1987-12-14

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 36-37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, December 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the following documents:
(A)	an	amending agreement	between	the	Inuvialuit
Regional Corporation, representing the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada, approved by Order in Council PC 1985-1144 to permit the Petroleum Incentives Program (PIP) to apply to Inuvialuit lands;
(B)	an amending agreement between the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, representing the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada, approved by Order in Council PC 1987-26, which comprises of housekeeping amendments;
(C)	an	amending agreement	between	the	Inuvialuit
Regional Corporation, representing the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dated April 11, 1987 to provide a single efficient process whereby Canada consents to amendments to the Inuvialuit final agreement.
The appropriate legislation to enforce these agreements will be introduced in the very near future.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
third report of the Standing Committee on Transport to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.



FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CUSTOMS ORDERS VALIDATION ACTS


The Hon. George Hees (for the Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruit and vegetables.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to proceed with this Bill later this day rather than at the next sitting of the House.
The same comment would also apply to the Bill on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), entitled an Act to amend an Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited, and also to the Bill on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State has asked the Chair to seek the consent of the House that the Bill entitled an Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruits and vegetables be read the second time, rather than at the next sitting of the House, later this day. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will deal with the other applications for consent as we get to each Bill.

December 14, 1987
Introduction of Bills
[DOT] (mo)



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-97, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later today?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



AN ACT RESPECTING THE HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING CO., LIMITED MEASURE TO AMEND

Pierre H. Cadieux: for leave to introduce Bill C-98, an Act to amend an Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later today?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CURRENCY ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

George Harris Hees: for leave to introduce Bill C-105, an Act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, to repeal the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, and to amend another Act in relation thereto.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? Later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business-Bills
November 19, 1987-resuming debate on the Motion of Mr. Rompkey, seconded by Mr. Robichaud, for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-228, an Act to provide for a Canadian PostSecondary Education Council.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to call motions which are presently on the Order Paper, I would advise the House that there have been discussions between the Parties. I think you will find unanimous consent for me to put the following motion immediately.
1 move:
That, the Order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-228, an Act to provide for a Canadian Post-Secondary Education Council (Mr. Rompkey), be discharged and the subject thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Is there unanimous consent?
December 14, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We appreciate the fact that over the weekend the Government has not had time to give us notice of anything it wanted to discuss on Orders of the Day. Therefore, it is impossible for us to arrange for debate. As Party Whip in charge of organizing my caucus, I find it difficult to arrange our duties in the House in an orderly and proper manner.
1 would like to ask unanimous consent of the House that the motion dealing with the third report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology be considered as the order of the day until one o'clock, without prejudicing the right of the Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) in putting a motion under Standing Order 29, notice of which I believe has been delivered in due course. He would like to put that motion to you at this time. If there is unanimous consent, we could proceed that way and continue with the order of the day, which would be the third report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology.
Mr. Lewis Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to consider my colleague's suggestion. I appreciate that a motion pursuant to Standing Order 29 comes after motions in the order of Routine Proceedings on the Order Paper.
There have been discussions among the Parties as to what would be the best way to conduct business this morning, in view of the fact that it is a Monday and it is difficult to schedule Members' time as well as airline flights.
I think it has been generally agreed that it would be useful to debate my colleague's motion on the third report of the Standing Committee on Research, Since and Technology after you have had an opportunity to consider the request of the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) for an emergency debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair should make it clear to Hon. Members what has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and has been agreed to by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) on behalf of the Government. The usual procedure would require that an application for an emergency debate not take place until the end of Routine Proceedings. Of course, if we have debate on the Hon. Member's motion now we will not get to that today.
The suggestion has been made and agreed to by the Government-but not by the NDP as of yet-that the Chair consider the application for an emergency debate by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) at this time. Of course, this could only be done with consent of the House. I would ask
for some guidance from the New Democratic Party as to its position.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, we would concur with that in the interests of the business going forward.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 ATLANTIC CANADIAN SHELLFISH-PRESENCE OF TOXIN

Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) rises on a matter which is of very serious concern not only to other Members, but especially to the Hon. Member. I recognize the Hon. Member for Egmont on that application. I would, as I did on Friday, remind Hon. Members, because I am sure others in the House will remind me to remind them, that the application should be a clear and concise statement, closely following the notice I received from the Hon. Member, and ought not to be the argument that might ensue later if the Chair were disposed to grant the emergency debate.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concurrence of the House to move this motion today under Standing Order 29. It is a very important subject, certainly to the people of Atlantic Canada. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 29, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the bumbling and incompetence of the Government that has led to misinformation and confusion with regard to the safety consumption of Atlantic Canadian shellfish with disastrous consequences for the Atlantic Canadian fishery.
I present this motion today because on Friday, in a press release issued under the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) consumers were warned about a toxin in shellfish. In paragraph two of the release it stipulated that all mussels, oysters, clams and other shellfish, cultivated or wild, were included in this alert. This release was carried across the country and, indeed, throughout the world. It has done untold damage to our Atlantic shellfish industry, especially the lobster industry.
The release was not clear. It should have specifically spelled out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and other Members from Atlantic Canada and other places, and their constituents, that the Chair is extremely aware of the matters about which the Hon. Member for Egmont speaks. However, again the Chair is constrained by the rules. I would ask the Hon. Member for

December 14, 1987
Motions
Egmont to close off his application. I can indicate to the Hon. Member for Egmont that I understand perfectly his position.


George Roland Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 ask that this motion be considered today as a priority of the House because it is a very serious situation not only for consumers but for the producers of shellfish in Atlantic Canada. I hope that the Chair will rule in our favour.


Mr. Speaker:: I have had a chance to consider with very great care the application of the Hon. Member for Egmont, as 1 considered with very great care a very similar application on Friday from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Without going into any extensive discussion, may I say that the matter raised is, of course, serious. I think that would be agreed to by all Members of the House. However, under the circumstances and at this moment, it is not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate.
I think there may well be other ways today to make inquiries, which I know the Hon. Member for Egmont will want to make, as he has every right to make, and I can assure him that ample opportunity will be given to the Hon. Member later on today to make those inquiries. The Hon. Member not only has a right to do so but I think Hon. Members would consider it a duty.



RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador) moved:: That the third report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and
Technology presented to the House on Tuesday, June 30, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to comment on the third report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology on the space program.
The committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, travelled across the country and heard a wide variety of views from Governments, universities and industry and made a number of recommendations, 24 in total, to which the Government has responded.
The committee noted, of course, Canada's history in the communications field and its enviable role and position and reputation in that field. In September of 1962, with the flight of Alouette I, Canada became the third country in space and we have continued to build on that success.
The first recommendation of the committee was with respect to Radarsat, which is, of course, only one of the examples of Canada's continuing lead in communications and in the space program. We recommended that that be given top priority and the Minister agreed and announced, I believe on June 25, that
the Government of Canada had approved the Radarsat project. That project will go ahead.
It will be very important to the whole country, particularly my part of the country and, indeed, to farmers in the west and a whole variety of Canadians because it gives us the kind of technology to forecast, to see what is happening, to look ahead and warn, to provide all sorts of valuable information as to what is happening in the environment and to funnel and channel that information to interested groups, whether they be fishermen at sea, farmers in the field, or whomever.
I would note in passing that we still have not solved all the problems. We still have not gone as far as we should go, given the eminence of Radarsat, the advanced state of the technology and given the usefulness of that particular project. We still need to go further. We still need, for example, to be able to forecast accurately what is happening underneath the water. Radarsat will be able to look through the cloud cover but it will not be able to go beneath the surface of the ice or water.
One of our difficulties historically has been forecasting what is happening in the marine environment. The whole issue of mussels and shellfish in the Atlantic may be used as a certain case in point. Something else to which I would draw the House's attention is the difficulty in forecasting the activity among cod stocks. We have seen recently, within the past couple of years, that scientific proposals put forward in the 1970s may not be accurate now, and the fish we thought were there in the beginning may not in fact be there. I make the point that although we have gone a long way in Canada and can be proud of the work our scientists have done, there is still some way to go.
In recent discussions with Canadian scientists I was told that there is a certain initial breakthrough in the technology that will indeed look beneath the surface of the water and forecast what is happening with respect to marine life. That is very important. It will be of great consequence for Canada, particularly for the East Coast fishing industry if we can do that.
I make the point that Radarsat is a great achievement but there is still some way to go and I hope we will continue to work on that. Certainly the committee concurs in that as a top priority and the Government has responded in kind.
The other issue I want to deal with is the space station itself. Here I think there is a divergence of opinion between what the Government has done, and is doing, what I understood the committee to recommend and, certainly, the view of my colleagues in the Liberal Party. The Government historically has been negotiating with the Americans for a role in the space station, as have the Europeans and other countries. But that negotiation has been fraught with difficulties all the way along, mainly and primarily over the use of that space station.
We in the Liberal Party have taken the position all along that Canada should participate in the space station only if it is used for peaceful purposes and only if there is no military use
December 14, 1987

of that space station. There is still no confirmation that that has been agreed to. There is still no confirmation, far from it, that the Government has reached agreement with the Americans that there will be no military use.
The recommendation of the committee was that Canada proceed with its participation in the space station project "provided that agreement be reached with the United States on military use of the space station". That is an equivocal statement, but the next sentence clarifies the intention of the committee when it states, "A minimum acceptable agreement would be the exclusion of weapons or weapons prototype testing from the space station". I interpret that to mean that there not be a military use. When the committee states that agreement be reached with the United States on military use of the space station, I think it was generally agreed that there not be military use. There still is no evidence that that is the case.
First, what is the definition of military use? That has changed. In the beginning we talked about international peaceful purposes. I am reading from an article in Aerospace Canada International in May, 1987 which states:
Recent reaffirmation by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that the manned space station will be used for "peaceful purposes consistent with international law" has, for the time being mollified Canadian taxpayers who will contribute more than a billion dollars for the space station's Mobile Servicing Centre (MSC).
Recently the statements that are coming out of Cape Canaveral are as follows:
The proposed text of a Canada-U.S. agreement spelling out Canada's role in an American space station project says the station will be civilian, not military, and will be used for peaceful purposes in accordance with U.S. law . ..
Well, is it international law? Is it U.S. law? What do we mean by military use, military purposes? Who decides what the definition is? Is it in accordance with international law? Is it in accordance with U.S. law? We do not have a clear definition of what is military use.
All along the position of this Party has been that it must not be used for star wars purposes or for any link with SDI. The Government has stated that it does not want to get involved on a government-to-government basis with the SDI project. But in any number of cases, including allowing Crown corporations to bid on projects associated with that effort, and now in negotiating with the Americans for the possible use for military purposes, it seems to me that the Government is allowing itself to get in by the back door.
The Government must be clear for the Canadian people. Is the Government for SDI? Is the Government for star wars, or is it not? Is the space station project going to be used for military purposes, or is it not? The Government has to come clean with the Canadian people. As I stated, the position of this Party is very clear. We are against the SDI project, we are against star wars, and there must be absolutely no involvement of the Canadian Government in that particular project.
Motions
There is an article in the paper today which states that if any military use is made of the space station, the Government will possibly get its money back. I do not think that is good enough for the Canadian people. It is another indication of waffling, equivocation, and the smoke and mirrors that has gone on with this whole issue of military purposes or not military purposes. I do not think it is good enough to say that if at some point it is used for military purposes we will get our money back. The Canadian people do not want to approach it on that basis. They do not want to invest in any activity that will be used for military purposes.
The fact that now there is an agreement to get our money back if it is used for military purposes again suggests that the possibility is there that it will be used for military purposes. If it was not going to be used for military purposes, why would the two Governments have to agree to give Canada its money back should that happen? There is evidence again that there is a grey area here that has not been clarified, and that has to be done.
Mr. Weinberger told us that they were going to plough ahead, and that they were willing to go it alone if the other countries did not agree. Therefore, the position of the United States has been clear all along. It has been a top priority with the President and his Cabinet as enunciated by Mr. Weinberger. The intention of the Americans has been clear. The Canadian Government has not, in our opinion, taken the type of tough stand that it should. It has not sought and obtained the necessary clarification with regard to the use of the space agency. That is one area.
The other area is the allocation of funds in the whole space program. The space station will be costly. For a long time we debated in committee whether that amount of money was justified. We came to the conclusion that essentially it was. Basically, Canada really did not have an option; that this space station was where the action is in terms of the future, in terms of research and development, and that Canada had to get involved. I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the type of spin-offs that we have had already from the space program in ordinary consumer products. We have to make that leap ahead. But I make the point again that it is only for peaceful purposes, it is only on the condition that there will be no military use of that space station.
Let me return to the allocation of funds. It is a lot of money that we are committing on behalf of the Canadian people. We felt that not enough money was being allocated to basic research conducted in space. The committee recommended that 15 per cent of the budget be allocated to basic research in space. The Government declined to go along with that, and has maintained an allocation of 9 per cent of funds devoted to space research. We do not think that that is good enough. As I said before, if this is the cutting edge, if this is where the action will be, then the real pay-off in the long term to Canada and to the world will come from the type of research that is carried on in space. We are going to put up a servicing mechanism, and that is all to the good, but as one scientist

December 14, 1987
Motions
stated a while ago, "We do not want Canada to simply become the garage mechanics of outer space". We have to focus on the type of research that is going on in space.
The committee recommended that 15 per cent of the budget be allocated to that. The Government has declined to go along with that. Tf I may say so, I think that is indicative of the general reluctance of the Government to emphasize research and technology. I wish to make this point in this particular context. Holding the line at 9 per cent of the budget in outer space is simply going along with the thrust of the Government generally. The fact is that the commitment of the Government to R and D has been consistently cut back over the past two years.
In the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pledged well over 2 per cent of GNP to R and D in this country. What do we have now? About two months ago we saw it slip back from 1.5 per cent to 1.3 per cent. At the moment 1.5 per cent of GNP in this country is allocated to research and development. That is not good enough when one considers that the Government's intention is that we enter into a free trade agreement with the United States which will radically change this country and the businesses in this country.
Who will survive? Who will be the winners and who will be the losers under free trade? The winners will be those business, and particularly those small businesses that have done, are doing, and are in possession of the latest R and D. There is no question about that. That is where the action will be, and to a large extent, that is what will determine the survival and prosperity of Canadian business. Yet at the same time we see the Government advocating entering into an open competition with U.S. firms, and a lack of commitment to R and D.
I will not even talk about training, because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not possibly relevant in this particular debate. But I do think that the issue of R and D is relevant.
If we are going to enter into this trade agreement, there has to be a strong commitment to research and development. Without that, Canadian firms and Canada generally will not survive. This latest example of not giving due priority to basic research and the space station is more evidence of the lack of commitment of the Government.
Finally I want to deal with the space agency, and I know that it is a controversial area. I do not want to get into where the particular agency should be located. There are people who think that it should be in Montreal, and there are people who think that it should be in Ottawa. However, it should be; that is the point.
It has been over a year since the Throne Speech and since the Government announced that it was to go ahead with it. It is an important step forward. It is something that must happen
and should have happened a long time ago. If we are to be serious participants in space, we must get our act together. We must be co-ordinated. There must be a Canadian space agency to pull the threads together and to do some over-all coordination.
However, the Government chose not to take the occasion of the committee's report to announce that it was going ahead with the space agency, not to mention where it would be located. I think it missed an opportunity there. I call upon the Government to screw up its courage, to take its fate in its hands, and to announce that there will be a Canadian space agency. Obviously it will have to announce at the same time where it will be located. However, wherever it decides that it will be, it will be a political decision for the Government to make. It is the Government, and it must make that decision.
What I am pointing out today is the important necessity of coming forward with that decision if Canada is to be a serious participant in the space program.
Other recommendations were made by the committee, but 1 have referred to the main ones. I want to conclude by indicating that it is very important for the Government to clarify that there will not be any military use of the space station if we are to become involved with it. It should come forward and say that it will immediately establish the Canadian space agency.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his remarks the Hon. Member alluded to the difficult decision which the Government must make to situate the space agency. Over the last few months we have been told by several Ministers that the decision was forthcoming one day, that it would be coming forward within the next few weeks, or that the decision was imminent. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazan-kowski) told us in the House that all the documentation and research had been available to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and that it would be a political decision on his part.
Being from Ottawa-Vanier, being from the National Capital, the Hon. Member will know that I feel strongly about the nerve centre of that agency and that it should be close to the decision-making process, that is, close to Cabinet, close to Ottawa. I would like to see it in the national capital area.
Since the Hon. Member is very well informed on the subject, I would like to ask him whether he would share some views with us. There has been debate in Montreal and in Ottawa, and I am sure members of the committee had a chance to discuss where they would like to see it located. I should like to ask him if the committee made a recommendation to Cabinet on where the agency should be situated, that is, the headquarters of the agency.
We have heard that maybe it is on, maybe it is off, maybe the decision is forthcoming, maybe it is not forthcoming, maybe Montreal, maybe Ottawa, maybe half way between Montreal and Ottawa for all I know. The other day they announced a space garage, that the money is to go into building a space garage. Maybe the agency will be in a space
December 14, 1987

garage somewhere between Ottawa and Montreal. It is getting a little tiring for the workers and their families who depend upon that decision. 1 am just wondering whether the committee discussed the issue, and if not why it did not do so. It would help the Government to make a decision.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was a friend of mine. It is at times like this that you learn who your friends are, Mr. Speaker.
The committee discussed it, yes. It heard extensive representations on the part of both Montreal and Ottawa. We decided very clearly and unequivocally-there was no question about it-that it could not go in Goose Bay. We came to that absolute conclusion. However, apart from that option there were other options open.
Obviously there were arguments on the part of Montreal, because that is where a lot of the firms are and where a lot of the work is carried out. Edmonton was peripherally considered, as a matter of fact as an adjunct to the mall, recognizing the kind of technology which is going on in submarine warfare in the West Edmonton Mall. It was a clear indication of the eminence of that city in science and technology, but it had a peripheral kind of influence.
Clearly Montreal had an argument to make because of the firms located there and because of the kinds of activities in the area of high level and very excellent research that have gone on there.
However, Ottawa is the capital of the country, whether or not we like it. It is the capital of Canada and headquarters of many national organizations and agencies are located here. The point was made, of course, that it was not necessary to have access to a great deal of technological competence for the agency, in that the agency was an administrative arm. In theory we could have it anywhere-Goose Bay, Edmonton, or even Ottawa. Ottawa qualifies from that point of view, even though it is not the leading edge of the research industry in this particular area.
The bottom line is that the committee made no recommendation to the Government on location, but it made a very strong recommendation that there should in fact be a space agency and that it should be here and now.


Mr. Tupper:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for raising this resolution this morning and for priorizing in the House a matter of imminent importance to Canada. It deals with science and technology, and in the sense Canada's future involvement in space is paramount for all of us. I think it is appropriate that we should be discussing the matter this morning. I notice that the Hon. Member's remarks, in review, related to the space station, space science, and to the space agency.
Motions
A few days ago I was delighted in the House when the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) came out in support of the space agency being located in the national capital area. We have been waiting a long time to hear a voice from the Liberal Party on where the agency should be located.
I know the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador is the science critic for the Party, and he does an excellent job. He is really a splendid colleague to be associated with in the whole science forum. However, I must put the following to him this morning so that we put the matter to rest.
About 10 days ago his Leader announced in the City of Montreal that the Liberal Party in fact favoured the space agency going to Montreal, and I believe it was last week that we also heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in the House. I have to put this question to my friend for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. In the Liberal caucus is he arguing that the national capital have the space agency or does he support his leader in this regard? I want to make it absolutely clear this morning across the land that in this House and in my own caucus I support the space agency being in the national capital.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am finding more friends all the time in this Chamber. I did not know I had so many.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is an outstanding Member of Parliament. He has looked after the wishes and the interests of his constituents for years. As evidence of that, he is sitting in this Chamber as one of the longest serving Members of Parliament. He has been looking after his constituents' interests consistently on this issue and on others, but on this issue for the past several years. He is doing his job as he should and he is doing it well.
1 appreciate my colleague's words and I return them. He was an excellent chairman of the committee and I was sorry to lose him. During the whole course of the hearings here I was an English major trying to think about science and technology with no adequate background at all and I relied very heavily on the kind of scientific background we had on that committee. I have to say to my colleague that he is very unequivocal today. He is making a very strong pitch and staking out his ground. As chairman of the committee he certainly did not advocate that the committee take that position or stake out that ground.
The position the committee took was to make no recommendation to the Government on location. It is important that Canada have a space agency. We must and should have one and we should have it now. But the committee, including the Hon. Member, made no recommendation to the Government as to where the agency should be located. That is a political decision for the Government to take. The Conservatives wanted to be in Government. They are in Government and

December 14, 1987
Motions
they are stuck with it. Joey Smallwood used to say that the benefits of being in Government are much greater than the benefits of being in Opposition. One of the benefits of being in Government is taking decisions. I call on the Government now to take the decision on the location of the space agency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, as you know this year Canada celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary of involvement in space. This debate this morning is most timely because critical decisions have to be made. I too want to join in expressing my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for taking the initiative to move concurrence in the report which the standing committee of the House of Commons has tabled.
Let me point out how important it is that we have for the first time in Canadian history a Standing Committee on Science, Research and Technology. I thank the committee for its work.
This debate without doubt will provide us with additional information needed to take Canada forward into the 21st century and to identify the role the new frontier of space will play in this journey. I must say 1 did enjoy, as I always do, the intellectual gymnastics among Members of the Official Opposition, some of whom are in favour of a space agency in Montreal, while others are in favour of the space agency being in Ottawa. As usual, the Official Opposition is in favour of the people.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) announced last week that his Party will support the Montreal location and the Hon. Member in the House this morning from Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) says he is strongly in favour of an Ottawa location. As I pointed out, I will take this useful advise into consideration before announcing the location of the space agency which we think has to be in the best interests of the over-all Canadian space program.
As I said, we celebrate 25 years involvement in space. It was on September 29, 1962 when Canada positioned itself as the third nation in the world next to the United States and the Soviet Union in space on a new frontier with the launch of Alouette I, a research satellite. That was followed by a second Alouette satellite. The Alouette series was followed by the ISIS series, another research satellite and then the launch of the Anik A series early in the 1970s. In 1976 we had the Hermes satellite which really paved way for the next Anik series of satellites. There were three more, all of which were in the communications area.
We were not only the third nation to establish a presence in space but the very first to establish and position a geostationary communications satellite for commercial purposes.
The success did not end there, Mr. Speaker. As you know we assumed a certain leadership role in the development of space robotics. We built the Canadarm which was launched with such incredible success as part of the shuttle system. It is our intention to build on this technology.
We co-operated with the United States, France and the Soviet Union in the so-called SARSAT cosmos series of satellites which are intended for search and rescue. These satellites have saved literally hundreds of lives since first being deployed. Now, of course, we are developing and deploying the next Anik series, Anik E. What a proud record for a nation our size. We are also in a prominent position having earned prestige and respect as a result of our initiatives in these areas.
It was natural for us when we assumed our mandate in 1984 to build on the record of those who were far-sighted and visionary in 1962, to move Canada toward the next generation of communications facilities and move closer toward what some people call mankind's last frontier.
In May of last year we announced our comprehensive space program. We identified the challenges that lay ahead and also the opportunities. Our comprehensive space program which is the topic of the committee's report is predicated on a number of very basic principles. The first is that the program has to be designed in a way which is sensitive to Canadian needs. We in Canada have always been fascinated with the need to bridge distance and to communicate with one another. We have built communications and transportation infrastructures and we have become the best in the world in communications technology. It was for that reason that we moved into space with these technologies to keep pace with the trends and developments taking place. We assumed and maintained an important leadership role in this area.
It is also important to practise responsible custodianship of the vast territory over which we claim sovereignty and the resources we have inherited. Here too we have used the new technologies to improve our practices. That is why we have used the Radarsat program.
The next generation of remote sensing is so important to us because it will do all of the things the Hon. Member outlined it would do. It will permit us to improve the control of our sovereignty over our resources, to have proper forecasting of weather for crops and to have ice surveillance on the oceans. Who knows, I am as visionary as my hon. friend is about what the Radarsat program and future research might develop. For instance, many people have the idea of the transparent sea, and it is hard to imagine what that would mean to the management of our ocean resources and fisheries. As well, the military implications of this are really quite exciting. All of these things must be included in a comprehensive program.
Second, like all of our science and technology initiatives, the space program had to be designed to overcome some of our historic problems. One of these historic problems is our
December 14, 1987

dependence on traditional resource industries. Our space program had to be designed to help us revitalize our resource industries and use the new technologies available to make them more efficient and productive and to add greater value to the products that are delivered.
There is the historic problem of regional disparity. The space program had to be designed to deliver benefits to all regions of the country in a fair and equitable manner.
The third major principle upon which the program is built is the commercialization of our space-related products, activities and research. As important as it is for our prestige, it is not good enough to simply fly our flag in space. It was a source of pride to all of us to see the Canadian flag printed prominently on the Canadarm every time the shuttle took off. However, it is even more important that the technology that is developed for space and the research that is done find quick and efficient diffusion into applications for more conventional uses.
The remote manipulation technology which underlies the advanced robotic system that is the Canadarm is equally applicable underground in mines, under the oceans and inside nuclear reactors, wherever there is hazard to human presence. Already we have seen the application of this technology in those areas. It is important that that technology is quickly diffused and commercialized.
The fourth principle is international co-operation. We will continue to put a very strong emphasis on that. As Hon. Members would readily understand, we are not able, with the limited resources we would have, to develop by ourselves a system such as the launch system or the space transportation systems that underlie the shuttle technology. We will continue to rely on the co-operation of other countries. In fact, even the most powerful of nations in the world finds that to be very important now.
There is more and more international co-operation in space as we develop and contemplate new and exciting prospects. This we have learned to exploit in a peaceful way. Of course, that is always the underlying principle of Canadian participation in international efforts as we exploit the benefits of space.
Finally, the program had to be designed to inspire young Canadians and future generations of Canadians to take up science and technology-oriented careers to help us through the space program and provide us with the exciting benefits that flow from it. Science and technology must be made an important element of our culture.
We think that our space program meets all of these principles it was designed to meet. The space station is an example of this. The Hon. Member made reference to it in his remarks as being one of the items with which the committee had to deal. The space station program is a civilian program for peaceful purposes and 13 European countries, Japan, the United States and Canada are partners in it. That gives Hon. Members an indication of how exciting this project is. These countries will all co-operate in common facilities at the station
Motions
and will work together in a peaceful way to exploit the new technologies that will flow from that enterprise.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind, and the committee came to that conclusion, that the space station will perhaps be the single largest repository of new technologies and ideas that will be generated in the early part of the next century. It is critically important. Yes, it is important to us that the concept on which the invitation to Canada was based is maintained. It is important that it remain a civilian and peaceful exercise. We shall not have it any other way. I was in Europe a month ago and found that Switzerland, Sweden and the other European countries will not have it any other way, nor will the United States have it any other way. We have this assurance and I can further assure the Hon. Member that the MOU that has now been negotiated will provide additional safeguards to ensure that our strong position in this area is respected. I was in Washington last week and I am in a position to provide Cabinet with some recommendations on that which it would have to consider.
Our space program is designed to improve our communications infrastructure and custodial practices over our natural resources. The space station is perhaps the most adventurous of the three main components of the space program and is designed for the purposes I have stated. The program will provide many, many more future-oriented jobs in all regions of the country.
The prime contractor, Spar, has been relied on in the past to act as the chosen instrument of Canada in a private-sector way. It has now rearranged its corporate structure to include companies in all regions of the country in the space program. MacDonald Dettwiler in Vancouver, British Columbia, will be the partner for British Columbia. SED Systems of Saskatoon will be the partner for the Prairies. The IMP group in Halifax will be the partner in the maritime provinces, and of course, CAE of Montreal which has built all the simulator systems for the various projects in the past will be the Quebec component of the new private-sector space consortium, and information will be exchanged. The program will deliver a balanced regional presence throughout the country.
Already the space-related private sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in the country. Already 3,500 Canadians work directly in the space-related industry and the industry has in the last few years experienced a rather spectacular growth factor.
I am pleased with the work that has been done by the committee. It produced an excellent report. Again, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing it before the House. We have a sort of mutual admiration society. The committee did endorse what we proposed and committed to do, though there were some minor concerns expressed. I think those concerns were allayed in the Government's response to the committee report. The committee produced an excellent report in which it expressed strong support for the federal Government's objectives in space-to build on Canada's expertise in space, to maintain

December 14, 1987
Motions
Canada's precision and international co-operation, to ensure that maximum economic and social benefits are obtained from the applications of space technology, and to ensure that Canada maintains a position of excellence in the world-wide scientific exploration of space.
The committee endorsed the principle of a balanced and coordinated program-a balanced a program in terms of funding between the various components and in terms of the importance ascribed to space technology as compared with other science and technology initiatives; a balance between pure research and applied research; a balance of the various components of the program.
The space program has additional components. There is the space science program and the astronaut program. This must all be kept in proper balance in order to ensure that at the right time we will have sufficient highly-qualified personnel to take advantage of the benefits which we expect to flow from the program. The regional balance and international balance of which I spoke is important.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are the only country outside Europe to be a member of the European Space Agency. That gives an indication that we do not intend to tie all our efforts to the United States. We have been recognized as good partners with the Swedes and even the Soviet Union. Of course, we maintain our membership in the European Space Agency to ensure that the products which will result from the research and development that is undertaken finds application and commercial use in other parts of the world as well.
There must be a proper balance between research and the transfer of technology of which I have spoken. There must be co-ordination between the various departments of government. The Department of Communications, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Departments of Forestry, Fishery, and Agriculture all have an important stake in the benefits which can be delivered through space-related activities. The program must be balanced with the fluid international trends which we experience every day.
That is why the Government has responded in such a positive fashion to the committee's report. The report has raised some concerns about the balance of spending for space science and the transfer of technology to the space user program. I agree with those concerns. I can assure the committee, as I have to their report, that in the time leading up to the turn of the century the balance they have suggested may well be achieved.
The committee suggested that another $200 million a year should be put into the program to help us commit to the Radarsat program. As the Hon. Member has already stated, in June of this year we announced the Radarsat program. Of course, the program still depends on our partners in that program, the United Kingdom and the United States, being able to mount the necessary commitment and provide the
resources which they would be expected to contribute. My friend has pointed out the importance of the Radarsat program to the oceans. As I said, I share his enthusiasm.
Our space effort in the past has earned us recognition and prestige throughout the world. It is a source of pride for all Canadians as they travel throughout the world to be told how much we are recognized and appreciated for our work in this critical area. It has helped us turn adversity into opportunity. I believe that whenever Canadians learn to do that, whenever we commit ourselves to building on our strengths and bridging the obstacles presented by our vast regions and intemperate climes, we will become the best in the world. Our space program has shown that. Our program for the future will keep us in the fast current which is sweeping mankind toward a new frontier and a new age.
I again thank the committee for its excellent work and the Member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister on his reply to the committee report. I, too, found the report very interesting. It proves the worth of the efforts of myself and other Members for so many years to get a full committee assigned to research and development. The report deals mainly with the space agency and that line of research and development.
Would the Minister comment on a problem which we have faced for years in Canada, that being that we cannot seem to produce enough qualified researchers in almost any field? We know that we cannot solve our R and D problems by throwing money at them because we do not have the personpower to handle the modern day problems which we are trying to tackle with regard to R and D. Could the Minister comment on what the Government is doing to try to remedy the age old problem of graduating more masters and Ph.D.s in various disciplines in Canada?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin raises a very important issue which immediately jumped out at us as we considered the longer term future of science and technology in Canada. We discovered that the pressures were so great and the challenges so immense that it will literally require a fundamental restructuring of many of our institutions and programs which are designed to keep us in the fast current.
We discovered that our educational system, not only the university system but the high schools and even the primary schools, are not properly orientated toward the new age which is now beginning-the information society, the technological revolution. It is perhaps partly a cultural problem which is providing us with the greatest obstacles in this area. There are not enough women in the natural sciences and engineering. Fifty per cent of the population is shut out. We looked into the high schools and primary schools and found that around grade
December 14, 1987

eight there is a cultural barrier keeping women from entering these areas. These barriers must be broken down and bridged.
The first major thrust in our innovation program, apart from the space program, is public awareness and culture building. We take that very seriously. As you know, we had a national forum on post-secondary education. We now have councils of Ministers under the new concept of co-operative federalism which are addressing themselves, on a priority basis, to these critical issues. The Hon. Member is quite right that unless we do we shall not be able to respond properly to the challenges and opportunities which exist.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, in October of 1986 the Government announced its intention to create the space agency by legislation. Is it still intended that legislation will be brought forward? When will that legislation come forward? Why have the delays now gone on for some 14 months? Why has the Government undertaken such lengthy delays? Can the Minister tell us where the headquarters of the space agency will be? If not, when will that decision be announced?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the NDP now wants to get into this debate and give me advice on where the agency should be located.
Yes, we have announced that there is a need now as we put more and more of our assets into space and into space programs. Both Opposition Parties agree that this is the proper way to proceed. It will be important for us to develop a central agency to better manage and co-ordinate our activities, not just domestically with the provinces, who have an important role to play, but to manage our international obligations under the treaties we have.
There will be an agency. It will be established with legislation.
The question about when it will be established is asked every day. I can tell the Hon. Member that I was asked that question the day before yesterday, and I was asked yesterday. I can tell him that today I am a day closer than I was yesterday and two days closer than I was two days ago. I cannot tell him when.
As far as the location is concerned, it will be in the place best suited to strengthen our space program. It may well be in Chetwynd, British Columbia, which would be an excellent place, or Montreal, or Ottawa. I can tell the Hon. Member that it will be some place, but it is not the most critical decision we have to make in the next two or three weeks in terms of the space program.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister and the Government have endorsed this very valuable report. The committee made 24 recommendations and, as I recall, the Government accepted 21 or 22 of those recommendations as presented. I believe that is a rather remarkable achievement.
Motions
The two committee recommendations which the Government did not accept include the area of space science, on which the Minister commented this morning. The other dealt with another aspect of the space agency.
I want to put a question to the Minister concerning that aspect. There was unanimous advice across the country that the space agency should be established. However, the committee received advice that the space agency, as the administrative body, ought to have research laboratories in its own jurisdiction so that the agency would have at its elbow expert opinion for such things as granting contracts, directing research and so on. That was recommendation No. 13 of the report, which stated that the agency should have under its jurisdiction all of the federal Government laboratories involving space or space science.
The Minister has accepted part of that recommendation in the sense that the agency should have some laboratories under its surveillance, but maintained the caveat that there should be some departmental activity. Would he expand on that recommendation No. 13 and state which labs he would see coming to the agency and which labs he would see staying in the departments? I hope that is not a premature question.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps one of the reasons why there has been somewhat of a delay in putting the agency in place. As I said earlier, we want to be absolutely sure that the program is properly balanced and co-ordinated.
We want to be sure that the line departments, such as the Department of Communications particularly, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, will be in a position to continue their critical role in research and development in the areas for which they are responsible and to serve them in the best and most efficient way.
There is no doubt that such research and scientific work that goes on in these departments will have some implication in space. Therefore, the question is whether one transfers it all to the agencies or establishes the agency in a way that helps to co-ordinate the various roles of these departments. We opted for the latter.
Not all of the laboratories and basic research facilities will be transferred to the agency, but it will be strong enough in terms of its capability to play this co-ordinating role, to oversee contracts and develop a strong scientific base on which we launch our major projects.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and question for the Minister. The NDP's position as to whether it should be in Montreal or Ottawa reminds me of the saying, "If you ask some of their friends, they say it should be in Ottawa. If you ask other friends, they say it should be in Montreal". When we asked the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) where it should be, he said, "With my friends". No one knows exactly where it should be because they have not been very clear on that issue.

December 14, 1987
Motions
The Minister said that 13 European countries and Japan would participate with Canada in the space program. Of the 13 European countries and Japan who have given their undertaking, how many of those would have the space station in the capital of the country, and how many have their space agency headquarters outside the national capital of the country?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Elon. Member the answer right now. The 13 European countries that are participating with the space agency enterprise are members of the European Space Agency. That agency has its headquarters in Paris, which I just visited recently. It is not the capital of Europe.
Not all the 13 countries have a space agency. Therefore, it is not very helpful to use Europe as an example. It is not helpful to listen to the Liberals because they are in both camps, and the New Democratic Party has not stated any position at all. I guess it is up to me and my colleagues to eventually decide the best situation for Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, during the course of his remarks the Minister said that we have a commitment from the Americans that there will be no military use of the space station. He went on to say that if there ever was a military use, we will get our money back. I suggest that it is something like telling the Trojans that we will help them build their horse as long as they make a commitment not to use it for military purposes, and if they do, we want our money back. The point is that it will be too late to get the money back. The money back guarantee at that point is certainly not very effective.
How can the Minister have a commitment not to participate in military use of the space station and at the same time have a money back guarantee if they do? Does that not reflect equivocation, doubt and uncertainty? When is a decision going to be made one way or the other; yes it is going to be military or, no, it is not? When is there going to be a clear and unequivocal position on that?
With respect to the space agency, is it not true that NRC is going to be the headquarters of the space agency? Does it not have it now and is it not going to keep it? Has not the decision in fact already been made? And is the game that is going on now not verbal pyrotechnics, but no more than that?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very imaginative and generous in interpreting what I said. I did not say that we will walk away and get our money back, "if'. I share this information with the Hon. Member. The fact is I was in Washington last week to look at the text which had been negotiated and to remove a couple of minor irritants that had to be discussed at a higher level. The military aspect has not changed from the time the President and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agreed to co-operate with this enterprise. Yes, some concern has been expressed by the
defense department in the United States, something which was all very public, that a large expenditure such as that should produce some benefits for the military. Our European partners have raised some concerns, as did we. How do we interpret this concept of international law?
The problem we are facing right now, and I share it with the Hon. Member, is that we will provide a mission critical element to the enterprise because we will be the first on site. Our equipment will literally assembly the station and then service the various elements of the station. So the contribution the Europeans and Japanese are making are different from ours. It is, therefore, necessary, if we are to keep to the timetable of the launch of 1994, that we make our commitment at this particular time to move into Phase C and Phase D of the enterprise. So we now want to go into a phase where we actually go into design and manufacture of the various components. The Americans insisted, "We cannot wait for the Europeans. They have more time than you have.
We have to have a decision now". What I think the Cabinet will be considering will be a participation in line with the invitation. It will be a civilian peaceful exercise. We have built into this concept of a dispute mechanism, which has been bandied around and which is now part of the free trade deal, and we have built certain safeguards into the MOU, which I will be recommending to Cabinet, that would permit us in the event-never mind militarization, which would be one aspect-that we do not like the management regime agreed to by the Europeans and Japanese, if we do not like any aspects of this thing later on, to perhaps sell our assets to the other partners. It may well be a situation where we get this thing up there and the cost becomes so horrendous we can no longer participate. At that point we would like to be in a position to say, "Look, this is our contribution. Here are the drawings. Would you kindly compensate us? We can no longer participate in the enterprise". I think it is a major accomplishment to have these safeguards built in because our main objective was to safeguard and protect all the elements on which our comprehensive space program is based and, in the main, our Canadian interest. I think the recommendations I will be making to Cabinet will do all of that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to participate in this debate as a former science critic for my Party. I left that position prior to the creation of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, although I supported its creation. I think, in the context of parliamentary reform, it is very useful to see that the committee is taking its responsibilities seriously and has come up with a report which has a good deal of substance and demonstrates why we should have had such a committee a very long time ago.
Unfortunately, our science critics are absent because they did not anticipate that this debate would take place today. I would have to say to my colleagues in the Chamber that in a week when we were meant to be debating free trade, I find this
December 14, 1987

debate on space policy helpful, but not as relevant as it should be. I, for one, regret that we have not begun this week, as we were told by the Government we would, to deal with the free trade accord which was made public only last Friday and which apparently the Government is still determined to sign in one week of parliamentary time from now, that is, two weeks after we adjourn on Friday.
I do want to speak about a number of the elements in this report. I commend the committee for the fact that some of its criticisms revealed it really did take issue with a number of the priorities put forward by the Government with respect to its science program, in particular, the committee's emphasis on the need for the remote sensing program, the Radarsat program, to go forward as a priority, and its criticism of the Government which is quite blunt. The committee feels that the 1986 space plan fails to strike an appropriate balance, that Radarsat should have the highest priority of the three major programs, that is, the space program and space station and communications, because Radarsat best fulfils the stated objectives of Canada's space program.
It cannot be much clearer than that, particularly as we know how to read between the lines. This was a committee which had a majority of members of the Government, yet even the government Members had grave misgivings about the degree to which we are putting all of our eggs into one basket, namely, the space station, rather than other areas of space science and research and development.
I will put this in some context by first pointing out that the Government's commitment to establish a space agency was announced in October, 1986, at the time of the Throne Speech. Second, I cannot recall the exact date when Canada made the commitment to the space station, but I believe that commitment was made during the period up until June of 1985, because that is when I ceased being the science critic for my Party, and 1 can recall commenting on it at that time. So we are now looking at a decision which is some three years old. Yet, a great deal has happened since that time, which I think confirms some misgivings that many people have had about the degree to which we are putting so much of our emphasis into this particular project.
We have seen since then a continuing series of cut-backs in the National Research Council made by the same Government that says "Is it not wonderful what we are doing in space?" It is kind of a bread and circus as type of approach in which the Government tells us it is going to do great things in space but at the same time it savagely attacks the National Research Council. It has totally failed to put into place a program to ensure that Canada achieves the levels of spending on research and development that the Conservatives promised during the course of the 1984 election campaign. We have seen no meaningful means of that taking place. We have seen instead a series of programs that have also had the effect of cutting back federal funding to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and other research councils, which have been told to go with their begging bowl and get money from
Motions
the private sector to make up for what Government is not prepared to come up with.
As I said a moment ago, the key recommendation in the report, it seems to me, is the finding of the committee that balance is lacking in terms of the Government's program. Second, what I think is key is the committee's concern about the military use of the space station and this rather ineffectual announcement that Canada will take away its chips if it finds that somehow the United States has taken the space station and used it for military purposes, as clearly the hawks in the Pentagon would like to do, despite any agreements having been made right now. Third, there is the whole question of the overrun and the degree to which that could very quickly gobble up any amount of money in Canada's space budget, and the Government's failure to come to grips squarely with that particular issue and its inadequate response in the November 27 response to the committee whose report, of course, had been tabled some six months earlier. I note that because in the next five years space station spending will take up more than 25 per cent of the budget according to the figures the Government has made public. But the 20-year commitment makes the situation look a good deal more radical than that, and the 15-year commitment to the turn of the century.
In that period of time it is estimated that the space station will consume some $697 million of federal funding in Canada. Radarsat is estimated to cost approximately $236 million, according to the committee's own figures; the mobile satellite, the communications satellite program will cost $151 million; the European Space Agency will cost $122 million; the astronaut program will cost $55 million; space science in general will cost an additional $70 million on top of what is already being spent. All those figures added together total approximately $1.3 billion which is being committed by the Government to space science over the course of the next 15 years.
What is interesting and disturbing is that the American estimates for the space station have gone completely off the rails. Where they stated it would cost $8 billion, they are now stating it will cost $14 billion. I suspect, after the tragic failure of the Challenger program a year or so ago, the deaths of the astronauts involved at that time, the necessity to put the space shuttle program on hold, and the delays that is having for the space program in general, that we will see further costly delays and cost overruns in the American space program.
If one takes the increase from $8 billion to $14 billion and applies that to Canada, we are talking about an increase in the cost of the Canadian element of the space station from $700 million to possibly $1.3 billion. What is instructive about that is that that is equal to the total space program that has been enunciated for the course of the next 13 or 15 years. On top of that, the carrying and operating costs for Canada's participation in the space station are estimated to be a possible $30 million a year. That is more than is currently being spent on all

December 14, 1987
Motions
of space science here in Canada. That, too, raises some very serious problems.
This one prestige project-the opportunity or the hope that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), can go and wave as the satellite goes aloft, or cut a ribbon at Cape Canaveral, or something like that-is quite profoundly distorting Canada's space program.
The committee itself found a great deal more benefit in many ways from Radarsat. The committee stated that Radarsat fulfils all the relevant objectives of the Canadian space program; that it would build and expand on Canada's expertise in remote sensing; that it would maintain Canada's position in international co-operation on the peaceful uses of space, particularly because it would be a Canadian-led project; that it would provide substantial economic and social benefits for Canadians, and not only through the sale of hardware or of expertise.
It was pointed out that much of the hardware for Radarsat would probably be located or built in Ontario and Quebec, but that the resource management data would benefit every region of the country, particularly the remote regions where resources are most often to be found. Second, Canada and Canadians as a whole would benefit from Radarsat because of its ability to reinforce Canada's claims to sovereignty in the Arctic, particularly in those areas of the Arctic which are frozen ice and not land.
It is quite clear that it is a lot cheaper and probably more effective for Canada to exercise its sovereignty by satellite in the Arctic wastes of the northern part of this country than it is to put eight or ten nuclear submarines up there at a cost of somewhere over $8 billion, the cost of a space station project in its entirety.
I recognize that in its response the Government has committed its approval to the Radarsat program, subject to the conclusion of agreements with our partners in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and that is welcome. But I note the priorization which the committee itself indicated to the Government-it is a Government-dominated committee so I suppose it could not reject totally Canada's participation in the space station. Clearly it indicated where it thought the priority should lie.
I also note the committee's concern over the possible military spin-offs from the space station program. I for one am disturbed at the inadequate response given by the Government on this particular question.
The committee stated in its recommendations that there should be agreement with the United States on the military use of the space station. When one looks at the committee's report in more detail, it specifically states, "Overt military use of the space station is unacceptable to the committee". What has the Minister got? He has an agreement in the Memorandum of Understanding which he will shortly submit to Cabinet
that, if the Americans try to do something that is too overtly military in the space station, then we can ask them to buy us out. Is that not ridiculous?
In other words, we have not got the specific commitment that Canada should have sought and insisted upon, that before we participated in the space station the Americans clearly and unequivocally promise they will not use the space station as a part of the star wars program.
Scientists have told me that the star wars program is probably impossible in scientific terms. I suspect that that is probably true. Computers cannot be built for it, and it cannot be done. Nonetheless, that assurance should have come from the Americans rather than this rather awkward situation where we might get our money back if we find that we are not particularly happy with the way the Americans are using the space station. That seems to be what the Government is pursuing at the present time.
In addition, the committee indicates that experimentation dedicated to the development of weapons systems including the Strategic Defense Initiative should not be performed on the space station. What does the Government state in its response? It states that it would be inappropriate to discuss these conditions about military use in detail. However, the Government has made its position very clear with respect to the possible military use of the space station.
The Government wishes to ensure that any military use of the space station is consistent with international law, and with the treaty obligations of all participants in the space station. The Minister of State for Science and Technology is nodding, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know what are the treaty obligations.
Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan met in a summit last week, which was welcomed by people from around the world, but on the question of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty which effectively governs experimentation in space that might be used for the SDI, for star wars, they went away agreeing to disagree. They simply stated that both countries would respect the treaty obligations.
It is interesting that Canada should parrot that particularly word which we know is used by the right-wing hawks in the Pentagon as a code word for saying, "We will do what we please and damn the ABM Treaty", and the Government seems to be going along with that particular interpretation.
In addition, with respect to cost overruns, the matter that I have already raised, the Government states and I quote, "The issue of dealing with cost overruns is related to the over-all issue of maintaining a balance within the Canadian space program". The Minister is certainly correct on that front. It goes on to state that, "It is not feasible for any Government to give assurances in advance that cost overruns in one project will not affect other programs". In other words, since the largest amount of money in the space program has been committed to the space station, therefore, cost overruns in that
December 14, 1987

station are likely to gobble up money that should have been allocated in other areas.
I also note with a certain amount of concern that the committee recommended in recommendation no. 10 that the use of Radarsat for arms control surveillance and verification was proposed only as an alternative and not as a primary purpose of the Radarsat program, as I believe it should have been.
Perhaps the Minister's Department could have co-operated with the Department of External Affairs on this particular question, because I would like to have seen Canada, as part of our space program, find the necessary funds, perhaps $50 million or $100 million was all that might be required, in order to offer to the United Nations an international satellite program that could come under the control of the United Nations for arms control surveillance and verification. Canada would be prepared to build and offer that to the United Nations, hopefully with partners, but we would be prepared to do it on our own if partners were not forthcoming. That is not there, and I am very sorry about that.
I note that the Government's response to this particular question is that it will continue to pursue the potential applications of remote sensor technology for the verification of arms control agreements. That is all very nice, but there is no sense of commitment there.
A few months ago I turned on the television and got hooked on the reruns of the television series "Space", which I hope the Minister has also seen. It was very well done. It was based on the James Michener novel. The Minister may recall one of the very touching scenes of a young man, a high school student, in a small town somewhere in the mid-west of the United States. He became excited about space because of his exposure to a world ranked astronomer whose observatory was located near where the young man and his girlfriend lived. They eventually became very much involved in the program and were central figures in the fictional but semi-realistic presentation of Space.
The Government has given the most wishy-washy set of responses on this particular area of which I can conceive in respect of the desperate shortage of scientifically trained manpower or womanpower for Canada's space programs. The Minister's response to recommendation No. 17, which calls for a study of the training and supply of space scientists and engineers, is that the Government shares the committee's concerns in this area and has a study under way to identify future personnel requirements. The Minister says that this is a necessary precursor to any study of the training and supply of space scientists and engineers. Once a demand study is completed, the Government will decide the need for and nature of a follow-on supply study.
It is time to stop studying and to start supplying, particularly if we bear in mind that it takes something over 10 years between the time a high school graduate enters a university
Motions
program and the time that the graduate is a competent and fully trained space scientist. We are talking about people from this year's graduating class who will not in fact begin to engage in an active and constructive way as fully trained space scientists until the year 1998 or thereabouts.
I know the comments with regard to that question which were made by some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. For example, Professor Rostoker of the University of Alberta said that the lack of career positions in the space sciences over the past 15 years has led to a significant drop in the number of young people prepared to pursue a research career in that particular area. He concluded: "It is my opinion that the scientific community of space researchers in Canada is in no position to effectively participate in major new initiatives such as space station".
In my contacts with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council I have heard exactly the same testimony again, again, and again. It is not only the Government which is at fault, it is the previous Government, the Liberals as well. They have systematically choked off post-doctorate fellowships, support for academic research, and support for the kinds of programs which would help to encourage and develop space scientists. It is this Government which stopped the Black Brant rocket experimentation in Manitoba. It is this Government which shut down one of the observatories in Algonquin Park as part of its cut-backs to the National Research Council. It is pure hypocrisy for the Government then to turn around and say that there may be a problem. If the Minister were honest about this, he would recognize that the problem exists and has existed for some substantial amount of time and should have been addressed before now.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Space Agency. As I said in my comments to the Minister, I am very disappointed that after eighteen months, the Government has yet to establish the Space Agency and announce where its headquarters will be located. I believe the choice is now between Ottawa and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member from the Ottawa area, I obviously support the choice of Ottawa as headquarters for the Space Agency. I realize, however, that as the centre of the aerospace industry, Montreal with its surrounding area has every reason to claim the Space Agency should be located in the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, when my Leader spoke at the University of Montreal not long ago, he stated in no uncertain terms that Montreal was a logical choice as headquarters for the Space Agency, since the city and surrounding area is the centre of our country's aerospace industry.

While I have supported putting the space agency headquarters here in Ottawa, I must say that that is not the primary question for me as an Ottawa Member who is concerned about

December 14, 1987
research and development in all areas. I look at hundreds of positions in the National Research Council which have been shut down. I look at people with promising scientific careers who have not been taken on. I look at people who had another eight or ten years of productive scientific work ahead of them in the NRC who have been pressured into taking early retirement.
I look at that kind of tragic waste, which has been a product of the Government, and I say to myself, if I had the choice of having the space agency headquarters with 30 or 50 people in it in Ottawa, or having had a Government which dealt fairly with scientific research and development in the capital region, particularly in respect of the National Research Council, I would opt for fair treatment of the NRC. I think it is criminal what the Government has done to the National Research Council. I think it is criminal that the Government and Ministers like the present Minister have not been prepared to speak up on that particular issue and to come to the defence of the National Research Council. The NRC is to be commended for the fact that it is now stepping in to fill the gap because of the Government's inaction in terms of the location of the space agency-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Elon. Member that his time has expired.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, the report with which we are dealing in the Elouse today and introduced by the Hon. Member for Grand Fall-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) is entitled Canada's Space Program-a Voyage to the Future. The report has been widely sought. If members of the public would like to get copies of it, they can do so by writing to the clerk of the committee.
Effectively the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) ended his presentation this morning, or his critique if I may put it that way, by dealing with the National Research Council on the one hand and the space agency on the other. That was a really noble endeavour, but as an Ottawa area Member I think it is very important that the space agency be located in the national capital area. In his comment the Hon. Member said that he-and I hope I quote him correctly- "had supported the space agency" being located in the national capital area. I have two very simple questions for him, because it is awfully important that all Ottawa area Members be unanimous on the question of where the space agency should be located.
First, does the Hon. Member support the space agency being located in the national capital area today? Second, what is the position of his Party on the location?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I realize that time is short. I said en frangais that I did support and do support having the space agency headquarters in the capital region. I also pointed out that my Leader, when he was speaking at the University of Montreal the other day, indicated that in fact there were many reasons why Montreal was the logical place for it to be located.
This is why I spoke specifically about the degree to which the scientific community in Ottawa has been chopped by the Government.
I would cite the fact that the Hon. Member for Nepean-[DOT] Carleton (Mr. Tupper) has not resigned or broken ranks with the Government on the criminal cuts in the National Research Council. If the space station is located in Montreal by his Government, we will then be in a position where not only is Ottawa losing a space station but it has also lost an enormous amount of important scientific activity through the National Research Council. Yet, Ottawa area members of the Conservative Party have failed to prevent that from taking place.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that over the last three years funding to the NRC has increased by 21 per cent. I think he is leaving the impression that the budget of the NRC has been cut and that it is suffering. It is not. It is being well looked after, and I think it is a much stronger organization than it was even a year ago.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in 1984-85 hundreds of jobs were forced to be cut within the National Research Council because of the cuts imposed by the Government. Many of those cuts were achieved by attrition. Not only were scientific careers interfered with, but a great amount of important work by the NRC was in fact cut. Those cuts have yet to be restored in terms of effective operation of the NRC.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has done her best to deceive Canadians about the Government's trade deal with the United States with regard to bringing goods into Canada without paying duty, sales tax, or without limits on the amounts. She said in a recent speech that she had been asked if free trade meant you could bring anything you wanted back from the United States without paying duty, and the answer was yes.
December 14, 1987



SOVEREIGNTY

[Stage Direction]
The problem with this statement by the Minister is that it is simply not true according to government officials, and it is quite improper for her to mislead Canadians this way, especially those who live in border cities like Sault Ste. Marie, Canada.
The 12 per cent sales tax will still apply to imports from the United States; the $100 limit after a 48-hour visit will still apply; duties will not be reduced if the article imported is not made in the United States. The reduction in duties where they exist on U.S. manufactured goods will take place slowly over a 10-year period on many items.
The Minister and the Government should stop deceiving Canadians about the trade deal.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, for many years I have been interested in the welfare of the handicapped. While at Carleton University I urged the university on many occasions to develop the institution in such a way that it would make the entire university more accessible to the handicapped.
Last spring I introduced a Private Members' Motion in this House seeking certain tax concessions for the handicapped. That motion, regretfully, was talked out. I am pleased to note that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented his White Paper on tax reform many of the proposals I made were incorporated.
Last week I particularly welcomed the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that the federal Government will hire an additional 2,700 disabled persons over the next three years and will proceed with plans to make federal government programs and services more accessible to the handicapped. This will bring the number of disabled persons in the Public Service by 1991 to 6,900.
The Government has also approved a number of measures to enhance the Employment Equity Programs, and some $3.7 million will be provided to improve counselling services and to ensure that technical aids for the handicapped are available in the workplace.
The handicapped deserve everything with which society can provide them. This Government, sensitive to their needs and requirements, has taken a very positive step forward.



CANADIAN ARCTIC-PROPOSED CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT

Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the deal to allow American ice-breakers in the Canadian Arctic will soon be signed, we are told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). We are assured that this agreement which does not assert our sovereignty acknowledges it through the back door by giving permission to be informed by the United States-hardly the brave words and strong stand taken by the Minister in 1985 when he assured us that the policy of the Government was to exercise full sovereignty over the Arctic and that, in his words, "we will accept no substitute". Further, on March 23, 1987, we were told by the same Minister that "our sovereignty is not negotiable".
We are not reassured. We appear to have a treaty which indeed accepts a substitute for clarifying Canadian sovereignty-
The trail of broken promises is littered with questions.
Will this treaty prejudice Canada's case with the International Court should we pursue this avenue? Is this agreement a prelude to guaranteeing commercial marine traffic through the passage? What is the tie to the trade agreement? Does this mean exports of Alaskan oil to Canada negotiated in the trade agreement will be moved via the passage rather than the West Coast? Is this a case by case approval for the movement of icebreakers or, indeed, a blanket approval?
Credibility is strained. Canadians have a right to know. I call on the Minister to bring this treaty before Parliament before it is signed. Arctic sovereignty is too crucial to be given away by benign acquiescence.



THE FAMILY


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), and myself wish to honour Mrs. Karen Schouten and her late husband Fred. Fred Schouten, 36, died suddenly of a heart attack, a mere two months after daughter Gabriel, and one day after his second wedding anniversary. For Mrs. Schouten this was a double blow.
It was the Schoutens' courageous decision to allow the birth of Gabriel even after they discovered that baby Gabriel would be born with a partial brain. Baby Gabriel was kept alive for three days and her heart was transplanted into another baby who was born with a poor heart and, in the process, brought hope and happiness to another family.

December 14, 1987
This decision was based solely on the unselfish desire to see another life take hold, and by that action Gabriel made the ultimate contribution toward another human being. The actions of this family demonstrate to the entire world just how precious life is, and they exhibited a love for life beyond expectations. It clearly shows that abortion is not the answer to malformed babies. By their unselfish action the Schoutens have left the world the true meaning of life and love.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC's all-news channel will begin operations next September and it promises to be an important addition to programming choices for Canadians.
According to the CBC's Chief of News and Public Affairs, the channel will have a mixture of news, weather, sports and documentaries. It will focus on regional, national and international events from a Canadian perspective, as well as including repeats of some of the most worth-while of the public affairs programs, such as The Nature of Things and The Fifth Estate.
The CBC has also announced that Joan Donaldson, a very experienced and able broadcaster, will head up the all-news channel, and she is uniquely qualified for this task. Ms. Donaldson began her career as a journalist, has taught journalism at Ryerson and the University of Western Ontario, and has worked as an editor on Radio National News. She has recently been active on a committee aimed at making CBC programming all- Canadian by 1990, and has spent the last four years in training and developing regional news.
I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Ms. Donaldson and wishing her well in her new challenge, and in congratulating CBC on its choice of this outstanding woman as director of this new all-news Canadian service.



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER'S VISIT TO OSHAWA

Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Grant Devine, Premier of the great Province of Saskatchewan, recently visited Oshawa, Ontario, with a delegation of business, government, and youth representatives.
Our Premier was very impressed with the city of Oshawa and what the United States investment in General Motors and other companies has done for the area. He noted that the City
of Oshawa is one of the few municipalities with a surplus of $57 million, which pretty well tells all about its prosperity.
Probably the most interesting aspect of the visit was that Oshawa residents were still Canadian. There was no "yo'all" expression, no Americanism, but a retaining of Canadian culture and, above all, Canadian sovereignty.
Premier Devine even went so far as to state that he did not want more United States investments than the city of Oshawa but would settle for as much for the Province of Saskatchewan in the free trade agreement. Premier Devine thanked the people of General Motors and Durham Manufacturers Association for the royal treatment he and his delegation received.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a proposal has been made by the National Farmers Union which could re-open the Port of Prince Rupert for grain exports. I met with Art Macklin, Vice-President of the NFU this morning, and he confirms the following: One, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall is prepared to act as a mediator in the dispute while the workers return to their jobs while mediation is in progress. Two, Henry Kancz, business representative for the grain workers Local 333, has confirmed that he is receptive to the appointment of Justice Hall and will recommend that the striking members return to work while mediation is in progress.
Since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) have been aware of this proposal since Friday, I urge them to pursue this matter with vigour and appoint Mr. Justice Emmett Hall so that a resolution can be found for the workers who have been three and a half years without a contract, and get the farmers' grain moving to market.
Is it the grain companies or the Government that are holding up a resolution to this matter?



CANADA-U. S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF ONTARIO PREMIER

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed at recent comments on the weekend by critics of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. Their criticisms are completely unfounded. It is interesting that the Premiers who are against this trade deal are from the Liberal and NDP ranks. I suggest
December 14, 1987

the critics are playing political football with the future prosperity of our country.
Take, for instance, the comments of the Premier of Ontario on Saturday. He stated he had not yet read the final trade text but, even without reading the pact, his mind was made up in spite of the study his own Treasurer and senior Cabinet colleague released that showed the trade deal is very good for Ontario and the Canadian economy.
The Premier has commented today that the whole deal is coal. His comments are made with an open mouth and a closed mind. 1 can tell him that the residents of Ontario and the Canadian people are expecting more than these uninformed statements. They are expecting intelligent debate. They want to know the facts, know of the benefits this trade deal will bring them, and not the hollow rhetoric of the Liberal Premier.



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS-STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims that it wants to talk about the trade deal but, in fact, judging by its representatives who are going across the country, if they are any indication of the calibre of the debate, it is pretty disgusting.
Last week there were press reports that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister sent by the Government to represent the Government's view, made comments about me and about other women. When I raised the question of surrogate parenting, the Minister said before a public meeting the following:
No wonder her book was entitled Nobody's Baby. Apparently, our Canadian
womanhood is in severe danger they'd have to creep around the country with
their knees crossed if Sheila is correct that this danger-
The Minister also called himself the father of Canada's antipornography legislation, but said before the St. John's Board of Trade that he loves pornography himself but he wants to protect the people from it. He went on to tear after a nun who happened to speak out against the trade deal.
I would like to ask if this Minister is representing the Government. If he is not representing the Government, he should resign and get himself off the speaking circuit. If he is representing the Government, it is a disgusting, anti-woman, sexist, anti-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put a question another time.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, business growth and job opportunities are being snuffed out by a New Democratic Government in Manitoba. According to The Winnipeg Sun, the warm business climate in Tory Alberta is pulling Westfair Foods and 400 head office jobs away from the wintry blasts of Manitoba's New Democratic Government. A representative of Westfair is quoted as saying:
We felt unwelcomed here, the provincial Government of Alberta wants us
there, they would see us as a valuable part of their economy . . . Manitoba
Government takes the attitude that if you are a certain size they may
expropriate you or drive you out of the province.
The reason for this is simple. Payroll taxes are now at 2.5 per cent. There is a regressive final offer selection for labour disputes. There have been increased telephone rates, increased hydro rates, increased Auto Pact rates, and government service rates have increased by 20 per cent. When Westfair and 400 jobs go, how can this Government say it is standing up for Manitoba?
I have a solution. Industry Minister Vic Schroeder should go. No, Mr. Pawley should go. No, the New Democratic Government of Manitoba should go and call an election before the rest of Manitoba's businesses leave. He is not standing up for Manitoba. He does not know what standing up for Manitoba is.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, research reported in the press today confirms what a growing number of experts have been telling us for years, which is that the hazards from low-level radiation have been greatly underestimated. New standards for acceptable-dose risks must now been determined at roughly half the levels previously allowed.
For Canada, this means a serious reassessment of our entire nuclear industry, from mining and processing to nuclear reactors through to waste disposal. The whole atoms for peace hope may prove to have been a sad mistake as even low-level exposure can mean cancer deaths, mental impairment, and genetic deformities.
Note that I am not even talking about a meltdown, nuclear war, or a disaster on the scale of Chernobyl, but simply about low-level, long-term exposure. The people of Canada and their Governments must now re-evaluate the nuclear option against the alternatives of safe, renewable energy and the promotion of conservation. We must have the courage to ask the really tough questions, be prepared to admit we were wrong in the

December 14, 1987
past, and resolve to act in the interests of the health of Canadians and our environment in the future.



INCREASE IN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last January 19 the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) told the House that "the 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber being shipped to the U.S. will throw thousands of forest workers out of work, and imperil Canadian sovereignty." His Liberal colleagues agreed with him and, of course, the NDP said the same thing that day, predicting again that the sky would fall.
It is now 11 months later. Let us turn to a recent study issued by the International Woodworkers of Canada. The study says that "the massive job losses that were predicted simply have not occurred. It has had a minimal effect on production and employment. In fact, almost 900 million more board feet have been produced this year-and 600 sawmill jobs were added in British Columbia between January and September of 1987."
This is just one more example of the phoney doom and gloom the opposition Members have been spouting for three years now.
They predicted that our deficit reduction measures would cost 60,000 jobs, but we have created almost a million jobs.
They predicted that the export tax would cost hundreds of jobs, but hundreds of jobs were created. Now they are feeding us the same drivel about free trade. Once again the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada will prove the Opposition wrong.


1994 COMMONWEALTH GAMES



GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO RESPECT CRITERIA IN MATTER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Winter Games will soon open in Calgary. All Francophones outside Quebec remember they almost missed out on the right to have the Games televised in their own language. The situation was caused by the fact that the Olympic Organizing Committee ignored federal language criteria when negotiating its contracts.
In the House, I asked the Minister of Communications at the time to take steps to ensure there would be no recurrence
of this kind of situation. He replied that he agreed and that my suggestion was an excellent one.
Since the 1994 Commonwealth Games have just been awarded to Victoria and the Government has decided to investigate this choice, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Government to lay down firm guidelines to ensure that the Commonwealth Games will be held with due respect for Canada's linguistic duality, in terms of public facilities, national advertising, contract negotiations, and the broadcasting and televising of the Victoria Games.



TAX REFORM


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the sensitivity of the Government to western agriculture is well known. A Sl-billion special grains payment, a capital gains tax exemption, a $200-million annual farm fuel tax rebate, and a $ 1.4-billion western grain stabilization payment in the past year are just a few examples of a Government that is committed to prairie farmers.
There is, however, one current issue that has caused some concern to farmers across Saskatchewan. It is the issue of modified accrual accounting as contained in the recent White Paper on tax reform. Most farmers agree that there should be a clearer definition of a real or bona fide farmer. There is also broad agreement that the profitability requirement should be re-examined as the White Paper undertakes to do. However, it is not the best time to suggest a new and different accounting formula during this period of depressed grain prices and uncertainty in the farm community. After giving this matter a great deal of thought, I would ask that the Government reconsider the proposal to bring in modified accrual accounting.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National has announced its intention to sell off two of its telephone subsidiaries, Terra Nova Tel in Newfoundland, and NorthwesTel in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. This is to be done in order to reduce its outstanding $3.2 billion debt.
Important to the telephone subscribers in the service areas is CN's commitment that there will be no decrease in levels of service or increase in tariffs charged. Employees are to be
December 14, 1987

protected in that any new owner will be required to honour existing labour agreements and pension benefits.
NorthwesTel ought to be sold to private investors and certainly not to a provincial Crown corporation. It would be improper for Alberta Government Telephones, for example, to own and operate a telephone system outside the Province of Alberta.
If privatization is handled correctly, it could result in improved service and lower prices to telephone users in both the Northwest Territories and Yukon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I have been expressing concern for months that the Government would attempt to ram the final text of the Prime Minister's trade deal between Canada and the United States through Parliament without giving the Canadian people the proper time to review, investigate, and study the deal, and without giving the House a proper opportunity to debate it. The Prime Minister has always told me that this would not be the case. He knows that the House will apparently adjourn in four days and that, some time in the next four days, he wants the House to debate the issue in a meaningful way. This is an issue that is fundamental to the style of Canada in which many of us believe, and is certainly fundamental to Canada's future.
Will the Prime Minister give me an assurance today, and I believe that his credibility and his word are on the line, that he is prepared to tell the people of Canada that there will be time for a full public review of this deal through committee hearings and a full, meaningful debate in the House of Commons before he signs the deal?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is patient I am sure that he will see, on the Order Paper tomorrow morning, a resolution which will allow Parliament to debate this very important issue. I hope we will have the support of the Opposition in bringing the debate forward tomorrow in order that we can have a good debate this week.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping for a reaffirmation of the commitment of the Prime Minister that he would allow the people of this country sufficient opportunity to review the text and examine how it affects their futures, their jobs, their professions, and their
Oral Questions
businesses, and allow the House of Commons sufficient time to review the matter properly.


CONTROL OF RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister claimed on the weekend that people already had a good understanding of this matter. Well, I would like to know what his understanding is of the instruments of this Agreement. Could the Prime Minister explain why, under Sections 408, 409, 903, 904, Canada's provinces are deprived of their jurisdiction over their own energy resources? Can he explain why we, as Canadians, can no longer cut energy exports to the United States if there is a shortage or other crisis? And can he explain why these rules not only apply to energy but to all our nonrenewable resources, including water?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made some very serious factual errors. There is nothing in the document that would deprive the provinces of their jurisdiction in the energy sector. There is nothing in the document that would undermine the provincial or federal governments' authority to reduce energy exports. In fact, these provisions are to become effective pursuant to an international agreement signed thirteen years ago by the previous Government. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a number of points. I may draw his attention to the fact that his points were dealt with very satisfactorily this morning in the newspaper Le Devoir, where the reference is to an historic challenge, and the conclusion "that the Government was right and that this will increasingly be borne out by events. Le Devoir, like most Quebecers, endorses the Free Trade Agreement as being in the best interests of Quebecers and Canadians.


EFFECT ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John Napier Turner: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Prime Minister has read the deal he intends to sign. He talks about the international energy agreement which applies to stocks. This agreement applies to all resources, renewable and nonrenewable, not only processed but in the ground. It is the most far-reaching agreement any country has ever signed. We have really made ourselves a resource reservoir for the United States by virtue of this agreement.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised the country that regional development would not be covered by this agreement. Yet nowhere in the text is there a specific exemption in favour of regional development. Indeed, precisely the opposite has happened.
I want to refer the Prime Minister to page 115 of his deal where it says that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, PFRA; the Agriculture and Rural Development Act, ARDA; and the Economic and Rural Development Agreements, ERDA; are defined as subsidies within the meaning of the agreement.

December 14, 1987
Oral Questions
They are, therefore, covered within the future scope of the agreement although the Prime Minister said they would not be.
Why does the final text not reflect the Prime Minister's assurances given to the less favoured regions of Canada that regional development would not be touched? Why did the Prime Minister not protect the regions of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say in English that which I just had occasion to say in French. My hon. friend's preface is loaded with flaws and inacturacies which thwart any truth at all in the subsequent question which he tries to put forward.
He asks me whether I read the deal before I signed it. I read it all right. He did not read it before he announced he was going to tear it up. There is the fundamental difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the important question of regional development was very carefully considered by the negotiators and by the Government throughout. It has been totally protected-


Some Hon. Members:: Where?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -as an instrument of economic growth in Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rodriguez:: Your nose is growing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which is one of the reasons 19 associations endorsed the Free Trade Agreement this morning as being profoundly in Canada's national interest. They include the Automotive Industries Association, the Canadian Association of Equipment Distributors, the Canadian Agricultural Policy Alliance, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Export Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Retail Council of Canada, the Tourism Industries Association of Canada, and the Trust Companies Association of Canada- everybody except the Liberal Party of Canada.


FISHERIES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Health and Welfare issued a joint press release alerting Canadians not to consume shellfish from Atlantic Canada. "Shellfish" means lobsters, crabs,. and
shrimp-all crustaceans, as well as molluscs, which include mussels, oysters, and quahogs.
My understanding is that the release was withdrawn after a few hours, but not before terrible damage had been done to the industry, especially the lobster and shrimp industries.
Why did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans allow his name to appear on that erroneous press release which was so damaging to the fishing industry? Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not know the difference between a scallop and a mussel, or a mussel and a quahog?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and the House must recognize that on Friday-and I have given the times when the information came to me-Canadians had been hospitalized. One Canadian had died because of the toxins. Evidence showed that the problem was no longer geographically contained. In addition, for the first time we had a clear indication that species other than mussels were involved.
I therefore took a health decision. In fact the Member's Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, said in the House on December 8 that public health must always be a priority. It was on the basis of that priority that the decision was taken.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, health must always be a priority but that erroneous press release included lobster, shrimp, and other products which had nothing to do with the problems which were at hand.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATIONS OF TWO MINISTERS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I am not questioning the character of either the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I am questioning the judgment of those two Ministers which had such a devastating effect on the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada.
Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing today and ask for the resignations of both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Those two Ministers are totally incompetent and should be fired today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, decisions were taken on the basis of investigations relative to mussels and the information that I received on the morning of the Friday in question. The Member says that there has been damage done. The alert went out at eleven o'clock of that day, at 12.27 on the CP wire. It included lobsters and shrimps and scallops- not by this Minister, and at 12.46, in fact 19 minutes later, it already was corrected.
The greatest damage is that we cannot clear up a health problem. We have not yet found out what the toxin is or what
December 14, 1987

anyone else is facing. I think that what is important is that the health of Canadians be first protected. The Member cannot have it both ways, arguing one day this way and one day that way.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have persistently said that, short of the selling of wine, provincial jurisdictional authority is not impinged upon by this agreement. Of course that is not the case. Many provincial areas are affected. The more we look at the agreement, the more we discover.
Will he now acknowledge that management services, virtually right across the board in the health field, are also included in this deal? These include hospitals, nursing homes, ambulance services, home care services, health clinics and a variety of other medical services, all of which are clearly within the health field and clearly within provincial jurisdictional authority.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. friend is asking for a legal opinion. Perhaps he could ask the courts in that regard at the appropriate time. I have my opinion. He is entitled to his.
Surely he is not trying to contest the right of the federal Government of Canada arid the Parliament of Canada to negotiate treaties on behalf of all Canadians. That is exactly what we have done. It is a treaty that we deem to be in the national interest, and surely as a national parliamentarian there ought not to be any suggestion, certainly not in this House, that the right of this Parliament should be frustrated in that regard.


John Edward Broadbent: The question is about Canadian health services which we now discover will be included in this deal.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of legal opinion. If he looks at the document and the attached tables he will find that health service are clearly spelled out. Why has the Government not only acknowledged privatization in the health mangement services field, but gone beyond that by indicating that not only are these services for mangement to be open to the Canadian private sector, but private American companies will now have the right to intrude right across the board in the management of our health
Oral Questions
services? Why has the Government taken this totally unacceptable step in this deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend is bereft of argument, but I am sure that upon reflection even he would agree that this is the silliest thing he has raised in this House in a long, long time. In one question he includes the privatization of the health services field. These are scare tactics of the worst kind.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about the marines invading Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is typical of the latest comment by the NDP in Manitoba where a Cabinet Minister said that, if we had free trade, the marines will invade Manitoba.


John Edward Broadbent: The problem is the level of ignorance shown by the Prime Minister about his own deal. It is absolutely astonishing. If he reads the deal he will find out that what I said is absolutely true.


HEALTH SERVICES-THE AMERICANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is directed to the Prime Minister and is very specific. Security services are specifically excluded from the Agreement. Why didn't the Government do the same for health services? Why this sell-out of our health services to the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly call this a question, and 1 am surprised the Leader of the New Democratic Party would ask this kind of question. One question was asked about services that are not included in the Agreement.

"cultural industries are specifically excluded, Government provided service such as health care, education and social services including child care and child welfare services, all transportation modes", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
My hon. friend knows full well-

-as was obvious from his question that this particular point was examined by many others, including the director of Le Devoir this morning. All are very concerned about provincial interests and have an historic mission to protect provincial rights, and they support the Agreement because it is not only in the interests of Quebec but also in the interests-


John Edward Broadbent: Read the document!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is asking me to read the document. It really is a shame, and I am sure Quebecers will agree, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party spoke out against the Free Trade Agreement before reading it. It really is a shame for Quebec and for Canada.

December 14, 1987
Oral Questions


ISSUANCE OF SHELLFISH WARNING-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In response to the question by my colleague, he claimed in the House this afternoon that the decision to issue the ban on all shellfish, including lobsters, did not emanate from his Department. I have in my hand a press release which states: "Health and Welfare Minister Jake Epp and Fisheries Minister Tom Siddon announced today an alert is in force on all shellfish from Atlantic Canada".
The Minister will know that his Department changed its story approximately 10 times on Friday as to what was in and what was out. Lobster was in, lobster was out. Mussels were in, other shellfish were out.
Does the Minister not recognize that the Canadian public can have absolutely no confidence in any of his health warnings right now because he has misled, us so many times, and that he should take the only responsible course and resign?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no, 1 have not misled and I did not deny the health warning. Again, it is just one of the examples of her active imagination, saying one thing quite different from what I have said in the House.
I am saying to the Hon. Member that the health warning was put out for very good reasons, which I have given. I ask the Hon. Member: from her point of view, was the health warning not justified?


MINISTER S CREDIBILITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister changed his mind ten times in one day. First lobsters were in, then they were withdrawn. How does the Minister expect the Canadian people to trust him when they know he changed his own story ten times last Friday? How can Canadians be expected to trust a Minister who deceived the House and deceived the Canadian people several times over?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The Hon. Member says: "Changed 10 times". That is also not correct. I think it is about time that her statements, which so often have proved to be incorrect, be given the scrutiny that they deserve. The only question that came forward from the hours that I gave was on the matter of scallops. It was not the others. It is about time that she stay with the truth.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Canadian people and the Canadian fishing industry have lost complete confidence in the Minister. First, the Minister delayed issuing health warnings and during that period people were hospitalized and died.
This weekend he created even more confusion with mixed messages which have seriously threatened the shellfish industry of Atlantic Canada and indeed the broader fishing industry of Atlantic Canada.
As the head of the Government, does the Prime Minister not agree that the only way to restore confidence is to have a full public inquiry into this matter and, pending the results of this inquiry, to accept the resignation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not delay health warnings. That is incorrect, that is false. I did not. That was discussed last week, and that is the case.
Second, in terms of the issue, it was very clear that on the Friday, as I indicated before, in view of the investigation on mussels and the additional information that came forward on the Friday, the health warning was put forward. As I have said to her and others, the only part was on the matter of scallops and nothing more.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I can tell you that people who watched him on television last week had a very different perception from the one he is trying to create today. Five days is a long time to wait when there is a risk to health.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, not the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he do the honourable thing, as Leader of the Government, supposedly, and insist that a full hearing be conducted and the Minister resign while the hearing is taking place?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again, the Hon. Member is incorrect. That is not the case at all. I said last week, and I am saying again this week-my story has not changed one iota-when I was informed, and I have the memo right in front of me, which was on the Monday of the 30th, additional work was done. I received the information on December 1, and that is when the health alert was given. It was nothing different. That has been the story last week. That is the story this week. I would ask the Hon. Member, if she wants to look at other people's reputations, then base hers as well on what is said in this House.
December 14, 1987

[Translation}


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour.
The disruption of Air Canada's services has been a great inconvenience to the Canadian public, but with the holiday season approaching, the situation is getting even worse because of the large number of people who are trying to join their families. What started as a series of rotating strikes has turned into a general lock-out as a result of a decision by Air Canada's top management. Now, Air Canada is a Crown Corporation, owned by Canadians and managed on their behalf by the Government.
I would like to ask the Government to intervene and to instruct Air Canada to suspend its lock-out immediately until mid-January, so that thousands of Canadians can join their families, and also to instruct both parties to continue their negotiations during this moratorium. Is the Government prepared to take this step?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well we have already intervened in this conflict, and I am referring to last Friday when I appointed Mr. Bill Kelly as mediator.
I can inform the Hon. Member and this House that Mr. Kelly has been very busy meeting with the parties since yesterday, and, Mr. Speaker, I dare say we all hope the parties will act responsibly and negotiate a settlement as soon as possible, so that all Canadians will be able to travel in this country without any trouble.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASK AIR CANADA TO SUSPEND LOCKOUT
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, mediation, although started too late, is a great thing. 1 agree. I have been calling for it. I would like to say that this is not enough for people who are stranded, who want to make sure they will be able to reunite with their families. I am asking the Minister to move in and instruct Air Canada to suspend, between now and mid-January, the lock-out it has imposed so as to give some sort of guarantee to Canadians that they can go home and meet with their families at Christmas and on New Year's Day, like we all want to do.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think every one agrees there is great inconvenience being caused to a lot of travelling Canadians right now in this country because of this dispute between Air Canada and its employees. Nevertheless, and I have said this to my hon. colleague in other disputes before, there is a Canada Labour
Oral Questions
Code which is being applied right now. The parties have both used legal means in order to impose economic pressures on one another. We have moved as quickly as we could in this particular case.
I would like to remind my hon. colleague that in the last conflict he was accusing us of moving too quickly.


Jacques Guilbault: I never said that in my life. How could you act too quickly?


Pierre H. Cadieux: This time we have followed the dispute very closely and I think that the parties, who know their responsibilities and who are with the mediator right now, hopefully will come to a settlement within the next hours.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-INCLUSION OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to quote directly from page 203 of his vaunted agreement which includes the various services, which are part of what we have agreed to in free trade with the United States. One item, and I quote directly, is health care facilities management services. In view of that very direct quote, does the Prime Minister in fact deny what the Leader of my Party said, that the health care management system of this country has been laid open by this agreement which has been set forth?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member knows that under the agreement, Canada has the full right to have whatever health system it wants. That has been established very clearly through a long period of history going back to the Hospital Act as well as the medicare Act and confirmed by the Canada Health Act.
What the Hon. Member is trying to put forward to Canadians is the matter of management. Surely, he knows, coming from Ontario, that there are a number, for instance, of nursing care homes which are in private hands and privately managed. He also knows, for example, that there has been one example in Ontario in terms of public management of a hospital. For him to try to make the quantum leap from a health system to the argument on the point of management, I think he should re-examine what in fact he is trying to do.


OMISSION OF DAY CARE SERVICES
Steven W. Langdon: That is precisely the point. These health care services are under provincial jurisdiction and that is the point my Leader was making in his opening statement. We left out in this same document quite explicitly day care services. Why did we not

December 14, 1987
Oral Questions
similarly leave out services in the health care field, if the Government does not want to see health care handed over to the United States?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, of course, health care is in provincial hands under the Constitution. All of us recognize that. Surely, keeping in mind the five principles of the Canada Health Act, for example, public administration and universal access, the provinces have scope within that Canada Health Act to have the kind of administration of the health care system, the hospital system, they want. The same thing with day care. What the hon. gentleman has in mind is one system only. Surely today, when 40 per cent of day care spaces are in the commercial section-


John Edward Broadbent: Day care is out of the Act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -the provinces have made the decision as to what is best. The New Democratic Party so often wants to stand up here and say provincial rights and at the same time hope that from a national point we impose- which we cannot constitutionally do-issues and directives which in the health care field or day care system are totally within provincial jurisdiction.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the ongoing negotiations between the Government of Saskatchewan and Canada for the establishment of the Grasslands National Park in southwestern Saskatchewan. The negotiations at various times have reached an impasse over oil and gas exploration rights and also over jurisdiction with respect to river beds. Can the Minister tell the House the current status of the negotiations? And when can Canadians expect an announcement concerning the establishment of this new national park for generations to come?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, over the course of its mandate to date, this Government has established three new national parks, Ellesmere Island in the high Arctic, Bruce Peninsula in Ontario and South Moresby in British Columbia. We have completed, or are in the process of completing, two additional ones. We are now turning our attention as a major priority to a sixth, the establishment of a national park called Grasslands in Saskatchewan.
In that connection, I will be meeting Wednesday with the deputy premier of Saskatchewan on Wednesday, who will, I hope, be resolving with me all outstanding issues, including the
ones to which the Hon. Member has made reference. After that meeting, in the next few weeks, I expect to be in a position to put forward some specific proposals to my cabinet colleagues to resolve this very important national question.


FREE TRADE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. In his litany of supporters, the Prime Minister of course did not refer to the agricultural community, because he broke his promise and reneged on his commitment to them. The question I want to ask the Prime Minister, if he read the agreement, is as follows: In Article 710 he sought to make the agricultural community feel secure by saying that GATT Section 11 could be invoked. On the other hand, he has also negated that section in Article 703 where the Government signed a clause aimed at improving access to respective markets by eliminating or reducing import barriers with respect to agricultural products.
Here is my question to the Prime Minister: How can he jqstify including this clause in the agreement after having stated that agriculture would not even be coyered by the agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, had the Hon. Member been able to listen to Mr. Bernard Landry Friday night when he commented on the impact of the agreement articles on agriculture he would have heard him say that it is indeed a truly remarkable gain for Quebec farmers, that these articles have been greatly improved, and that Mr. Landry, like the spokesmen for the Quebec Government, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Page-


Jean-C. Lapierre: How many cows does he have?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says: How many cows does Mr. Macdonald have? Mr. Macdonald is the Quebec Government External Trade Minister and, next time I see him, I will tell him the Hon. Member for Shefford is interested in his cows!


THE AGREEMENT-FAMILY FARMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was unable to quote a single farm source to support his position.
My question is this. After promising farmers they would be protected and first, that they would be excluded from the Agreement, he is now doing a job on farmers in this very Agreement. His Minister of State (Agriculture) has promised to add certain products to the quota list, but according to Section 48 of the Agreement they can't do this. Consequently, is the Prime Minister prepared to admit to farmers that as a
December 14, 1987

result of this Agreement, the family farm is about to become an endangered species?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am truly appalled to hear a Member of this House address an important issue with such a show of hysterics and bad faith.
I have already referred to the contributions made by Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Page. I mentioned the comments of the Hon. Bernard Landry, former Minister of Finance with the Parti Quebec Government. And since the Hon. Member raised the issue, I would like to mention someone else's opinion ... If the Hon. Member will allow me-there was an editorial this morning in Le Devoir on the same question ... he does not seem to take Le Devoir seriously, or the Liberal Government of Quebec or the PQ for that matter. He doesn't take anyone seriously except his cows.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member should listen to the following statement that appeared in Le Devoir: "In the agricultural sector, Quebec obtained a specific reference to Article No. XI of GATT which gives it authority-" with respect to "-imports. Dairy producers may rest easy: supply management programs are not affected by the Agreement and are judged to be in line with GATT". Le Devoir, like all leaders of public opinion in Quebec, except for the Liberal Party here in the House, and in fact all Quebecers are in favour of the Agreement, especially the provisions on agriculture, and it is time the Hon. Member stopped talking about his cows and told Quebecers that the Liberals in Ottawa are going to approve their choice.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
The Minister is aware that the National Farmers' Union has proposed a method to get the grain moving through the Prince Rupert terminal. The proposal is that, if the Government will appoint Mr. Justice Emmett Hall as mediator, the union is prepared to return to work immediately. Mr. Justice Hall has agreed to accept such an appointment.
Is the Government proceeding with the appointment of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall as mediator in the Prince Rupert grain terminal dispute?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As my hon. colleague knows, Mr. Speaker, a mediator was appointed in
Oral Questions
this particular dispute on March 20, 1986. But that, notwithstanding, I will take his request into consideration.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Since the National Farmers' Union proposal appears to be the simplest and the surest way to get the grain moving through the Prince Rupert terminal, since you have known this-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member wishes to place his question in the appropriate manner. Perhaps he can continue the question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Why has the Minister not proceeded with this appointment?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have already indicate)}, Mr. Speaker, there was already one mediator in this particularly dispute, but I will take that suggestion under consideration.


AIR CANADA STRIKE-SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF WORK STOPPAGE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, and it is a supplementary to a previous question on this subject.
Very often in a labour dispute all the attention is given to the two adversaries, and none to the consumers, such as the thousands of Canadians who are understandably concerned about their Christmas travel plans.
I ask the Minister, if there is no settlement in the work stoppage of Air Canada by Friday of this week, will he direct his mediator, William Kelly, to discuss with management and labour the possibility of suspending the work stoppage over the Christmas season, as a service to their fellow Canadians?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Considering all the inconvenience that this particular dispute is causing, I am hopeful that there will be a settlement before Friday.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is no doubt aware of the insulting comments-insulting to the women of Canada-made by the Minister of Transport last week in St. John's, and in other cities in Canada, as part of the Government's so-called campaign to sell its free trade initiative.

December 14, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister of Transport's belittling comments about the women of Canada are as insulting as Ambassador Simon Reisman's remarks last month that some of those who oppose free trade can be compared to Nazis. Regrettably, the Prime Minister refused to demand an apology from Ambassador Reisman last month. Today I wish to ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the women of Canada, whether or not he will demand an apology from the Minister of Transport?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no insulting comments made in connection with the women of Canada by myself, so the premise of the Hon. Member's question is entirely wrong.
I did have some comments to make on some things said by several women here in Canada, one of them the Hon. Member for Hamilton East who made the extraordinary statement that the opening of Canada's service industry to the Americans could allow them to expand their growing surrogate mother industry into Canada in search of babies for export.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: I satirized this attempt by the Hon. Member to arouse needless fears because, of course, the free trade agreement has nothing to do with, and certainly will not permit the surrogate mother industry to establish itself, by force or whatever, in Canada. In responding to that, I certainly was satiric.
I also answered several other inaccurate statements made by that Hon. Member, including the statement she made last week in Vancouver that the agreement would have a five-year termination clause; she was positively sure of it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I didn't say that all.


John Carnell Crosbie: It turned out it has a six-month termination clause. That is how accurate the Hon. Member's Party has been in this free trade debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S HUMOUR-REQUEST FOR APOLOGY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, banner headlines in The Sunday Express in St. John's suggest that some people were insulted.
The Minister's comments that he "doesn't give a damn" what the member for the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in St. John's thinks, or Sister Lorraine Michael of the Catholic Social Action Committee, bespeak of more than just responding to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
What is in question here is not the Minister's use of humour, which is well known in this House. What is in question is the Minister's brand of humour.
I ask the Prime Minister whether or not he thinks it is acceptable for the Minister of Transport, speaking on behalf of
the Government of Canada in selling free trade, to use a brand of humour that essentially says, "Now we have consulted the boys, it doesn't matter a whit what the women of Canada think. We can proceed unanimously without consulting the women of this country".
Given those types of comments, and I ask the Prime Minister to check the record, will he seek an apology from the Hon. Member for St. John's West? This is not a laughing matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the actual headline of the story from which the hon. gentleman gets his question-he lacks imagination to research his own-says: "Crosbie's 'scandalous' remarks have several women up in arms". Who are the women who are up in arms?
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East whom I trimmed in a debate in Vancouver last week, and several other NDP representatives-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this is not funny.


John Carnell Crosbie: -one of whom appeared before the House of Commons committee representing the Coalition of Citizens Against Pornography and said that free trade would make it more difficult to enact and enforce Canadian anti-porn legislation. These are the people who are protesting, the people who make these silly, jejune, and false statements.


SHELLFISH PUBLIC HEALTH ALERT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the mussel mix-up of last week. Prior to last Friday the Minister, on the question of the mussels, was as communicative as an oyster. Last Friday it was as if the magpies had taken over in his Department and, as a result, considerable confusion has been created in the shellfish industry in the country, resulting in some threats to the producers and the distributors of shellfish in Atlantic Canada.
What steps will the Minister or his Government take to restore the confidence of consumers in the shellfish industry?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be glad to answer the question of the Hon. Member. As he possibly knows, an operations centre was established which is headed through the Department of Health and Welfare. The 1-800 number was put into place. Additionally, all product is being taken off the market. We hope that that will be completed by today. Procedures are being put into place so that new products coming on to the market are totally within the keeping of health and quality requirements. That is
December 14, 1987

being backed up by research, I believe now in 13 labs in a number of countries, relating to the toxin which still has not been isolated, as well as inspectors throughout the industry, as well as through Fisheries and Oceans, and also the assurance to the industry.
My overriding consideration has been health. 1 think, though 1 do not get into or haven't talked to the industry-it is not my role-for the industry as well it is best. Once there is a clean bill of health for them as well, that is the best news for them in relationship to this incident.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CONSIDER COMPENSATION FOR PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In view of the fact that there is another concern which particularly small producers and distributors have, that is the one of compensation, would the Minister and the Government consider compensating producers and distributors? In light of the fact that this particular incident had more to do with the mix-up last Friday and the various statements with respect to shellfish and the toxin, it is completely out of their control. Would the Government consider compensation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the toxin first of all I, possibly more than anyone else, would like to have an answer on that as quickly as possible. We are working to that end.
In respect to the industry, I think what is important for the Minister of Health is to make sure that the research and the investigation are complete, and I think that any assessment in respect to all other issues can then take place after that.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


PRESS RELEASE-INITIAL REPORT OF BAN ON LOBSTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Why did medical evidence justify a press release from his Department and that of the Minister of Fisheries at noon on Friday banning lobsters, all shellfish, and yet 45 minutes later that ban was lifted?
I ask the Minister: did he read the press release before it was issued to ensure that it was accurate? Won't he admit that what was negligent on one weekend was a panic the next weekend?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and I have explained the week previous. With regard to the alert on shellfish, I think what the right hon. gentleman has also to accept is the definition of shellfish. I won't go into that specifically, because I think if he would check with Fisheries and Oceans he would find the difference. But I go back and I say to him this: I think it was important as I have given the information in respect to the
Privilege-Ms. Copps
number of people who had been affected by the toxin-the one death and the 14 who were hospitalized at the time-the matter that a second species was discovered to be toxic, and that we had not contained the issue to the geographic area prior to that Friday.
I come back to the words that he used in the House on the eighth, as I have always used those words myself, that is, for me my over-all consideration was health. Surely if that was valid last week, it was valid last Friday and it is valid today. I say to the right hon. gentleman that he can have whatever views he wants, either of this Minister or of this Government, but one thing he cannot change is, because it suits him politically today, to say something differently from what he was saying last week.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that the Question Period has ended. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) I understand that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) has a question of privilege and it may well be that it is the same question of privilege. Could I have some indication of that?


Ms. Dewar:: Mr. Speaker, I think we are dealing with something very serious.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked a question of both Hon. Members. Can they tell me if the question of privilege which the Hon. Member for Hamilton East wants to raise and the question of privilege which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wants to raise are the same?


Marion Dewar: I would think so.


Mr. Speaker:: I get an indication that that is so. I will hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East first and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, you will know that in fact the issue of the comments raised by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) was originally brought to the attention of the Speaker last week when I returned from British Columbia where I participated in debate with the Minister.
I think it is important to read the Minister's remarks into the record. His opening comments were: "Mr. Chairman, fellow debaters"-and this is from a member of the Government who is representing the Government on the trade debate-"it appears that Sheila's broom is not working today.

December 14, 1987
Privilege-Ms. Copps
We hope she will be here shortly". In fact, the Minister was well aware of the fact that I was not going to be arriving on time. The Minister went on to say, in the context of the debate and questions surrounding what is on and what is off the table on the trade deal: "No wonder her book was entitled Nobody's Baby. Apparently our Canadian womanhood is in severe danger. They would have to creep around the country with their knees crossed if Sheila is correct", and then he was booed on his remarks. In fact, he was booed right out of the auditorium.
At that time I really had no intention of raising the issue in the House because I considered the source of the comment and it really was not worth raising.


Mr. Shields:: Are you kidding?


Sheila Maureen Copps: However, subsequent to that, the self-same Minister went to the St. John's Board of Trade where he made similar ignorant comments-


Mr. Thacker:: Stop whining and sniveling.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -about myself, about a Roman Catholic nun, about Canadian womanhood in general, and in particular he made very disparaging remarks about the fight against pornography. He said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) put some questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to some allegations about what the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) had said and the Hon. Minister of Transport replied.
The difficulty I have with respect to a question of privilege is that, at least up until this moment, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is referring to alleged comments made outside the Chamber which, whatever one may think of them, I do not think come within the scope of privilege. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East may have reference to something said in this Chamber, and if she is getting to that I will hear it and then I might have to rule on it.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) to keep in mind the procedural difficulties the Chair may be in. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a point of order?


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) referring to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said, and I quote, "Get out of the kitchen" or, "Go back to the kitchen".


Some Hon. Members:: He didn't say that.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, he did.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John V. Nunziata: Stop lying.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He said go back to the kitchen.


Jack Wendele Shields: He said get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if all Hon. Members, until they are recognized, constrain their desire to get into this debate we might be able to sort out the issues and I might even be able to settle the matter to everybody's satisfaction.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston is rising on a point of order. What exactly is the point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago-and I would ask you to check blues to confirm what we heard on this side of the House-the Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) said to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to get back to the kitchen.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John V. Nunziata: -and he ran away. I would ask you to review the blues to determine whether or not those were the words spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may or may not have said that. I certainly will look at the blues to see whether there was anything said which was out of order. In the meantime, I am hearing the comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and I will recognize her again.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, seek the guidance of the Chair because I do not want to belabour the point. I can take the kind of personal insults which the Minister of Transport levels on a regular basis. I can take it and I can certainly dish it out.


John Carnell Crosbie: Crybaby.


Sheila Maureen Copps: At the same time when the Minister of Transport representing the Government of Canada is sent out on a speaking tour which goes from one coast to the other and makes ignorant disparaging remarks-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: How is this privilege?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -about Canadian women, I think there should be some recourse in terms of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly understand the point of the Hon. Member. The Chair is, of course, bound by procedural matters. I have to advise her that there are ways and means to ask the Government to respond to this sort of thing. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) did just that in Question Period. There may be other imaginative means.
December 14, 1987

The difficulty the Chair is having is that I cannot bring this problem within the scope of privilege. No matter how serious the issue may be, as I say, I have to advise the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that her point does not come within privilege.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) has some remarks. I would ask her to keep in mind the same strictures to which the Chair must subscribe.


ALLEGED RIDICULE OF WOMEN BY MEMBERS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a point of privilege-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Marion Dewar: -I would hope that-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) is rising. She has said that she thinks she has a point of privilege. I will hear whether the Hon. Member has or has not a question of privilege. Surely in this place she has every right to be extended the usual courtesies while she attempts to make her point. The Hon. Member.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in response to some questions some Hon. Members from the Government ridiculed and laughed at questions asked. It is not just an Hon. Member who is being ridiculed and criticized in this Chamber but it is the women of Canada-


Charles Joseph Clark: Don't be so presumptuous.


Marion Dewar: -which is something that is very distasteful not just to myself but I am sure to the majority of the Members of this House. I would ask you whether it is possible, by way of privilege for the women of Canada to demand the same kind of dignity from Members of the House of Commons as the men constantly require. I think those comments made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) in laughing at reproductive technology this afternoon in this House are an insult to the women of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: That is a fraud.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may very well be offended and, for that matter, people outside or inside this Chamber may be offended but I have to say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) that privilege is a narrow thing in this Chamber. As I have explained on other occasions, and I remind Members and also the public watching and listening, that when something has been done which limits or interferes with the capacity of an Hon. Member from carrying out his or her duties as a Member of Parliament that may very well be privilege. It is not privilege just because there are strong differences of opinion expressed in the Chamber or even certain comments which may be disagreeable in the Chamber. It can be privilege if, as I say, the attack on any Hon. Member
Privilege-Ms. Dewar
in whatever way is such that the Hon. Member cannot carry on his or her duties.
In this case, while the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain have expressed their feelings on the matter, those feelings may or may not be understandable, given the context, but I have to say to both Members that what has taken place here in an unofficial exchange across the Chamber does not go to the narrow point of privilege and, as your Speaker, I cannot so rule.
The Hon. Member asks what other recourse she might have. That other recourse is to proceed along the lines of what the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) did today. There is the usual political recourse outside of this Chamber when an Hon. Member can express views about any other Hon. Member. I think both Hon. Members have made their points. I find that under the circumstances the matter is not a question of privilege.
I will hear the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) but I would ask him to be conscious of the fact that I have ruled that the matter does not constitute a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of your ruling. I just wanted to say that the circumstances of my remarks which have offended these Hon. Members opposite are not correctly put on the record.
I said nothing at all about the women of Canada. Nor did I say anything insulting to the women of Canada. I addressed myself to remarks made by two or three women, one of whom happens to be the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who had made a particularly silly statement about the free trade arrangement, that it would open up Canada to a tremendous expansion in the surrogate mother industry with Americans coming up here to search for babies for export. I responded to that and to several other remarks made by women who support the NDP in St. John's, Newfoundland. At no time did I say anything insulting to Canadian womanhood. I have too much respect for the women of Canada to believe that their views are represented by these two Hon. Members here who apparently want to be treated equally but then whenever anyone debates lustily with them they want to bring up charges of sexism, whatever that is, or call upon their sex to save them and give them a special and peculiar status-


Mr. Speaker:: I hear the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) rising on a point of order. Perhaps all Hon. Members would just hear the Chair for a moment. There will be a cut-off point and it is coming very rapidly in this exchange because this is getting into debate. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given that I raised this issue today in Question Period I hope you will afford me a few moments as you have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).

December 14, 1987
Ways and Means


John Carnell Crosbie: Why?


Brian Vincent Tobin: To respond because I raised this question. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) should note that it was not the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) or the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who raised the matter today in Question Period, it was the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). No one disputes the right of the Minister of Transport to defend himself or to put another view in any debate nor does anybody dispute the Hon. Member's right to use humour. I submit that all Hon. Members have enjoyed it on occasion. However, it is this particular brand of humour which, I submit, belittles all the women of Canada that is in question.
If the Member would put aside his partisanship, come to his senses and realize that we live in 1987, he would quietly come to his feet and submit an apology for any insult that was felt by the women of Canada, not by specific Members of this House who can defend themselves because they are here. If he did that, perhaps this matter could be closed and done away with. That would be the proper, acceptable thing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard representations and comments on both sides of the House. It may very well be a matter of considerable debate between others, but it is not a question of privilege. It is the view of the Chair that the interests of this place are not advanced by proceeding with further points of order on this question.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask if I could lay upon the table copies of a motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1)-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State is, I think, technically out of order. He would require consent to continue. I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Perhaps he could assist the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know, like any Member of the House, that there are times of the day for tabling of documents. We passed that time this morning around eleven o'clock. If the Minister was not in the House to table his document, he should have at least come to us to tell us of his intent to table something and to consult. Maybe we would agree with him if we knew what he wanted to do, but to have Ministers come in any time of the day to table documents will not be in order as long as I am Whip of this Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) could assist the Chair and the Chamber by indicating just what it is he wishes to table.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to consult. Indeed, I always try to make sure proper consultations occur and, if they have not, I do apologize. 1 understand the point the Hon. Member is making.
It is a copy of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist Hon. Members. Standing Order 84(1) reads:
A notice of a Ways and Means motion may be laid upon the Table of the
House at any time during a sitting by a Minister of the Crown, but such a
motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
I would hear from Hon. Members, but I think on the face of it that the Hon. Minister of State, if it is a Ways and Means motion, is in order. My difficulty is that I did not know for what purpose the Hon. Minister was rising.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that point, I understand the point you are making. I understood the Minister to say that he had a document to table and that is why I took exception to his tabling of a document. However, if it is a Ways and Means motion, of course a Minister can table that at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State seems to have gone over all hurdles and may now proceed with his Ways and Means motion.


WAYS AND MEANS
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) mentioned another Member's behaviour during Question Period. By the time that was done the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) had left the Chamber because of other responsibilities. I would like it to be on public record that he was not in the Chamber and, according to our customs, might indeed want to reply at the earliest possible occasion, something which was not possible because he was not here.
December 14, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) that I would look at the "blues", and if I find that there is something there that has transgressed our rules or in some other way is, under our rules, a matter with which I have to deal, I will return to the Chamber with it. If that should come about, I of course would make arrangements for any Hon. Member who might be affected to address the Chair. I think that that is where we can leave the matter at the moment.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking clarification from the Chair. It was our opinion that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) was to ask at this time for the consent of the House to table a document regarding the examination of the accounts and the financial statements of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel;, this was to have been done at three o'clock. I notice that the Minister is not present in the Chamber. Perhaps the Deputy government House Leader could assist us in determining if the document is still under embargo at this time because I understand that it has not yet been tabled. Will the Minister table it at some other time? Is the document free from embargo if that is the case?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been no communications with my office that the Minister was to do that in the House at three o'clock. He may be doing it, as the phrase goes, through the back door. In any event, I will check to see exactly when and where it is his intention to table it. I am sure the Hon. Member will be made aware of it as soon as possible.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are three Bills which the House will be proceeding with this afternoon. It is my understanding that we have consent to refer all three Bills to the Committee of the Whole House and to deal with all three stages of each Bill this afternoon. I think you will find consent for the Bills to be introduced and the motions put in that manner.


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


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the New Democratic Party caucus to give speedy
Canada Labour Code
passage to these pieces of legislation and we do agree to having them go to Committee of the Whole and to be dealt with at all stages today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been consultations between our Party and the other Parties on this procedure. I see that the official critic for this Party has just entered the Chamber. I will hand him the document and he can skate around the issue if he wishes, but I think we will support that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-97, an Act to amend the Labour Code, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the proposed amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code which, as Hon. Members know, regulates conditions of work for several hundred thousand Canadian workers subject to federal labour jurisdiction.
The proposed amendments which were prepared after consultation with concerned employer and labour groups are designed to rectify a problem which has arisen in the every-day application of the Code and which concerns the pension, health and disability benefits of many Canadian workers. I would now like to take this opportunity to outline the nature of the legislative changes and the problems they address in the hope that Hon. Members on both sides of the House will see their way clear to pass these important and useful amendments as expeditiously as possible.
We are proposing to repeal subsections 59.52(2) and (3) as well as subsections 61.4(2.2) and (3) of Part III of the Code in order to replace them with a more comprehensive text concerning the accumulation of pension, health, and disability benefits by employees who are on child care or sick leave under the Code.

Mr. Speaker, for a better understanding of the problem the proposed amendments are intended to rectify, we should go back to June 1984. At the time, Mr. Speaker, this House adopted a series of amendments to all parts of the Canada Labour Code, including Part III.
The amendments were concerned with child care and provided that parents subject to federal labour jurisdiction could take twenty-four weeks unpaid leave in addition to the

December 14, 1987
Canada Labour Code
seventeen weeks of maternity leave provided under the Canada Labour Code at the time.

The legislative changes passed in 1984, with the support of all Parties, were both progressive and forward-looking in keeping with the Code's reputation as a trend setter in the field of labour legislation. For instance, the amended Code permits both natural and adoptive parents to benefit from the 24 weeks of child care leave, and it is possible for a female employee to combine both child care leave and maternity leave for a total of 41 weeks of unpaid leave.

Employees who take advantage of these child care and sick leave provisions are entitled to return to their original position.

The amendments of 1984 also provide that the pension, health, and disability benefits of employees absent from work under the Code's child care or sick leave provisions continue to accumulate during their absence. The Code stipulates that in order to benefit from this provision employees must continue making any monetary provision normally required of them.
As I mentioned, these progressive amendments were approved on both sides of the House and came into force on March 1, 1985. Since that time, however, it has become obvious that an amendment is necessary in order to correct the following problem concerning the accumulation of pension, health, and disability benefits by employees during child care and sick leave.
The problem is that while the law requires employees to make their normal contributions in order to continue accumulating these benefits, it does not specifically require employers to continue their contributions. In the absence of such a legislated obligation some employers are requiring employees to assume more of the costs of benefits during leave than when the employees are at work.

Mr. Speaker, this practice is contrary to the publicly stated intent of the law and contrary to departmental policy. Although legally, it does not constitute an offence, this practice has led to many individual complaints and to pressure by unions to have the law amended.

In considering the problems that this situation can create for employees we must remember that the Code provides for unpaid child care or sick leave. Although collective agreements may provide some form of pay during this leave, and although women on maternity leave can collect unemployment insurance up to a certain number of weeks, it is obvious that most employees who avail themselves of the Code's provisions on child care and sick leave must cope with a period of more restricted income. It may also be a period of increased expense because of the birth of a child or because of medical expenses.
Yet, as the law now stands, it is precisely during such a period of budgetary restriction that an employee can be told by an employer that if he or she wishes to accumulate benefits under the company pension plan, for example, they must pay both the employee's and the employer' share to the pension fund.
The amendments of 1984 were never intended to allow such a situation which, as I said earlier, is contrary to the publicly stated intent of the law and contrary to departmental policy.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to remedy the problem and put an end to this unfair practice. We intend to amend the Canada Labour Code so that it clearly requires an employer to continue payment of contributions to pension, health and disability plans for employees who are on child care or sick leave, such contributions being at least equal to those paid when the employees are at work. Should employees not contribute to the plans while on leave, the employer's obligation would cease.

As I mentioned earlier, this clarification of the employer's responsibility in this area can be accomplished by replacing a few subsections of the present Code with the text contained in the Bill before us. Hon. Members will note that the proposed amendment to subsections 59.52(2) and (3) would clearly require an employer to continue the payment of contributions while an employee was on leave of absence for maternity or child care purposes. On the other hand, since employees have the option not to avail themselves of the Code's provision and not to make contributions during their absence the Bill provides that in such a case the employer's obligation to contribute would cease.

The Bill also proposes to amend Subsections 61.4 (2.2) and (3). This amendment would have the same effect as in the case of Subsections 59.52(2) and (3), but would apply more specifically to sick leave.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we are justly proud of the Canada Labour Code and the progressive provisions it contains with respect to sick leave and child care leave. However, there is a flaw which the proposed amendment is intended to rectify.

Therefore, considering the importance of these amendments to so many working men and women in Canada, and considering that Hon. Members on both sides of this House share an interest in establishing and maintaining equitable labour relations, I ask for the support and co-operation of all my hon. colleagues in ensuring quick passage of this Bill.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the support and co-operation for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is asking will be forthcoming. In my opinion, Bill C-97 is a worthy piece of legislation. We believe that the
December 14, 1987

right of an employee to contribute to a pension, health, or disability pension fund is a sacred entitlement. The Labour Code sees it that way but, unfortunately, because of a loophole in the Code, certain employers have been able to circumvent the law and escape their responsibility to contribute the employer's share to a pension fund when, for example, an employee is rightfully on sick leave or maternity leave. Bill C-97 will close this loophole, which we believe is the right thing to do.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) had already told me about his intention to introduce Bill C-97 to fill some of the gaps in the existing Labour Code. All employees contributing to a pension fund, a fund which protects them in case of illness or disability, expect to be able to continue their contributions and especially see that the employer as well makes his contributions to these funds when the employee is off because of illness or on leave to look after children, the most frequent occurrence being what is commonly called maternity leave. Unfortunately, clear though the intention of the Labour Code may be, it did have a loophole which made it possible for certain employers to evade their responsibilities. The measure under consideration is clearly intended to ensure that the employer will continue to pay his share of the contributions to these plans which protect the employees, provided of course the employee himself pays his contribution. Therefore we believe this measure will clarify certain sections of the Labour Code, and with that we agree.
This Bill reaffirms the spirit of the Labour Code and adds something that was missing in certain sections. This is why I do not intend to keep the floor much longer. I think the Bill is short but well drafted, a measure we were waiting for and which will certainly be welcomed by all working men and women throughout the country who contribute to various plans so as to be covered after retirement or in case of illness. To that extent we support this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and we hope it will go through all stages in the House of Commons as soon as possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give our support for this legislation. On a number of occasions in the House I asked the Minister to bring this legislation forward. On those occasions, as well as in private conversations, the Minister indicated that he would move with speed. I want to congratulate him for that.
This is one time when we knew that the law contained an unintentional flaw when it was passed in 1984. It became apparent that some employers would use that loophole in order to deny benefits to people who are on maternity leave, child care leave or sick leave.
We welcome this legislation. Again, I congratulate the Minister for moving quickly in this matter.
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-97, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1:


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. When does the Minister intend to have this Bill proclaimed?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, hopefully as quickly as the Senate is prepared to look at the legislation. We should proceed as quickly as possible.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-98, an Act to amend an Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House concerning the proposed amendments to the Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited.
These amendments concern a subject which, I am sure, is of great concern to all Hon. Members, namely, the health and safety of Canadian workers.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of safety and health in the workplace cannot be stressed often enough. The statistics are

December 14, 1987
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited
eloquent. In 1985, the last year for which figures are available, 768 Canadians lost their lives on the job and 16.2 million working days were lost as result of accidents. The cost, both direct and indirect, works out to about $14 billion, a very high price to pay for this country, both in human and financial terms.

This tragic and intolerable situation demands that we make every effort to ensure efficient, modern and effective regulation of safety and health in the workplace.
The amendments which I have proposed will make an important contribution to protecting the lives and well-being of employees of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company in the Flin Flon mineral area of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to explain the reasons for these amendments and give a short history of the problem we are anxious to solve.

As you may know, the Flin Flon mineral area is a large, vaguely defined region situated mainly in Manitoba but extending into Saskatchewan, with the majority of employees and mining operations located in Manitoba. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting mines and plants straddle the border between the two provinces.
Because of the interprovincial nature of the enterprise, mining operations in the area were brought under federal labour jurisdiction by the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Act of 1947.
However, as we all know, mining is an occupation with many specific hazards not found in other types of work. As a result, specific regulations are required to deal with all the special occupational safety and health problems in this industry.
Therefore, the problem in the Flin Flon mineral area is that Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting operations are under federal jurisdiction, and federal occupational safety and health legislation has applied. However, for many years each of the provinces has tried to apply its own mining occupational safety and health legislation.

The result has been a degree of overlap and even a certain amount of confusion, so. that protection of the occupational safety and health of company employees was not as effective as it should have been.

Provincial Governments, industry and unions have stated concern regarding this situation and their strong preference for any arrangement that would permit one uniform set of provincial occupational safety and health legislation to apply.
In order to eliminate all possible confusion, and to give Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting workers the benefit of a single uniform set of rules in this all-important area of occupational safety and health, I propose the following measures, which have been developed after extensive consultation with the provinces, the company and the unions; first, amendment of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Act to provide that Manitoba occupational safety and health statutes and regulations will apply to all Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting operations in the Flin Flon mineral area on both sides of the boundary between Manitoba and Saskatchewan; second, the Flin Flon mineral area will be defined in a Memorandum Of Understanding between the parties involved; third, inspection in occupational safety and health services will be provided by the Manitoba inspectorate.
A letter of agreement will cover this issue. The details relating to this element are now being discussed with the Province of Manitoba.

Since a very small proportion of the company's operations and jobs is located in Saskatchewan, that province is willing to let Manitoba statutes apply on its territory. Current mining operations in Saskatchewan will be terminated in a few years.
Finally, I should add that Manitoba recently passed a new series of updated mining regulations. These regulations are the result of a tripartite consultation process and provide good protection in terms of occupational health and safety in contemporary mining operations.

This Bill, which has the support of the Provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the company and the unions, provides an effective resolution of this long-standing problem, ensuring a high standard of occupational safety and health protection for Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting employees. The proposed Act will come into force on a date to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. This will be the earliest date that will provide for, first, the finalization of the letter of agreement with the Province of Manitoba and, second, a clear transition to the administration by the province.
This Bill will help achieve better protection for the wellbeing and, indeed, the very lives of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting employees in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. These workers daily face occupational hazards in order to earn their living and contribute to the economic well-being of our nation. They have a right to be protected by efficient, modern occupational safety and health regulations designed for their industry and their needs. I urge Hon. Members on both sides of this House to co-operate in passing these amendments as quickly as possible.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in saying a few words on Bill C-98, I will say it is a lucky day for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). He is going to get two
December 14, 1987

pieces of legislation passed quickly, which goes to prove that sensible legislation can pass rather swiftly in this House.
The Minister is right again that the situation that prevailed in the Flin Flon mineral area had to be settled. It was difficult for the people to understand who had jurisdiction, and which statute would apply with respect to occupational health and safety, the Saskatchewan statutes or the Manitoba statutes. A solution had to be found.
I think the solution the Minister has been able to negotiate with the parties involved, including the two provincial Governments, is the right one. I am going to try to stay away from what the Minister said because he has described the situation very faithfully.
The schedule lists a number of legislations and regulations that will become standard for the area after the Bill is passed. Could we, for example, accept what has until now been the practice that the Elevator Act of either one province or the other would apply? Surely not. In this case, the Acts to which I will refer are Manitoba Acts. For example, with respect to the Fires Prevention Act, if a fire starts in an operation, they will want to know which fire marshal has jurisdiction over the area. This was not clear until now. From now on the Fires Prevention Act, a statute of Manitoba, will apply. The same thing with the Gas and Oil Burner Act, the Manitoba Hydro Act, the Steam and Pressure Plants Act, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act.
The regulations which derive from these pieces of legislation are also listed. Surely one expects that when situations that are likely to be covered by these Acts arise, one knows exactly what statute applies. This is what this Bill will do. It will clarify the whole situation. I think it is a fine piece of legislation that deserves quick passage.
I will conclude by saying that I believe the Minister has depicted the situation in sufficient terms. I also want to give the floor to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), in whose riding the operations are located. I am sure he will be able to add to what I have been able to say so far. I am rather certain that he will also give his approval to this piece of legislation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the second time I have been introduced by my Liberal colleague before I rose to speak. It is true that the legislation does affect my own riding. I must say I am very happy to see this piece of legislation come forward. It has been something I have had the opportunity of working on ever since I became a Member of Parliament in 1979. I do congratulate the Government for doing this.
It has taken a lot of work by the unions and company involved, by the two provinces, the federal Government and the officials of the Department of Labour to have this legislation come before us. I would like to congratulate all the people involved.
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting
The mining communities which are affected by this legislation are in northern Manitoba, as one would expect. They are far from the services the federal Government is able to offer in the area of occupational health and safety. Nearby communities with mines come under provincial legislation and those services are readily available. That has been the genesis, the reason for this legislation.
I do have one concern with the legislation and that is something I will deal with when we go into clause by clause study in a few moments. I must say it does make sense to assign this responsibility to the Province of Manitoba. Most of the current mining is being done on the Manitoba side, and on the Saskatchewan side it has actually been a reducing operation with the passage of years. We also have in the Flin Flon mining area more mines being discovered over the years and it is actually an expanding area. Therefore, more and more of the employment is being done on the Manitoba side.
As the Minister did, I would also like to point out that Manitoba legislation is very progressive when it comes to occupational health and safety. That has been the result of tripartite work by employers, employees, and the Government over the years. This legislation does meet the needs of people and it is good legislation for the miners in northern Manitoba. Again, I would like to thank the Minister for moving forward with this very necessary and very progressive legislation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-98, an Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, my question relates to the fact that the workers' compensation will not be affected by this legislation. It does seem important that, if we are in a situation where the occupational health legislation of the Province of Manitoba is going to apply, we should also have some clarification on what the Government intends to do with regard to workers' compensation.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question. But as my hon. colleague suggests, the workers' compensation is under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, I would suggest that both provinces would have to address that particular issue possibly in dealing with our discussions on the administrative arrangements. I do not believe that federal

December 14, 1987
Veterans Affairs
jurisdiction has any power at this point with respect to that particular issue. I would suggest to the provinces that they should address this very sensitive issue in the administrative arrangements.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I was wondering if the Minister would be offering his good offices to make sure that there is some action taken on the workers' compensation issue. It is something that is important. I know that in some of the earlier discussions that took place there was a belief that the workers' compensation would be included in this legislation.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, I do not think that we can address this particular issue in this legislation because of the jurisdiction. But I will surely raise that particular question, which is very important, and it has to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. I will definitely offer my good offices to raise the question with the appropriate provinces, and hopefully convince them to deal with it in their arrangements.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

George Harris Hees: that Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, to repeal the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act and to amend another Act in relation thereto, be now read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again it is my pleasure to introduce legislation to this House which will be of benefit to Canadian veterans and their families.
Bill C-100 is omnibus legislation which will remove deficiencies that have been revealed within the existing legislation. We want our legislation to be fair and equitable to all veterans and their families, and Bill C-100 will erase injustices that have inadvertently been allowed to exist.
Spouses of former prisoners of war have been particularly affected, and that is why I am proposing that the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act be repealed, and that our POWs and their dependants be covered in the future by the Pension Act, as they were from 1971 until 1976.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that Parliament on several occasions intended benefits in the Compensation for
Former Prisoners of War Act to parallel those in the Pension Act. Unfortunately, as there were two separate pieces of legislation, this did not always happen. Repeal of the Act will reduce future chances of this happening.
This legislation puts forward 12 amendments in all, but as many are of a housekeeping nature, my comments will concentrate on the more major items.
As I suggested a moment ago, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act has been lacking in a number of areas, and I am proposing amendments to correct this. We will be improving areas that have been of concern to organizations such as the National Prisoners of War Association, the National Council of Veteran Associations, and the Royal Canadian Legion.
Hon. Members will know, Mr. Speaker, that we compensate former prisoners of war for their time spent in captivity. Also, as with all veterans, former prisoners of war may be entitled to compensation for any disability they sustained during the time of their service.
It is my belief that Parliament's intention had always been to recognize this dual entitlement in the calculation of survivor benefits. Indeed, this was the practice followed by the Canadian Pension Commission until 1986, when it was determined that the legislation, as written, did not include prisoners of war who had not been in receipt of a disability pension. Repealing the Prisoners of War Act and placing prisoner of war benefits in the Pension Act rectifies this situation and means that for all future applicants, dependant and survivor benefits will again be in step as intended.
Similarly, it was found that the POW legislation did not permit the Canadian Pension Commission to combine rates when it had to calculate survivor benefits. Prisoner of war compensation and disability compensation must now be determined independently, and this reduces the payments being made to a number of widows. The amendment before the House will allow the commission to return to its traditional methods and cap the maximum at one full survivor's pension.
This will be of particular benefit to widows of prisoners of war who had been in receipt of pension and compensation which, when combined, yield a total of 48 per cent or more. For example, a widow of a POW who had been receiving 25 per cent compensation and 25 per cent pension will currently receive a survivor benefit of half the 25 per cent compensation and half the 25 per cent disability pension. This amendment will permit the commission to add the two percentages and pay the higher full widow's pension instead of two proportionate pensions.
We are also proposing that the married rate should be paid for one full year following the death of a spouse. This puts our POW benefits in line with those that already exist for disability pensioners.
December 14, 1987

Hon. Members will recall that a similar amendment was made in Bill C-28, passed in February, 1985. I said then that it bordered on the inhumane to reduce a widow's income within a month of the veteran's death, and I feel exactly the same about the benefits paid under the POW Act. This amendment will keep these benefits in pay for a full year following the POW's death and thereby give the widow an opportunity to adjust to her changed circumstances.
I am sure that all Hon. Members will enthusiastically support another measure which will introduce further compassion into our legislation. The House will recall the plight of those Canadians who were held prisoner in North Africa during the war. These veterans had been unable to receive prisoner of war compensation because there was doubt as to whether they had been detained in enemy territory. Eventually, and happily, this matter was resolved, but not before these veterans had been denied compensation for many years because they did not meet the strict criteria.
Now we want the Canadian Pension Commission to have the discretion to grant POW compensation in specially meritorious cases such as the ones which came forward from veterans held prisoner in North Africa.
This flexibility already exists in the case of disability pensions and has enabled such deserving people as the veterans exposed to nuclear radiation in the 1950s to make application for pension.
1 have confined my remarks to the more important amendments contained in this legislation. All amendments, however, are designed to improve the existing legislation for veterans and their dependants.
Veterans and their families are very special Canadians, and I am confident that all Members fully appreciate the fairness of this legislation, just as I very sincerely appreciate the support the Bill has received from all sides of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the Liberal Party agrees with this Bill. I compliment the Minister on bringing it forward. It is in keeping with the historical and traditional policies of Parliament that we look after our veterans and their survivors because we owe it to them.
The Bill today is a very humane act. It recognizes or reminds us once again of the realities of war. It also reminds us of the consequences of war. In many ways, as the Minister has said, it is a housekeeping Bill, but it is a very necessary Bill and the amendments are very important to the people who will benefit from them.
As the Minister stated, there has been legislation which intended to do many of these things but because of technicalities did not work in the way Parliament intended it to work. This Bill will repair those things.
Veterans Affairs
The Minister also mentioned that it will repeal the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. What it really does is transfer the responsibilities or the purpose of the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act to the Pension Act, so that the amendments to the Pension Act, when passed, will apply to both veterans who were not prisoners of war and those who were prisoners of war. Hence, prisoner of war benefits will become part of the Pension Act. It makes the legislation more simple. It creates less red tape for veterans, their survivors, and their dependants who qualify for the benefits mentioned herein.
Today we hear many people talk about the cost of social benefits in Canada, but I want to point out that in the Bill the Minister brought in today all the benefits that benefit people in a very sincere and humane manner will cost less than $3 million. If we say it slowly, it sounds like a lot of money. However, if we consider the number of people who will benefit from it, it is not a lot of money. In fact, if we want to use a comparison, let us say that this Bill will cost Canadians slightly more than a present day, modern, heavy-armoured, battle-line tank. I think that is a good comparison to make since today we are talking about veterans' benefits.
It will reinstate payment of prisoner of war survivor benefits where the deceased veteran was not in receipt of a disability pension. This technicality arose in 1986. If a prisoner of war was being compensated for the fact that he had been a prisoner of war, he and his survivors did not qualify for other benefits. In order for his survivor and dependants to qualify, he had to be on disability pension as well, or singularly on disability, whatever the case may be.
As a result, compensation for being a prisoner of war is valid now for continuation of a pension. The disability and compensation factors will both be tied into the Canadian Pension Commission after the legislation is passed. The particular amendment will enable the Canadian Pension Commission to return to its traditional procedures. In other words, it will deal with both compensation and disability at the same time.
Another important facet is the fact that the Bill re-author-izes the combining of the rate of disability pensions with the rate of prisoner of war compensation payable to a deceased veteran in determining a survivor benefit and will cap it at one full survivor's pension instead of two. It will also entitle the survivor to a full widow's pension, which is an extremely important point.
A very important amendment in this Bill on which I want to compliment the Minister authorizes payment of the married rate for one full year following the death of a spouse or veteran. This brings the Prisoner of War Act directly into line with the Canadian Pension Act. The authorization of these payments for one year following the death of a veteran when his spouse and dependants will be receiving a full income from the veterans pension is important because that time is very

December 14, 1987
Veterans Affairs
difficult. It is a period of transition when they need to carry on and adjust to the future. This amendment adds a great deal to the humane attitude to veterans legislation.
You had to be a prisoner of war for 30 months on a continual basis before qualifying for any compensation under the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. Now you can add one, two or three imprisonments together to get a total of 30 months. That is only fair. A person who was captured two or three times went through much greater ordeal.
There is another technical amendment. These sorts of things pass by legislators when Bills are drawn up. If a person was captured on February 1-and the legislation in the past said that you required three months to get a prisoner of war pension-you would require only 89 days to qualify for that pension, but if you were captured on July 1 you would require 92 days to qualify. Those of us who handle a lot of veterans' cases run across these inequities from time to time.
Another important part of this Bill authorizes the Canadian Pension Commission to grant compassionate prisoner of war compensation in cases of special hardship where an applicant is otherwise unqualified. The Minister in this case today mentioned prisoners in North Africa who were considered to be outside the enemy's territory. I think what this legislation recognizes and should recognize is that in times of war we know no boundaries. Boundaries can change from day to day. You cannot really say that because it is not in actual enemy territory, you are not in enemy territory. How would you be captured if you were not in enemy territory or vice versa? That is a good amendment.
In bringing all this together today I think again that the historical tradition of Canada and Canadian Governments over the years has been to provide for veterans, survivors and their spouses. This is a great responsibility that must never be forgotten. We must look after families of those who have died in defence of freedom and those veterans who came home incapacitated, unable to provide for their spouses and families. That is our job here at home and one that we must continue.
I know that the Minister today has a great feeling for his job, as did the Hon. Dan MacDonald when he was in this House. He understands it is important that veterans be made comfortable for the remainder of their lives. That is the least we can do for the service they have given to this country. He understands it is important that veterans be made comfortable for the remainder of their lives. That is the least we can do for the service they have given to Canada. Therefore, we must be reminded at this time that present day Canadian nationalism was really born on the battlefields of Europe, of the world and also at the negotiating tables that brought World War I and World War II to a close, not forgetting the Korean War later on. Only if we ourselves in this Parliament look after normal lifetime responsibilities that would have belonged to those veterans who did not return and only if we look after the lifetime responsibilities of those who returned incapacitated, can we really say that we are remembering them. That is the
job of every Canadian, not just at the cenotaph on November 11. They may have been maltreated while in prison or wounded in war, but it is the job of Canadians as a whole to remember them by looking after those who returned incapacitated, their spouses, families and dependants.
The Minister mentioned various organizations. I would like to pay tribute, on behalf of my Party today, the Liberal Party of Canada to organizations such as the National Prisoners of War Association, one of which is the renowned Dieppe Prisoners of War Association; the National Council of Veterans Associations; and the Royal Canadian Legion, which has some 1,700 branches across Canada. People in these organizations have continued to champion the causes and brought forward representations to the Government of Canada to amend the legislation so that we as parliamentarians can better carry on the job of supporting our veterans. Of course then we have the Canadian families who are directly affected by things that arise by way of technicalities and legislation that do not apply to their individual cases. We owe it to them too for bringing their ideas forward to us.
To all those people I want to say thank you today. I appreciate that the Minister has brought this legislation forward in the historical and great traditions of Canada as a caring nation on behalf of its people for those who sacrificed their lives or health for our country. Last August I had the privilege of attending the ceremonies in Dieppe with the Minister along with many other veterans in remembering that horrendous day, August 19, 1942. It brought home the fact that there should be no complaint or disagreement among political Parties in Canada to support legislation benefiting those who were killed or wounded in such battles all over the world on Canada's behalf. They fought for all of Canada. Therefore, all Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, should defend spouses and dependants of veterans at a time of need.
Thank you for giving me this time to say a few words on this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Again I congratulate the Minister for bringing this legislation forward today.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 want to say that the proposed legislation before the House, Bill C-100, has the full support of the New Democratic Party. My remarks will be extremely short. It is crucial that this legislation be passed in all stages today because it contains quite a number of improvements for prisoners of war, their dependants and their widows.
I have been a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs since I came here in 1980. At practically every appearance before the committee of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Council of War Veterans' Associations, the National Prisoners of War Association of Canada, as well as of the wives and widows of the members of the National PWO Association, we heard a
December 14, 1987

litany of complaints dealing with various pieces of legislation affecting prisoners of war and veterans' benefits.
I must take this opportunity to compliment the Minister. Since I have been here, he has been one of the most responsive Ministers of Veterans Affairs. Ele has managed to clear up most of the petty, niggling little problems which should have been rectified long before this. Even though they may seem like small problems to us, they are huge problems to the people who rely on those benefits for an adequate and decent standard of living. I believe that the Minister should be complimented for that, and I know, speaking for myself and, I think, for other members of the Veterans Affairs Committee from all Parties, he will receive the continued support of that committee for the work he does on behalf of veterans and their families.
This is not to say that the Minister and I do not disagree from time to time. We certainly do disagree, and of course that is what we are all here to do.
Some of the other issues the wives and widows of members of the National Prisoners of War Association raised with the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs at a meeting on June 18 have not been addressed by this legislation. However, I have had a discussion with the Minister and he has assured me that he will be pursuing the concerns which those individuals raised with the committee over the next short period of time, and of course, knowing the Minister, I accept that he will do so. We look forward to the moment when we can improve the legislation affecting veterans, their families and prisoners of war even further.
That is about all the time I wish to take on these amendments. 1 think they speak for themselves. We are not talking about a large amount of money. I think it amounts to about $3 million over the next five years. In terms of total government expenditures over that same five-year period, we are talking about peanuts, but that amount of money represents a substantial improvement in the lot of POWs, their families and their dependants. It is an extremely important move, even though it does not seem to be such a massive amount. It is the least we can do to help the people to whom we owe so much to live a decent life in Canada, and I think this legislation goes in that direction.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise to speak to Bill C-100, given the eloquent words of the Minister and the two opposition spokesmen who have already addressed themselves to this Bill. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to rise.
I listened with great interest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). As Hon. Members know, the Minister is a man of few words and a man of considerable talent. He has done a considerable amount of good for the Veterans Affairs Department, but I submit that he is also a man of some modesty. When he rose in his place to introduce this Bill to the House, he described it as a housekeeping measure. I want to
Veterans Affairs
say to the Minister that I fundamentally disagree with him. This Bill is substantially more than a housekeeping measure, and I say that with great respect.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recall that some months ago, CBC Radio did a Sunday morning program about people who were prisoners of war in Laghouat, Algeria. There are some several dozen of them across Canada, including about half a dozen in my own Province of Newfoundland. These people spent years in a prisoner of war camp. Jim Templeton from St. John's went in there weighing 180 or 190 pounds and came out weighing 130 pounds. Some of them saw their colleagues shot and killed while trying to escape the camp. So that we are clear as to whether or not it was a prisoner of war camp let me say that it was administered by the Gestapo.


Mr. Benjamin:: And the Vichy French.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And the Vichy French. However, because that camp was located in Algeria, a nation with which we had not formally exchanged a Declaration of war, under the terms of the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act as defined in the legislation of 1976 or 1977, the Government was unable to find that these men had been prisoners of war.
The situation was brought to the attention of the Minister. Indeed, I raised it myself on a number of occasions in the House. The Minister, without argument and without hesitation, acknowledged that, given the circumstances involved, it was indeed not a grey area, it was not a question of a judgment call, but it was clear that these Canadian veterans had been prisoners of war in the most brutal sense of the word and that they had suffered greatly in their service to the nation.
I am saying this because the Minister is somewhat modest and would not say it himself. He was able to find a way, through the use of historical documents, to bring benefits under the old Act to these people who had been held prisoners in Laghouat, Algeria. The many people who were involved in this case rejoiced and indeed gave due respect and thanks to the Minister for his action.
Some of us who were involved in this matter were concerned about other prisoners of war about whom we do not know yet who suffered under similar conditions. We wondered if there would be an historical document somewhere, as there was in the case of Laghouat, which would allow us to recognize those others. In the case of Laghouat, a technicality was used to recognize that at least during wartime, the prisoners were held in enemy territory. What if there is no such technicality for the others?
Today the Minister is bringing in Bill C-100 and at the same time repealing the Former Prisoners of War Compensation Act. This new legislation brings the plight of those people under the discretion of the board, something which was not available before. The Minister has ensured that in future, when people who have suffered the same kind of treatment as those who were held at Laghouat, Algeria, come forward, we

December 14, 1987
Veterans Affairs
will not have to search for a technicality in order to give them simple justice.
Let me say, as one who is not a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, as one who does not normally participate in these debates, but as one who brought the conditions of former prisoners of war to the Minister's attention, that I think the change the Minister has made to ensure that all legitimate prisoners of war are compensated is an important one and goes far beyond simple housekeeping. In fact, it is an entrenchment of the principle of simple justice in Bill C-100.
There is no question that justice and fairness do not have price tags and cannot be measured in dollars and cents. It struck me, as I know it struck the Minister as we discussed the matter, that in the case of Laghouat, those people were less interested in receiving financial compensation for being recognized as prisoners of war than they were in receiving the dignity of recognition for the price they had paid in the service of their country. They asked for recognition that they had indeed served Canada and paid a price as prisoners of war- not as interns at some resort, but as prisoners of war. That was their first interest.
The Minister has given to all of those in similar circumstances, not only benefit of a pension provided under the Pension Act-which is important and not to be belittled-but their dignity. That is what they asked for first and foremost. For that I heartily congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) I would like to remind him that the Bill is to go through all stages before Private Members' Hour.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that that will happen. When have I ever caused you any trouble? Perhaps in other places, but not with you.
I will keep my remarks brief. I would like to congratulate the Minister on this legislation. I want to appeal to him as well. The Minister is making some corrections of errors of omission or commission and giving some recognition to veterans and their survivors. I hope he will address himself to two further areas.
By the way, I enjoyed watching the brief exchange between our honorary member at the Clerk's Table, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). The honorary member at the Table carried on the fight for veterans in this place along with the Hon. Minister since 1942. I would like to carry on the fight which my former colleague carried on with previous Ministers of Veterans Affairs.
The first appeal I would like to make is with regard to the Spanish Civil War veterans. Several thousand of them fought the Fascists in Spain between 1935 and 1938. Most of them
volunteered for the Canadian Forces in 1939 and fought in the Second World War. In fact, for some of them it was a third war. They had been in World War I, the Spanish Civil War, and then World War II.
As I am sure the Minister knows, there are only about 200 of these veterans left of the several thousand who served, and a few surviving widows. I had a Private Member's Bill before this House for many years, to which precedessors of the Minister responded, in the bureaucrats of the Department, that they were mercenaries. The Minister and I know that that is not true. Most of them paid their own way. They were all volunteers. None of them made any money. Some of the 200 who are left served as prisoners of war, and a few were even tortured by the Fascists in Spain.
All they really want is recognition as veterans. I doubt whether very many, if any, are looking for any benefits. They only want recognition as veterans. The handful who are left are now in their 70s, 80s, and 90s I think that recognition long past due is deserved. I hope the Minister, unlike at least five of his precedessors with whom I have dealt, will recognize that.
In this Bill the Minister is dealing with the criteria for the awarding of decorations. Over the last couple of years I have been working with him on the case of a veteran who served for five years overseas. This veteran did not spend the 160 or 180 days on continental Europe, which is the criterion for the 1939-45 Star, because so much of his time was spent in England and Ireland. I did not know that England and Ireland had been moved out of northwest Europe, but the Department of Veterans Affairs has done so. This veteran manned antiaircraft guns for the Canadian Forces on the south coast of Britain. There is no way that that was not the front line. The criterion for the 1939-45 Star should be changed to include England and Ireland.
Another case has come to my attention recently, about which I will be writing to the Minister. I will tell him now that it is with regard to a person who was in the RAF for approximately five years. He served in England with RCAF squadrons, but a lot of the time was spent in Canada as an instructor. All he would like to have is the War Medal or the 1939-45 Star as recognition of his service with the Canadian Armed Forces in World War II.
I plead with the Minister to review the criteria for those medals. I want to plead, for the umpteenth time in this place since 1968, for recognition of the veterans of the Spanish Civil War. If the few survivors who are left are entitled to a few tens of thousands of dollars, let us give it to them.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member, who I know has always taken a very sympathetic and energetic interest in veterans, that the case of the Mac-Pap is now before the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I can assure him that we will review the findings of that committee very sympathetically indeed. I am sympathetic to the case and will do everything I can.
December 14, 1987

With regard to the other matters which the Member brought up, I am sympathetic to practically all the representations which are brought forward on behalf of veterans because they are such deserving people. I am sometimes tied down by the cold hand of the law. However, I have been able to work around some of the problems and I can assure the Hon. Member that I will work around any problems that I can.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has so often said: "If it can be done it will be done".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, to repeal the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act and to amend any other Act in relation thereto.
Clauses 1 and 2 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 3-Composition of Commission


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, Section 3(1) at page 2 of the Bill states:
There shall be a commission to be known as the Canadian Pension
Commission, consisting of not fewer than eight and not more than 14
commissioners, not more than 10 ad hoc commissioners and such number of
temporary commissioners as the Minister considers necessary.
Will the Minister advise us what effect, if any, this Bill will have on the terms of appointment of present members of the Canadian Pension Commission, and will any be added or subtracted?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that it does not have any effect on present members of the commission.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is to be congratulated for carrying this Bill through quickly this afternoon. Does he have any time schedule for the formal proclamation of this Bill?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, just as soon as is possible. It is something that is very much overdue. We will bring it in with the greatest possible speed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of words to thank those who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I want to thank them very much for their extremely able representations and remarks in the debate today. It was a very constructive debate.
I appreciate their support and the kind things they had to say about me. They are not deserved but very much appreciated. I thank them all.
It has been a very good afternoon. We will be bringing more legislation forward as soon as we can find other corrections to make.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC   FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nickerson that Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the Bill was last before the House, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Binns) had the floor.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this Private Members' Bill, Bill C-211. Indeed, it is a Bill that has been before the House a number of times. It has been debated in the House for two hours and is now being debated for its third hour this evening.
This Bill was introduced previously as Bill C-235, and was identical in purpose to Bill C-211.
Previous speakers in the debate have indicated the need for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the spirit of co-operation among the federal, provincial and territorial Governments. The Bill was conceived so as to bring order in the marketing of freshwater fish while at the same time increasing returns to fishermen. The financial success of the corporation has been highlighted. Today, however, I would like to focus briefly on the effects of the Bill. It is time to take

December 14, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
stock of these arguments and ask what this Bill would really accomplish if it were to pass.
In previous debates, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has said that the Bill would really gut the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. If we look at the text, it will repeal the definition "participating province" from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, repeal Part III of the Act, and repeal the schedule to the Act.
Part III of the Act which the Bill proposes to eliminate is, no doubt, the "gut" to which the Hon. Member referred. It concerns the regulation of interprovincial and export trade, the duties and powers of the corporation, including the orderly marketing of fish, increasing returns to fishermen, and promoting international markets for and increasing interprovincial trade in fish. It also concerns the agreements respecting participation, which include that aforementioned co-operation among Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. This section of the Act refers to agreements between the Government of Canada and these provinces for matters such as the sharing by provinces with the Government of Canada of any losses by the corporation, and functions relating to interprovincial trade in fish.
Thus we have a corporation established by the collective will of the participating provinces and the Government of Canada.
The Bill before us will commit the Government to repeal unilaterally this area of participation and co-operation. If passed, it would also remove the area of jurisdiction of the corporation and basically render it inoperative in the sense of federal and provincial territorial agreements which were signed to establish the corporation itself.
It is important to note that the Bill has been drafted but the provinces and the Territories have not expressed their consent at this point to the Bill in its present state. Therefore, we have to ask in fact what is the provincial reaction to Bill C-211. I would like to refer to that briefly because in the last couple of months all four provinces have cautioned us to treat the Bill gently or not to touch it.
Saskatchewan, clearly indicated its opposition to the Bill in a letter written by the Minister of Parks, Recreation and Culture for Saskatchewan. In his letter he stated: "Saskatchewan is committed to a unified marketing effort through a strong freshwater fish marketing corporation". He went on to say: "I do not support Bill C-211 and feel that it would be inappropriate to consider such legislation without consultation between all participants".
In a similar vein, a letter from the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife of Alberta said:
I understand that the single-desk marketing control provided by the present act is essential to the overall continued, successful working of the corporation. Consequently, I am not supportive of the principles which the Bill puts forward.
The Provinces of Manitoba and Ontario have sent similar letters. The Government of the Northwest Territories has not in any way asked for an alteration of the mandate of the corporation. While speaking on this matter on November 2, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) indicated that this Bill would not only get rid of the corporation against the evident wishes of the provincial Governments but, indeed, it would do so unilaterally and without prior consultation with those provinces.
I refer to these communications to show that this is not a partisan matter but a matter guided by facts, logic and common sense. I would also like to observe that this is an era which has seen milestone events in the progress of federal-provincial relations. Can we not take advantage of the expertise and the active involvement of the provinces in making the fisheries respond to the challenges now put before them?
These challenges are very real. They include new technology, over-participation and over-capitalization at the processing level. They include insufficient development of local markets and product substitution. Can we possibly expect our fishermen, who are spread over an area of five million square kilometres and who market 23 species of fish to different and varied markets, to face and successfully master these challenges by themselves?
Provincial officials and members of all three Parties in this House are not the only ones who think that the FFMC and its concept of a single-desk marketing system is working. The Senate's Standing Committee on Fisheries in its 1986 report on the marketing of fish in Canada concluded, after extensive investigation, that there was more to be gained by improving single-desk selling than by getting rid of it. The committee's report gives a glimpse of the opportunities and pitfalls which face the fishery. It recommends that the provincial and territorial Governments, in co-operation with the FFMC, coordinate their efforts to bring about a good balance of investments in harvesting facilities, and the number of participants in the western fisheries given the harvestable quantities of fish.
I would have to join my provincial counterparts, my colleagues of all Parties, the Senate committee and the vast majority of our fishermen in saying I believe that Canadian freshwater fishermen should not be deprived of this organization if they feel it has been effective for them.
I am not suggesting that the FFMC has no room to improve. In fact, I believe my colleague who has promoted the Bill has expressed very well that there must be changes to affect the livelihood and well-being of fishermen from the Northwest Territories. However, to cut the FFMC unilaterally and without further consultation with the provinces will destroy the co-operative climate we have forged among the provinces, the fishermen and the federal Government.
We know that the provinces and the vast majority of the fishermen continue to support the FFMC. Fishermen have just
December 14, 1987

recently spoken through the chairman of the advisory committee pleading that Bill C-211 not be adopted.
As my colleague, the El on. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), said in this House on October 1: "Fishermen tell me they are getting quite a good run for their product and I think the facts bear that out".
Adopting Bill C-211 is not a simple change. The Bill would, in essence, unilaterally kill the corporation as it now exists. It would do so against the wishes of several parties, including the provinces. I would want to add my voice to those facts and to the wishes of so many others and say that it is probably better to improve the FFMC than to pass this legislation at this point in time. If we wish to change and improve the FFMC, we should look at internal changes which can accommodate the needs of fishermen from the Northwest Territories.
I would urge the Government to work with the Hon. Member to make those kinds of internal changes to the organization, in consultation with the FFMC, and 1 think we will find that the end results will be much better for the Government. In conclusion, I have to say that I will not be supporting this Bill.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to stand and speak on Bill C-211. A year and a half or two years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the riding of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the communities on both sides of Great Slave Lake. There is no question about it when the Hon. Member for Western Arctic says there is not total happiness and unanimity with respect to the value or otherwise of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. One can find that sentiment quite readily on both sides of Great Slave Lake, particularly on the lower side. There is no doubt about that at all.
Despite the sentiment that there were problems with the FFMC, I am not sure there is a unanimous view that it ought to be wiped out of existence. Having said that, let me say that I was very interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Binns) speak because I was not quite sure at all what the Government's position on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was going to be. In fact, if I were a betting man, and I am not, I would have bet a substantial amount of money that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as he is wont to do, stood in his place to speak on behalf of his Minister, he would not have been urging those of us in the House who are interested in this matter to vote against the Bill which was prepared and supported by the Member for Western Arctic, namely Bill C-211, which would wipe out the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. 1 thought he was going to stand and encourage all of us to join him and his Minister in putting the thumb on the spread of communism in this country just as fast as we could.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
Why would I say communism, Mr. Speaker? Because I did some homework. I went back to a speech given by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), the same Member who is now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to see what his views were on this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary spoke on his behalf, giving his view that this is a useful, helpful and dynamic organization, that it might need some slight changes and tinkering but it is a good organization. This same Minister, speaking in his place in this House as a member of the Opposition, and a lowly back-bencher at that, said, with respect to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in 1980
I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fish marketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
He went on to state, "I say it is the beginnings of communism in this country because it takes away from the individual the right to compete". Those were the words of the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta before he was the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean, and nothing but a lowly Conservative back-bencher.
I thought the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta was seeing red then when he made those ridiculous comments that a Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was the symbol of growing communism in the country. The only joy I can take out of this futile debate today, once again about this Bill, is that, obviously, having heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in the intervening nearly eight years since the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gave this speech in which he described the Freshwater Fishing Marketing Corporation as communism he has seen the light and come to his senses, and that the spirit of perestroika has invaded his soul. Now he wants to give the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation a chance to survive, notwithstanding the heavy hand of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic who wants to put an end to this corporation.
You can well understand, Mr. Speaker, being a longstanding Member of this House who is held in high regard by all Members from all corners and all Parties, and with a good sense of the ridiculous, that I could not help but note that speech given by the Minister who called it communism eight years ago and who now so stoutly defends the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. May I say, it is an interesting conversion on the road to Ottawa to the Cabinet, to 24 Sussex, or the Governor General's residence.
In conclusion, I wish to read a copy of a letter dated November 23, 1987 to the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta. It was written by Maurice Blanchard, Chairman, Fishermen's Advisory Committee, regarding Bill C-211. I wish to quote a couple of excerpts. Mr. Blanchard states:

December 14, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
By any industry measure, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a success. It has shown steady growth and has just completed another year of record sales and record returns to fishermen. The Corporation has consistently generated profits over the past 15 years and has provided fishermen with a level of security that never existed in the past. This is not to say that all fishermen believe the Corporation is perfect. The fact is that even I and other members of the Advisory Committee have questioned the concept of single desk marketing at one time or another. But we did not really understand how the Corporation operates.
Now that we are fully aware of the strengths and benefits of single desk marketing, we have become supporters of the Corporation. This is not to say that we always approve of everything the Corporation does, but there are few issues that we have not been able to work out through reasonable discussion. Like the large marjority of fishermen, we believe that while not perfect, the fishing industry in this region has never been in better shape.
Mr. Blanchard went on to state:
As representatives of fishermen across the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation region, we ask that you and other Members of Parliament vote to defeat Bill C-211. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
This letter was signed by Annie Bird, La Ronge, Saskatchewan; Helgi Jones, Gimli, Manitoba; Jane Mayo, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories-this is in the Member's own riding who wants to gut the corporation-William Quequish, Weagamow Lake, Ontario. I am from Newfoundland, and 1 forgive people for mispronouncing some rather famous parts of Newfoundland, so I hope they will forgive me for mispronouncing famous places elsewhere in the country. The letter is also signed by Joe Tsannie, Wollaston Lake, Saskatchewan; Raymond Dupres, Slave Lake, Alberta; Ed Isfeld, Winnipeg Beach, Manitoba; William Cordell, Pikwitonei, Manitoba; Elmo Helgason, Ashern, Manitoba; Bessie Irvine, Grand Marais, Manitoba; and Guy L'Heureux, Joussard, Alberta. I am sure that I mispronounced half of those communities, but it was in total innocence.
The point that I am trying to make is that the reason the Minister of Fisheries has come to his senses and no longer sees behind the doors of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation the spread, the germ, or the seeds of communism in this country is that he has obviously had an opportunity as Minister of Fisheries to visit some of those communities, or at least to speak to many of those people who are on the Minister's advisory committee. He realizes that one cannot take a few complaints, albeit sometimes legitimate complaints, legitimate proposals, or legitimate aspirations about an industry and the role that a Crown corporation plays in that industry, and use it as justification for wiping out that corporation.
I would urge all Members to defeat this Bill. I urge my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, who represents such a dynamic, interesting, and important part of Canada not to waste the time of the House or his own valuable time with the continued reintroduction year after year of this Bill. It has about as much chance of passing as the Minister has of going back to his old and rather foolish views about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Bill, and advise my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that I was here in 1969 when we dealt with this legislation in its origins brought in by a Liberal Government, but Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, the Social Credit Party, and the NDP supported it.
I have carefully read the speech of the hon. sponsor of this Bill, and I find it passing strange. He tried this in 1985 and he got nowhere, yet he still keeps batting his head against the same wall in spite of the overwhelming support by the massive majority of freshwater fishermen in western and northern Canada and northern Ontario.
I notice that his speech amounts to gutting this legislation. I do not know why he did not move a Private Member's Bill to repeal the whole Act, because that in effect is what his present Bill is doing. But in his speech earlier in the House on this Bill he stated that it would bring about the revival of co-operatives.
I wish to advise my hon. friend that we had a lot of small fishermen's co-operatives. At that time I was representing the constituency of Regina-Lake Centre, and there was a fishermen's co-op on Last Mountain Lake. Members of the coop lived in places like Dilke, Regina Beach, Chamberlain, and Findlater. They also lived on the other side of the lake at Nokomis, Earl Grey, and places like that.
The trouble they had was not in catching fish, but rather, as a little co-op trying to compete in the international market and the domestic market in central Canada against the large fish dealers, Safeways, and the Hudson's Bay Company. They did not have a prayer. They did not have the resources to compete in the market. They recognized that they needed something in the way of orderly marketing and central desk-selling, to some extent modelled on the Canadian Wheat Board. Since 1935 there has always been a handful of grain producers and grain companies that have tried to undermine, undercut, and destroy the principle of orderly marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. The same thing applies here.
This is a time to enlarge the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and give it the tools to do an even bigger job processing plants in the North and in the northern parts of the western provinces.


Dave Nickerson: Closing them down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a time to give them the tools on equalizing transportation costs in order that those who are furthest away can get their product to market in central Canada, in the United States, or other parts of the world with some semblance of an equal opportunity and equal competition.
I remember that in 1969 Members of Parliament from northern Canada were citing how, because of transportation costs alone, they had to compete with freshwater fishermen in southern Ontario, southern Quebec and the northern United
December 14, 1987

States who were already catching fish right next door to the big markets. If the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation does nothing else but pool those costs for the benefit of all freshwater fishermen, it would be doing a great service to those fishermen in northern Canada, northern Ontario and western Canada.
Of course we need more fishermen's co-operatives. What they should be doing in their co-operatives is pooling their individual resources and with financial support from their local communities, credit unions, banks, or whatever, to purchase things like boats, motors, nets, and insurance. There is a host of other things which could be pooled in a co-operative which would reduce their costs and provide them with a better return on their catches. To expect individual fishermen or small individual co-operatives to move into the big leagues of the international markets is to be totally unfair to them and can have no other result than to lower prices.
We had examples in 1969 and 1970 of fishermen getting two cents or three cents per pound in the territories, ten cents or fifteen cents per pound in Manitoba, and twenty cents per pound in northern Ontario. Why was this? It was because they were closer to the markets and had better transportation facilities. We have been through this once before. If my hon. friend cannot learn from some recent history, he will be condemned to trying to repeat it, which is exactly what he is trying to do now.
We must have stronger central marketing of primary products such as grain and grain products and fish and fish products. Primary producers, whether they are grain farmers or fishermen, have never been price makers. They have never been allowed to set a price related to their costs of production or to their geographic location. They have always been price takers. What happens is that buyers, in particular international buyers, play one area of the country against another. They will get fishermen in the Northwest Territories trying to underbid the ones in Manitoba or northern Saskatchewan. Fishermen have been through that before, and those who have been in the freshwater fishing industry for a while know what it was like then and do not want it to happen again.
If there are problems regarding certain species or certain lakes, they should be solved by the fishermen themselves meeting with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Advisory Board and with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation where they can be resolved. If the corporation needs funding on a pay-back basis over a period of years at a preferred interest rate, let us give it so that it can do an even bigger and better job.
Let us look at the annual reports for the last five years which contain some of the things the hon. gentleman is complaining about. We see that 1987 was the best year they ever had. Initial payments and the final payments totalled $48.3 million. If my memory serves me right about catch in
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
the annual report, it works out to about $1 per pound or whatever. In any case, it was the best year ever. All I can say to my hon. friend is: "If it is working, don't try to fix it". He does not need to throw out the baby with the bath water. He should be moving amendments to strengthen the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation so that it can do an even better job for all fishermen in the area which the legislation covers.
I am getting a little tired of seeing the true colour of the Tories. I am not sure whether my hon. friend even knows what supply side economics is, but let me put it to him this way. According to his theory in this legislation, fishermen supply the fish and the market economics tells them how little they will get for it. That has been the problem with the so-called theory of supply side economics. Producers must band together and work co-operatively through their own agency. The agency is there for them and for no one else. We cannot say that it is overburdened with bureaucrats. It does not have a big staff. In fact, it should have half a dozen more people who do nothing but sell freshwater fish and processed fish. There should be more of them doing that in central Canada, in the United States, and in other countries of the world. They need more staff, not less. They do not need friends like my hon. friend from the territories. As far as I am concerned, his legislation means that he is not a friend of orderly marketing to get better income for fishermen. He is also against the best interests of freshwater fishermen generally. He has proven that with what is in his motion. I am appalled that he would try to do it a second time. He did not learn his lesson the first time.
I hope the Government can assure us that the motion will be defeated at second reading, or that it will die in committee where it deserves a totally unnatural death. If the Government cannot give us that assurance, I am sure that we can get enough people to keep it going until five o'clock. Then I hope we will not get to it again until October, 1999, because that is all the motion deserves. I hope my hon. friend will take another look at what he is trying to do and will talk with fishermen all over the North. We not only have good fishermen along our northern lakes and rivers of the prairie provinces, Ontario, and the territories. We have first-class fish. In fact, if you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, we catch fish that size in northern Canada and the northern parts of the provinces, and that is between the eyes. There is no problem about the quality of fishermen or the size and quality of the fish. However, there is a problem with a few Hon. Members in this place and a handful of disgruntled fishermen. I do not think the hon. gentleman from the territories is doing much to help them with their problems. All he is trying to do is to make them worse.
If there are problems, they can be solved through the fishermen's agency because it belongs to them, not to the Government of Canada. It was set up by Parliament for the welfare, good order, and benefit of freshwater fishermen. It was long overdue. I suppose that every year or two a couple of hon. gentlemen will come into this place and try to wreck what it took decades to build up. Instead of bringing in Bills to

December 14, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
improve and strengthen the legislation, they will try to bring in legislation to kill it, and that can only be to the detriment and loss of freshwater fishermen in our part of Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the Hon. Member the right to bring this legislation forward during Private Members' Hour. It is his right. It is his prerogative as an elected Member of the House to introduce legislation and to seek the approval of all Hon. Members to ensure passage of the Bill.
As I understand it, the net effect of Bill C-211 will be to gut the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I do not purport to be an expert on the responsibilities and functions of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, but I want to take this opportunity to take the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to task for what might appear to some people to be a certain degree of hypocrisy. Let me explain why.
As the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) pointed out, the Minister, who was then a Member, one of many, a lowly back-bencher, made a speech on July 10, 1980. That is seven and a half years ago. What did he have to say? The Member for Richmond-South Delta, who is now the Minister of Fisheries, spoke about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. If you bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I will quote a paragraph from his speech. It must have been a hot day, but he said:
I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fishmarketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can co-operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Complete monopoly powers are reflected in part III of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to buy, sell, trade and engage in all handling of fish caught in freshwater areas of Canada. This monopolistic corporation comes complete with its mandarins and represents a significant drain on the public purse.
That is what the Minister said on July 10, 1980. You know that we in the Opposition are somewhat concerned about the Tory Members of Parliament who say one thing when it is convenient to say something on one side of an issue and then, at some later point in time, for whatever reason say another thing. We have documented Tory hypocrisy, if you will, over the last number of years. This is another example. The Minister said seven or eight years ago that this board consisted of mandarins and was virtually communistic. Now it appears that he has changed his mind. All of a sudden it is no longer communist. In fact, this corporation is so worthy of support that he is urging his colleagues to defeat a Private Members' Bill introduced by another Conservative Member of Parliament.
What caused the Member back in 1980 to refer to it as communism and today have a change of heart? We know that Mikhail Gorbechev was in Washington last week. We know that, together with Raisa Gorbechev, they were able to woo the
American people and woo the world. There was glasnost, treaties and East meeting West.
The Fisheries Minister did not indicate whether it was that that caused him to change his mind. Canadians have a right to expect their politicians to do as they say and not do things they say they are not going to do. Is it any wonder that people call into question the credibility and honesty of the Conservative Government when, on the one hand, it calls the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation communistic and then, when it is convenient, says what a great corporation it is.
We know how successful that corporation is. Maurice Blanchard from the Fisheries Advisory Committee said, "We strongly support the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and oppose Bill C-ll and any other moves that would weaken this organization. By any industry measure"-and I am quoting his letter of November 23, 1987-"the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a success. It has shown steady growth and has just completed another year of record sales and record returns to the fishermen".
I will not go on about how the corporation was established by a Liberal Government, except to say that I appreciate the fact that the New Democratic Party has, in effect, through the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) applauded the previous Liberal administration for establishing the corporation.
One could go on about the New Democratic Party and how it applauds the previous Liberal administration when it is convenient, but when it is inconvenient the NDP is quick to criticize everything Liberal.
In the spirit of Christmas I will conclude my remarks and take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and to say to Hon. Members opposite that, hopefully, their New Year's resolution will be not to be as hypocritical as they were in the past.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I try as much as I can to erase in a way the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) from my memory, but he has done his usual bit.
With respect to the creation of this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, I think the record will show that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) referred to the fact that its creation was supported by all four Parties in the House of Commons at the time. It was supported because it was generally regarded as something long overdue, probably something which the Liberal Government of the day should have done some years before, having finally done it. The fact remains that there was then and there is now a consensus as to the value of having this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in existence.
I rise to speak because I have an interest in the Corporation. Its major processing plant is in my riding. I have had occasion
December 14, 1987

to visit it a number of time. I even worked there for a short time one summer way back.
It has been interesting to have the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) made back in 1980 read into the record. Not only was that interesting but I do not know what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston was doing when he was admonishing him about being inconsistent. I am thankful that the Minister has changed his view and that he is not as stupid as he was in 1980. I am thankful that finally he seems to have grown a brain cell or two when it comes to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The fact that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is still on the same level as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in 1980 is something to be regretted. I hope that the difference between what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said in 1980 and what he says now is not hypocrisy but a sign of some development, education, a coming to appreciate reality. I hope that is the case.
Might I also say that it makes me nervous that we can still have Conservative back-benchers moving these kinds of Private Members' Bills. It makes me nervous because we are in the middle of a larger debate in this country right now which will start tomorrow concerning the free trade agreement.
A contentious issue in the free trade agreement has been the role of marketing boards and orderly marketing. It makes me nervous, and it should make all Canadians nervous who are attached to the principle and value of orderly marketing, whether it be the orderly marketing of grains through the Canadian Wheat Board or the orderly marketing of fish through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, that the Government, which assures them that the role of marketing boards is not at risk as the result of this free trade agreement, is a government that has in its caucus people like the Hon. Member for Western Arctic and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1980 he said that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board was an example of communism. That is part of the problem with the context in which reassurances are given by the Government with respect to how much it wants to protect orderly marketing in the free trade agreement.
We know that within the Conservative Party, there are long-standing enemies of orderly marketing. There are people over there who have always despised orderly marketing. Yet these are the people from whom we are supposed to accept reassurances that they have gone out of their way and done everything possible to protect orderly marketing in the free trade agreement.
We know full well that, at least on the public record, Members like the Hon. Member for Western Arctic are still trying to kill the principle of orderly marketing. There are many others who are perhaps not as-I do not know exactly what quality to ascribe to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, but I will be polite and say, people who are not as
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
persistent and up front about their beliefs but nevertheless are looking for every opportunity that presents itself to erode one of the fundamentals of the Canadian economy, the principle of orderly marketing.
Enough said about that. We hope that we can dismiss this Bill this afternoon and move on to more important things in the hope that, after the next election, there will be a new Member of Parliament from Western Arctic who will have a much different attitude toward orderly marketing.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate in support of my colleagues who are in opposition to the private Member's Bill put forward by my colleague , the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). In entering this debate, I must underline what appears to be a very serious break within the Tory caucus in regard to this particular Private Member's Bill.
We have heard from a member of the Government in support of this agency and we have heard from Members on this side, but I find that the divisions across the way are very telling indeed. I heard my colleague from Newfoundland talk about some of the aspects of this agency. I heard my colleague from the New Democratic Party being very eloquent in support of change, talking about the substance of this particular Private Member's Motion, something that is quite unusual for him. I must underline that the divisions across the way, as telling as they are, leave many Members on all sides of the House with a very fishy taste when it comes to the intent of the motion.
In essence, the intent of the motion is to gut an agency which I believe has served Canadians rather well. There is no question that there could be improvements made to it. Opportunities for improvements are important to any piece of legislation passed by Parliament, but to suggest that gutting the effectiveness of this agency will in some way improve the situation is, I think, not in order at all.
On that note, I must say that I would be in opposition to the Hon. Member's motion.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate that has gone on since five o'clock on Bill C-2I1 proposed by my hon. colleague from Western Arctic. The Hon. Member is proposing that the House amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act and refer his Bill to a legislative committee.
After hearing the comments from all sides of the House, I am appalled that Hon. Members would not allow this Bill to go to committee for study. First we heard from a member of the socialist Party, the NDP, who said that they will kill it in committee and it shall never come up again before 1999. Is that an open mind?

December 14, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
I wish to speak in support of the motion because I think it is important that the Bill go to committee. I would like to outline why I think it should go to committee.
There are a number of freshwater fishermen in my riding along the Lesser Slave Lake area who depend on freshwater fish for their livelihoods. They give limited support to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board which is located in Winnipeg. I say that they give limited support to it because, until approximately two years ago, freshwater fishermen in northern Alberta could not market their fish outside northern Alberta. They could not take their fish to Edmonton and market it there. They could not sell it to retail outlets or processors in Calgary, they could only sell it in northern Alberta. That gave them a very limited market.
To get pickerel, which is in high demand, whitefish and trout to market in Calgary, the fishermen had to ship the fish first to Winnipeg, and then the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board would ship the order back to Edmonton or Calgary. Indeed, in some cases, the board even sent orders to Grande Prairie, which is 150 kilometres away from the area where the fish was caught.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So provide them with more facilities.


Jack Wendele Shields: The fishermen of my area have indicated very strongly their support for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board for many of the reasons pointed out by my hon. friend from the socialist Party. However, he has failed to express the dissatisfaction that exists, maybe not with the freshwater fishermen from Lake Winnipegosis or Lake Winnipeg, but clearly with fishermen in northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern British Columbia. These fishermen do not have the same advantages as the freshwater fishermen in Manitoba.
My colleague interjected by asking, why should we not give them more facilities in the other parts of the province? I would agree with that, but how do we do that? Do we do that by saying that we will not even study this Bill? We all know that if the Bill goes to committee, we are capable of amending it. We are capable of addressing the concerns of the fishermen from Athabasca, Peace River, Atikameg, Fort Chipewyan, Lake Athabasca, Lesser Slave Lake and all of the little lakes in northern Alberta. Let us listen to what they have to say. I think they have some concerns that they perceive to be legitimate and there are ways that we can change the practices of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board by removing its monopoly or retaining its monopoly but adding other services.
Fishermen from the Lesser Slave Lake area, particularly those from the West End Fishery Co-op, have been able to secure solid markets that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has not found in the past, even with its high paid salesmen who seek markets. The little freshwater fish co-op, called the West End Fishery Co-op, has found markets itself but has been denied access to those markets unless it they went through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in
Winnipeg. That small group of fishermen have found markets in the United States on their own. They turned the information on these markets over to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in Winnipeg in order to secure the markets. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has not, to date, secured those markets.
It seems to me that that is an indication of a complacent Crown corporation. The employees are not paid on the basis of expanding the market but only on the basis of their job descriptions. I am not denying for a moment that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in Winnipeg has done a good job for the fishermen on Lake Winnipeg, Lake Winnipegosis, and the lakes in northern Manitoba. However, it does not adequately serve the fishermen in northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, northern British Columbia, or the Territories. I am sure it is not by design of the corporation, but I am sure the corporation would be the first to admit that it has problems trying to control the flow of fish.
1 am sure that there are an awful lot of people in this House who are prepared to vote against this legislation being referred to committee who do not understand the problems facing freshwater fishermen in Canada.
When I came to this House in 1980 one of the first things 1 tried to do-in which, I might add, I was successful-was to have freshwater fishermen included under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Until that time they were lumped in with the West Coast and East Coast fishermen, although their time of unemployment was absolutely counter to that of the East Coast and West Coast fishermen.
I want to give credit where credit is due. I took this problem to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We worked on the problem together and were able to accomplish something which was long overdue. Freshwater fishermen had for many years paid unemployment insurance premiums but could never avail themselves of the benefits of it.
I truly believe that this legislation should go to the committee for study. Let us learn from the fishermen in northern Alberta, northern British Columbia, and northern Saskatchewan the problems that they face.


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


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to exercise my right of reply under Standing Order 61(2).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member to make his last speech, which will talk out the Bill.


Dave Nickerson: I understand, Sir, that before you recognize me, pursuant to Standing Order 61(2), to exercise the right of reply it is incumbent upon the Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 61(3), to give the necessary advice to the House in case
December 14, 1987

anyone else wishes to speak. If I were to start speaking now, I would close the debate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you, Sir, pursuant to that article, to give the necessary advice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have no problem with that. The Hon. Member was not interrupted, therefore, he will be the last speaker the next time this Bill appears on the Order Paper.
The house provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that there have been discussions among the Parties. Tomorrow, as House business, the House will debate the following motion:
That this House endorse as being in the national interest the Canada-United States free trade agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 1 1, 1987.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that, even though the usual 48 hours' notice has not been given for this motion, we are willing to give consent to have the debate on it start tomorrow. I want to make it clear that, while there is agreement that the debate start tomorrow, there is no agreement that it should finish in any precipitous or rushed manner.
We believe that the matter of the Government's trade agreement with the United States is so important that not only should there be a full opportunity for a reasoned and measured debate in this House, even more important, there should be full parliamentary hearings on the full and final text of the agreement to give Canadians in general, as well as parliamentarians, the opportunity to study and consider in depth and in detail the text of the agreement in question. They certainly did not have that opportunity during the committee hearings which were just completed.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we are giving our consent not to have the usual 48 hours' notice to begin the debate, but that it is as far as our consent goes with regard to this matter.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I would like to indicate our support for having the debate begin tomorrow. However, I would also indicate that we believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should have kept his promise to the people of Canada. On October 5 he said that the final document would go to a committee of this House. That will obviously not happen. We consider that yet another broken promise of the Prime Minister.
Customs Tariff




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-87. Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1		1 declare the motion
carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that we are now proceeding to vote on the Private Member's Motion that was deferred until today.
1 would suggest that, following our practice, and after consulting with my many friends in this place, we agree that you go row by row, Mr. Speaker. Since it is a free vote, it is up to individual Members to express their vote according to their conscience.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House in agreement that the division be taken by rows?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Friday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and
associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the Government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to take similar action.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is at this point that I would like to remind Hon. Members that the voting will begin with those Members who are in favour of the motion in the rows to my right. They will rise by row, and then those Members in the rows to my left will rise later. I will ask those Members who are opposed to the motion in the rows to my right to rise, and end with those Members opposed to the motion in the rows to my left.


[Stage Direction]
Prayers