war, political instability, or any other public emergency.
Again pursuant to the convention, the Bill provides that any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an act of
torture would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction, except as evidence that the statement was so obtained.
The measure would enable Canada to take legal action against an alleged torturer in the following cases: the act is committed in Canada, on a Canadian aircraft or ship, the accused or victim is a Canadian citizen, or the accused is, after the commission of the act of torture, present in Canada.
With the foregoing in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that this Bill deserves the support of the House since it flows from Canada's commitment to eliminate torture. Canada signed the convention with the agreement of all provincial governments, for they endorse principles. They have expressed their willingness to take any measure required to implement the convention. Were Canada to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity, we would be able to sit on the new international committee to be struck under the terms of the convention.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Hon. Members to support the adoption of this Bill.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal critic on human rights and also as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights, I recently had the privilege to be an observer with the Canadian delegation at meetings of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. One of the major concerns of that commission, a concern which has been on the agenda as one of its top priorities, has been to try to eradicate the gruesome practice of torture which unfortunately exists in all too many countries. We in Canada have tried to give leadership, as the Hon. Member who just spoke pointed out, over many years with respect to human rights legislation. Certainly we were one of the first countries to sign the international human rights covenants. We have signed many of the covenants promulgated by the UN. In fact, the Canadian delegation has played a leading role in trying to make sure that these international covenants are signed and ratified by various countries, and that there is an enforcement mechanism such as the optional protocol of the international human rights covenants. Our ultimate goal is that all countries in the world would ratify and abide by these various covenants.
By passing Bill C-28 we will fulfil our commitments and the ideals which we have given leadership to on the international scene. Canada has participated in discussion and preparation of documents in Geneva. An important speech was given in Geneva by Mr. Kurt Herndl on February 2. As the Assistant Secretary- General for Human Rights on the occasion of the opening of the forty-third session of the Commission on Human Rights he said:
Therefore States have an obligation to see to it that their legislation does in
fact correspond to international human rights laws.
March 26, 1987

That which is before the House today for consideration and passage will enshrine in our national legislation proof that we are ratifying and accepting the responsibilities of that convention and covenant.
I would like to call your attention to a report on the issue of human rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment, torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment by the Special Rapporteur., Mr. P. Kooijmans, in Geneva very recently. That important presentation will be part of the documentation of human history which is clawing its way slowly upward from primeval cruelty into a more civilized state. In that report the following observations were made:
Torture should be viewed objectively and seen by everyone, Governments and individuals alike, for what it is: the criminal obliteration of the human personality, which can never be justified by any ideology or overriding interest as it destroys the very basis of human society.
That is a very poignant way of putting the issue. He also made the following succinct statement:
-torture (is) contempt for the personality of the other individual which has to be destroyed and annihilated. It is for that reason that torture is one of the most heinous violations of human rights as it is the very denial of the essence of human rights, namely the recognition that each living being has a personality of his own which has to be respected.
These words have been addressed to all the nations of the world. I suggest that we in Canada have a very special role to play by setting an example for other countries by ratifying the covenant against torture. By adding the name of our nation to that list we will make it possible to bind the signatory nations together in a solemn covenant to work together to obliterate torture throughout the world.
Mr. Kooijmans also said that he wanted to stress the importance of limiting the period of incommunicado detention under national law since many of the allegations we have received refer to torture in countries where a detainee may be kept incommunicado for a prolonged period. As Mr. Kooijmans points out, we cannot only talk about the eradication of torture because in some countries torture is related to the way in which prisoners are detained, kept incommunicado, and cruelly treated. Therefore, that about which we are speaking goes beyond the nastiness of torture to the very conditions which make torture possible. We are, therefore, talking about a convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. It is in this wider context that we must speak today.
Mr. Kooijmans goes on to discuss the tragedy that in many countries where torture is used medical personnel, including doctors, are, if you will, recruited to carry out the effectiveness of torture by helping to resuscitate the victim and keep that person in such a condition that the torture may continue. It is to this extent that violations of human rights are seen in many nations. It is shocking that some nations which we hoped would have carried on legal, just and humane practices are in fact guilty of gross violations of human rights and of torture.
Criminal Code
A list of nations in respect of which urgent action is required includes the following: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Paraguay, Korea, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Turkey and Zimbabwe. These are only the official records. These nations have all been asked, in some cases time and time again over years, and in some cases decades, to report on demands that have been made for information with regard to people who have been tortured or executed and people who have disappeared. This is all part of the same lugubrious picture which exists in the nations I have mentioned. Some are far worse than others.
I brought to the attention of the House and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) the problems regarding to the violations of human rights which have been going on in Indonesia practically since its inception. There were vast gruesome occurrences there in the earlier years against their own population and from 1975 on against defenceless people in various areas as well as various minorities. The violations have been recorded over the years by Amnesty International. Amnesty International has brought to our attention and to that of the United Nations the reality of these offences against human rights. Probably no other organization on earth deserves as much credit and appreciation as does Amnesty International for the work it has been doing so patiently and painfully to document the suffering, the disappearances, and the torture that has taken place around the world.
I single out Indonesia because we have good diplomatic relations with that country and have been providing development aid to it. It is one of the core countries with regard to the receipt of CIDA aid. Therefore, I believe we have a special responsibility to carefully monitor the record of Indonesia, not only with regard to what it has done to its own people, its students, minorities and Islamic groups, but also what it has done in areas that were not originally part of Indonesia. I refer particularly to East Timor and Irian Jaya and other places which could also be cited.
I want to bring to the attention of the House and Canadians that Amnesty International published a book entitled East Timor: Violations of Human Rights, Extra-Judicial Executions, Disappearances, Torture and Political Imprisonments. They said the following:
In July, 1983, Amnesty International received a set of military manuals issued to Indonesian troops serving in East Timor. These manuals, among other things, contain guidelines which appear to permit the use of torture and the issuing of threats on the lives of prisoners being interrogated.
Although Indonesian officials have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of these documents, neither they nor anyone else has produced any evidence that might indicate that they are false. Indonesian officials have correctly stated that the Ministry of Defence and Security never published the manuals, but Amnesty International is not aware of any claims that the Ministry did so.
The book continues:
The manuals appear to have been written by officers of the Command for East Timor for local use and to have no application beyond East Timor.

March 26, 1987
Criminal Code
It continues:
Indonesian officials have argued against the authenticity of the manuals largely on the grounds that it would, in the words of the country's Foreign Minister, Dr. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, be "fantastic" that a manual prescribing the use of torture should have been issued. But the documents do not deal exclusively with torture. They are not "torture manuals" and Amnesty International has never referred to them as such.
First-hand evidence from other sources that military personnel have persistently resorted to torture and that people taken into custody by Indonesian troops have been arbitrarily executed tends to confirm Amnesty International's belief that the manuals are authentic.
The entire book is devoted to human rights violations in Indonesia. Amnesty International has published another book on violations in Indonesia.
I bring this to the attention of the House because it points out that this problem exists throughout the world. We must ask ourselves about our relationship with countries which carry on torture. We should consider the role our Government will play in diplomatic sorties in terms of our foreign aid. We must be concerned about the way Indonesia has been torturing its citizens and, even worse, invading other places, such as East Timor, and subjugating the rather primitive tribesman to cruel and unusual punishment. The whole story about the violations of human rights in Indonesia have been documented and I have turned these over to the Secretary of State for External Affairs so he may review them himself.
Other countries to which I have referred are, in some cases, also guilty of extremely gross acts of torture and cruelty. It is important for us today to make sure that Canada sets an example that will help build up that kind of moral and political power and persuasion to bring about a change in the way those countries deal with their prisoners.
1 have singled out Indonesia, but one can also speak about the horrors of Chile. While I was in Geneva, a young lady and her mother who now live in Canada were there to testify. This young lady was cruelly beaten, covered in gasoline and left to die. She made her report to the United Nations. Other reports like that have come from Chile and the violations of human rights in that country are so gross that some of the descriptions are almost unbearable to hear. This young lady was burned almost to death. When one sees her, it brings not only a sense of pity and concern but the reality of the cruelty and torture taking place in other countries and makes one feel proud that we are today debating how we can play our part in preventing these gross violations of human rights throughout the world by adding the name of our country to those having ratified that convention against cruel and unusual punishment and torture.
There are some nations that will use the excuse in their laws that they were only acting on orders from higher authorities. For that reason, I commend those who wrote this Bill for including Clause 2(3) which states:
It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject matter of the charge, nor that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency.
When I confronted members of the Indonesian delegation in Geneva with their record of human rights, they expressed the view that if this was done in a local area it was because that person was simply obeying the orders of a local army official who was in charge there. Therefore, it was not really that individual's fault that the events took place.
That was precisely the kind of defence used in the Nuren-burg trials following the gruesome holocaust that overtook the world during World War II. During those trials and subsequent war crime trials, there was the excuse of not being responsible because the person was just obeying orders. That is precisely what we want to ensure does not exist in our law or in the laws of other countries. It is simply an excuse, like saying: "The devil made me do it". Such an excuse should not be allowed in our law and that is why I am pleased this clause in the Bill makes it clear that there are no exceptions whereby people can claim they were told to commit acts of cruelty or torture against another.
Our legislation should be a model to other countries who often look at other legislation and sometimes copy it verbatim. It is important that this law include that kind of explanation and provide an example for other nations to follow.
We must ensure that nations like Argentina are not allowed to carry on under the excuse of the generals and admirals that they are following orders to kill, make disappear, or torture thousands of people, including young students who are the cream of the crop of Argentinian young people.
When we look at events during World War II, at events in Argentina and in so many other places around the world today, we realize the gravity of this subject. Our nation is very comfortable. We feel so far away from it all. I only wish my words could create some sense of personal involvement on the part of all Canadians. What we do with this Bill is a major part of what can be done throughout the world. Organizations like Amnesty International and the United Nations can show the example of Canada to other countries. The legislation we create here in the House of Commons can be put before them as an example to follow. Hopefully, after we pass this Bill, we will use our resources to monitor these human violations in other parts of the world, but we should also be concerned about what is happening in our own country.
There is a phrase in this Bill about which I am deeply concerned. It is a phrase which suggests there may be some escape hatch provided along the lines I just mentioned. It is always possible for people to say when they committed some act in the name of the government, in the name of police action or in the name of the state, that they were simply following orders or that it was in pursuit of lawful sanctions. There is no lawful sanction under the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, no lawful sanction which can override the issue of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. There is no law above the law of God. There is no law above the law of the brotherhood of man. There should not be in our
March 26, 1987

legislation any possibility for excusing ourselves or giving any excuse to anyone else so they can claim they were acting on the basis of some matter of lawful sanctions. I am concerned about that phrase and my colleague, who brought this to my attention, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), will be presenting an amendment in this regard. I hope that Members on the government side will consider very carefully that amendment.
I would like to conclude my remarks by commending the presentation of this Bill. I know our Party is fully behind the Bill itself in general. I urge all Hon. Members to consider the amendment which will be made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre, later on.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today in support of this legislation on behalf of my Party, thereby joining with,
I am sure, all Hon. Members in the passing of legislation which allows Canada to fulfil its international commitments by giving legislative effect to the United Nations convention for the protection of all persons subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
This is an issue which has a considerable history, but not a long history. The concern about torture in this world and the development of a consensus of the need for its elimination really developed rather late. If one looks back to the development of the declaration in this convention, one sees that it first arose during the 1960s and 1970s when there was concern about reports of torture in southern Asia, Africa, South America, eastern Europe and elsewhere.
Giving a more dramatic effect to the concern, there followed the Bertrand Russell tribunal which examined the situation in Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The tribunal reached the conclusion that torture constituted a crime against humanity. Since that time Canada has been actively engaged in furthering the development of an international system and convention. Its purpose would be the elimination of torture and the punishment of those who inflict torture. It was a part of the special working group of the Human Rights Commission in 1977. It was the first to sign a unilateral declaration in 1982. In 1983, it cosponsored a resolution according the highest priority to the development of an international declaration and convention. The convention which ultimately resulted was open for signature on February 4, 1985, and Canada signed in August of that year. Canada was among the few nations to provide financing to the UN Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture. Canada has consistently provided leadership. This Bill is not only a reflection of Canada's international humanitarian and human rights obligations, it also provides a legislative base for the implementation of appropriate sanctions to implement Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which asserts that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any unusual or cruel treatment or punishment.
Criminal Code
The convention calls upon the signatory states to develop legislation which provides for the criminalization of torture, as well as acts which comprise complicity or participation in torture. This Bill does that. Torture is defined as inflicting severe pain or suffering upon persons, or inflicting severe pain or suffering which results from omission, by an agent of government for reasons of punishment, coercion, intimidation or to obtain information. There is another reason for which torture may not be inflicted which is specified, and that is by reason of discrimination. That is included in the convention and in the legislation and certainly calls attention to the widespread use of torture and other activities which inflict pain on a considerable number of people in South Africa.
The first requirement, that is the criminalization of torture of a mental or a physical sort, is provided for in the legislation. The second requirement is that it be given universal jurisdiction. Torture inflicted by Canadians, imposed by Canadians, or torture inflicted by someone who is in Canada, even if that act took place elsewhere, is subject to prosecution. It also covers acts of torture if it occurs on Canadian ships or aircraft and provides for extradition in appropriate cases and, if extradition is inappropriate, calls for prosecution here.
Further, the convention sets out that there can be no justification for torture, that it is not an excuse to state that torture was inflicted by the order of a superior officer. It also provides that if evidence is provided or statements are made by virtue of the pain inflicted through torture, then they cannot be considered as legal evidence in any proceeding.
In those respects the legislation meets the requirements of the international convention in a legislative way. But when one praises the Government for introducing this legislation, which will surely pass, we have to be conscious of the other requirements that the declaration requires to be met. First, when one considers the requirement that acts of torture be prosecuted, that they not go unpunished, let us not reach the conclusion that we refer only to situations that may occur elsewhere. Of course, Canada is not a nation that has been accused of the use of punishment or torture in ways which are condemned in the universal convention or its preceding declaration. However, there are situations in which torture has been alleged although not proved.
If one refers to an additional aspect of the universal convention, it states that member states are obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture. All one has to do is recall the situation some years ago at Archambault Prison where it became evident, as it has all too often become evident in the past, that when allegations of torture or mistreatment are made against the police we are faced with extreme difficulty in proving them. We are all too often faced with a situation in which those who are accused of torture, cruel punishment or inhuman punishment, are the very people, the very groups, the very agencies to whom the allegations are

March 26, 1987
Criminal Code
made. It seems to me in looking at the implementation of this legislation domestically that one has to consider that provision has to be made for the independent examination of allegations, apart from the police or others who may be involved directly, in order to provide those people who make such claims have an opportunity to have their claims properly heard. All too often, and most notably in instances where native people or visible minority groups make allegations of mistreatment, such allegations are left unsatisfied because we do not have the mechanisms by which such allegations may be properly heard by an independent body in which trust can be had.
I note, too, that the international convention provides that there should be compensation for victims of torture, that they should have an enforceable right of fair and adequate compensation, including the means for full rehabilitation, to the extent that that is possible. I hope that in the discussions that are to occur with the provinces the right of those who prove themselves to be victims of torture will be specifically addressed, and that they be compensated for whatever harm has been inflicted upon them.
I hope that we will have a report from governments, federal and provincial, of the extent to which those governments have met another requirement of the convention. I refer to the implementation of administrative, judicial, legislative and other measures to ensure that all who are responsible, whether they be police officers, police forces, military personnel or any others who may be involved in the arrest, detention or imprisonment of Canadian citizens, will be well-informed of the requirements of the legislation that we are discussing today, and that an active effort be made to educate them about the limits of their power and the sanctions that will be imposed upon them if they violate the legislation which we have before us. If there is any prescription for the failure of legislation of this sort, it is not to provide clear directions, a statement of clear regulations and the education of those who might be involved in situations in which torture may occur.
1 am proud that Canada has exercised leadership in the area of this international covenant. But I must take note of the fact that when, in 1985, the declaration was approved by the United Nations, there was absolute unanimity within that body in favour of its adoption. However, if we look at the record revealed in reports of Amnesty International we find that 67 nations, more than one-third of the membership of the United Nations, are nations about which allegations of torture, cruelty and inhuman punishment have been made. There is within that fact a great deal of hypocrisy. Some of the nations are well known for their violations of human rights in general, for the inappropriate detention of prisoners and for cruel and inhuman punishment and torture. South Africa leads the list in that regard. Surely, El Salvador, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, South Korea, the U.S.S.R., Israel and Saudi Arabia provide us with a spectrum of nations that are involved in this inhumane treatment of humankind.
Thus we are drawn to another consideration with respect to Canada's implementation of its strong concern about torture.
It is to examine closely the kinds of relations this Government has with countries which have clear records of vicious treatment of their own citizens. It seems to me that torture is not that frequent in Canada; this is an empty piece of legislation unless we are able to also implement other measures that will show the world our utter contempt for those who would torture their own citizens, whether in war or in peace, whether for intimidation or because of race. So we should be looking systematically at the human rights records of the countries of the world with which our Government has relations. The Congress of the United States does it. The Americans have a complete listing, and examine human rights situations including false imprisonment, torture, and other inhumane acts. This provides a basis by which policy in respect of those governments can be directed.
When it comes to the provision of aid, the records of those nations should be available to us to determine in what manner, in what form, to whom, and whether we will provide aid. It is significant that we are not only unaware of what nations the Government considers it appropriate to have dealings with, but we do not know to what nations our country sells arms. In many cases that puts Canada in a position where we place guns in the hands of those who kill, maim, and torture their citizens. If we are to live up to our responsibilities in that regard, we must move beyond this legislation. Then we will have met our obligations.
When we look at those who come within our borders, whether they be diplomats such as the Ambassador from Sri Lanka or ordinary people of no particular notoriety, we should examine their records to see whether they have been involved in the imposition of torture. If that is so, we should either put them in jail or tell them to go home where they will be tried for their crimes. Only with complete involvement in ensuring that torturers will be punished will we have fulfilled our international obligations and our obligations to the consciences of Canadians.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) spoke on the Bill. He indicated our general position of support for it and our commitment to a large role by Canada in pursuing internationally the elimination of torture.
The reason I wanted to speak was that in my political career I have had fair experience in the workings of the United Nations. When the United Nations is unanimous about anything, I tend to worry. When I was first introduced to this dossier, including the Bill, I took a look at some of the details of the negotiations of the United Nations, of the treaty reached, and of the Bill now before the House. I want to say unequivocally, as did the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence, that the Bill and the debate which took place at the United Nations represent a step forward in the elimination of torture in the world.
March 26, 1987

I do not want to indicate that we have any reservations about what the new Government has done at the United Nations and here by bringing forward the Bill in compliance with the terms of the convention which it signed. However, I suggest that there is a very serious shortcoming in the convention signed at the United Nations and in the Bill before us. 1 do not want to suggest that we should have objected to the convention when it was negotiated at the United Nations. I can almost take it for granted that Canada would have been one of the nations pressing hardest for effective measures to reduce torture and eliminate torture in all parts of the world.
However, the Bill before us could be better. When we reach the stage of clause by clause consideration in Committee of the Whole, which I hope will be in a few minutes, I will propose an amendment. I think the principle is important enough to mention it now.
The United Nations is famous for intentional ambiguities. The ambiguities are intentional because in many cases without ambiguity in the measures brought forward by the United Nations there would not be consensus. It gets agreement among a large number of states because one group has a certain interpretation of what it is doing, while another group has another interpretation. The basic consensus at the United Nations about torture is a step forward, but the Bill before us does not go as far as it should.
When we in Canada talk about domestic legislation, we should set an example in the legislation that we bring forward. It might inspire some of the other countries that signed the convention to bring a forthcoming, unequivocal Bill before their own Parliaments and legislatures to provide real measures for dealing with torture and torturers who may be found in their countries, instead of half measures such as the ones contained in the Bill, which are better than nothing.
Let me explain why the Bill is inadequate. If we look at Clause 2, we see that the definition of torture includes any act-and I am skipping to make the point, certainly not to change the meaning-by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purpose of punishing that person for an act which he has committed. It is a very good statement, and I think Hon. Members of the House would support it unequivocally. If a person is whipped or beaten, if a person is locked into a freezing room, if a person is buried up to his or her head in the sand, or if a person has a limb amputated, all these things would be permitted under the Act under certain circumstances because of the concluding language in that clause. It says that the definition of torture does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions. We do not need that reservation in Canada. We do not mean to say that an act in which severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, is inflicted for the purpose of punishing a person will be acceptable, if it is incidental to, inherent in, or arising only from lawful sanctions.
There are states which specifically, deliberately, and officially torture people by way of punishment. I was not at the
Criminal Code
United Nations when the treaty was negotiated, but I say sincerely that I assume we tried to eliminate that type of practice in every country. I would assume we tried to make the convention one which would eliminate that. We succeeded to a point, and that is why I am approving the convention on behalf of my Party. However, I urge the House to eliminate the additional language which would qualify certain kinds of torture and make them justified. I do not think they should be.
In our own country and in our own Parliament where we have control of exactly what we will do in the way of ratifying and carrying forward the noble goal of the abolition or elimination of torture, I hope that when I move my amendment it will find favour.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words on the legislation before us and to add my thoughts to the whole question of torture, not simply from a domestic perspective in terms of what goes on in Canada, but from a more global perspective.
It has been quite some time now, but I visited Chile for a couple of weeks. Meeting with people who had been tortured and who lived in such a state taught me some lessons about torture. It is important for Canadians to understand what torture is and for our Government to have a serious global commitment to the elimination of torture.
Torture has to do with democracy and dictatorship. It has to do with a Government being at war with its people. It has to do with living in fear and a Government using torture, using all of the powers available to the state to keep people in line to preserve an unjust regime. Torture has to do with injustice, not only a lack of political freedom and a lack of freedom of the press but also when a society is characterized by social and economic injustice. I saw this in Chile. People are living in poverty the likes of which we do not know here. For the unemployed there is no social safety net, no welfare to keep body and soul together. Families have to go without food. People live in shacks that bear no relationship to what a house is like. This is the context in which we must see torture. Torture is part of an unjust society. It is an instrument that a Government uses to impose its will upon its people.
Any effort that our Government can make in the direction of eliminating torture from this planet is worthwhile. How easily the Government, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, could have gone further. We need to go further. However, it is important for Canadians to appreciate just what torture is in real terms. I wanted to share my experience with Canadians about what I learned of torture by visiting a country like Chile, whose citizens are tortured for speaking out and for calling for action to meet the people's basic human needs. I met with individuals who lived through that and still had the courage to go on, were still part of the human rights organization and who spoke out against the lack of freedom and injustice.

March 26, 1987
Adjournment Motion
It is crucial that whatever Canada can do to support people who are fighting against political repression that we do everything we can.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig)-Canada Post Corporation-Future of rural post offices; the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young)-Pharmaceutical industry- Proposed amendments of Patent Act-(a) Cost of drugs (b) Request for publication of studies; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Shipbuilding-Construction of fishing trawlers-Request for Canada-First Policy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Torture) be read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If Members of the House wish, we could bring in officials to assist in the Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That appears to be the wish of the House. I thank the Hon. Member.


Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-28, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Torture).
Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-Torture.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendment to Clause 2:
That Bill C-28 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 42 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"which that person or a third person has com-"
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate the use of sexist language from the Bill. I have discussed it with the Parliamentary Secretary and I believe there is agreement to proceed with the amendment.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: I declare the amendment carried.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-28 be amended in Clause 2:
(a)	by striking out line 48 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"nation of any kind."; and
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 3.
1 moved this motion such a short time after I made my statement about the purpose of the amendment that perhaps I could save the time of the House by indicating that this amendment is to achieve the purpose I have just described.


Marcel Danis: I find the amendment to be in order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre. The reference at the top of page 3 to any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions significantly weakens the protection included in the previous part of the provision. As I read them, those words qualify both subclause (a) and subclause (b) of the definition of torture. This would mean that if an individual intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering on another individual for the purposes which are set out in subclause (a), that would be permitted if it arose from lawful sanctions.
Surely no lawful sanction should be accepted in Canada which would have as its result the infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for the purpose referred to in the definition of torture. I cannot imagine how under any circumstances such acts or omissions would be considered acceptable in any civilized society. For that reason, I would hope that the Government would be prepared to accept the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre.
I might just note as well that while certain incidents of the nature referred to in this Bill are, fortunately, rare in Canada, from time to time there have been allegations of serious wrongdoings including the possibility of torture as defined in
March 26, 1987

the Bill. 1 recall, for example, visiting Archambault Penitentiary in August 1982 and meeting at that time with prisoners who made very serious allegations of the infliction of physical and mental torture upon them. Unfortunately, those allegations were dismissed by the Solicitor General of the day who suggested that the individuals in question should press charges in court if they felt they wished to proceed with the matter. That Solicitor General, of course, sits today as the Hon. Member for York Centre. It was only after a number of independent investigations including an investigation by Amnesty International, an investigation by the International Federation of Human Rights and an investigation by the very respected Moderator of the United Church of Canada that it became clear that there was indeed a very serious possibility of grave wrongdoing, injustice and possibly the infliction of physical and mental torture on prisoners at Archambault. To this day, there has been absolutely no justice whatsoever rendered in that case.
While we certainly support the provisions of this legislation, I would note that it is important that these provisions apply at all levels within Canadian society including Canadian prisons. I would seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on the circumstances in which it might possibly be considered lawful to impose torture flowing from, inherent in or incidental to otherwise lawful sanctions.


François Gérin: I must tell you that the amendment suggested by my colleague is well intended. That is beside the point, except that we are here to ratify an international convention by way of a Canadian Bill. This is what matters. I appreciate that the Hon. Member is asking us Canadians to go further than the international convention, but if we go further than that Convention, we will put other countries to which we promised concurrence in a situation that may be awkward for some of them. It is not without reason that the United Nations took ten years to reach a consensus on that convention. And I know for having attended the United Nations 40th session from beginning to end how difficult it is internationally to reach a consensus, and how much each detail is significant. I cannot visualize that Canada, which is committed to ratifying that international convention, would add an item that has been discussed in the United Nations, that has been extensively discussed and debated and the inclusion of which found no support.
The Convention states at the end of Section 1: "-but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".
But the latter part of Section 1 also adds that this section is without prejudice to any international instrument or national act that may contain provisions of a wider scope. There are also other arguments for opposing the amendment. Under that convention, we could be obligated to extradite an individual. This means we could find ourselves in a situation where we would have to extradite an individual because we would have gone further than the International Convention and extradited that person to another country that accepted the International
Criminal Code
Convention as it now stands. We therefore have an international responsibility to abide by that unanimous consensus, as other speakers have indicated.
According to the United Nations, the provision should be interpreted broadly, and I think you have there an answer to your questions, those terms should be interpreted broadly according to international law and human rights. That same section-let us not forget we are implementing it by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code, let us not forget that Section 245 of the Criminal Code is still there and also that that amendment should also be interpreted in the light of Section 245 of the Criminal Code. Hence, Canadian courts will have to use judicial discretion when interpreting Section 245, when interpreting Canadian law.
In conclusion, I would remind you that Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-because after all that is the basis for all our rights here in Canada-the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states in Section 12:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment
or punishment.
A Canadian judge when faced with a situation as described earlier by the Hon. Member will interpret the case on the basis of the Charter and Section 245, and that should be ample. My point is, however, that we must respect this international consensus. We must, although at the United Nations, we could for instance ask the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to review this matter and consider going a bit further, and ask U.N. partners to provide the amendment you desire, but always according to the normal procedure at that level.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Parliamentary Secretary says and admits that our Charter does not contain similar conditions, in other words, administering cruel punishment cannot be justified according to any clause in the Charter because there is none. Here we have a condition for allowing torture. I would like to ask him just to repeat the second article in the Convention he read to us, or both articles. If I remember correctly, the second article provides that the individual State may go further in its own statutes. It is rather difficult to talk about a document I have not read recently. Perhaps I may ask the Parliamentary Secretary or one of his officials to expand on the article that says "without prejudice to any international instrument or national statute containing provisions that are broader in scope." My question is as follows: If we decide to adopt the Bill with the amendment I am proposing, that is, without the qualifying clause and in the spirit of our Charter, will our ratification obligations allow us to do so?


François Gérin: I think the second part of article 1 should be interpreted as a definition of assault. So if in Canada, under Section 245, you want to punish assault and battery and this definition goes further than what we are proposing today, obviously that definition of assault will take precedence. I think that is what is meant. In fact, we could amend other provisions in the Criminal Code to make them stricter, without

March 26, 1987
Criminal Code
tinkering with the Bill that ratifies an international procedure. 1 think that is how I would interpret it and that is why I think that at the United Nations this second part was added to article 1.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite extraordinary for the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that the Canadian legislation cannot have a broader scope than the consensus reached at the United Nations. Of course, that consensus was reached, and various countries had to compromise to reach it. However in Canada, it rests with us to decide what will be our priorities and our legislation. I will then ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain very clearly to me what is the intention of the Government because section 2 reads as follows: "-torture does not include any act arising only from lawful sanctions."
Does it mean that if the Government of Canada or any other government decided to provide in the law cruel sanctions which would effectively be a physical or mental torture that such sanctions would be accepted and that there would be no penalty for the enforcement of such sanction in Canada or elsewhere?


François Gérin: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides you with all these guarantees. Of course we have the right to legislate in Canada. What I am saying is that it is necessary to take into account the international consensus which was established with Canada's participation and today we have agreed to ratify this Convention. We have the right to legislate, but when we participate in a discussion, join a consensus, and agree to ratify a convention, we have to ratify it as proposed and in a way which will meet our partners' approval. I feel that is the way we will further this issue in the world. Our interest here is as Canadians in Canada but it is also our interest as Canadians to see that there is no torture in the world. In this way, I think we can make progress.
So there is protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all the situations you mentioned.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to say that Section 12 of the Charter would provide protection, but the proposed amendment to Section 6 of the Criminal Code provides that where the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission thereof, present in Canada, then that individual can be charged in Canada. Let us say that Chile, referred to by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, has a system of punishment which we clearly view to be cruel torture, but which is legally sanctioned in that country. If an individual from that country who has participated in the physical or mental torture of someone in there finds refuge in Canada, according to the wording of this Bill as it now stands, because those acts were legal in Chile, and despite the fact they are profoundly unjust, unacceptable and indeed unconstitutional in Canada, that individual is immune from prosecution in Canada. That is the implication of these words.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why we are prepared to accept within our borders the presence of individuals who have clearly committed acts of torture solely because they are defined as legal acts under the laws of the country in which they were committed? Why on earth should we accept torturers in Canada?


François Gérin: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the legitimate sanctions mentioned here will clearly have to be interpreted in the light of international law and the United Nations Charter of Rights.
I suggest this is an adequate guarantee. In this context, the unfair legislation of another country which you mentioned would not be considered legitimate under international law in
Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the example given by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). In the case of an individual who committed acts of torture in his own country and who comes to Canada, a person who committed crimes elsewhere, except very special crimes in the area of terrorism, the problem is that, in Canada, there is an escape hatch. He has found a shelter, and his country of origin will not seek his extradition. In this country, we could not punish him, because his crime was committed abroad.
Then, we have an opportunity here to do more to abolish and eliminate torture. If we adopt the amendment as proposed, we have the possibility of finding ways to act against this type of torture. That is a very good example. It could happen easily.
I just want to ask again whether the Parliamentary Secretary wants these torturers to find a shelter, or an escape hatch in our country, when we can take action against that.


François Gérin: No, there will be not refuge in Canada. Let us take the example of a country that would enact a statute to make torture acceptable and, after torturing people, contacted Canada and told us: "There is a law in our country that says torture is acceptable." Clearly, Canadian courts would not find that a lawful sanction. That is clear. According to the interpretation of Canadian law, international law, international human rights charters, that could never be found lawful. This means that nobody will be able to find refuge here.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Against such charges, the individual could answer that the torture inflicted was justifiable because this arose only from lawful sanctions. This is what he could say. He would have a case, and this is why I want to delete that language.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a very specific question. This is really the crux of the matter. Consider the case of an individual found in Canada who has committed acts in a third country
March 26, 1987

which we would view as acts of torture, whether they be the infliction of physical or mental suffering. The individual has committed the acts pursuant to laws of that third country. In other words, the acts in question are legal. There are lawful sanctions in the country from which that individual has fled. A Canadian judge would be obliged to find that those acts flow from lawful sanctions because the sanctions in question are lawful in the country from which the individual has fled. There is nothing here which states that if the sanctions are illegal by virtue of international law there can be some sort of escape. The only criterion is whether they are lawful sanctions. If indeed the laws of that third country permit these acts, which we in Canada would view as acts of torture, the judge has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Obviously the country in question will not seek extradition and the individual is free to escape justice.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not recognize that by including this reference to "flowing from lawful sanctions" he is in fact permitting a very serious escape loophole for individuals who may have committed acts of torture in other jurisdictions?


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I for one have confidence in the Canadian judicial system to make the necessary distinctions in that area. I do not think you could give me a specific example of what you just mentioned.
The Canadian courts will interpret this in the light of Canadian law and international law. If the action was committed in another country, the courts will also have to base themselves on international conventions accepted and recognized around the world.
So you already have a safeguard, and I do not foresee any complaints. There are countries we will never hear from, where there will never be any problem. When it comes down to it, we know very well where torture is to be found, where torture is inflicted, and we also know those countries often have laws they should be amending.
We in this country will have no problem with that. Our judicial system will make it easy to fight acts of torture that have been inflicted anywhere around the world by people who seek refuge in Canada. I see no problem with that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would then ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would be prepared to consider an amendment which would make it clear that any lawful sanctions in question must be in accord with the principles of international law. It would appear that that is what the Parliamentary Secretary is in fact stating, and that it is his hope that our courts would in fact interpret the only acceptable sanctions to be those in accord with the principles of international law. If those words at least were included, that would provide some safeguard and an assurance that we are not dealing with sanctions which are solely lawful according to the country in question but, rather, must be recognized as lawful by the international community of nations. The
Criminal Code
Parliamentary Secretary may wish to consider this and we could certainly come back at an early date to consider the Bill with that amendment.


François Gérin: That same suggestion was made at the United Nations, where it was turned down by a group of nations which still wanted to sign, and did sign unanimously that international convention. I will refer you to everything that was said at that time at the United Nations. It is my view that we should pass the Bill now, immediately, ratify the international convention that was unanimously adopted by the nations, in order to give a chance to the largest possible number of nations to participate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Is he aware that the torture that goes on in countries such as Chile-and I know this from having visited the country-is lawfully sanctioned? When people seek redress in the courts there is no legal remedy. Chile did not write a piece of legislation which says that it is okay to torture, but torture is lawfully sanctioned. I want to remind the Minister of that.
Why should we have such a provision in legislation in Canada? Surely we are against torture. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we have the protection of the Charter of Human Rights. The Charter of Human Rights also has a qualifying clause saying that whatever is reasonable in a democratic society is acceptable. Perhaps a judge would look at this law and say that since Parliament passed it this is reasonable in a democratic society.
The Minister asks whether we do not have confidence in our courts. The courts are there to interpret laws, not to make them. I ask the Minister to think seriously about this. Does he really want to have an exception in law to a ban on torture in this country?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: When the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the qualifier conformity with international law had been rejected it reminded me that I had mentioned earlier that I worry when the United Nations is unanimous about anything. The worry is that the measure on which it has become unanimous is so watered down by intentional ambiguities, vague language or exceptions, that it permits a measure of comfort to a number of states which I think Canadians would like to deny to those states. We know that the list of states which are entering this treaty and perhaps passing legislation include states in which torture occurs.
That which the Parliamentary Secretary has said has made me more convinced that this is important for us in our own country. I am not saying we should not have signed the treaty because I think we should have signed it. It is a step forward. As well, this legislation, without my amendment, is better than no legislation. It is good, progressive, liberal legislation which our Party supports, but it would be better and would add more to the war against torture if this amendment were made. I

March 26, 1987
Message from the Senate
regret to say that I am more convinced now than I was before we started that the amendment is an improvement and that there is no reasonable excuse for not adding it. I urge him once again, before some of his colleagues, who I know from what I read in the media are not trained seals, to recognize the importance of this amendment and to support it.


Marcel Danis: It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and report progress.
Progress reported.
* *
*


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain Bills.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider prohibiting the use of lead solder in sealing cans used for food and beverages.\nHe said: Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward and very direct proposal. As you indicated, it is a request to the Government to prohibit the use of lead as solder in the sealing of cans used for food and beverages.\nThe basis for that request is the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Lead, which reported in September last year. That study is rather comprehensive and technical but makes a number of interesting points.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a communications has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 26, 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 26th day of March, 1987, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours Sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider prohibiting the use of lead solder in sealing cans used for food and beverages.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward and very direct proposal. As you indicated, it is a request to the Government to prohibit the use of lead as solder in the sealing of cans used for food and beverages.
The basis for that request is the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Lead, which reported in September last year. That study is rather comprehensive and technical but makes a number of interesting points.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
["I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour allotted for Private Members' Business has expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour, the Deputy to Her Excellency The Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-48, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988- Chapter 10, 1987.
Bill C-39, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof-Chapter 7, 1987.
Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act-Chapter 8, 1987.
Bill C-45, an Act to authorize the disposal of certain assets in the Yukon Territory that are held or used by the Northern Canada Power Commission and to provide for other matters in connection therewith-Chapter 9, 1987.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider prohibiting the use of lead solder in sealing cans used for food and beverages.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: You will recall my earlier reference to the Royal Society's Commission in 1986 on the question of lead in the environment. Lead is a powerful toxin and scientists have concluded that it has adverse effects on several body functions, including the central nervous system and circulatory system. Lead is also believed to affect intelligence, particularly in children, as a result of studies carried out
March 26, 1987

over the years by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.
The findings of the Royal Society last fall concluded that women, especially when pregnant, and young children are the most vulnerable groups. The commission recommended that the Government's public health and environmental policy should be to reduce blood lead to its lowest possible level. Our exposure to lead ought to be reduced. Food in cans with a lead soldered side seam can absorb lead. Studies which have been conducted have concluded that acidic foods or beverages such as tomatoes or fruit juices can have as much as ten times more lead than fresh fruit or vegetables. The commission recommended that efforts should be made to accelerate the decline in lead content in food, banning lead soldered seams on cans as quickly as possible.
As you will note, Mr. Speaker, if you go to a food market and buy food in cans, both imported cans of food and cans manufactured in Canada with soldered seams are not regulated. Let me be absolutely clear on this and quote from the excellent book written by Barbara Wallace and Kathy Cooper entitled The Citizen's Guide to Lead. If one wants to be sure when buying food in a can that it is safe, one would want to look for a can with no seams at all. If the can has no seams it is safe; it is leadfree. One can always detect if there is a seam even if there is paper wrapped around the can by scratching with a fingernail. If there is a thin blue or black line running along the seam, that food can is leadfree and therefore it is all right. However, if it does not show a blue line or a black line along the seam, then it has been soldered with lead and therefore it is not desirable or advisable to purchase that type of canned food.
Of course, I am not suggesting that all the sources of lead are from canned food. There are a number of occupations that put men and women in touch with lead, people who have to pay particular attention to the presence of lead. I will quickly mention only a few. They are: auto mechanics and automobile workers, cable makers, dental technicians, electroplaters, electrotypers, gasoline blenders, insecticide makers and insecticide users, jewellers, lead miners and lead smelter workers, linoleum makers, solderers, of course, varnish makers, wallpaper printers, and so on, just to mention a few.
It is important that we also remember that one of the largest single sources of environmental lead is the emissions from cars, cars that use leaded gasoline. Over the years the Government has moved in the direction of reducing the content of lead in gasoline, but we still have a certain distance to travel to the day when all the gasoline that will be used and made available both to light vehicles as well as to heavy ones will be free of lead.
At the present time we face a very disturbing situation with motorists who are misfueling their cars. I refer to owners of cars that should be running on unleaded gasoline who tend to buy gasoline which is leaded because it costs less, in spite of
Canned Food and Beverages
urgent signals that many of us have given to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) urging him to change the federal tax on gasoline. Nevertheless, there is an increasing gap in the price between the two gasolines.
Those motorists who are misfueling, namely, those buying gasoline that is leaded for cars that should be running on unleaded, are carrying out a practice that is illegal, as well as doing something which is unhealthy and unfair to the rest of society. We know that the Government has urged motorists to abandon the practice of misfueling gasoline. That campaign has been carried out through the use of advertisements. However, those advertisements will have only limited impact, although I hope they will have some impact, since so long as there is a price differential in gasoline we will be facing this type of problem on the part of motorists who will be tempted to misfuel.
We eat food and we breathe air that contains lead. We have food contaminated by lead fall-out from the atmosphere. It comes back to us by way of coal-fired power plants, by way of cars and trucks using leaded gasoline, as I mentioned before, by factories using heavy fuels and also by way of smelters. We can also have an intake of lead by way of canned food or drink that is canned where lead solder is used to seal the can. As I mentioned earlier, acidic food or acidic beverages, such as tomatoes and the like, or fruit juices, seem to indicate a greater incidence in the presence of lead in those foods. Therefore, the Royal Society's Commission on Lead in the Environment concluded that within the human body lead can lead to a number of difficulties which I have already mentioned.
Returning to my motion, I would, through you, Mr. Speaker, call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to take measures that will ban lead soldered seams on cans, which in itself would be a major step forward. Also, the same Minister through his offices must ensure that the importation of cans with lead soldered seams that contain food be brought to a stop.
Finally, it is encouraging to know that the domestic canning industry is gradually replacing cans with lead soldered seams, but that is not enough. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should accelerate this phase-out, particularly with respect to imported canned foods, for the reasons that I have mentioned and which are so well described in a technical paper in the report to which I have made mention.
In the end you and I will agree, Mr. Speaker, it is the consumer who makes the final decision when choosing what to purchase from the shelf in stores. It is for this reason that I am putting this motion in the hope that the message from the Royal Society will be picked up by the Canadian consumer who can, by refusing to purchase lead soldered canned foods, discourage the use of this type of technology which has proven to be unhealthy in terms of the merits and the advantages of human health in general.

March 26, 1987
Canned Food and Beverages
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the toxic effects of lead have been known for quite some time. As early as two centuries before the beginning of our era the Greeks and the Romans were aware of the harmful effects of lead, but still they continued to expose themselves to them through foods and beverages, particularly wines.
Over the years, many outbreaks of lead poisoning were traced to lead contaminated foods and beverages.
The industrial revolution which had a worldwide impact around the middle of the 18th century led to wider use of lead and, early in the 19th century, workplace related lead poisoning had become a serious public health hazard.
During that period, the toxic effects of lead on the children of lead industry workers were noticed for the first time. In addition, cases of sterility, miscarriage, stillbirth and premature delivery were common, not only among women working in the lead industry but also among the wives of men working in that industry, not to mention the fact that infant mortality was very frequent among the children of these workers.
Gradually however, thanks to better occupational health standards in the industry, cases of congenital lead poisoning declined sharply.
Between 1930 and 1940 the United States reported many serious cases of lead poisoning among children. Some of these cases were thought to be brain tumours, whereas others were wrongly diagnosed as being acute abdominal attacks, which required unnecessary surgery.
The number of deaths due to lead poisoning was extremely high, but some health professionals mistakenly thought that the effects of lead poisoning tended to wear off, without serious consequences.
Two researchers, Byers and Lord, published an eloquent rebuttal of this erroneous concept in 1943, and their book has become a classic on the subject.
They observed that this view, although very widespread, did not take into consideration the effects of lead poisoning on the growth and development of the nervous system of children.
They followed the cases of twenty children who had been cured of lead poisoning and found that all except one did poorly in school.
Most of these children had various behavioural problems, including very short attention spans and impulsive behaviour patterns.
Their study was probably the first to infer that low-dose lead poisoning could lead to subtle behavioural changes and other neurological problems. However, there were no clear signs pointing to a deficiency in the central nervous system.
From the early fifties until the mid-sixties, public health workers alerted to the problem in many major cities in the United States learned to recognize cases of lead poisoning
when it became clear that many children were suffering from this condition.
They found hundreds of cases. Between 1950 and 1960, for instance, 611 cases of lead poisoning and 48 deaths associated with this condition were recorded in Baltimore. Similar surveys were also carried out in New York, Philadelphia and Chicago.
Because of the interest shown in this problem, an increase in the number of cases diagnosed was invariably recorded, as well as a decrease in the seriousness of the affliction. A consistent picture emerged from the data collected by these cities during that period.
Lead poisoning in infants affected nearly exclusively children between the ages of one and six living in run-down housing in large unsanitary urban areas. Smaller children between the ages of one and three were more at risk than older children. The main sources of exposure in such housing were pealing lead-based paint and cracked lead-soaked plaster.
The affliction occurred throughout the year, but the symptons were most common during the summer months. In the absence of adequate building codes or a proper application of existing regulations, the dangers associated with lead-based paint were seldom corrected, which meant that lead poisoning continued to be widespread.
In the mid-sixties came a new social awareness with the discovery of lead poisoning, an avoidable affliction which had reached epidemic proportions in many unsanitary urban areas throughout the world. Moreover, thousands of children who showed no evident sign of sickness were found to have high lead concentrations in their blood. These findings brought health care professionals to recognize the importance of detecting not only an excessive absorption of lead in children to prevent symptomatic poisoning, but also the toxic effects of lead in youngsters.
While lead-based paint used in millions of homes remains the main source of concentrated lead to which children living in run-down housing are exposed, the frequency of an excessive absorption of lead by young children living outside these zones who could be described as rich resulted in a more detailed examination of the possible sources of this substance in the early seventies.
Other sources of exposure were in fact detected at the time: pottery covered by lead-based glazes, leaded gasoline and lead sealed food and soft drink cans.
The seventies also saw a substantial number of discoveries and new technologies. The world came to understand better the metabolism of lead in the human body and the influence of various nutritional factors on lead absorption and toxicity.
Among the major discoveries, I should mention the documentation of substantially higher rates of lead absorption and retention by the gastrointestinal system of children, as well as the fact that children are more sensitive to lead toxicity.
March 26, 1987

Studies carried out during the same period on laboratory animals also showed that long term exposure to weak concentrations of lead could result in behavioural deficiencies.
The United Nations Joint Committee on Food and Agriculture and the World Health Organization, which includes experts on food additives, reviewed the question of lead and its toxicity at its thirtieth meeting in Rome last June.
At a previous meeting held in 1972, this committee had set provisionally the tolerable daily dose of lead at 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. The admissible weekly intake, Mr. Speaker, is the maximum amount of lead that a person can ingest in a week without any sign of adverse effect. The committee had mentioned then that it did not apply to children. Due to the particular concern about children and infant health, the committee assembled in 1986 tried to assess the dangers associated with lead in those age groups.
The committee reviewed carefully all available data on that subject. Considering that a daily intake of 3 to 4 micrograms of lead per kilogram of body weight did not cause any increase in blood levels in children and infants, a provisional admissible weekly intake of 25 micrograms of lead per kilogram of body weight was established.
Exposure to lead comes from many sources and lead-soldered cans are only one of the possible sources of contamination.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has provided other federal departments and provincial organisations with particular information on health risks associated with exposure to lead and recommended to limit, as much as possible, exposure to that substance. To that end, federal and provincial levels of Government have passed measures to limit exposure to lead.
Limits have been set for lead in a variety of products such as paints, pesticides, solder for kettles, glazing material for ceramics, especially when used for food.
Regulations have also been passed regarding emissions by lead smelting operations. Moreover, the Department of National Health and Welfare is supporting all initiatives to reduce or eliminate lead in gasoline.
Over that period it has been further established that nutrition was the main source of direct lead exposure for the general population, that is, people who are not exposed at work.
It has also been confirmed that lead-soldered seams was an important source of lead contamination in canned food.
Based on those discoveries, Mr. Speaker, experts in the Health Protection Branch of the Department met with representatives of the canned food industry. Their discussions led to a co-operative, Government-industry program aimed at effective, orderly reduction of lead rates in food.
Canned Food and Beverages
Since it has been established that babies and infants were more sensitive than adults to the toxic effects of lead, regulations have been passed to limit lead rates in canned milk products.
In this way, lead rates in those products could be reduced to concentrations near natural levels. Moreover, other baby foods are no longer sold in lead-sealed containers, and they now include negligible amounts of lead.
Finally, regulations have been made with the aim of limiting the permissible amount of lead in a whole range of foods, including fruit juices, other drinks and more recently, tomato products.
That co-operative effort is on-going and other regulations will be passed where needed to limit the admissible lead concentrations in food.
In an effort to identify any area that could cause problems in that area, the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is implementing an on-going monitoring program under which its Canadian and imported products experts look for signs of lead contamination.
What has been found is a constant reduction of lead rates in canned foods since the introduction of the program, to such an extent that the lead contamination from that source is now well below tolerable limits established by the Joint Committee of Food Additive Experts.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is no need to forbid generally lead sealing of cans.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to address the resolution introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). As well, it was a pleasure to listen to the very carefully prepared written notes provided by the bureaucracy to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary so that she could exercise her indirect expertise on the subject of the history of lead poisoning in humans.
Of course we know that lead poisoning is a well-known phenomenon. In fact, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary had chosen the correct writer for her speech, she would have found in documents of the Department of National Health and Welfare the record of the effects of lead poisoning even in Roman times. Upon the exhumation of corpses in Pompeii, the skeletons were revealed to contain immense quantities of lead, and therefrom arose the theory that perhaps the downfall of Rome is largely attributable to the wide occurrence of lead poisoning among the Romans. Indeed, it has been suggested that the peculiar behaviour of Nero when fiddling while Rome burned and other peculiarities of behaviour among Roman emperors were attributable to their being victims of lead poisoning. If one speculates on the behaviour of presidents, one might perhaps speculate that lead poisoning is not a dead issue

March 26, 1987
Canned Food and Beverages
insofar as its modern effect on the behaviour of national leaders is concerned,
I have listened with interest to the document read by the Parliamentary Secretary. We have had a nice discourse on lead poisoning, its history, its sources and so on. What we have before us today is a proposal to eliminate lead solder welds on cans. It may be argued that to a very large extent regulations have been introduced which limit the extent of lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is not only a serious form of pollution, but a dangerous form of pollution even when it is present in small quantities or low concentrations.
Let me review the effects of lead. The significant toxic effects are on the synthesis of hemoglobin, on renal function and on neurological development, manifesting itself in blood dysfunctions, in aminoaciduria, in glycosuria and neurological impairment. If, during their development, children are exposed to lead, neurological impairment is experienced which manifests itself in difficulty in understanding, in retardation to some degree and on their emotional development. All of this is well documented, and it leads to the conclusion that the effects of lead are so subtle that we should not tolerate any presence of lead in circumstances where it is unnecessary.
The premise of the resolution of the Hon. Member for Davenport is very simple. It is a premise that has been adopted by all of those concerned with environmental pollution. Where it is possible to eliminate sources of pollution, those sources should be eliminated.
One may argue that the regulations already introduced have provided a fair measure of safety. To some degree, that is true. With respect to acid foods where the quantity of lead is to some degree regulated, regulation is not enough. When canned tomatoes, pickles or even a can of milk that has soured are exposed to air, oxidation occurs and lead is spread into the contents. Unless we are prepared to have indicated on every can of food that once opened that can should not sit because it will become acid, then one should approach the problem another way. How many of us open a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup after reading the label carefully? Most of us just open it up, throw the contents in a pan, add milk or water and sugar and eat it, not paying very much attention to what it says thereon.


Sheila Finestone: What does it say?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is not as if the gentleman from Davenport is suggesting something revolutionary and difficult. There is abundant literature, not only on substitute containers for preserved foods but abundant literature on how to seal a can without using lead.
What we have here, with all due respect to my dear colleague, is not a revolutionary proposal but one that I am sure will come as a surprise to the Hon. Parliamentary
Secretary, dependent as she is for her notes from the bureaucrats who will defend their past works. There are welding seals, plastic seals and cans without seals at all that can be substituted and so provide an extra margin of safety. Then we could add to the efforts, so far successful in some areas, in cutting down the amount of lead poisoning in the environment to those other measures that have been taken.
But it is the same in this example as in everything else with the Government. Canada is still far behind the United States in regulating the use of leaded gasoline. Somehow we cannot come to grips with changes, or even meet the standards which the Americans have already adopted. Now we have a simple proposal that would not be dismissed in any other context: where there is a source of pollution, eliminate the source and then you will not have to bother about the statistics or the scientific evidence that may be doubtful, because when in doubt, be safe. To be safe, the simplest answer is to take the simplest course-whether immediate or phased, eliminate lead from cans.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, might I just suggest to the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) that he might avail himself of the writer of the last speaker's very fine speech, a speech that I found to be superb, well presented, well researched. I would invite the Member from Windsor-Walkerville to see the bureaucrat and have the bureaucrat write his notes.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I did, but I wrote my own speech.


Gerald J. Comeau: The Member did not say which country it was, but he suggested there was a certain president somewhere who might be suffering from lead poisoning. Could he tell us who that president is and what is going to happen in the future? Will the president go the way he suggested? Will it result in the fall of the an empire? I would suggest the Member might read history and rewrite history as he wanted to suggest today.
The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, recognizing the potential health hazard to Canadian consumers from lead contamination of canned foods, initiated a co-operative program in 1975 with the food canning industry to reduce lead levels in canned foods. One of the options considered in 1975 was a complete ban on the use of the lead soldered can, as is now proposed in the motion before us. This option, however, was not considered viable and was rejected in 1975 in favour of an orderly and cooperative approach aimed at reducing lead contamination of canned foods. This approach involved regulatory initiatives by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, together with improvements in lead soldered canned technology and gradual conversion to alternate technologies by the industry.
Why was the banning of the lead soldered can not considered a viable option? The lead soldered can has been the mainstay of the food canning industry since its inception. Not only was the lead soldered can of high physical integrity and
March 26, 1987

durability, the technology for its production and use in the food industry was highly developed, both in Canada and world-wide. Canadian can manufacturers and food processors alike had extensive technical expertise on facilities for the production and use of this canning technique.
While alternative technologies were available, these all had a number of shortcomings which mitigated against the Canadian industry making a radical switch to these techniques in a short period of time. For example, the so-called two-piece can which is drawn from a single sheet of metal and does not require any soldered seams lacked the physical integrity to be produced in the many different sizes and styles required by the food industry.
In addition, to be cost effective, the production of this type of can requires that the production line by operated at least 16 hours per day and that a large volume of one size of can be produced. Because of the relatively small production capacities of the Canadian Food Industry, neither of these requirements could be readily met.
The welded seam can, on the other hand, presented other problems pertaining to its durability, functionality and production which required additional research before its utility in food packaging could be fully determined. Other alternatives such as cemented seams instead of soldered seams, pure tin solders and the like were all considered and found to be fraught with difficulties which prevented them from being immediate viable solutions.
Apart from the technical aspects of these alternate technologies, capital costs as well as operating costs for these new can manufacturing methods had to be considered. It was estimated that conversion to the two-piece can would bear a capital cost investment on the part of the industry of between $1.6 million and $6.4 million per production line with an increased operating cost of $5 to $6 per 1,000 cans. Similarly, the welded-seam can would require a capital investment of about $1 million per line with an increased operating cost of $2.50 to $3.50 per 1,000 cans. These costs had to be compared with the cost of line modification to the existing technology to reduce lead contamination which were of the order of $50,000 per line with an added operating cost of only 20 cents to 30 cents per
1,000	cans.
Conversion to these alternate technologies would not only involve tremendous capital and increased operating costs but could also in certain instances affect jobs. Some food processors in Canada operated their own lead-soldered can manufacturing facilities. Faced with the immediate capital outlay required when switching to different manufacturing methods, these companies might well have decided to discontinue their manufacturing operations and to purchase cans from alternate sources. This could well have resulted in a reduction in these companies' workforce requirements. All of these economic factors would undoubtedly have resulted in substantial increases in the cost of canned foods to Canadian consumers.
Canned Food and Beverages
One other possible repercussion of a ban on the lead-soldered can had to be considered. As I indicated earlier, the lead-soldered can has been the mainstay of the food processing industry for many years and is used world-wide. Canada is a major importer of canned foods. For example, in 1985, more than $300 million worth of canned foods were imported into Canada. A ban on the use of the lead-soldered can by Canadian food processors without a concomitant ban on imported foods packaged in these containers would have resulted in a profound negative impact on the Canadian industry. On the other hand, to ban the importation of canned foods would have been construed as being a non-tariff barrier to trade, contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of which Canada is a signatory.
Bearing in mind the technical difficulties, the potential effects on international trade and the economic consequences of banning the lead-soldered can, it was considered in 1975 that the Canadian consumer could best be served through a program of regulatory initiatives designed to reduce lead levels in canned foods, together with a gradual conversion of the industry to other can manufacturing methods. One might ask if this has been an effective approach. The simple answer to this question is yes. One need only consider, for example, that as a result of this co-operative program between Government and industry, baby foods are now packaged in glass jars, not soldered cans. Consequently, lead levels in such products are in the order of naturally occurring background levels.
In addition, the regulatory initiatives taken by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare to limit lead levels in certain canned foods, together with improved lead-soldered can-manufacturing techniques, has resulted in significant decreases in lead levels in many canned foods. For example, average lead levels in canned fruit juices prior to the initiation of this program were in the order of .15 parts per million. Today the average lead level in such products is .08 parts per million. Similarly, average lead levels in canned fruits have been reduced from about .3 parts per million to .18 parts per million.
Furthermore, great strides have been made by the canning industry to convert to alternate technologies in an orderly and manageable fashion. In fact, as noted in the recent report to which the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) referred, completed by the Royal Society of Canada, entitled "Lead in the Canadian Environment: Science and Regulations", less than one-third of the 3.5 billion food cans used in Canada in 1985 had lead-soldered side seams. Furthermore, the report noted that by the end of 1986, it was then expected that lead-free cans would account for 95 per cent of Canadian production and use.
To sum up, a ban on the lead-soldered can was not an appropriate or necessary measure in 1975 and it is even less so today. The major steps that have been taken by the Canadian industry, in co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, to convert to new technologies and to limit lead levels in canned foods have resulted in Canadian

March 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
consumers no longer being exposed to excessive levels of this potentially hazardous metal from canned foods. As the Royal Society of Canada report concluded, food and beverages used to be severely contaminated from solder in cans, but this source has been largely eliminated.
The Hon. Member for Davenport and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) wanted to get into a discussion of lead in gasoline. The Parliamentary Secretary and I would like to discuss this much further one day, and would like to compare what our Government has done on this subject with what the Liberal Government did. That is a challenge.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and make a few comments on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Mr. Speaker, the toxic effects of lead have been indentified for hundred of years now, so much so that everybody is aware of the serious consequences of exposure to massive doses at work or as a result of accidents, for example. However, controversy is focused on the potential hazards of ongoing exposure to weak lead concentrations, especially among children. Many scientists in Canada and elsewhere in the world claim that certain intellectual and behavioural child deficiencies may result from continuous exposure to low lead levels. Such harmful effects are very difficult to pin-point, so it is nearly impossible to prove these theories. But we cannot ignore the fact that exposure to lead concentrations once thought to be harmless may indeed have neurological and behavioural implications.
Lead is a metal which abounds in nature. It is found in soil, air, water and food, usually in very limited quantities. However, as a result of human interventions and activities, this soil, this air, this water and this food may contain much more lead than would otherwise be found in nature.
It has been shown that environmental pollution from mines, smelters and refineries increases the lead content of soil, air, water and food. In addition, the manufacture and use of leaded products, particularly batteries and gas additives, are also sources of lead contamination.
After occupational exposure, the three main sources of exposure for adults are air, water and food.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour allotted for Private Members' Business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you know where Aylesbury, Saskatchewan, is but I am sure that you and many others across Canada have heard about it during the past few months. Aylesbury is one of the 33 towns in Saskatchewan which since 1985 have had their post office closed.
I would like to give the House a bit of an idea of what Canada Post was like about 20 years ago. It was a Canadian institution ranked at about the same level and with about the same amount of respect as the RCMP or the Canadian flag. It was cost effective, had many dedicated workers and, believe it or not, delivered the mail on time. Under the previous Government all of that fell apart. Billions of dollars were spent on technology which displaced workers but did not work.
Canada Post went from an institution operating on a breakeven basis to incurring an annual deficit of over $500 million. That in turn led to the start up of a lot of courier operations in competition. When the Post Office became a Crown corporation it really did not improve much. Making it a Crown corporation would supposedly remove the political interference that occurred when it was operated by a Minister of the Crown. It did not really work out that way.
People have to voice their concerns and vent their frustrations somewhere about something like this, so they appealed to the only people they knew, their elected Members of Parliament. In Aylesbury, Saskatchewan, people were justifiably and understandably upset when their post office was closed. One of the first things that would happen as a result was that Aylesbury would disappear off the map. Families who had been getting their mail in Aylesbury for three generations would no longer be able to do so. The people protested to Canada Post and to me. I took up their concerns. We finally got Canada Post to agree that these people would still be able to get their mail addressed to Aylesbury even though it would go to either one of two nearby towns. When we indicated that was not good enough, we were told the Post Office would provide green boxes for incoming and outgoing mail. Provision would be made for a stamp agency in town. This was only as a last resort and after the residents of Aylesbury had understandably kicked up quite a fuss.
These people understand the need for restraint and fiscal responsibility. We all understand that. Everyone makes that kind of decision in the operation of their business or household every day. We know we must live within our means. Yet look
March 26, 1987

at the deficit of $123 million which Canada Post is going to try and eliminate by 1987-88. Compare that to the few thousand dollars lost at the Aylesbury Post Office. It is nothing in comparison. Rural residents are understandably upset.
Canada Post does not seem to realize that the post office is more than a place where you get your mail. It is a social gathering spot in small towns. Everyone goes there in the morning to pick up their mail and they meet their friends and visit with each other there. It is a very important part of rural Canada. Then look at the fact that Canada Post has a president and 14 vice-presidents paid, we are told, in the neighbourhood of $120,000 a year. People find it difficult to understand why we need 14 vice-presidents in a Crown corporation when we have only 10 provinces. People look at the absentee rate in the Post Office. Two years ago the big sorting plants had an average absentee rate of 25 days. Twenty-five days is five weeks out of a year. Although that has now dropped to 16 days a year, it is still too high.
Those are the concerns of the people of Aylesbury. The Mayor of Aylesbury, Mr. Hank Watkins, decided to get active to save his post office. He kept the fight up himself as long as he could and then joined up with Rural Dignity. On January 25, 1987, they had a meeting in Aylesbury which the President of Rural Dignity of Canada, Mr. Gilles Raymond of Quebec, attended. Over 200 people from Aylesbury and towns all over Saskatchewan came to the meeting to voice their concerns. They have brought their concerns to Ottawa by appearing before the standing committee. We now have the assurance of the Minister responsible for Canada Post (Mr. Andre) that Members of Parliament will be notified when post office closures are contemplated. We will then discuss that in the communities.
That is what the people want. They want meaningful discussion and to be able to present their concerns to Canada Post and be assured that Canada Post understands them. The people understand that small post offices which have only a very minimum number of boxes will have to be closed. On behalf of the people of Aylesbury that is the plea I want to make to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.


Mr. Pierre Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the new Minister responsible for Canada Post (Mr. Andre) said the other day in the House- you may recall, it was Wednesday, February 18-in the past weeks and months some Members of the Opposition have not been very objective in their statements and questions on the Canada Post Corporation. Mr. Speaker, in so doing, they have helped to cause considerable concern among Canadians in rural areas with respect to the future of postal services in those areas. Mr. Speaker, one Member even went so far as to ask whether Canada Post was going to drop a plan to close 1,700 rural post offices.
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post never intended to proceed with wholesale closing of rural post offices. Furthermore, when the President of the Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Don Lander, appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations on November 20, 1986, he referred to Canada Post's plan to have more, not fewer outlets in the future. This is what he said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "The net result of our representation plan will be that Canadians will be provided with more outlets in more convenient locations, and at more convenient hours, at less cost to the postal user."
Canada Post will introduce changes in the course of the next ten years and after, turning over the majority of its retail services to the private sector. Generally speaking, private sector outlets have lower operating costs because they are often located on premises where other, non-postal products are already being sold. Canada Post plans to upgrade the service enjoyed by Canadians by improving access to its products and services, putting its outlets in more convenient locations, extending business hours and relying more on the private sector.
The Corporation has now approximately 8,000 sales outlets, with twenty-five per cent of them privately operated as auxiliary post offices. The other sales outlets are operated by the Corporation itself under different guises and are staffed by Corporation employees. The current sales outlets were established over a long period of time and generally speaking, they have not progressed with population growth and business development.
Rural Canada is not the only one affected, Mr. Speaker. The rationalization and streamlining of postal services is also occurring in major centres. The Corporation's plans provide for an increase in the number of sales outlets where the public can buy stamps and other goods and services. Furthermore, there are plans to extend service hours to the public.
Moreover, Canadians in rural areas can be assured that no change will be made without public consultation. The Corporation will give a 90-day advance notice, thus ensuring sufficient time for the Corporation to explain its move and for the community to make its response known. You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will take due note of this response.
Rural service will improve. The purpose here is not so much to close down post offices as to open new avenues for providing service.
In short, Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation projects for the next ten years should not be cause for alarm, doubts or concern about postal service in Canada. During that ten-year period or more, the Corporation will increase and not reduce the total number of sales outlets for its goods and services in urban and sub-urban communities as well as rural ones. Moreover, due to the fact that the hours of opening will be different and the sales outlets better located, the users will have better access to the Corporation's services.

March 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Finally, Canada Post Corporation intends to consult residents of a community before making any change whatsoever and, to this end, it will give at least a 90-day advance notice to Members of Parliament and users of postal services when changes are being considered.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY-PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PATENT ACT-COST OF DRUGS. (B) REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to make a few remarks on the Government's proposed legislation to Canada's Patent Act as it applies to pharmaceutical drugs.
On several occasions I have asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) what those changes will mean to Canadian consumers if the legislation is indeed adopted by Parliament. I have also asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) the same question several times. To date I have not received a satisfactory answer from either Minister.
Canadian consumers do not know what the exact cost of these changes will mean to them. Provincial Governments, which in many instances provide free coverage for those over 65 years of age and for people on fixed incomes, do not know what the additional cost will be to them either. For a party that was elected on a promise to bring more honesty and openness to Government in its relations with Canadians and provincial Governments, it is sure going about it in a strange way.
The Government has also denied repeatedly that this proposal is not part and parcel of the free trade negotiations with the United States. Recent documents have shown that the Government has been less than forthright with Canadians on this matter as well.
You will be interested to know that I have a copy of a report from the office of the United States Trade Representative called the 1986 Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. In this report is a discussion of the Canadian Government's Bill to change the Patent Act regarding pharmaceutical drugs. Under the section of the report entitled "Compulsory Pharmaceutical Patents Licensing", there are three items. The first is a U.S. description of the Canadian legislation. It states:
Section 41 of Canada's patent law says any company may request the Canadian Patent Commissioner to provide a compulsory licence for pharmaceutical patents. It also requires only a nominal 4 per cent royalty payment. Although a similar provision dates back to World War 1, this section was enacted in 1969 after assertions that foreign pharmaceutical companies were making inordinately high profits in Canada.
The measure was based on a subsequently repealed British patent law. It was designed to rectify perceived problems and foster greater pharmaceutical industry competition. The law is highly popular.
He means that the law is highly popular in Canada. It continues:
On May 27, 1983, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced Canada's decision to change Section 41 and launch extensive discussions with provincial governments, the pharmaceutical industry and consumer groups to stimulate the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and maintain reasonably priced drugs.
More than 150 applications for compulsory licences were filed following the May 1983 announcement of a possible change in the law. U.S. officials indicated any legislative change needs to take these applications into account.
That I find rather strange. It goes on to say:
In June 1986 Canada announced the terms of legislation it will introduce in late fall 1986 to modify Canada's patent law.
The person goes on to say:
This proposed bill is being reviewed to see whether it would provide acceptable patent protection standards.
Acceptable to whom? In this case the United States Government is saying it would have to find Canada's legislation acceptable to its interests. Under the heading "Estimated Impact" he estimates that these practices which have existed in Canada since 1969 cost U.S. pharmaceutical interests significant lost revenues each year. Under the heading "Actions Taken or To Be Taken", he goes on to say the United States continues to raise its concerns at senior government levels. It urges speedy submission of modifying legislation to address serious U.S. concerns about the inadequacy of Canadian patent protection in this area.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs continually stands in this House and tells us that no officials from the United States Government have approached them to have any influence on Canada's patent laws. I find the statements made by this representative of the U.S. Government to be totally in contradiction and, indeed, in conflict with what the Minister has been saying in an effort to try to convince Members of the House, and the Canadian public, that this law is being changed in the Canadian interests. Clearly, the document to which I have just referred shows that the legislation is not being changed in Canadian interests. It is being changed simply because the President of the United States has demanded that Canada change it as a precondition to trade negotiations commencing and also to ensure the multinational pharmaceutical industry a higher degree of profit at the expense of Canadians.
I want to say, as I have said before, that Canadians are going to pay an arm and a leg as a result of this change in policy, whether through higher drug prices or through higher provincial taxes because these governments give senior citizens, for example, free drug coverage. One way or the other, Canadians are going to pay through the nose for this.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister replied to the question of the Hon. Member last October 6, he referred to the cost of some 3,000 drugs available on the Canadian market. None of the proposed amendments to the Patent Act should
March 26, 1987

result in a price increase of these products. The price competition engendered by the generic sector will continue under the new policy since generic products now on the market will not be affected by the proposed changes. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the new compulsory licenses will continue to be granted to generic manufacturers as soon as the period of exclusivity for patented products comes to an end.
In addition, the proposed amendments to the Patent Act provide for establishing a Patented Medecine Prices Review Board which will be empowered to review the prices of all patented medecine. If it finds their prices excessive according to its standards, the Board will have the power to impose sanctions to the producers. The Board will then be able to set a reasonable price level. It will also be able to revoke the exclusivity period for the drug in question or any other drug sold by the same producer.
Mr. Speaker, by establishing evaluation criteria for the price of drugs now on the market, the Board will be empowered to consider the price of drugs in the same therapeutic category as that particular drug or similar drugs, the prices set in other countries, manufacturing and distribution costs, the rate of increase in the price of the drug compared with the consumer price index and any other factor which the Board will consider relevant.
In the case of newly marketed drugs, the Board will be empowered to set an entry price by referring to factors similar to those already mentioned. The Patent Act will require each manufacturer to provide the Board with information to make comparative analyses. Failure to do so will be treated exactly the same as the setting of excessive prices. Thus, the Board will be assured of obtaining all the information required to determine whether the price level of drugs is reasonable or not.
Finally, the Bill includes provisions which will allow for reviews of the legislation four years and ten years after its coming into force. Price trends for drugs and the level of industrial benefits will then be analyzed, and adjustments will be made to the original legislation if required.


SHIPBUILDING-CONSTRUCTION OF FISHING TRAWLERS- REQUEST FOR CANADA-FIRST POLICY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments about the state of the shipbuilding industry and, in particular, how it could be positively affected in Atlantic Canada. To preface my remarks I wish to express my gratitude to the Canadian Shipbuilding & Ship Repairing Association for providing me with documentation, facts and figures, which I hope will go a long way to presenting a positive case to the Minister responsible and the position that I am taking.
I also want to say that I have had an opportunity to talk with the Minister directly since my question to him of November 20, 1986. At that time I asked him to consider a
Adjournment Debate
built-in-Canada policy for the construction of fishing vessels over 100 feet in length. I am pleased that the Minister has responded from the point of view of being interested in the points that I have brought to his attention, as well as the points which the association has brought to his attention, and others.
At this time I wish to take a few moments to re-emphasize the points that have been made. Hopefully, the Minister will take this as a positive representation and act accordingly. I am very interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say in response to my comments.
I do not think it is any secret that the ship repair industry and the shipbuilding industry as a whole in Canada have taken a substantial plummet in terms of employment opportunities and in terms of contributing to the economy of the nation over the past few years. By way of substantiation of these remarks I would like to point out that in December of 1986 employment by association members in the CSSRA reached its lowest level in one-half a century with the employment of only 5,500 people. Just a short six years ago, in 1982, almost three times that number were working. We also saw several shipyards close last year.
There is no question that we are in desperate need of new policies by the Government to encourage and to inject into the shipbuilding industry a new sense of responsibility and opportunity. I would like to suggest that there is one way we can address ourselves to that.
By way of background, I would like to say that in 1955 there was a decision taken by the Government of the day to exempt fishing vessels over 100 feet in length from the normal 25 per cent duty that had been imposed on foreign ship imports into the country. That move was generally based on the fact that at that time Canada had a 12-mile limit on fishing. In order to allow our fishermen to compete with foreign fishermen, it was decided that it would be in the best interests of the fishing industry to not impose that duty of 25 per cent. It became redundant in 1970 when Canada proclaimed its 200-mile limit on fishing.
Since that time there has been substantial interest expressed in this issue by various Premiers. I refer to Premiers Buchanan, Hatfield and Peckford. All three of these Premiers have come out in favour of removing the exemption, as have the Premiers of Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
I think it is important to point out that at the end of 1985 of the 221 vessels that were in service in the Atlantic fishery, on 194 of them we were able to procure an age profile. We can assume that 20 years is the average life of vessels equipped sufficiently to harvest quality catches. A substantial number of those vessels, at least 169 of them, according to that criterion should be replaced over the next 10 years.
However, taking into consideration the likelihood that new vessels will be more efficient and thus fewer of them will be required, and working with an average of 80 vessels to 100

March 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
vessels, we see that the potential for demand could be substantial if indeed the 25 per cent exemption were eliminated. I am talking in the vicinity of anywhere from $560 million over a 10-year period to in excess of $1.1 billion.
1 want to impress upon the House and the nation that in terms of Atlantic Canada this could mean an average of 2,700 to 5,700 jobs in the period of 10 years, with the majority being in Atlantic Canada. It is very important to that part of the country.
Also, it would have a minimum impact upon the fishing industry. If all things were taken into consideration, it would probably mean that the fish processing costs would not be increased from a low of .89 per cent to a high of 2.83 per cent.
Our major competitor is the United States of America, and 80 per cent of our fish exports go to that nation. All U.S. fishing vessel repairs and conversions done abroad are subjected to a 50 per cent tariff. In view of those facts, it is obvious that we should adopt an open "buy Canadian" policy which would be a tremendous boon to Atlantic Canada and to the people of the nation as a whole.
I urge the Government to take immediate action to impose a policy which would bring Canadian shipbuilding back on to its feet in Atlantic Canada and to address itself to the very serious concerns of that region of the nation.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr.Speaker, I shall, if I may, respond to the constructive comments made by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) with respect to the tariff applicable to large fishing vessels.
The Government is well aware of the very serious problems facing the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and it wants to do everything it can to help the industry in its efforts to remain viable, considering the world-wide slowdown in activity in the shipbuilding sector and the fiercely competitive situation on international markets.
The Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association has made representations seeking implementation of further safeguards. Unfortunately, we are very restricted in the kind of
action we can take on many of these proposals because of our international trade obligations.
One of the requests of the shipbuilders concerns imposing a duty of 25 per cent on large fishing vessels, namely those over 30.5 meters. Smaller fishing vessels are already subject to a duty of 25 per cent. Although the tariff for large fishing vessels has not been consolidated under GATT, I would like to point out that these vessels have been entering this country duty-free since 1955 and that, at this stage, it would be difficult to justify to the fishermen a re-imposition of the tariff, especially at a time when the fishing industry is starting to show signs of becoming viable once more.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) indicated on November 20 last year, this question was considered very carefully in preparation for the 1985 budget. At that time, as many Hon. Members will be aware, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided, considering the cost differential between Canadian and foreign vessels, that such a tariff would have put a heavy financial burden on the fishing industry, with no guarantee of benefits for the shipbuilding industry to compensate.
According to the Government, the situation has not evolved to the point that it could reverse the decision it made only two years ago. However, officials have been asked to re-examine the question to confirm that the situation has remained basically unchanged since the 1985 Budget, and this would lead us to believe that the financial burden of such a tariff for the fishing industry would be more than offset by the benefits which the Canadian shipbuilding industry would stand to gain.
Mr. Speaker, I should like in conclusion to emphasize once again that the Government is committed to considering all practical steps that could be taken to help the shipbuilding industry which is experiencing some difficulties, recognizing the importance of that industry for many communities as well as for the national economy.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers