1987-03-27

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent Defence Committee meeting the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) denied that his Party had made a promise to increase the annual defence budget in Canada by 6 per cent in real terms. In his perplexed mood, the Minister said to me: "Darn it, I hope you will be able to find one that has 6 per cent in it and I would like to get a copy of it".
I hated to see the poor Minister in such a state of amnesia, forgetting what went on during the last election campaign, so I was more than happy to help him out of his fog by supplying him with three separate reports from the election campaign of 1984, each clearly pointing out the 6 per cent commitment made by the Tories. These reports can be found in the Toronto Star of July 31, 1984, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of August 18, 1984, and the London Free Press of August 6, 1984.
These reports not only clearly state that it was PC defence policy to increase the defence budget by 6 per cent in real terms but also quote Tory MPs as stating that a PC Government would look last at its defence budget for funding of other programs. In true Tory form, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) lifted SI54 million out of the defence budget in November, 1984. In his most recent Budget, he lifted another $200 million out of the Budget. Now, two out of three Budgets have allowed negative growth in the defence budget. This makes a mockery both of the Tories' 6 per cent commitment and of their commitment not to touch the defence budget.
Instead of an 18 per cent real increase in defence spending over the last three years, the Tories have given us less than 2.5 per cent over three years. That can be compared with the average annual increase of 5.4 per cent under the Liberal Government between 1980 and 1984. Clearly the Government shares this selective amnesia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP became part of the Unemployment Insurance Plan. Over the years they contributed millions of dollars to help make the plan more financially sound. In January of 1986 our Government brought in measures to prevent wealthy retirees from ripping off the plan. Unfortunately, those changes pulled servicemen and servicewomen into the same category. In other words, those who had served our nation in the Armed Forces and the RCMP, many of whom were forced to retire at middle age but determined to find new work, were suddenly unable to benefit properly from the plan they had paid into. Realizing this, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) recently brought forward changes to correct this anomaly once another job had been found. However, upon retirement, when the need is greatest, those people are still being penalized.
The solution is simple. Our Government should acknowledge service to country and make special dispensation. The men and women of the RCMP and Canada's Armed Forces ask for nothing less and demand nothing more.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, President Reagan's $100 million freedom fighters against Nicaragua have killed a mother after taking her baby, burned 25 houses, and blown up a 14-year old boy. These Contra terrorists continue as much as possible to avoid fighting the Sandinista Army or even attacking guarded power sites or bridges. They find it safer to assassinate unarmed farm workers, school teachers, health workers and children.

March 27, 1987
On the other side, the Sandinista Government has sought peace by releasing two American citizens caught in terrorist activity, delivering weapons or spying. Why does President Reagan continue funding this campaign of terror? The churches of Canada and the United States have urged him to stop. The labour movement has urged him to stop. A huge majority of the UN, including Canada, voted to tell him to stop. When President Reagan visits Canada next weekend, Canadians expect our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to tell him we are sick of the senseless crimes of the Contras. Cut off the dollars to the Contras and stop the war.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, our Government is about to overhaul our national defence system and will soon decide whether we should acquire submarines for military defence purposes. The authorities have yet to make a choice between conventional or nuclear propulsion submarines.
Should the Government opt for nuclear propulsion it will have to consider the advisability of such a decision entailing country-wide economic benefits for our shipbuilding industry. Mr. Speaker, our defence experts will have to take into account the skills of the Canadian shipbuilding industry labour force and their amazing adaptation ability should the green light be given to nuclear-powered submarines.
It is imperative that Canadian shipbuilders be soon given indications in that respect. The credibility of their experts does entitle them to this privilege.


WORLD THEATRE DAY
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today, on Friday, March 27, all Canadians working in the theatre will join their colleagues throughout the world in celebrating World Theatre Day.
For over 30 years, actors, technicians and playwrights have been marking this occasion.
This year, however, a pall has been cast on the festivities as a result of the cutbacks announced by the Canada Council in its 1987-88 budget for assistance to the theatrical arts in Canada.
Last year, available funding totalled $17,121,000. This year, nearly $1.5 million has been cut.
For the coming fiscal year, the Canada Council will have a little more money to spend on supporting cultural activities in Canada.
Unfortunately, the theatre sector will not benefit from this increase.
Mr. Speaker, with the thousands of actors and actresses, directors and playwrights in this country, I must deplore these cutbacks, and I want to ask the federal Government to reconsider its budget policy and be more open to the needs of the people in the theatre.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, as the last day of the last Constitutional Conference on Aboriginal Rights comes to a close another deadline is approaching in the Northwest Territories-the Ides of March. The N.W.T. Legislative Assembly passed a watered down resolution to put the question of a boundary agreement to plebiscite. This plebiscite is to be held on May 20 if the Dene and Inuit ratify their overlap agreement reached last May by March 31, this issue being a separate matter altogether. The Dene have since reneged on that overlap agreement, hence no plebiscite.
A great injustice has been committed against the residents of the Northwest Territories by denying them the right to decide their own future. I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), through this House, to direct the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories to hold a plebiscite without any conditions.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, it will not be long before the Standing Committee on Transport is compelled to report the Bills which deregulate the transportation industry. During its hearings many groups, companies, and individual experts repeatedly warned the Government about the severe economic and safety ramifications of Bills C-18 and C-19. The Government, however, remains selective in its understanding of the issues.
Last night the former head of the regulatory agency in the United States urged Canada not to repeat the American mistake of not having a functioning and enforced national safety code for trucking in place before deregulating. The
March 27, 1987

same point has been made over and over again by the Canadian Trucking Association, individual carriers, and labour, yet the Government seems deaf.
John Nance, transport pilot and deregulation expert from the United States, told the committee that if deregulation proceeds with the American example we should expect even more tragedies like the Arrow Air crash at Gander last year. Even being presented with Mr. Nance's book on air safety, Blind Trust, seems not to have affected the Government's own blind trust in so-called market forces to protect the innocent.


VOLUNTARY WORKERS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a truly outstanding star was honoured in the City of North York on March 24, 1987. Patricia Starr was presented with B'Nai Brith Canada's Scroll of Leadership for her years of unstinting community service. Husband Jerry, daughter Brooke, and four sons, David, Evan, Stuart and Randy, are so proud of this achievement. Her leadership roles include the Integrated Bathurst Prince Charles Building for seniors, disabled and disadvantaged families. Patti and her team of volunteers seized the idea, worked to arrange the supporting government financing, and made sure that construction was completed on time.
Mrs. Starr is president of the Charitable Foundation, past president of the National Council of Jewish Women (Toronto Section), an officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and former chairman of the Foundation Division of the Metropolitan United Way Campaign. She was also recently appointed to the board of the O'Keefe Centre.
Patricia Starr, I am sure, will continue to serve community needs in a caring, sensitive way and will continue to attract and lead many other concerned Canadians to give their time, talent, and energies to worthwhile causes.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, apparently it is being proposed that President Reagan address a special joint session of the Commons and Senate when he visits Ottawa on April 6. When the President last addressed this Parliament in 1981 he spoke of acid rain, stressing the need to "control the air and water pollution that respects no borders".
What will he say in 1987 about acid rain, that it is a serious matter which needs attention for the sake of maintaining good
Canada-U.S. relations? Six years later we can say that Canadians have made progress on the Canadian side of the border. We are cleaning up following the federal-provincial agreement launched in the spring of 1984. However, we cannot say the same about the U.S. Government. It is not cleaning up its act with regard to acid rain.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) speak up this time, at the third summit, and ask President Reagan to launch an American program to cut acid rain which would be meaningful to Canada?


INCREASES IN GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for ongoing exploration for oil and, therefore, welcome the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentives Program. However, if oil companies are to accept public funds they must also be good corporate citizens, in both their upstream and downstream operations.
My constituents have been deeply concerned about the recent increase in gasoline prices far beyond the one cent per litre increase in tax, and they are equally concerned about the differential in prices between the Ottawa market and those markets outside Ottawa and in southern Ontario. No reasonable analysis on the cost side can justify the increase or the differential.
1 therefore welcome the announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that the regional Bureau of Competition Policy will investigate this matter to the fullest. The national capital region has long been the recipient of unfair gas prices and this must stop.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my MP, the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), for that last statement.
Air Canada is now faced with deregulation and privatization. I understand that the airline has hired the Alexander Proudfoot Corporation, a time and motion study firm, to make an analysis of its workforce, machinery, expenditures and so on. This is particularly demoralizing for the workers because of Proudfoot's methods, which invade their privacy and usually precede massive lay-offs.

March 27, 1987
Oral Questions
In view of the hints already made by the president and chief executive officer of the company and by the Government, we want to know if this is being done as a means of attracting a buyer for this Crown corporation. What is the Government spending on Proudfoot's untendered contract? What is the purpose behind this new study? We also want to know what emphasis is being put on safety with regard to this study. We want these answers now.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the respected Royal Society of Canada and the United States National Academy of Sciences have claimed that people living near the Great Lakes have more pollution in their food than anyone else in North America. It is said this is because the lakes are like a sink, with only 1 per cent of the water leaving the lakes in any one year, so that the toxins added to them will simply stay and stay.
This makes urgent the recommendation of the International Joint Commission, in its call for a major program of public education. Frequently we are unintentionally adding to the pollution of the lakes by the products we purchase and consume. Some of us may be part of the problem. We can become part of the solution, and a public education program will help to achieve that.
As for Canada, is it not an embarrassment for us to be in such a hurry to applaud Moscow for promising conditions that we ourselves would not tolerate for one moment?
The Government of Canada must acknowledge the warning that these contradictions provide and not confuse Soviet promises with Soviet reality.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is dragging his feet once again in granting licences to some 30 crab fishermen on Prince Edward Island. The crab fishery season opens in only two weeks but the fishermen do not know whether they will be getting those licences. They do not know whether they will be able to take part in that fishery this year.
Since the season opens within two weeks, this is the eleventh hour. The fishermen have their gear and equipment ready on the docks, but the Minister is still procrastinating about whether or not these fishermen will be granted those licences. I ask the Government and demand of the Minister that the announcement be made this weekend so the fishermen will know, once and for all, whether they will be able to partake in this fishery.
*
*


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet's new policy of "glasnost", or openness, poses some puzzling contradictions.
While criticisms of Soviet life can now be read in Pravda, dissidents convicted of criticizing the Soviet Government remain behind prison walls or in special psychiatric hospitals reserved for political prisoners.
The promised release of 140 political prisoners, to be followed by 140 more, was welcome news. However, according to monitoring groups, some 60 dissidents, less than half the promised number, have actually been released. On returning home, they have been subject to harassment, refused residency permits, had their passports confiscated, or informed that they are on parole. Is this how former political prisoners will fit into Gorbachev's new open society?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At a time when the massive U.S. farm subsidies are driving thousands of Canadian farmers out of business, the United States Senate has had the gall and effrontery unanimously to pass a resolution undertaking a unilateral investigation into our own countervail action. Taking into account the incredible nature of that act, does the Government intend to send a note of protest to the U.S. administration pointing out this really breaks the fundamental obligations under the trade contract we have with the United States under international trade rules? Is that the kind of action the Government intends to take immediately to show our reaction to this serious intervention by the Senate?
March 27, 1987


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful for members of the U.S. Senate to learn more about the GATT. They will find that the action we took is fully compatible with GATT rules. If they want to carry forward that kind of investigation, we think that would be instructive to them.


REQUEST THAT ISSUE BE REFERRED TO GATT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the U.S. Government does not undertake, as the Government's own spokesperson suggested, that this matter be brought before GATT for examination, would the Canadian Government, under GATT rules, take this U.S. action for arbitration in front of a GATT panel, to examine its own illegality in terms of GATT rules?


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry asking me to refer to the GATT a sense of the motion which was passed by the U.S. Congress?


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. resolution is not only a resolution by the Congress, it authorizes a U.S. administration to undertake a unilateral investigation. It is clear that that is an act which really transgresses the kind of contractual arrangements we have under GATT rules. I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in fact we are prepared to show our serious reaction against this matter and to take it in front of GATT ourselves, if the U.S. authorities, after the Minister's representations, are not inclined to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member's characterization of the U.S. action is wrong. Second, I do not propose to take a sense of the motion to GATT, a matter on which the United States has not acted. I think it would be very helpful for United States legislators on all levels not only to know more about GATT, but to bear in mind that in the rash of trade actions brought on both sides of the 49th parallel, they have taken many more than we have. The system which is in place now to resolve those disputes is woefully inadequate, whether from an American or Canadian perspective. That is why we are seeking a trade negotiation which will put a better system in place.
Oral Questions


REFUGEES
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Quebec Government has concluded that at least ten of the Chileans being held back in Argentina are bona fide refugees.
Will the Minister act on the assessment made by the Quebec Minister of Immigration, recognize that the Chileans are refugees and allow them to enter the country as soon as possible?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I said in the House that if new information became available on the case of the Chileans in Argentina, we would be willing to assess it.
The Quebec Government is offering an assessment. Two weeks ago, the same Government told us there were no refugees among the people concerned.
We received some information not long ago, and we are now trying to assess these cases. I think we should be able to give our response soon.


EVALUATION PROCESS-MINISTER'S POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister.
Considering the amazing contradiction between the Quebec Government's assessment and its initial assessment, will the Minister admit that the procedure for evaluating refugees abroad has some serious deficiencies?
Furthermore, will he agree to meet with Noel Saint-Pierre, a Montreal lawyer just back from Argentina, who would like to give him some important information he picked up there?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubts at all about our evaluation procedures in connection with the refugee case. I think everything is working as it should. If the Government of Quebec has decided to change its assessment, it may be that in light of facts reported by Mrs. Herrera, especially from the Council on the Status of Refugees, we may do the same . . . We have always kept an open mind about that possibility.
Now 1 repeat, there are quite a few different assessments of this case. Some talk about six, others 16 and others 10. I think that in a case like that, the best thing a Minister can do is to look at the information people give him and make his decisions accordingly. And that is exactly what we are going to do.

March 27, 1987
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Minister knows, the Government of Canada just completed two days of discussions with the French about the temporary fishing agreement to which the two Governments had previously agreed. Is the Minister now in a position to give us a report on those discussions? Specifically, can he tell the House whether the Government of Canada has withdrawn its initial offer to give the French additional access to our northern cod?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be normal or productive for me to report on the conclusions of each set of an ongoing series of negotiations. I think, among other things, that would make it difficult for those negotiations to pursue fruitfully to a mutually agreed conclusion. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party knows, the Canadian delegation involved in these negotiations is broadly constituted, involving representatives of various Governments and interests concerned.


PRESENCE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can understand what the Secretary of State is saying about giving some detailed reports on ongoing discussions. However, what I do not understand is the following. If the Minister is now saying that he prefers not to share certain information at this stage with Parliament as a whole could he explain why the Government of Canada had among its delegation as observers two Members of Parliament who happen to be Conservative Members of Parliament who are not cabinet Ministers? Why is it that they have access to these ongoing discussions and that other Members of Parliament are denied that access, in particular Members of Parliament from Newfoundland? Do we have a two-class system of Members of Parliament as seen by the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO ATTEND DISCUSSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. It is a briefer reply than one normally receives from the Minister. We have in the House of Commons today Members who are from Newfoundland who are not permitted to take part in these discussions. Can the Minister tell us why only Conservative back-benchers can sit in on these discussions? Why is the Government excluding other Members of Parliament who have as deep an interest in what is going on as his Party members?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will know that by their nature these are controversial discussions. For that reason we have gone out of our way to broaden the participation in the negotiations and in the discussions. Naturally, we have assured that representatives of the fishing interests are there, both the fishermen and the industry, that the provinces are there, and that Members of Parliament who have shown an unusual interest in the question are there.
*
* *


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Two Ministers are claiming to be responsible for running the Department of Immigration. The Minister of State for Immigration has said: "I am the minister now and I have the jurisdiction and responsibility to make the decisions." In answer to a question in the House by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis the Minister of Employment and Immigration admitted that he talked to his colleague, but he said that he was the Minister of Immigration. In light of the confused situation in the Department, which Minister was correct?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, had the Hon. Member been in the House he would probably be aware of what we said last November. I told the House last November that I would ask departmental officials for a complete report on the case in question and make the necessary decisions once their recommendations were available. It simply means that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not made a decision because the matter has yet to be finalized.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION CONCERNING IMMIGRANT RESIDING IN MONTREAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to a specific case, but I have another question for the Minister and it will be interesting to see which one of the two will rise to answer. My question is directed to the Minister who will make the decision in the case of the immigrant who lives in Montreal, has a rather impressive criminal record, and wants to remain in Canada. I should like to ask him how he can allow this man to remain here, considering this Government's attitude with respect to refugees, to people who have just been married, to Chileans, and to other cases which are just as difficult and deserve every consideration.


Benoît Bouchard: First, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was in Cabinet long enough to know that only the Minister of
March 27, 1987

Employment and Immigration has the authority to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council concerning the case he is referring to.
Second, for two years now the Conservative Government has been making decisions concerning immigration, something which you never did have the courage to do. You invariably deferred policies and cases. We have made decisions. By saying what you have just said you are already assuming that people are criminals.
I will make my decisions whenever the information is complete, and this should not take very long since I expect to have the final report very soon. But again I repeat what I said earlier: the Minister of Employment and Immigration is legally empowered to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council, and he alone can do that.

Oral Questions


USE OF CANADIAN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government about a further step on this major issue. Will the Minister officially remind the United States that we in Canada are using the same quasi-judicial process of which the United States boasted? We are following GATT rules which the United States has used against us more than we have used against it. This includes cases like agricultural products such as hogs, which are presently being hit by ITC rulings that put tariffs on them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only have I made that case frequently in the United States directly to cabinet secretaries and public audiences, I just made it here in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member would be well served if he would pay attention to proceedings rather than reading reviews in Saturday Night.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I must start by saying that in my constituency, as is the case across southern Ontario, corn farmers have been badly hurt, as documented by the report of the Canadian Import Tribunal. It indicates that Canadian corn prices were pushed down from $3.67 in July, 1985, to $2.39 in October, 1986. Since the United States Senate has taken extraordinary action, and since we have just learned that the United States is appealing the case in the Canadian courts, will the Minister assure the House that there will not be a backdown in this case? Will he assure us that we will not see a surrender, as we saw in the case of softwood lumber, and that we will protect these hard hit farmers as we should?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are certain elemental responsibilities attached to Members of the House. Among those responsibilities is not to become a deliberate purveyor of false fear. That is what the Hon. Member is doing. He knows that there has been an action taken by Canadians in accordance with Canadian law and in accordance with GATT practice. It has had a result in the case of the corn countervail, and Canada intends to stand by that result. There is no doubt about that. He should accept his responsibility as a Member of Parliament not to sow false doubts.


Steven W. Langdon: False doubts are so easy to see when one looks across the aisle at a Government which has given in so easily on cases like the softwood lumber one.


AFFIDAVIT OF CHAIRMAN OF U.S. GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, in answer to a question by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding the contents of the affidavit of Mr. William Haddad, Chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association of the United States, the Minister said that it "is false". Will the Minister explain to the House what investigations he undertook to arrive at the conclusion that the affidavit, in its entirety, was false? Would he explain that to the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has his days wrong. He meant to quote an exchange in the House between myself and the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, who I believe is his Leader, two days ago, not yesterday. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra asked me a question on whether or not the Government of Canada had, in his words, yielded to certain alleged pressures, and the answer to that is "no".


David Charles Dingwall: I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have answered the question.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AMBASSADOR APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I now have in my possession a second affidavit, signed by a Canadian citizen, Mr. Jack Kay, and duly notarized, which substantiates the veracity of the affidavit of Mr. William Haddad. They both attended the same meeting with the

March 27, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian Ambassador in Washington on September 10, 1986. In view of the unqualified evidence before the Elouse, would the Minister not do the honourable thing, in the interests of the elderly, the sick, and the poor, and recall the Canadian Ambassador in Washington to Ottawa to appear before the Standing Committee in order to defend a claim of the Government which is obviously indefensible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party appears to have discovered affidavits.


David Charles Dingwall: Something you flunked in law school; 1 would not mention that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I trust that Hansard will pick up what the Hon. Member purports not to want to have on the public record. There is a long-standing tradition in respect of ambassadors and their appearance with regard to committees. The Ambassador has indicated that his recollection of the conversations to which Mr. Haddad's affidavit apply is different from that of Mr. Haddad. I accept the word of the Ambassador. I convey it to the House of Commons. If there is to be further questioning of it, it can occur, as in the normal course, in the House of Commons.


FISHERIES
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Moments ago, in response to a question from my Leader, he indicated that the negotiations with the French included two members on the government side whom he described as having a particular interest in the negotiations. One wonders why the Secretary of State excluded a number of Members in the House who, all will know, have a manifest, clear interest. Is it that the Government has adopted a policy in these negotiations or in its activities creating two classes of Members of Parliament?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, essentially that is a repetition of the question asked by his Leader, and my answer has not changed.
jOVERNMENT policy


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the question should be asked more directly. Is it that interest in these negotiations is manifested exclusively by being in line with the Government's policy in this regard?


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the Government is anxious that the kind of situation will not reoccur that is designed to raise the kinds of illegitimate and dangerous fears that were raised the other day by one of the Hon. Member's comments when he came as close as I can recall someone in this House to deliberately excite anti-French feelings in Canada.



George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. My question concerns the Government's decision to close the Marine Ecology Lab at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I know that scientists are to be shifted around in Atlantic Canada. Why would the Government sacrifice a facility which has earned over the past 20 years an international reputation for excellence in marine research?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps I might take that question as notice, look into it and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


INSTRUCTIONS TO EMPLOYEES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with a gag order which I have here in my hand. This gag order was imposed upon a group of scientists who have criticized the closure. Rule No. 4 of the order says that "DFO employees should not speculate on future policies, programs, activities or direction of DFO." Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that this is an appropriate way to treat internationally acclaimed scientists?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government of the day that sets policy and the Hon. Member knows that. I do not have a copy of the document to which the Hon. Member refers. Perhaps he might want to forward one to me. Certainly in the process of looking into this matter before I get back to the Hon. Member, I will take that into consideration without in any way agreeing with the allegations that have been put forth.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT RECONSIDER DECISION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same topic but I will direct it to the Minister of State
March 27, 1987

for Science and Technology. The Minister is probably aware that a number of renowned scientists from around the world have come out against the decision of the Government which will close the marine ecology laboratory at the Bedford Institute. In light of international pressure to maintain that unit, will the Government now reconsider that very stupid decision?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government spends $4.2 billion a year on research, development and science-related activities. It is the intention of the Government to spend much smarter in the future. If there has been a closure and a phasing out of any of the facilities such as the one to which the Hon. Member referred, obviously the work can be done more effectively, efficiently and productively in another centre.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there is no other work being done in these fields in Canada. The Minister knows that some of these scientists are leaving the province and some of them are leaving the country. Why has the Government made a decision which is costing us first-class research in an area which is so important to Canada?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I know no such thing. As the Hon. Member knows, we now have a national policy which has been signed unanimously by all of the provinces. The other day I announced a national strategy on science and technology for the first time in Canadian history. These policies and strategies are intended to build on our Canadian strengths, wherever they are, and to overcome some of our weaknesses. Yes, certain adjustments will from time to time be necessary but they will be in the Canadian interest.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Will the Minister confirm that there has been an historic breakthrough in that, although Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no legal requirement to comply with rent control regulations in the Province of Ontario, it has in fact agreed to do so for the Main Square apartment complex in Toronto? Will he also advise the House if CMHC is prepared to follow the same course in all similar cases in the future?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well informed. I can say that
Oral Questions
there has been a liberalization, if I may use the word, of attitudes in the rent control legislation of Ontario. This permits CMHC to conform to the spirit of the legislation and we intend to do that. The assumption of the Hon. Member's question is quite correct.


SALE OF UNITED STATES CRUDE OIL TO CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A Congressional committee has just recently approved proposed legislation for restricting the sale of crude oil and refined petroleum products to Canada. Just recently when Canada required export permits for the sale of those same products into the United States, there were numerous protests from the United States. The Government looked after the protests from the United States because export permits are no longer required. What will the Government do to look after Canadian consumers and independent gasoline retailers who require this allocation of American crude oil products as security against even higher prices from Canada's integrated oil companies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we raised that question with American officials. I would have to check my records to be able to give a detailed reply to the Hon. Member as to the response but I am prepared to do that on another day either in the House or privately.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Canadian subsidiaries of multinational oil companies have been talking to their parent companies and to lobbyists in the United States in order to remove this source of competition so they will not have to worry about competition from the United States. The situation of competition in gasoline prices in Canada is a very serious one. Although the Minister has sent a letter, and I would welcome a chance to look at that letter, I would ask the Minister and the Government to send a firm complaint registering in the strongest possible way objection to the action by this Congressional committee, particularly in light of Canada's action against the request of the United States regarding export permits. Will the Government take further action to object to this, or will it stand idly by and let this happen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that we do not idly stand by. I am pleased to receive the representation of the Hon. Member. I have indicated to him that I will try to get back to him with more information, and I shall.

March 27, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is a question of which I am sure he is aware and no doubt it has been a topic of cabinet discussions. The CNR has finally responded to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport on CN pensions and is pleading poverty. It has indicated that the modest improvements we have recommended cost too much money. Aging railway pensioners whose benefits range from inadequate to ridiculous cannot wait forever. While the Government debates this responsibility with CN, will the Minister of Finance see to it that moneys will be made available now so that benefits to pensioners may be increased and so that the pensioners, some of whom are not able to wait any longer, will not have to wait any longer?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a topic that has been the subject of some discussion in cabinet. It has not yet reached my desk at this point in time but I will certainly take the Hon. Member's interest as a signal that I should be looking forward to receiving some recommendation.


SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR WIDOWS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new matter, as the Deputy Prime Minister can tell the Minister of Finance in spades. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister take immediate action by recommending to his colleagues that survivor benefits for widows of railway pensioners be increased from 50 per cent to 60 per cent, and that other modest improvements to the railway pension plan be met? These improvements will not cost that much money to the Government when amortized over a period of 15 years. Will he proceed to act on that basis?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information the Hon. Member has given me. As I said, I will discuss the matter with my colleagues and take their recommendations.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister,
I will address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday U.S. Senator Leahy said the Reagan administration has left the Prime Minister in the lurch by refusing to take steps to reduce chemical emissions which
fall as acid rain in Canada. Earlier this week our Minister of the Environment told a conference on wildlife in Quebec City: "I do not expect the President and Prime Minister to sign some binding accord".
Can the Minister tell this House and the rest of Canada what the Prime Minister expects to accomplish at the third summit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there was a time before this Prime Minister and this system of summits when the position of the Government of Canada on acid rain was to walk away from the negotiating table. The Hon. Member knows that position very well because he was the one who gave up and walked away. We did not give up. We did not walk away. We are meeting with the Americans. We have not made as much progress as we wish, but we have made considerably more progress than had been made before.


Mr. Caccia:: The Minister is rewriting history and inventing things. We never walked away and the Minister knows better. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when, in reply to a question, the Hon. Minister has to go back several years in order to justify the lack of effectiveness of his own Government after three years in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT MADE BY HEAD OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister express even a notion of progress when the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Thomas, is reported as talking about scientific uncertainty on the cause and effect of acid rain at this stage of the process?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in Americans speaking about uncertainty on the question. What is new is that we have a very significant commitment by the President of the United States to invest billions of dollars in this issue. We have an agreement with the U.S. to set up a committee to monitor and give guidance in the allocation of that money. The committee will include Canadians so that we can make sure there is an impact upon transboundary emissions. Under the aegis of the U.S. Vice-President we have a major review of state and federal regulatory practices which will affect acid rain-causing emissions. None of that occurred before. All of that occurs now because of the actions of this Government.
It is not yet enough but it is progress, and we intend to continue to make progress against the destruction being wrought upon our environment by acid rain originating in the U.S.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 27, 1987


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He has said several times that he will reconsider the refugee claims of the 80-odd Chileans stranded in Buenos Aires if new information comes to light. Therefore, in view of the Quebec Government's plea to reopen 10 cases based on what they consider new information, I ask the Minister if he will request the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for advice on these 10 and on all the stranded Chilean refugee claimants in Buenos Aires?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have already requested advice about these cases from the High Commissioner, Miss Herrera, in Argentina. We have received the advice and we are dealing with that matter and we will take a decision as soon as possible.


CONFLICTING PRESS REPORTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his positive answer. In view of conflicting press reports, both about what Miss Herrera has said and other sources, would the Minister seek the advice of the Montreal lawyer, Noel Saint Pierre, who recently interviewed these claimants in Buenos Aires?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I heard about the request of Mr. Saint Pierre to meet with me. I do not know if I will have time to meet this gentleman but I believe we are really close to a final decision on the Chileans in Montreal. My friend does understand that we receive two or three different opinions about that case every day. We heard about 36, we heard about 16, we heard about 10. We are trying to deal with all the components and, once again, I think we will be able to give a decision pretty soon.


ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the killer truck scenario reported in the U.S. media last weekend cannot be allowed to happen on Canadian highways. The actions taken by the Standing Committee on Transport and Members of this House in this regard have been very important in promoting safety not only among the decision-makers but among Canadians at large. Regulatory reform is one step in this process. A National Safety Code for trucking is paramount. In the absence of the Minister of Transport, can his Parliamentary Secretary confirm that federal and provincial Ministers have agreed to adopt this code effective January
Oral Questions
1, 1988, to coincide with the National Transportation Act and the Motor Vehicle Act which are to be put in place at the same time?


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the interest in auto safety on the part of the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex is well known. I can tell the House, Sir, that all provincial highway Ministers and the federal Minister agreed yesterday to a National Safety Code.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: It will be implemented on January 1, 1988. It will include such things as requiring a safety test for the granting of a licence to truckers, driver training and qualifications, vehicle conditions and maintenance. This measure speaks to the matters raised by the Hon. Member and it will be an important addition to road safety for all those who use the highways in Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a typical day in the ongoing game of who can catch the Bears, that is the Russian bombers known as Bears which, with some frequency and regularity, test our air defence system in the North Atlantic. Is the Associate Minister of National Defence aware that we, under his Government, have to rely on U.S. interceptor jets scrambled from U.S. Air Force bases to intercept Soviet bombers that test our defence lines in the North Atlantic?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a very good question but unfortunately he does not have all the information. Two Canadian CF-18s scrambled from Gander to intercept Bear aircraft coming in from the north. Those Bear aircraft turned around and went back to the Soviet Union. While our aircraft were so engaged another two Soviet Bear aircraft came up from Cuba along the eastern seaboard and were picked up on radar by an AWACS aircraft. NORAD in North Bay asked for the closest aircraft, which happened to be those in Maine, to scramble and identify those Bear aircraft.


SITING OF INTERCEPTOR JETS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been three incidents of interceptions of Soviet Bears in Canadian airspace this year. Two of the three interceptions were made by American interceptor jets. Since these Bear aircraft normally come down from Greenland and Iceland and are intercepted off the Labrador coast, and since the Government announced new bases for advanced staging of interceptor

March 27, 1987
Oral Questions
jets, why did it not put those jets where the action takes place, in Newfoundland and Labrador, instead of moving them further away? Does he not realize that the Russian bears are having a picnic at our expense?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member is unaware of the vast expanse which we have in Canada. They were placed in Bagotville because it is more central to the entire northern region rather than only Newfoundland. We usually scramble our aircraft from Bagotville to Gander, the take-off point. The interceptions are usually made off Newfoundland rather than being made by the Americans.
Perhaps the Hon. Member is unaware that we happen to have an agreement which we believe is working extremely well. It is called NORAD. We and the United States work together.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. The Minister will recall that two investigations into the case of Bobbi Stadnyk, Canada's only woman fire-fighter, concluded that she had suffered intolerable sexual harassment and discrimination on the job and was then fired without cause. It is disgraceful that almost a year later the Government has taken no action. Will the Minister insist that the Government provide compensation, as was recommended in these reports, reinstatement, and damages for the torture this woman went through as a public servant?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been very concerned about harassment on the job. I have discussed it with my colleagues with a view to developing further policies in this regard. I understand the nature of this case and will continue to try to find a solution.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. This is the Minister who is supposed to be an advocate for women. This public servant was terribly abused when she worked for the Government of Canada.


REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister going to take this woman's case up actively now? Is she going to ensure that she gets the compensation to which both investigations said she was entitled? One investigation was initiated by the then Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. I said this is something about which the Government is concerned and that we have discussed it with a view to developing a policy on it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You were concerned a year ago. Let's have some action.


Barbara Jean McDougall: There is no stronger advocate for women who find themselves in this position than myself.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What are you going to do?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Several of my constituents in Willowdale, among them Mrs. Beverley Suttner, who has a ninety-year-old grandmother in South Africa, have approached me and asked if the Canadian Government could, for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, allow only the handicapped, the elderly, and the infirm to apply for a visa in either South Africa or Canada when they wish to visit relatives in Canada. They presently have to travel and remain several days outside South Africa. What does the South African Government have to do in order to have the ban at least partially lifted for the elderly and the handicapped?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Member has asked two questions. With regard to what the South African Government must do, it must end the system of apartheid. The Government of Canada has announced a practice with regard to visas which I do not intend to vary. However, there are exceptional circumstances of people who are handicapped, ill, or elderly. In those cases we try to facilitate applications through posts which are handling visas with respect to South Africa.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Saint-Laurent Funds to promote the establishment of an aerospace industry in these regions. Can the Minister assure us that, before last March 19, local economic agents, trade commissioners and others knew that the Government intended to explore this new development avenue for the Mauricie-Bois-Francs and Gaspesie-Bas-Saint-Laurent region?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I take notice of the question and will convey the information to the Hon. Member at the earliest opportunity.


DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Gilles Grondin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister might also enquire about this. Since $52.3 million will be left in the Laprade Fund after the withdrawal for aerospace research, how will the funds be distributed in the region to honour the Minister's commitment in the media that the money will be fairly and equitably shared by each of the counties involved in the Mauricie-Bois-Francs region?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I read in Hansard that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice said something about standing guard over the Laprade Fund. He should have done just that when the Liberals were in office, he might have made some savings and there would be more money left. He can rest assured that the funds will be expended to benefit the region involved. That is what is going to happen.


TRANSPORTATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. The committee is holding hearings across Canada to consider major changes to the National Transportation Act. Many residents of Metro Toronto fear that safety regulations will be compromised through deregulation.
Would the Chairman please comment on this issue and explain why Metropolitan Toronto, with over 2.5 million people, and southwestern Ontario were not chosen as sites for hearings on this vital issue?


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked two very serious questions. With regard to safety, we heard in the House earlier today what has happened on that issue and I will not get into it because it is very much before the committee. The committee will be
Point of Order-Mr. Langdon
speaking to that when it reports on Bills C-18 and C-19 to amend the National Transportation Act.
When the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the then Minister of Transport, introduced this Bill he said that safety would never be compromised. Clause 8 of Bill C-19 says that there will be an interprovincial and international safety code. More work has been done on the safety code which brought together the 10 Ministers and resulted in an agreement being arrived at yesterday. We all know that that takes a lot of time, and both the present Minister of Transport and the past one deserve credit.
The question relating to Toronto is more in the domain of the committee and myself as chairman. The committee decided to go to the capital city or its equivalent in each province to hold hearings on the Bill. We have already travelled across the country on Freedom to Move. We will be completing our last eastern trek next week. In the process of studying Freedom to Move and the Bills we have crossed the country twice.
When the last changes were made to the Transportation Act 20 years ago there was no travel whatsoever. We have already heard over 100 witnesses. Everyone from Toronto was able to come here and we have heard all the points of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Parliamentary reform lives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in the tremendous enthusiasm which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) seems to draw from Question Period from time to time, he stated today, if I caught his words correctly, that the question which I posed to him indicated that I was deliberately purveying false fears. Is this not, Mr. Speaker, casting aspersions on the motives of Members of Parliament? In addition, is that parliamentary language to use in the House of Commons?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the language is unparliamentary I regret it and withdraw it, just as I would regret the practice.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The withdrawal is supposed to be unequivocal.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that probably disposes of the matter, unless the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has a further representation to make.

March 27, 1987
Tabling of Documents


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a serious matter. We were talking about a very serious issue and the question I posed was one of great importance to my constituents and many people across the country. To suggest that purveying false fear is the motive that lies behind that is an important and serious criticism. It was certainly not part of my attempt to get information from the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has raised a matter which has bothered him. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has risen and unequivocally withdrawn-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No he did not.


Mr. Keeper:: It was very equivocal.


Mr.   de Corneille@: He should make a withdrawal, period.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to put it to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that if there is anything more he can do to make that withdrawal unequivocal, I would ask him to do so and the matter could perhaps be ended.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take the point that has been raised by the Hon. Member. I think it is one of the difficulties of the House, that the practices with regard to parliamentary language do make it difficult to describe in the House actions which occur from time to time. However, those are the rules and, in conformity with those rules-with which I try to stay in conformity-I will make an absolute, categorical withdrawal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope that will satisfy the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. I might comment that sometimes questions are posed in an argumentative way and imply things of which the Minister would not like to be accused. Similarly, the same thing happens occasionally when a Minister is replying to an Hon. Member who has sought the floor to ask a question. I ask that all Hon. Members continue to be as careful and as co-operative as they have been for this long time now.
Again, I thank Hon. Members for the intervention and thank the Right Hon. gentleman for his generosity and adherence to the spirit of this place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I
rise to table in both official languages the extradition treaty with India which came into force on February 10, 1987.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to table several other international agreements that have already come into effect.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 12 petitions, No. 332-1015 and Nos. 332-1094 to 332-1104, inclusive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), I have the honour and duty to present two sets of petitions from residents of Stalwart, Liberty and Imperial, Saskatchewan, and from Weyburn and Oungre, Saskatchewan, in which your petitioners avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to show that the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require prescription drugs on an ongoing basis, and will result in higher cost to provincial government drug plans. Therefore these petitioners humbly pray that the House will have the Government withdraw that legislation amending the Patent Act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions on another subject. They are from Burnaby, Vancouver, and New Westminster in British Columbia, as well as from residents of Toronto, Brampton, Willowdale, Peterborough and other places in Ontario; from residents of St. John's, Newfoundland, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Leduc, Alberta, in which these petitioners humbly show that in their opinion, transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation, and that economic regulatory reform, namely deregulation, of the dimensions proposed in Bill C-18 will create chaos in the transportation industry, lead to unacceptable reductions in safety standards as well as deterioration in the quality, type, and frequency of service. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament have the Government withdraw Bill C-18 and retain public convenience and
March 27, 1987

necessity as a fundamental factor in the development of public transportation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition drafted by the authorities and residents of the Town of Thurso, who object to Canada Post's plan to start cutting back rural delivery, and especially its plan to close some post offices in municipalities with a population of less than 2,000.


André Ouellet: I also have a petition from residents of the municipalities of Saint-Cesaire and Saint-Liboire in the Province of Quebec who object to Canada Post's new procedure for tenders for rural delivery contracts.
These people feel that this policy will reduce the service and be prejudicial to those who for many years have been providing the service at a reasonable rate for Canada Post.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the communities of Annaheim and Dundurn in my constituency who note that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration in service of the Post Office and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers. They note that this has already resulted in the closure of many rural post offices. The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canadian Post Corporation, and to instruct the Government to abandon this policy of closing rural post offices.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents of Burnaby, including, in particular, residents of the Doug Drummond Manor for senior citizens in Burnaby. The petitioners note that the telephone is essential for communications and that rental costs must always be affordable. They note further that the telephone pricing scheme known as Local Measured Service means having a telephone will cost much more per month for most people. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to direct the CRTC to deny telephone companies such as B.C. Tel the right to charge for each telephone call and order the retention of the monthly rental for telephones.
Petitions


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Burnaby, Richmond, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Vancouver and other British Columbia municipalities. The petitioners note that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They note as well that these plans will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of presenting a petition in which it is pointed out that funds earmarked for a shooting range in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area could be reinvested there in real development programs for job creation, education, health and social services, tourism, and that is why petitioners are humbly praying Parliament to turn down the plan for a shooting range in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition from approximately 200 residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake, St. Catharines, Virgil, Queenston, St. David's and other places within the Niagara Peninsula. Because of the killing of thousands of unborn Canadian babies each year for reasons of convenience and for such babies capital punishment exists for the crime of being unwanted, the petitioners ask Parliament and all parliamentarians to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights. With those sentiments, I completely agree.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition to this honourable House, certified as to form, and signed by about 100 Niagara residents who call upon Hon. Members of this House to support Motion M-37 which allows unborn babies to be protected as persons under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present. The first petition deals with the Patent Act. The petitioners indicate that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to

March 27, 1987
Petitions
buy necessary prescription drugs. The petition is signed by several hundred residents of my riding.


Cyril Keeper: My second petition relates to Canada Post. The petitioners indicate that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial selfsufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cutbacks, deterioration of service of post offices and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadians. The petitioners call upon the Government to abandon this policy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of women from Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory. The petition states that the undersigned fully support and encourage the continuance of the Secretary of State women's program. The petitioners encourage strong support on the part of Hon. Members of the Government for the Secretary of State women's program and that future applications of REAL women to the aforementioned Government and Members of the House be seriously reviewed and discussed by this House to ensure strict adherence to the Secretary of State funding guidelines, and that REAL Women Canada be dealt with appropriately and in such a manner as this House sees fit.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I also have several petitions on the subject of the Patent Act. Most of them are from senior citizens from various parts of British Columbia who are very concerned that this Patent Act will increase the price of drugs and will hurt senior citizens in particular. The petitioners call upon the Government to withdraw this Bill.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Toronto, New Hamburg, St. Marys, Stratford, Mitchell and other parts of southern Ontario, on behalf of the National Association of Japanese Canadians as being the only elected national organization of Japanese Canadians in Canada. It has 15 centers in different parts of Canada and has held public meetings on the subject of redress for what Japanese Canadians have suffered during World War II at the hands of our Government. The petitioners request Parliament to deal honourably with Canadian citizens-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Would the Hon. Member get to the end of the petition, please.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I was in fact making a request at the point you rose, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners call upon Parliament to
deal honourably with Canadian citizens of Japanese descent by entering into negotiations immediately with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions mainly from people in Toronto, Ottawa and Mississauga, concerning refugees who are applying to enter Canada and the recent changes made in the regulations and the envisaged changes in the legislation. The undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, and universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada, mainly living in Toronto, London, Benoit's Cove in Newfoundland, Kingston and Port Coquitlam, on the subject of low-level flight training of pilots from NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador. Because of their concern for the traditional hunting life of the people who live there and for the aggressive and war fighting nature of the training, the petitioners request Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have the honour to present a number of petitions on behalf of citizens of Canada, all of which are duly certified pursuant to Standing Order 106.
The first petition protests the procedures recently adopted which turn away refugee status claimants from ports of entry before their claims are examined, which puts real refugees at risk. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government in Parliament enacts legislation to embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before our refugee boards, independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim. As in duty bound your petitioners ever pray. These petitions are signed by a number of citizens of Windsor, Ontario.
March 27, 1987


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions which originate from my constituency in Windsor which are in addition to the many petitions which contain thousands of signatures protesting legislation which will lead to an increase in prices of drugs and an increased cost to government drug plans. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 49, revised, will be answered today.


[Stage Direction]
Question No 49-Mr. Riis:
For the period January 1 to November 28, 1986, did the Government authorize permits for the export of any goods falling under section 7 of the Export Control List where the destination of the said goods was (a) Chile (b) Syria (c) Iran (d) Pakistan (e) Iraq (/) Honduras (g) Guatemala (h) Nicaragua (/') Indonesia (J) Libya (k) Lebanon (/) South Africa (m) Mozambique and, if so, in each case, what was the total value of these export permits?
Charles Joseph Clark: Permits for export of any goods falling under Section 7 of the Export Control List for the period January 1- November 28, 1986.
Country	Permits Issued	Total ValueChile	yes	$ 6,111,150Syria	yes	441,000Iran	no	Pakistan	yes	2,056,734Iraq	no	Honduras	no	Guatemala	no	Nicaragua	no	Indonesia	yes	2,156,107Libya	no	Lebanon	no	South Africa	no	Mozambique	no


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Criminal Code


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 26, consideration in committee of Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (torture)-Mr. Hnatyshyn-Mr. Paproski in the chair; and on the amendment of Mr. Kaplan (p. 4608).
Steve Eugene Paproski: When the committee was interrupted at five o'clock on Thursday, March 26, 1987, Clause 2 of the Bill was under consideration and an amendment to Clause 2 had been moved by the Hon. Member for York Centre. The Hon. Member for York Centre had the floor at that time. I now recognize the Hon. Member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The Parliamentary Secretary has now had the evening, as well as the benefit of excellent advice from officials. I wish to ask him whether the Government is prepared to accept the amendment which I moved yesterday.


Mr. Gerin:: No, for the same reasons mentioned yesterday afternoon, but we do hope the Bill will be adopted very quickly so as to enable Canada to be the eighteenth country to sit on the international commission which will monitor the implementation of this important treaty.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the study of the Bill. But still in our discussions yesterday we raised the possibility of another amendment, an amendment to reduce the meaning given in the definition of torture. In that sense I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether one of the drafts of the other amendments can be acceptable, for instance a reference to international law or another formula between no reservation at all and the reservations proposed under the Bill.


François Gérin: As we know the United Nations studied this question for nearly 10 years and came to the conclusion ... I gave the United Nations documents to my colleagues from York Centre and Burnaby. I just want to read the last conclusion:

However, it was widely agreed that in the absence of specific existing
international standards it was not advisable to refer to universally acceptable
principles.

March 27, 1987
Criminal Code


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that a reference to international law would not take us very far beyond the situation that I was describing. I regret the Government's decision. However, under the circumstances of this Parliament I am prepared to move my amendment without any further debate or argument. I hope that some members of the Government will see the wisdom of removing this reservation on the definition of torture. I propose to leave it at that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, 1 have received the documents which were forwarded to me by the Parliamentary Secretary from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as well as from the Economic and Social Council. 1 would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify whether or not it is the intention of the Government that in interpreting the reference to lawful sanctions courts should be guided by the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Conventions Act and the protocols to that Act. If it is the intention of the Government that these particular principles of international law guide the courts in their interpretation of lawful sanctions, then certainly that would go some distance to meeting the concern that has been raised. I certainly support the amendment proposed by my friend, the Hon. Member for York Centre. I hope that at the very least the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to indicate that the courts in viewing this provision should be guided by the relevant principles of international law.


François Gérin: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, that is how the Government interprets this passage, and I am convinced that Canadian courts-indeed they have done so on many occasions in the past-will interpret this provision just the way you have suggested.


Svend Johannes Robinson: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman, if it were argued on behalf of an individual who had been engaged in acts of physical or mental torture in a third country, that those acts were in fact lawful in that individual's country, but nevertheless those acts were clearly in violation of the internationally accepted standards with respect to punishment, would it then be the intention of the Government that the courts could in fact proceed with respect to such acts?


François Gérin: Yes, that is our conviction.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite clear in my mind as to how the assurances that 1 know are well-meant by the Parliamentary Secretary will in fact have any impact when a matter such as this is before a court of law. I do not see how at that particular juncture his views will particularly persuade the judges that that is what the law is really saying.
Recently Mr. Kurt Herndl, Assistant Secretary-General of the Human Rights Commission said:
Norms of international law, whether based on treaty or custom, address themselves as a matter of principle to States and hence have to be implemented primarily by them. This holds true for human rights provisions as well as for any other rules of international law. Therefore States have an obligation to see to it that their legislation does in fact correspond to international human rights law. To that end States may have to adapt their laws or enact new legislation. It is in this process that the United Nations can be of direct assistance-
That is exactly what is happening today. Through this law it will be possible for us to ratify the covenant on torture.
I also point out to the Parliamentary Secretary and to my other colleagues in the House that more is at stake than that. Countries look to Canada to show leadership in the field of human rights. Our country has an eminent record in that respect. The actions of the Government at this time will carry forward Canada's very esteemed program in the field of human rights. However, if the Government passes legislation which except for this clause is rather comprehensive and clear and leaves in it a clause which would seem to other countries to provide an out or an escape hatch, the example will not be as persuasive and convincing. We can say, as happens so often in countries behind the Iron Curtain, that those rights are provided in the Constitution. However, if we provide, as is the case in some of those countries, escape hatches in the legislation, it nullifies and makes void the legislation.
Countries look to Canada to find written legislation to copy and use for their laws. If oppressive countries can say that they are using the same laws as Canada and then use the escape hatches, it would be regrettable, not only on the basis of making our own law, but on the grounds that we do not want to set that example for other countries. We do not want them to say that provided there are lawful sanctions, it is fine. In effect, that would nullify the effectiveness of the law itself.
If an individual intentionally inflicts pain or suffering upon another individual, according to this clause it would be permitted if it arose from lawful sanctions. That is the problem. Unfortunately in some countries it may very well arise from emergencies and lawful sanctions. This is why I think to include such a clause does nothing for Canada, because presumably we would not have to worry about that. It certainly does not set an example for other countries and in effect it says that we are really not serious in that we have built in an escape hatch which we can use.
I believe I pointed out yesterday that this has been a problem throughout human history. Whether we are talking about Nazi Germany or the admirals and generals in Argentina or whoever, the appeal has always been that it was done according to the law, because of orders, et cetera. It seems to me that the key phrase is found in subclause 2(3):
It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior-
March 27, 1987

To include an escape hatch that the situation is different if it is a lawful sanction nullifies what follows, to a considerable degree.
For the sake of setting an example, not just for ourselves but for other countries, I hope we will consider the eradication of those three lines as a helpful suggestion to make this law an absolutely exemplary one.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, most of us who were in the House when the piece of legislation was tabled applauded the Minister of Justice. Canadians who have followed the course of the amendments are very hopeful that they will soon become the law of Canada.
I was somewhat encouraged by the Hon. Member for York Centre who said that he did not want to delay the Bill. I think that is the hope of everyone. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that this piece of legislation was not enacted yesterday.
In any case, I wanted to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is my understanding that for the United Nations Convention to come into force it is necessary for a number of countries to ratify it, so that it will be brought into force throughout those countries. How many countries are necessary to have the Convention ratified to bring it into force, and how many countries have done so at the present time?


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, because this is extremely important. Twenty nations must ratify the convention before it is implemented. To this day, 17 countries have ratified it, and let me add that after 20 have done so, an International Commission will then be established to monitor the convention's implementation. It is my view that Canada could play a very important role in that commission, and it is also my understanding that the legislation should be accepted as it now stands, because it would give Canada a better chance of playing a role in the convention's implementation.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that in expressing his irritation about the delay in the passage of this piece of legislation the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls was not imputing the motives of members. It ought to be perfectly clear that all members are very anxious for Canada to pass the necessary legislation to implement the international Convention.


Rob Nicholson: Let's get on with it, then.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It does not help in serious discussion of a matter which concerns us all for the Hon. Member to say: "Let's get on with it, then". Those kinds of expressions indicate all too often much haste and little thought. When we address ourselves to the caveat, it is because we are concerned.
In response to my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary indicated the basis upon which, I would hope, the courts would
Criminal Code
interpret the law when it has been implemented. They would provide by judicial decisions the kinds of protection we hope will be there in terms of ensuring that torturers will be punished. However, we are still left with some doubts.
One must ask the Parliamentary Secretary about some rather specific cases, practices, and actions which have occurred. One would want to ask about the activities of the CIA when it administered drugs to the wife of one of my colleagues. One would want to ask, were it to occur now, whether it would be covered by the legislation. The Soviet Union sanctions in law the use of drugs, under the pretence of psychiatric treatment, which cause pain, mental anguish, and doubtless physical harm. In South Africa, children 11 years and 12 years old, by virtue of being deprived of association with their families, may be deemed to have been subjected to mental anguish and significant harm, but it is sanctioned in law. In Iran, people are stoned as a part of the system of criminal justice. This is not the kind of treatment that would be sanctioned in Canadian law but someone accused of breaking this convention by virtue of those sanctioned activities might escape punishment unless we are absolutely sure that no interpretation will be imposed that would allow it to be tolerated. As well, if one considers martial law, all kinds of activities by the military are not subject to any kind of limits or even supervision. That set of circumstances is sanctioned in law.
Are we absolutely certain that, by virtue of the inclusion of this caveat and by virtue of the statements made in response to questions put by my colleague, none of those instances would be allowed to circumvent the intent of the legislation?


François Gérin: Let us not try to re-invent the wheel, to rediscover the world. The United Nations Organization includes more than 150 nations which unanimously accepted the wording and recommended that other definitions not be added. That was unanimous. And what we are asking the House is to ratify the unanimous convention that was accepted by more than 150 world nations. That is all we are asking finally-nothing more, nothing less. We are asking that the convention be ratified, which would allow Canada to play a leadership role by becoming one of the first nations to sign the convention and hopefully to be in a position eventually to sit on the commission that will supervise its implementation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question to ask because we too are anxious to see this particular legislation adopted so that Canada will join with other nations which have ratified it. Hopefully this will allow Canada to play a major role in the oversight process of the convention as well.
At what point does this particular amendment to the Criminal Code come into effect? Would it only apply to acts which are alleged to have taken place after the coming into

March 27, 1987
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court of Canada Act
force of the Criminal Code amendment, or would it apply as well to acts which took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment but with respect to which the alleged perpetrators of the acts are present in Canada after the coming into force of the amendment?


François Gérin: There is no provision for retroaction in the Bill, and in order that there be retroaction, it would have to be mentioned in the Bill as such.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Chairman, is the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that the text we see in this Bill is the text which was sent to the Government by the United Nations and therefore has been approved by the United Nations? If the answer is no, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the purpose of the phrase, "but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions". I would gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary said a few minutes ago that some 140 nations approved this text. Is this the text the United Nations gave us, and if it is not the text, why was this phrase put in and what is its purpose?


François Gérin: Those provisions on lawful sanctions are taken from the United Nations wording. 1 will not read again the document from which I quoted earlier. I have given a copy to Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Robinson. I have another here before me and I will be pleased to send it to you.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Mr. Chairman, the answer is not quite clear. Is he saying that this is the text the United Nations sent to us to use as the text for our Bill?


François Gérin: In the definitions, we took those in the United Nations wording, but the United Nations did not send us the wording of the Canadian Bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Kaplan:
That Bill C-28 be amended in Clause 2:
(a)	by striking out line 48 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "nation of any kind."; and
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 3.
Amendment (Mr. Kaplan) negatived: yeas, 9; nays, 18. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Geoff Wilson: that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Torture), be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Paul Wyatt Dick: that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act provided under Bill C-41 are important in substance though not in form. Time is of the essence, and I want to thank the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for agreeing to have the second reading of this Bill today.
The Bill before the House today, Mr. Speaker, deals with several important matters that concern the magistracy. It is an attempt to apply equality and equity to the retirement age of federally appointed judges. The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the fundamental principle of the independence of our magistrature, as reflected in the criteria for tenure of office. For the benefit of the House, I will deal with these amendments in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
First of all, Bill C-41 will maintain the indexation of judges' salaries, substituting the Industrial Aggregate for the Industrial Composite.
Under the provisions of Section 100 of the Constitution Act, Parliament sets and pays the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges appointed under Section 96, and thus of all federally-appointed judges.
March 27, 1987

Since 1981, judges' salaries have been indexed on April 1 of each year, using one of the two following percentages, whichever is less: the difference in the Industrial Composite or 7 per cent. An indexation formula was adopted to allow for annual increments so that the Parliament of Canada would not have to make these changes.
Statistics Canada has now dropped the Industrial Composite, and like other users I am asking Parliament to approve substitution of the Industrial Aggregate in its place.
Hon. Members of this House will no doubt recall that for the past few months we have been considering some statutes which were similarly amended, that is the Canada Pension Plan, the Salaries Act, the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, and that is perhaps the most important aspect, this Bill will set a consistent retirement age for all judges appointed by the federal Government.
Since 1971, there are for retirement purposes two groups of judges: those who retire at 70 years of age and those who retire at 75 years of age. Judges of county and district courts as well as those of the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court leave their office at 70 years of age. Judges of Provincial Superior Courts are bound, under the Constitution, to retire at 75 years of age. Judges of the Territorial Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court of Canada are allowed under the legislation to carry on their duties up to that age. In addition, all judges of county and district courts who held an office on October 6, 1971 and judges of the former Exchequer Court which held their office when that court was called the Federal Court of Canada have been given a special privilege. Although the other judges sitting in those Courts will retire at 70 years of age, those who held an office on the date when the 1971 clause was enforced will not be compelled to retire before 75 years of age. Consequently, there are not only two categories of judges dependent on the court, but in some cases two categories of judges within the same court.
When the clause dealing with both ages of retirement was implemented in 1971, the validity of the legislation was never questioned. However, what was valid at the time is no longer so because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Charter Section 15 did constitute one of the sound arguments to contest these two retirement ages for Federal Court judges. In 1985, in the case of Mr. Justice Addy, the ruling was that Federal Court Act Sub-section 8(2) did prejudice his rights to equal treatment. Indeed it was stated that the law had created two categories of judges in that court, namely those who had been judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada and who were allowed to retire at age 75, and those who had not been with the Federal Court in its early days but who had been appointed later and had to retire at age 70.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and his predecessor agreed to be bound by the court ruling in this case, to the extent that it applied to Federal Court judges. We have agreed to introduce the necessary legislative amendments so that
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court of Canada Act
judges of other courts in a similar situation will benefit from this ruling. The amendments are deemed to have come into force on April 17, 1985, the day when Charter Section 15 came into force. This Bill honours our commitments and sets the same retirement age for all federally appointed judges. We are therefore standardizing the age of retirement to conform generally to the Constitution, and more specifically to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To protect the rights of judges who are now obliged to retire at 70 and who may wish to take advantage of the previous system, they will be allowed to retire earlier and will be given the option of retiring at 70 or at 75.
Changing the age of retirement to 75 for the entire federal magistrature will require consequential amendments to the provisions of the Judges Act for election of supernumerary status. The Supernumerary Judges Program allows judges who have held judicial office for many years to take on a reduced workload, without any reduction in salary, provided they meet certain legal requirements as to age and the number of years they have held judicial office.
Election of supernumerary status vacates a seat in the court which can then be filled through a new appointment, while the court can still call on the services of a judge with many years of experience. Court judges whose retirement age is set at 75 are allowed to elect supernumerary status at 65, provided they have held judicial office for at least 15 years, and at 70, if they have held judicial office for at least 10 years.
Judges who are supposed to retire at 70 were offered only the first option, that of electing at 65 after 15 years in office. Now that the age of retirement has been changed, all federally appointed judges will have the same options for electing supernumerary status.
Finally, there are a number of amendments relating to tenure of office. All federally appointed judges hold office during good behaviour. However, they are removable for good reason, under certain conditions. Judges of the provincial superior courts may be removed by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the House of Commons to the Crown. The same statutory guarantee with respect to tenure applies to judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court. Similarly, judges of the Tax Court of Canada may be removed on address of the Senate and the House of Commons, but by the Governor in Council, not the Governor General. This distinction may not seem very important for practical purposes and in the light of present day constitutional law, but it does not provide the same guarantees enjoyed by judges of the courts mentioned earlier. The difference is most flagrant when we look at judges of county courts and district courts who may be removed by the Governor in Council on recommendation of the Minister of Justice.
We believe that, as a guarantee of the independence of the magistrature, this is not satisfactory and that all federally appointed judges should be on equal footing. The purpose of this Bill is therefore to amend the Judges Act and the Tax

March 27, 1987
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court of Canada Act
Court of Canada Act in order to remove these two anomalies and provide judges in the county courts, district courts and the Tax Court of Canada the same guarantees for tenure enjoyed by judges of the provincial superior courts under the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the last three amendments I mentioned are in response to concerns based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament and the people of Canada have placed a heavy burden on the courts. We have entrusted them with the task to safeguard our individual rights and freedoms. We expect them to strike a balance between our rights and those of the community, between our rights and our obligations to Canadian society.
It would be strange indeed if conditions for the tenure of judges who are asked to shoulder such major responsibilities were to become a subject for concern, in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments are aimed at giving judges fair and equitable conditions of tenure, and that is why I urge Hon. Members to adopt this Bill as soon as possible.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I view this Bill as a housekeeping matter, although I recognize that there are parts of it which are very important housekeeping, bringing the judges retirement age into compliance with the Charter, taking account of important cases decided under the Charter. I listened with care to what my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, had to say about the Bill and my Party supports it for the same reasons.
As I suggested earlier, I would be perfectly happy to deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole but, if my counterparts in the other two Parties are disposed to refer it to a legislative committee, I will not withhold my consent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act. The essential thrust of this Bill has already been outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin). 1 will not elaborate on the details of the Bill. The Bill makes some important changes of a technical nature which, nevertheless, are overdue. For that reason we are certainly prepared to support the Bill before the House. The amendments in question relate to uniform mandatory retirement age, supernumerary status for judges, and tenure for federally appointed judges. There is also an amendment with respect to indexation.
The age of retirement has been established at 75 for Superior Court judges. This Bill would set the age of retirement for Federal Court judges, Tax Court of Canada judges, and county and district court judges at the same age and establish the same mechanism for the removal of those judges. With regard to district and county court judges, only in the
Provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia do county or district courts now exist. In all other provinces the superior court is the sole court at that level.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise a couple of concerns with respect to the nature and substance of the process of the appointment of judges in Canada. In November of 1984 the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), announced with great fanfare that a longstanding dispute between the Government of Saskatchewan and the federal Government concerning appointments to the Superior Court of Saskatchewan had been resolved. Members of the House will recall that there had been considerable debate and controversy about the lack of consultation with the Government of Saskatchewan, and in particular the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, prior to the the appointment of individuals who fill Superior Court judgeships in that province.
In November of 1984 the then Minister of Justice promised a new era of consultation with the provinces before superior court appointments were made. Members on all sides of the House welcomed that promise of consultation. This was particularly appropriate because only a few months previously there had been a significant number of patronage appointments made by the outgoing Liberal Government. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that 23 Liberal Members of Parliament were given public appointments. Of those 23 Liberal Members of Parliament, five were appointed to the judiciary; three to the Federal Court and two to the county courts of Canada. Those five appointments were the subject of considerable controversy.
In the wake of those appointments the Canadian Bar Association established a special committee to study the issue of judicial appointments in Canada. That committee conducted its work from the summer of 1984 until August of 1985. It submitted its report to the annual conference of the Canadian Bar Association in August, 1985.
As I mentioned, shortly after the present Government took office in November, 1984, it announced this new era of consultation. Sadly, while that consultation was announced and there was a tremendous spirit of openness and co-operative federalism, in the case of one of the most recent appointments, the one to fill a vacancy in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, that consultation process was ignored. While we welcomed the announcement of the then Minister of Justice in November, 1984, that there would be effective consultation before appointments were made, unfortunately the Manitoba Attorney General indicated that that consultation was completely lacking in the case of the most recent appointment to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
Unfortunately, in response to that we have a situation in which the Province of Manitoba has decided to proceed with legislation similar to legislation that was in effect in Saskatchewan prior to the 1984 decision of the Minister of Justice to
March 27, 1987

consult. We are back to a situation where a provincial Government was not consulted and, therefore, will bring forward legislation to ensure that no further vacancies are filled unless that consultation takes place.
Let me return to the Canadian Bar Association recommendations with respect to the judicial appointment process. The Bar Association appointed a committee of distinguished lawyers, chaired by Neil McKelvey, a lawyer from Saint John, New Brunswick. That committee met with many individuals and groups across Canada and submitted to the Canadian Bar Association their report on the appointment of judges in Canada.
The findings of the Canadian Bar Association report on the appointment of judges represent a very damning indictment of the system of the appointment of judges which has existed for many years in Canada.
In their report, the special committee said that Canadians are cynical about the current method of appointing judges and want a totally different approach. They point out as well that in a number of provinces, politics-meaning partisan politics- play too great a role in selecting candidates for the Bench. The committee pointed out, for example, that political favouritism played an especially dominant role in federal appointments to the higher levels of courts in a number of provinces, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. They point out as well that with respect to appointments in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and in Ontario to county and district courts, political favouritism has in fact been a significant consideration. Indeed, the Canadian Bar Association Committee went so far as to note that in one province 100 per cent of the appointments were to supporters of the Party in power. Obviously there is serious damage to the integrity of the judicial system in Canada when appointments are made exclusively on the basis of one's partisan political background.
The committee noted that since 1978 there was strong evidence to indicate that being a friend of the Party in power in Ottawa and in some of the provinces was in fact the main criterion for landing a judicial appointment. The committee noted further that although the quality of the Canadian judiciary is good, it is uneven, with some of the more manifest weaknesses being attributable to patronage appointments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the representative of the New Democratic Party for several minutes. He has been devoting his time to talking about the process of appointing judges, and insulting members of the Bench appointed by my Party and members of the Bench appointed by the Party that forms the present Government. That might be in order, as tasteless as it would be, if the Bill had something to do with the appointment of judges. However, it does not. I would ask Your Honour to impose the rules of order and ask the member, if he has anything to say, to direct himself to the provisions of the Bill.
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court of Canada Act [Translation]


Mr. Marin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) on a point of order.


Charles-Eugène Marin: Mr. Speaker, if our New Democratic Party colleague wants to make accusations, I would suggest he ought to give names and spell out his accusations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) realizes what is happening during his speech this Friday afternoon. I hope that he will refer to the Bill and discuss what is before us, rather than making any further accusations.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, certainly no one is making any accusations. In fact, I was quoting from a unanimous report which was submitted to the Canadian Bar Association by a number of very distinguished lawyers, including J. J. Robinette, and a committee which was chaired by Neil McKelvey of New Brunswick. I was quoting concerns that these individuals raised with respect to the appointment process in Canada. This Bill certainly deals with the question of appointment of judges, with the removal, the tenure of judges and a number of other concerns of that nature.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It does not deal with the appointment of judges. It has nothing to do with the appointment of judges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As I see it, the only portion of the Bill that deals with the appointment or removal of judges is Clause 5. I will have to look at it more carefully, but I hope that on this wonderful Friday afternoon we could settle the problem in a very short time. The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my remarks. I wanted to take this opportunity, since this is one of the few opportunities when the Judges Act comes before the House for amendment, to raise some concerns which flow directly from the provisions of that Bill.
The findings of the McKelvey committee were certainly a serious indictment of the present practices of the appointment of judges in Canada and certainly Mr. McKelvey himself indicated, when he was asked, that indeed the practices of the former Government appear to have been continued by the-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, he keeps coming back to this question of appointment. He has no basis for doing that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have made reference to a number of the concerns that were raised by this Canadian Bar Association committee with respect to the appointment of

March 27, 1987
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court of Canada Act
judges. What flowed from that was a recommendation that there be special advisory committees established to advise the Government of the day with respect to the appointment of judges.


François Gérin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is making partisan remarks as he speaks to a Bill which does not have anything to do with that process as such. There will be many other opportunities because the Government said recently that it intends to review this process. As a matter of fact, with respect to the appointment of commissioners, it was this Government which implemented a new parliamentary system that is a lot better than what we had before. Sadly enough, in his attempt to debate an issue which is totally alien to the measure under consideration, the Hon. Member is delaying the adoption of this Bill which was introduced in the House solely to make it consonant with the Canadian Charter of Rights. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Burnaby who claims, like his NDP colleagues, to be a great champion of the Charter, could lead the way today by immediately supporting this Bill and keeping his partisan remarks for another forum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been here long enough to realize what is happening. Perhaps he will come to a conclusion so that we do not have to carry on with any more points of order this afternoon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to come to a conclusion of my remarks, but I have been interrupted constantly by points of order. Perhaps I might be given an opportunity to conclude my remarks by noting that the study to which I referred did make a recommendation for a new system of advisory committees to seek out potential judges and assess their qualifications. It noted that such committees exist in six provinces. I would hope that the Government might take the opportunity to put into place a new model for a revised appointments system for the appointment of judges to the federal bench.
It was in February of 1986 that the then Minister of Justice in fact promised that before the end of 1986, a new system for the appointment of judges would in fact be in place. I had hoped that in the Bill which came forward today-


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rises on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has no respect for the House. He is again dealing with a matter which, as he has just been informed, has nothing to do with the bill. He complains about being interrupted. The reason he is interrupted is because he is out of order.
Therefore, he should be considerate and polite enough to respect his colleagues and the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: We certainly had hoped that the Minister, in tabling legislation dealing with the Judges Act, would bring forward the changes which were promised over a year ago. It is entirely in order, in speaking on a Bill to amend the Judges Act, to raise concerns with respect to other subject areas which might have been included at this point and which in fact have not. I know the Speaker recognizes that as well.
I would hope the Minister or his successor, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) would in fact live up to the promise made by his Government to bring forward a new appointments system at the earliest possible time. We recognize, particularly in dealing with some cases with complex socio-economic questions arising from the Charter of Rights, and in dealing with a review of Cabinet decisions-the courts can now review these decisions, after the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Cruise missile case-that it is essential that partisan political considerations not play a role in the appointments process.
I believe as well that in examining the nature of this process, the Bench should more accurately reflect the ethnic and multicultural diversity of our country. There should be more women appointed to the Bench. I would hope that the Supreme Court of Canada position which is now vacant would in fact be filled by one of the excellent women from the Province of Quebec who are eminently qualified to fill that position. I am pleased that the record of the Government with respect to the appointment of women has improved significantly. I am quite prepared to concede that and to concede as well how pleased I am, particularly in view of the fact that until this Government took office not one woman had been appointed by a Conservative Government to a federal judicial post in the history of the country. I welcome the progress which has been made in that regard.
To conclude, I want to reiterate our concern that the judicial appointments process in Canada must be changed. There must be a role for independent advisory bodies. There must, indeed, be a role for Parliament to play with respect to appointments to senior judicial positions at the Appellate Court level, the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. I would hope the Government would recognize its responsibilities in this regard and will move forward to quickly overhaul the judicial appointments process in Canada.
March 27, 1987

At this point I would like to ask for the agreement of the House, pursuant to discussions 1 have had with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that this Bill not be dealt with at this point in Committee of the Whole but that it be dealt with by reference to a legislative committee. My understanding is that that is agreeable and that the legislative committee would, of course, deal with the Bill expeditiously.


François Gérin: Yes, because I feel that otherwise, the Committe of the Whole would be dealing with another matter, as suggested by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Therefore, it will be referred to a legislative committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was consulted about this agreement. The agreement I was prepared to accede to was not that the Bill be dealt with expeditiously in committee but that it be dealt with at one meeting with the Minister in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Justice.
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 referred to a legislative committee.

Paul Wyatt Dick: that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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.
Paul Wyatt Dick: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Canagrex


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, an Act to repeal the Canagrex Act and to dissolve the Crown corporation. The details of this legislation, and the reasons for it, have been fully outlined in this House previously and at the committee stage. Therefore, I will only briefly review the matters involved.
Canagrex has been, in effect, phased out since April of 1985. The purpose of Bill C-2 is to officially dissolve the corporation. As far back as the November, 1984 Economic Statement by the Minister of Finance, the Government has made clear its intention to phase out Canagrex. There were good reasons for this decision.
First, the initiative reflected our policy of fiscal restraint and our firm resolve to make the most efficient use of available resources. Second, it was, and remains, our view that Canagrex was not going to achieve the target set out for it. We believe the industry was not going to use the Crown corporation in the manner planned. Third, we believe that existing government departments would be more effective in co-operating with the private sector in pursuing our trade goals.
Many of the intended purposes of Canagrex were certainly worthy ones. Canagrex was to identify new markets, to promote exports of Canadian products, to participate in state-to-state trading, to provide export counselling to the industry, to make available grants, contributions, loans and loan guarantees, and to import, export, buy and sell. These functions are now being carried out more cost effectively and in a co-operative manner by the Department of External Affairs, the Export Development Corporation and Agriculture Canada. The Agricultural Products Board of Agriculture Canada can also buy and sell, if necessary.
The Export Development Corporation, the EDC, provides insurance, loans and guarantees. Through the EDC, the Government has introduced new, more flexible insurance programs which have succeeded in putting Canada's agricultural exporters in a much better competitive position.
The Department of External Affairs takes a lead role in foreign markets. Its program for export market development will have spent more than $1.2 million for export promotion activities. This program, combined with a promotional projects program, is more effectively mounting Canadian exhibits at international trade shows and bringing foreign buyers to Canada.
Agriculture Canada and External Affairs work jointly on numerous trade initiatives. Recently, the two departments worked to improve their co-operative relationship. The results have been beneficial to agricultural exporters. For example, the two departments have co-operated in numerous technical and promotional activities, seminars and trade fairs. They worked together to develop the export market information system, which provides current, detailed information on

March 27, 1987
Canagrex
agricultural markets throughout the world. They have established a joint committee on agri-food trade. This committee ensures that resources in the two departments are combined, whenever possible, in order to identify new market opportunities, and to help the private sector take advantage of those opportunities. In addition to co-operating with External Affairs, Agriculture Canada works closely with the private sector and the provinces to develop markets for our agricultural products.
Federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture have reactivated the federal-provincial Market Development Council as a mechanism to enhance market development, both domestic and foreign. The federal-provincial Agriculture Trade Committee continues its active work. These efforts are complemented by Agriculture Canada's Export Expansion Fund and the Export Development of Agriculture Products Program.
The department also provides export counselling and coordinates private sector trade initiatives. Often, the department has been successful in helping to overcome technical barriers to export expansion through, for example, the establishment of animal and plant health agreements with other nations.
The Government recognizes that it is the men and women of the private sector in Canada who export, not governments. The task of government is to assist the private sector in developing and facilitating international trade. It is an approach that is working. I ask Hon. Members to consider the results.
Thanks to some enterprising Canadian engineering firms and officials at Agriculture Canada, a number of foreign buyers have made trial purchases of Canadian agricultural and food processing machinery. Further sales could pave the way for greater economic diversification of Canada's agriculture sector.
Producers in the Maritimes have found new customers for their hay, particularly as a feed for racehorses in the United Kingdom and in the United States. This success story is a result of federal and provincial co-operation with the private sector, as well as support from the federal Export Expansion Fund.
These examples demonstrate that in a challenging world trading environment we are succeeding in creating new export opportunities for Canadian agriculture. We are doing so by creating a positive environment for exporters, by strengthening interdepartmental co-operation, and by forming closer working relations with the private sector. We are proving that we can attain our goals without necessarily creating new corporations, agencies or bureaucracies.
Clearly, the 1984 decision to dissolve Canagrex has proven to be a sound, responsible initiative. I urge all Members in the House to support the Bill that is before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are participating in this afternoon is really a form of memorial service for Canagrex. The Government dissolved Canagrex well over a year-and-one-half ago. We are now finally completing the formalities of a legislative burial for this agency. I was hoping that the Government might at least have the decency to provide a proper burial. Instead, the description we heard in the statement made by the Government's spokesperson seemed to miss the whole point. What we had was a recitation of the original intentions of the Government in getting rid of Canagrex.
I ask Hon. Members to listen to what they were. First and foremost was a demonstration of the Government's commitment to fiscal restraint. Mr. Speaker, if 6,000 farmers were in arrears with the Farm Credit Corporation, if export markets to Third World countries had dropped by 20 per cent or 30 per cent, and if western farmers and those in Ontario and Quebec were losing markets daily to the European Economic Community and the United States because of their aggressive, massive subsidization of agriculture, do you think you would have brought forward fiscal restraint as your first objective? Do Hon. Members not think that the Government might have at least had the wit to say that, unquestionably, the overriding priority, at a time when the Canadian agricultural economy is facing the most severe challenge since the Depression, is to help the farmers? Would it not have had the wit to say that it wants to help develop new markets and develop new products? Would it not have had the wit to say that it wanted to help farmers develop the capacity to break into areas in which there was intense competition? Oh no, the answer was, "fiscal restraint". Unfortunately, that is the continuing motivation that drives the Government's economic policy, something which is totally oblivious to the circumstances surrounding it, and in many cases the tragedy surrounding it. I cannot believe that any Member in the House would be foolhardy enough to try to argue that, in fact, there is not an incredible crisis facing Canadian agriculture today.
One of the tragedies which I think we have to recognize in this memorial service late on a Friday afternoon is that Canagrex might have provided one of the effective responses to that crisis. Canagrex was specifically set up to provide Canadian agriculture with an alternative means of selling its products, of developing its products and of promoting its products. When the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) said there was no acceptable proof that it was doing its job, the fact is that in the first nine months of its operation, while the Party of which I am a member was still the Government and Canagrex was in an embryonic stage, it had already something close to $16 million worth of committed sales and was in the process of negotiating another $150 million worth of sales. That is clear proof that in a short nine-month period there was an incredible opportunity of which to be taken advantage. In fact, a vacuum needed to be filled by an agency that would be able to help small farmers, in particular, farmers who did not have large marketing agencies such as the Wheat Board working for them. In a short period
March 27, 1987

of time it was able to develop a sure commitment for $16 million worth of sales and $150 million worth of pending orders. Clearly, that demonstrates the need for such an operation.
The government spokesman went on to say that he did not think it was necessary because there were other departments that could do the job. He referred to External Affairs, the Department of Agriculture and the Export Development Corporation.
I would now like to recite to Hon. Members the events that have occurred since then. Has there been one single additional contribution from the Export Development Corporation to promote agricultural exports? It has had its budget cut back. The only area in which the Government has increased funding for the promotion and marketing of our exports is in the area of defence. The primary objective of the Government is to become a big arms exporter. That is where it is putting its money. That is the area in which it has increased financing, that is, to sell arms overseas, not to help farmers sell their products. When we look at the budgets in the last Estimates the only increase that we can see is with respect to DIPP, the Defence Industry Productivity Program. It received a big increase in funds. If we look at the Export Development Corporation's own estimates we see that there was a substantial reduction.
We admit that other departments did not like Canagrex. External Affairs saw it as a turf battle. It wanted to be the great chieftain of export management and trade. They were to manage this new trade strategy of the Government, and we have seen how they have managed it. The softwood lumber case is costing the Canadian industry $600 million. There have been more countervail cases in the last two years than in the last 20 years. There has been a total and complete withdrawal from any serious commitment to multilateral trade negotiations. They have closed embassies. They have closed consulates. They have cut back staff and financing to the Department of External Affairs. It was to be the great engine of motivation for increasing Canadian trade. However, we have seen a shrinkage, an erosion, a cut-back, and a withdrawal from any kind of commitment.
The Hon. Member also gave us some examples. He indicated that there was a little more hay from the Maritimes being sold to Great Britain. I apologize that I did not leap to my feet and click my heels in wild exultation at that good news. Did the Hon. Member talk about the number of lost sales of specialty crops in western Canada? We have been pushed out of business in the Middle East. Did the Hon. Member talk about losing the opportunity to put together co-op efforts for field crops across Canada. He did not say a word about lost opportunities or lost sales. He talked about selling a little more hay to Great Britain. It seems that is the sum total of the contribution of the Tory agricultural trade strategy.
Canagrex
Although I do not want to strain Your Honour's generosity,
I am tempted to speak for a moment about the other side of the trade picture, that is, the trade war in which we are engaged with the European Economic Community and the United States on the question of grain sales. I must take note, for the sake of relevance, of the response which we received this morning from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). When he was asked about the resolution passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate authorizing an investigation, of all things, into Canadian agricultural subsidies, he said that he thought it would be a useful lesson for Americans to learn.
Since the inception of the United States Farm Bill, grain prices to Canadian farmers have fallen on the average of 15 per cent to 20 per cent per year. This spring farmers are facing the reality that when they put seed in the ground they will get 50 cents to 60 cents less per bushel than their cost of production, and that is a minimum judgment. Those prices are being driven down by Americans day after day. With their BICEP program they are pushing us out of markets in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and you name it. They are after our skins.
The flaccid response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was, "I do not see anything wrong with it. Let the Americans learn a lesson or two". There is no inclination on the part of the Government to go after the United States Senate and the U.S. administration and say, "What the hell do you think you are doing to us? You have a lot of nerve trying to investigate us when you are driving down prices and driving us out of the markets and when you are about to destroy our grain economy".
Where is the Canadian Government's investigation of U.S. subsidies which are putting us out of business? Where is the diplomatic note asking what is going on? Where is the Government's willingness to go to GATT and say that unilateral action on the part of Americans is breaking the trade contract which we signed years ago?
I suppose we should know better than to expect the Secretary of State for External Affairs to have any backbone when it comes to dealing with the Americans. I suppose we should know better by now than to expect the Government to represent Canadian trade interests with any kind of courage or dignity.
The Tories are compelled by that obsessive demand that they must get the free trade deal on the table. They know the political credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going into the ashcan. The one way they are trying to save it is by signing a cosmetic deal with the Americans. Everything is sacrificed for that deal. Everything is surrendered. Everything is put up for grabs, including Canadian farmers. Do we have the right to expect any more? Surely, when dealing with agricultural products and the plan of action for Canagrex, one would have thought there would have been an effort by External Affairs, Agriculture, or someone else to make a gesture to fill the vacuum. On the contrary, they have in fact ignored the problem.

March 27, 1987
Canagrex
I should like to recount-and I am glad to share the information with other Hon. Members of the House-a tour which members of my caucus and I took to western Canada three weeks ago. We visited the four prairie provinces and met with over 80 groups, many of which were agricultural groups. Time after time we heard a very clear appeal for assistance of all kinds. I think western farmers recognize that they have to deal with a different kind of international market. Many of our former customers are now our competitors. They realize that they will have to shift into wider diversification in crops and get much smarter when it comes to sales, promotion, and marketing. There is a willingness or a receptivity to begin to broaden and diversify the agricultural pitch.
However, at the same time those farm groups said that they were not big enough to do it themselves, particularly in specialty crops and field crops. Those operators are usually smaller ones and do not have the major economic muscle necessary to mount a big promotional campaign.
They also pointed out that the Government of Canada cut back on agricultural research and on the very capacity to help develop new products and new strains. The Government has eliminated Canagrex. It has cut back on the budget of EDC. It does not provide the support for farmers which is absolutely essential if they are to cultivate new markets. The willingness is there. There is interest and there is co-operation. However, what they see is a full-scale retreat.
We know why that is. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek referred to it in the first words of his speech. It is because they are interested in fiscal restraint. That is very dumb economics. If we force people into bankruptcy and force farmers to go broke, there will be fewer taxpayers to help pay future bills. Fiscal restraint is another expression for squeezing the small guy. The entire country will pay the price.
We know that the legislation simply formalizes a ghost. The damage has already been done. If there is any purpose in a memorial service, I hope it is to draw some lessons from the short nine-month life of Canagrex. The Government of Canada has a real responsibility to give the farming community the support it needs to diversify its crops and sell them abroad in a toughening international market.
We want to see some action. We want to see the trade strategy of the Government incorporating agriculture as a major component. We do not want to see it throw up its hands and say that it is waiting for some negotiation down the road, throw a cream puff at the Americans, or say that we will sell more hay to Great Britain. That is hardly a proper epitaph for Canagrex. It is a compounding of the failure to come to grips with the hard reality of the world of international agriculture trade. All I can say is that we live with some hope that some time soon, someone in the Government will come to his or her senses and do something about it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise at third reading stage of this Bill to make what I suppose will be one last speech on Canagrex. Canagrex had a very short life. It was brought to an unseemly end just at the very beginning of its attempt to fulfil a mandate which I felt was one that needed to be fulfilled.
We do have a great need for an agency like Canagrex to act as a facilitator between the producers of farm products and potential markets. Government spokesmen, today and previously, have justified the disposal of this tiny, budding new agency by saying that there exists in various Departments most if not all of the expertise necessary for farmers to pursue markets in other countries for those commodities that are produced in relatively small volumes in Canada.
When we supported this experimental initiative, it was our feeling that it would help numerous producers of small-volume commodities, from honey producers to pea and bean producers to even at times tobacco producers and soybean producers. The list goes on and on. Commodities that have as yet been produced only experimentally to see if they are agronomically suitable to our climate could perhaps have been grown here under economically viable conditions if markets for them had been made available.
I think it is quite clear to anyone who has attempted to market some of these products for which there are no existing national boards that the act of going through the various departments, agencies and branches of Government to attempt to put together a marketing project is so costly and timeconsuming that very few commodity groups have the volume necessary to make it economically viable. Canagrex with its few dozen experts in insurance, finance and intermediary businesses proved that it could do that for these groups. When people from Canagrex made trips to foreign countries with market potential for Canadian agricultural products, they were able to go with briefcases containing six, eight or even 10 commodities that were looking for markets. They could therefore spread the cost of marketing initiatives over that many products. It was a cost-effective and efficient kind of marketing that was made possible with Canagrex. One need only read its first annual report which, I remind the House, the Government attempted to keep from being presented as it should have been presented by law.
To digress for a moment, I would point out that the Progressive Conservative policy on Canagrex is consistent with the rest of its policies. It had always run hot and cold on Canagrex and it has always been quite contradictory. I suppose that is typical of the words "Progressive Conservative", which in themselves are going in two different directions at once. When the Bill was first introduced, we saw the spectacle of the then House Leader, Erik Nielsen, making a speech at first reading stage of the Bill, something which in itself is quite unusual. On December 8, 1981, as reported on page 13834 of Hansard, he said the following:
March 27, 1987

Madam Speaker, we on this side are delighted to give our consent to the introduction of an idea initiated by the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) when he was in office. We in this party express our gratitude to the minister for perpetuating the idea of the hon. member for Elgin in this legislation.
He then pointed out what a successful piece of legislation it was and what a successful future Canagrex would have from the point of view of the Progressive Conservative Party.
The now Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who at that time was his Party's critic for agriculture, rose in the House on second reading debate to praise the implementation of Canagrex. The only thing he could find to criticize about it was that Eugene Whelan, the then Minister of Agriculture, was proposing a budget for the new agency of only $14 million to be spread over three years. It was the current Minister of Agriculture's contention that he would have given the agency $60 million over the same period of time and that, had he continued as Minister of Agriculture, he would have made it a very successful, well financed agency.
The debate on second reading stage went on for some time. The current Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) rose to defend the implementation of Canagrex and outlined some proposals that he had for Canagrex that would permit some of his constituents to export veal calves to Israel. He was quite supportive of the program. In fact, all those of the then Official Opposition who spoke were supportive of the Canagrex initiative until it came time for the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to speak. He took great exception to the implementation of an agency that would provide some assistance to farmers in exporting products. He thought that this was an infringement on the export activities of private enterprise which, I point out, was not doing the job anyway. He succeeded in convincing his caucus over the initial enthusiasm of the now Minister of Agriculture and the now Minister of National Health and Welfare that Conservative Members should reverse their position and oppose to the last drop of blood the implementation of Canagrex.
Those Hon. Members who were here at the time will recall the historic and histrionic display of emotions which then occurred in the House of Commons, the likes of which we had not seen before. The bell-ringing incident that went down in history was attached to this Bill. The Bill was stalled in committee stage. We saw the spectacle of having the chairman of the Ontario Soybean Board, Peter Epp, come from southern Ontario with his officials on two separate occasions to give testimony before the Committee on Agriculture, and because of procedural games playing, the then Official Opposition prevented the committee from hearing the testimony of Mr. Epp on not one but on both occasions. That was the emotion that the initiative of the current Minister of Finance generated over the good initial judgment of the now Minister of Agriculture and the now Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Canagrex
I submit that the agency, during its very short life, showed signs of being able to bring these various scattered bits and pieces of trade and commerce, external affairs, agriculture, trade insurance, transportation and other brokerage operations together under one roof where a producer could go for both advice and service. It succeeded despite a very slow start caused by the political heat generated by the Official Opposition during committee and report stages of the legislation. The agency had succeeded in selling some $16 million worth of agricultural products which would not have been sold without it. As well, about $150 million in sales were under negotiation. Anyone involved in marketing knows that you have to initiate deals many months in advance at times. Those sales were just written off when the Minister of Finance stood up to present his budget statement in November of 1984. That was done without consultation with the employees or board of directors of Canagrex, or any of the farm organizations who used Canagrex. It was simply a unilateral decision by a Minister and members of the Government who, during the election campaign, took pride in saying that they would form an open Government that would be democratic and consult with people.
After that initiative was announced, there were certain moves to avoid the rule of Parliament over procedures engaged in by the Government. The Government attempted to avoid the law which required an annual report to be tabled in the House of Commons. That requirement was avoided for several months, but eventually complied with. We brought the debate to a close over that issue and the official death of Canagrex, the final act of which is happening in this debate, was delayed until such time as the Government began to live up to the letter of the law.
We have indicated there was much that could have been done with this agency. The plight of a great many producers of small volume commodities would be much better than it is had the agency remained in operation. It had the expertise and direction to seek out and open up new markets for those producers. It would have been the contact point for a producer or group of producers who wished to initiate such sales, and it had the power to provide all of the services necessary to complete an international sale, including the insurance and transportation arrangements, without jumping around to a multitude of agencies, boards and brokers. Instead, the Government decided to follow the advice of the Minister of Finance, regrettably so, and overrule the initial instincts and, I think, the good judgment of the opposition agriculture critic who supported implementation of Canagrex in its initial stages.
Because I have only four or five minutes left in my time I want to refer very briefly to another action taken by the Minister of Finance which has been extremely harmful to another group of farmers. I am speaking of the first excise tax imposed by the Minister upon tobacco users and the harm done as a result to tobacco producers. That tax increased

March 27, 1987
Canagrex
tobacco taxes by 40 per cent. It raised close to $500 million annually. At the same time the Minister and his colleagues assured tobacco producers there would be some compensation to assist them in adjusting to the reduced demand resulting from this taxation policy. Two years and five months later there is no program. I was in the tobacco-producing region yesterday and the day before listening to the plight of some tobacco farmers. We know that between 600 and 1,000 tobacco farms out of just over 2,000 are now out of business as a result of this program. They have received none of the promised assistance to this point in time.
Just to put it in context I will tell you how little assistance they were hoping to get. They had understood that of the approximately 40 cents extra per package that the Budget put on the price of finished tobacco products, about a nickel would go to an industry restructuring program. Some 18 months of inaction has produced the demise of close to 600 family farms. There is now a rumour about that there may be a program amounting to about $15 million, which is about 1.2 cents per package instead of the promised five cents, or about one-fifth of the original promise. There are still no details on a program, simply more talk.
Before I sit down I want to read into the record some comments of a woman who appeared before the subcommittee on tobacco yesterday. In the context of closing down Canagrex and another agency I think it is fitting, given the demise of a great many of these tobacco farms, to listen to what she had to say. She recalled an incident on November 11 when she did what she usually does with her younger children in gathering them together to talk about what Remembrance Day means. She said she would like to draw to their attention the fact that the freedoms they enjoy in our democracy were brought about at the expense of other people's lives in the two world wars. She said that they, as the people carrying our traditions into the future, have a responsibility to understand the meaning of those deaths and to try to carry some of these ideals forward. She reported that after her little talk, her youngest son Jonathan, 10 years old but quite keen of mind, stopped for a moment and asked a very touching question. He said: "Why don't I have a grampa or great-grampa who fought in any of those wars?" She explained to him that it was perceived during wartime to be very important to the country to have farmers and that the Government, having realized we could not win a war without farmers, ensured that farmers stayed home to produce food for the survival of the country. Since all of his forefathers were farmers, none of them had fought in the wars. He thought for a few moments and then he said, "Mommy, why don't they care now if we lose our farms? Isn't Canada still a country and don't we still need farmers?"
That is the basic question which the Government is avoiding. It cannot avoid it. We still need farmers to be a country. The Progressive Conservatives understood that when they initially supported the concept of Canagrex which would have permitted farmers to get their production into the hands of
consumers around the globe through an agency with the concentrated expertise which Canagrex could have put together. The Government failed to do that. It has failed the people of Canada and, most importantly and regrettably, it has failed the farmers of the country.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments on Bill C-2. This will likely be the final opportunity to speak to this Bill. I say that with a great deal of sadness because I think Canagrex would have done a lot for our farmers. I supported Canagrex when the previous Government brought the Bill to the House to establish the corporation. I supported the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, not because I was a member of his governing Party, but because I thought that the agricultural community needed some expertise and direction in marketing. I also supported it because the potato producers in the Province of Prince Edward Island were totally in support of the Bill. I had met on many occasions from 1980 to 1984 with potato producers and other farmers in my province. They made it quite clear to me that they, as farmers, did not have to be told how to produce a product, that they were quite capable of producing their products very efficiently.
I remember the great debate on Canagrex. In the early stages after the Bill was originally introduced by the former Minister of Agriculture most Members of the then Opposition, including the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), thought Canagrex would be a vehicle to aid the agricultural industry. It was not long after the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) spoke in that debate that most of the then opposition Members changed their tune. I remember the bell-ringing incidents, the tactics which the then Opposition used to stall this legislation. I was not very proud of that and I think that after reflection a lot of the members who took part in those tactics were not very proud of their actions either.
I remember that those tactics brought the subject to the minds of the farmers across the country who derive their income from the production of agricultural produce. They had seen the benefits of Canagrex as we in the previous Government had seen them. In order to remember what people were saying at that time I will read into the record a letter from the Prince Edward Island Potato Producers' Association. The letter was addressed to the Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), myself as the Member for Egmont, the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) who is now the Minister of the Environment, and the then Minister of Veterans Affairs in the former Government, Bennett Campbell. The letter reads:
Dear Sirs:
At a Potato Producers' Association meeting held on January 6, 1983, a motion was passed that we write to our three MPs and Cabinet Minister to again re-iterate our support and desire that Canagrex be passed as quickly as possible.
We, in the Association, feel that this Bill would be of great benefit to the Island potato industry in the area of export. We feel new markets could be created and old ones strengthened by export credit, which we understand is part of this package.
March 27, 1987

On behalf of the potato industry, we hope you can see your way clear to support this legislation. As to some criticism of the bill that Canagrex has the power to enter the market if it so desires to buy and sell product we do not see this as a great threat provided it is only done when it can be shown the private sector cannot survive this service.
Yours truly,
P.E.l. Potato Producers' Ass'n Norman Ramsay, President
I received many letters in 1983 from people who were interested in the agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island. They expressed the same sentiments toward Canagrex as did this letter. There is nothing the Liberal and New Democratic Opposition can do. There are 211 Members on the government side and they are certainly bent on burying Bill C-2 and what is left of Canagrex. There is no question that we have done everything we could. I have spoken on this subject many times. We should remind ourselves of what Canagrex was all about. The Bill is now in its final stage and during the last weeks and months some of us may have lost sight of what Canagrex would have done for our agricultural industry and other industries which could have participated in the program which Canagrex could have offered. Canagrex would have actively assisted export development in this country.
The powers contained in the legislation that was passed gave Canagrex six main purposes. The first was market identification and intelligence. I have been told by shippers that while they know there is a possibility of markets, since they are small shippers they have difficulty developing those markets in foreign countries. Indeed, many of those countries which may need those products have difficulty in providing the Canadian funds required to pay for them and may require a line of credit.
This was one of the difficulties facing our potato exporters. Argentina and other South American countries do not have enough foreign currency and the producers must wait lengthy periods for payment. They see Canagrex as a vehicle which could have helped them by providing loans and guarantees while waiting for their payment for their product. Indeed, Canagrex could have arranged a state-to-state agreement to sell goods and services.
The second thrust of Canagrex is promotion and information services. Trying to develop a new market in a new country is not much different from developing a new market for a new product in our country. There must be a great deal of promotion and education about the product. Canada is known throughout the world for its excellence in quality. We certainly had good inspection regulations to ensure that we deliver the very best quality products to foreign markets.
It is very difficult to create a new market for a new product that is basically unknown. For example, the promotion of generic fishery products in the United States, which the Government abandoned, would have helped our small producers and processors market their fishery products in the United States. The large companies such as National Sea have
Canagrex
marketing outlets in the United States and, in fact, many have their own marketing and distributing facilities there. However, the smaller companies do not have the money to promote their products and the generic promotion program in the fishery would have helped.
Canagrex could have acted as an agent of the Crown in negotiating state-to-state contracts. It could have provided grants and contributions to help accelerate product development and promotion or the provision of needed infrastructure.
In no way was Canagrex given a monopoly in the legislation over any commodity, either in exporting or importing. Its powers could have only been used in conjunction with private trade, to facilitate exports on a state-to-state basis. In other words, it could have helped any of the agencies, but only at their invitation. For instance, if the Canadian Wheat Board wanted help from Canagrex it could have received that help to develop new markets abroad.
In my area the fox trapping industry has revived in the last number of years. Many years ago Prince Edward Island was a world leader in the silver fox industry but, due to changes in style and other factors, the fur industry declined from the late 1930s until its revival in the late 1970s.
There are a number of well organized and efficient fur farmers in my riding. Approximately one month ago the manager of England Fur Farms Limited told me that he had identified a number of markets for fox furs in Finland, Poland and other European countries, as well as an interest in Japan. He said it would require a lot of money to form a group to visit those areas. He inquired where the funds could be obtained in order to help develop that market, and I suggested the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
We phoned that Department in Charlottetown, since it had helped the fur industry in the past. They were able to form a partial package and take two fur farmers to Poland. These farmers had great praise for the two departmental officials who accompanied them to Poland, with some of the live animals which they had to put on show.
While the reception was favourable and there is a market in Poland, it is difficult for Poland to provide the Canadian funds in order to develop the market for the furs and live animals. A corporation such as Canagrex could have played a role in assisting this industry. It would have helped the industry and probably some 150 people on Prince Edward Island.
The fur industry is growing because we have some of the best quality furs. Our fur farmers are progressive and have been able to keep up with the latest developments in crossbreeding and new technology in the industry. However, the premium markets cannot necessarily afford to pay the price and Canagrex certainly could have assisted in developing a strategy for the fur industry for Prince Edward Island and Canada.

March 27, 1987
Canagrex
It is not just Prince Edward Island any more. There are a lot of fur farmers in the western provinces and a goodly number of them in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. Certainly, the demand is there in certain areas, but there is a problem in some parts of the world to get that hard currency in Canadian dollars.
I come back again to the potato producers and what they have been telling me about losing Canagrex and how they feel it would have been helpful to them. I have talked a lot over the years since I came to Parliament about potatoes. I have not talked too much about potatoes this year because, fortunately, it is a supply-demand situation in which we find ourselves. We are very pleased that the price is good for potatoes this year, so 1 am not here harassing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) or the Minister of Finance to help alleviate a drastic situation in the potato industry.
I must mention, as I did last year and this year, and will continue to mention, the inspection fees. The Government is going ahead with three cents a hundredweight charged for inspection fees this year. By the year 1990, it will be 15 cents a hundredweight. That is very short-sighted. There was a unanimous resolution passed a couple of weeks ago in Prince Edward Island. That resolution was passed by the good Liberal Government in Prince Edward Island and the opposition Members, the few Tories who are left down there. They themselves agreed there should not be potato inspection fees. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture-I do not know about the Minister of Finance-would have received a copy of that. The resolution asks the Government to act expeditiously to abolish those inspection fees which never should have been imposed in the first place. I have always believed, and always will to my grave, as this Bill is going to its grave today, that the inspection is a protection for the consumer and the cost of it should not be put on the backs of the producers.
I want to say that it is a sad day, I think, that we are winding up the debate on third reading of this Bill which would have given a lot of hope to the agricultural community in my province, but it has been given the death knell. It is now going to its final resting place until after the next election when, hopefully, we will be able to revive it. When we get a good government back in power, we will be able to revive Canagrex and some other good programs and policies which this Government has thrown out.
Other speakers have mentioned that Canagrex did not really have a fair chance having been only nine months in operation. The Government continues to throw the baby out with the bathwater and it will pay for that mistake when the next election rolls around.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, when many people think about southwestern Ontario it signifies to them automobiles and automobile parts. However, southwestern Ontario is also a major agricultural area. Many people do not realize that more wheat is grown, for example, in southwestern
Ontario than in the entire Province of Manitoba. It is a major producer of corn. Southwestern Ontario, especially the Country of Essex, is also a major source of cash crops such as tomatoes, beans and so on. Not only is agriculture a major source of economic activity in terms of the growing of products, but thousands of people earn their living by working in factories which process agricultural products, particularly cash crops like tomatoes.
In my area we have major plants operated by Green Giant and by Heinz, and I can mention many other companies of that sort, which produce many thousands of jobs for Canadians.
There was a lot of interest in the Canagrex concept in my area and there is a lot of sadness at this point in time because of the way in which this foolish Conservative Government choked off and is killing Canagrex just as it was getting going in a way which could have been very beneficial to the farmers of southwestern Ontario and the thousands of people who work in the companies which process the agricultural products of our region. The concept of Canagrex was that it was going to assist Canadian producers of non-grain commodities with export sales. Assistance to producers would include the promotion, development and enhancement of Canadian agricultural products around the world. Canada is one of the major producers of food. It is one of the few countries which produces enough food so that it can export food to the rest of the world. That does not mean that all the opportunities for export of Canadian food products, both unprocessed and processed, have already been identified or seized.
The previous Liberal Government received advice that there were opportunities for further sales of Canadian agricultural products, both processed and unprocessed, which were being overlooked and missed through not having an organization operating in the way in which Canagrex was intended to operate. It was argued, and there was strong evidence to support the argument, especially when it came to smaller manufacturers of food products and individual farm groups or farmers, that there were opportunities we were not able to take advantage of and, as a result, the potential for incomes from exports for our farmers and food manufacturers and the resultant jobs were being lost. This was the case not only with respect to those countries where there was a market system but also countries which were essentially based on the concept of state trading. These countries had more confidence in deals where there was involvement of the Government of the exporting country. With the killing of Canagrex, these opportunities will be lost. That is why there is tremendous sadness in my area, throughout Ontario and in much of Canada in the agricultural sector. It is a foolish and short sighted action of the Conservative Government in killing the concept of Canagrex.
At the time Canagrex was first proposed, there was concern among certain people and organizations in the agricultural sector that Canagrex was going to supplant and take the place of activities already being carried out by private sector entities.
March 27, 1987

The previous Government went to great lengths, not only to assure people that this would not be the case, but to modify and tailor the Canagrex concept to ensure that Canagrex would help fill gaps and help the Canadian private agricultural sector to take advantage of opportunities which would otherwise be lost if there was no entity in place like Canagrex. Certainly, by the time the Bill was adopted by Parliament, the private sector connected with agriculture largely, although perhaps not entirely, had come to agree with the Government that there was a need for Canagrex, that there was a gap in filling the potential for exports of agricultural products, both processed and unprocessed, and that Canagrex was there not to supplant but to help the private sector. This I think was proven by the fact that outstanding private sector executives were willing to accept appointments to the positions of operating heads of Canagrex. More important, it was proven by the fact that outstanding representatives of the private sector in agriculture, both from producer groups and from some manufacturing companies, were willing to accept appointments to the Board of Canagrex to help direct its work and ensure that it carried out its mandate.
I do not think people of this calibre would have accepted these appointments if they were not convinced that there was a valid role for Canagrex to play, a role which was not being carried out by any other entity or that would not be carried out by any other entity in the future. I am given to understand that at the time that funding for Canagrex was removed by the Government and it was killed de facto pending this legislation there were deals that were about to be put in place, deals which were being booked, that could have brought in some $100 million more in exports of Canadian agricultural products abroad. If that was the case only within the first few months of its existence, imagine what could have been accomplished if, instead of being killed, Canagrex had been supported and encouraged by the Government responding to the responsible voices of agriculture in my region and across the country. That has not happened. The Government has put narrow inward-looking ideology ahead of common sense. It has put narrow, inward-looking ideology ahead of seeking practical opportunities to help Canadian agriculture find new and additional markets outside of the country.
As a result of the passage of this legislation we will see not only sadness expressed on the part of the Canadian agricultural sector but we know that there will be missed opportunities for this sector which would have been to the benefit of the Canadian economy if this Bill had not been presented and if Canagrex had been supported and allowed to flourish and grow.
When the Bill to dissolve Canagrex was first introduced by the Conservatives in September of 1985, they said that resources would be made available to External Affairs to continue the work of Canagrex. It would appear that that has not been the case. We have looked long and hard in the Estimates for External Affairs for 1985, 1986 and 1987. We
Canagrex
find that there are no funds to carry out this so-called commitment. This is just one more broken promise to add to the ever growing and lengthening list of broken promises made by this foolish Conservative Government. The Government said that if Canagrex was dissolved, the money that would otherwise have been spent in support of it would be there and that External Affairs, through its external trade component, would be carrying out its work and nothing would be lost. But the money is not there. The work is not being carried out. Thus the opportunity for better incomes for Canadian farmers and more jobs in food processing for workers in my area is lost.
What else does this failure of the Conservatives to carry out their promise to provide funds through the Estimates for External Affairs to carry on the work of Canagrex in a different form mean? It is further proof that the Government lacks credibility. It is further proof that the Government, in spite of its lip service, is not really committed to agriculture, at least not to the important agricultural sector of my region, as well as to areas like Prince Edward Island. The riding of the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) comes to mind in this respect. It also means that in the area of trade the Government is showing its foolishness in terms of not wanting to be creative in order to protect and to create overseas markets. This is not only another move to be added to the long list of broken promises. It must also be added to the long list of foolish actions taken by the Government which are hurting the best interests of the country. There was the sell-out of Canada on shakes and shingles. There was the sell-out of Canada on softwood lumber. There was the sell-out of Canada when it came to our dealings with France on the fishery. Added to this black record there is the sell-out of agriculture in my region when it comes to killing the opportunities that were there and which could have been dealt with through the support of Canagrex.
It may be that for the time being the Conservative majority will blindly march into this place to support the Government in terms of carrying out its blind commitment to narrow, inwardlooking ideology in place of common sense and in place of support for Canadian agriculture in general, and, in particular, agriculture in my area. The Bill may well pass. But we will make sure that the farmers and the workers in the food processing sector in the country, in particular those in my region, will not forget this foolish, narrow, inward-looking move. We will make sure that they remember, so that when it comes time to vote in the next election one of the reasons the Government will be thrown out of office and massively defeated will be the way it killed Canagrex before it had a chance to do the job that the farmers and the workers in the food processing plants in my region wanted it to do in their interests.
This foolish Conservative Government has been working against the interests of agriculture in my area, just as it has been working against the interests of the automobile and other manufacturing sectors. The people of my area will not forget. No matter if the Conservatives use their majority to get this

March 27, 1987
Public Service
Bill through the House or do not, the Canadian people, particularly those in my region, will have their say in terms of what they think of this decision when they vote en masse against the Government and throw it out of office after the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) care to make any comparisons between the Government's action with respect to Canagrex and its apparent flip-flop with respect to the implementation of a national tobacco agency, which is one of the promises it made in the last election campaign? We permitted the Bill to go through the House and yet the agency is still not in place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend reminded me of this matter. This was another promise made to one sector of the agriculture area in southwestern Ontario. If the Conservatives have some good reason to break this promise why do they not come into the House and come clean and say that they will not proceed with it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Another sacred trust.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend says-was it a secret trust or a sacred trust?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Both.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is both secret and sacred. It is a broken one at that. What will members of the Government say to the growers in the area of Delhi and Norfolk County about this promise? That promise is gone; it has been broken. As my hon. friend said, in the closing days of Parliament before the last election special efforts were made to add to our farm marketing law the opportunity to have a marketing agency in that sector.
There are those who would argue that there may be reasons why that is no longer sensible. There are those who would argue instead that now is really the time to have such an agency since that sector is under pressure and it may well need to restructure. But what has happened to it? I ask that in light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is from southern Ontario. He should have been the one standing up in Cabinet pounding on the table saying: "No. Canagrex is a good idea. I know we said that Canagrex should go, but it is a mistake. I want you to listen to the farmers of my area". Where was he? He was silent. Was he asleep or scared? I do not know. But when it came time to speak up for agriculture in my area he was not there.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No! It is four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Weiner, moves that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the third time and passed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour-


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Carried on division.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the utmost respect that I have for you-and I do not think anybody else has more respect for you than I have- there are those who argue that when you got to your feet it was actually four o'clock. In addition to that, when you called for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fine, fine.
It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect federal public servants, employees of Crown corporations, employees in businesses regulated by federal law and employees of businesses contracting with the federal government who report, in a written or oral communication, a violation or suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, from being discharged, threatened or otherwise discriminated against with respect to the terms or conditions of his employment unless the employee knows that the report is false and providing that the employee who alleges any such violation, may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief, actual damages or both, within 90 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Your Honour's fine reading of the motion before the House. I also appreciate the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) having seconded it.
As all Hon. Members of the House know, the motion before us is something which is known to most people as whistleblowers legislation or a proposal for whistleblowers legislation. That type of legislation is aimed at protecting employees who tell the public of improper practices or improper conduct carried out on behalf of their employers. As we all know, it is a
March 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
very dangerous thing to do. It can cause great problems for employees who have the courage to blow the whistle or to tell the public of problems about which they learn in the course of their employment.
Of course it can result in employees being branded as trouble-makers, as malcontents, or as publicity seekers. However, worse than that, it may well mean that an employee is fired or transferred to some other department or part of the business. He could be demoted, isolated by other employees or by the boss, blacklisted, harassed, or intimidated. There are all sorts of retaliation which takes place when an employee in fact speaks out and reveals something publicly which his or her employer has done that will cause a problem for the public.
The motion is aimed at getting at the problem of protecting employees in such situations. It is not a problem which is unknown to Members of the House, nor is it unknown to you, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware of a variety of cases in which this sort of activity has come to the attention of the public and has raised concern in the public mind.
I suppose the classic cases are those in the United States. I am thinking, first of all, of the Firestone Tire case in 1973 where a senior employee of the company discovered that there were flaws in one type of tire it manufactured. He advised his employer of the fact that he knew there would be problems. In fact, the employer ignored the advice and censured him. Later, as we all know, there were massive problems as a result with tire blow-outs on automobiles in the United States which caused a number of deaths and a number of injuries. There were lawsuits and replacement tires had to be issued by the company. A great deal of money was involved. Most serious of all was the deaths of a number of people resulting from the fact that the particular person who wanted to blow the whistle was unable to do so in an effective way.
Similarly, there was the classic case with asbestos. It has now been documented that since the 1930s workers in asbestos companies were aware of the health hazards caused by asbestos and that in fact it was not made public. There was the case of a medical consultant with an asbestos company who, when he warned about health hazards with asbestos, was actually fired from his employment.
In addition, we are aware of the Hooker Chemical Company and the Hooker Chemical case. That was the company which gave us the Love Canal, the Hyde Park chemical dump, the S-Area chemical dump, and the 102nd Street dump in the Niagara frontier of the United States. The Hooker Chemical Company knew, as a result of its employees, that it was polluting underground water in California through toxic pesticides. However, it kept it quiet until suddenly the Love Canal situation burst on the world and we all became aware of the great health hazards involved.
In Canada there has been a number of cases as well. The ones which come to mind occurred recently, such as the Ad Varma case in Canada Post. This man indicated that he had information and knowledge that millions and millions of
Public Service
Canadian taxpayers' dollars were being wasted in Canada Post by mismanagement or improper management. He made it public, and of course he was fired.
When he was reinstated, the Government which had a hand in reinstating him was accused of political interference. It was accused of political interference in reinstating an employee who was trying to do a public duty and trying to prevent his employer from wasting millions and millions of dollars.
Even more recent was the example in the City of Ottawa. I am referring to John Quigley in the Department of Immigration. Members of the House are familiar with that case. I understand that the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration is investigating the matter.
Mr. Quigley was fired for telling the public-and I understand for in fact telling the Minister-that in order to get rid of the refugee backlog, known criminals were being invited to apply for landed immigrant status because discretionary powers were granted to immigration officials to deal with the situation. Because he blew the whistle in that case by telling the public and the Minister, he was fired by senior officials. We are now into an investigation of the problem by the standing committee.
The problem is not a new one. It has been around for a long time. Of course, the difficulty is what sort of protection there is for this type of individual who has enough courage to get up in public and try to protect the public. There is very little, if any, protection in the law as it now stands. There have been some attempts to correct the situation.
In January 1985 a task force of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario recommended that there be legislation to protect professional engineers in such cases. In July 1986, just last year, the Ontario Law Reform Commission called for legislation to protect Ontario civil servants in such cases.
Recently we debated Bill C-229 in the House. It was an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code, and the Public Service Employment Act, to deal with the whistleblowing situation in the public sector. Of course my motion goes beyond the public sector. It deals with the private sector as well to the extent that it is possible within federal jurisdiction.
In many American states, there is already legislation protecting whistleblowers. There are some forms of whistleblower legislation in the States of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Maine, New York and Rhode Island. The courts in the States of California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia have banned retaliatory firings in cases of whistleblowers. Unfortunately, we do not have that sort of protection in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
March 27, 1987
Public Service
All of us in the House have at one time or another called for open Government and for an openness in dealing with public dangers and hazards. Surely that is what this motion is all about. It is about trying to protect the public, and it is inconceivable to me, Mr. Speaker, as I know it is inconceivable to you, that in this day and age, Hon. Members would not want to do everything in their power to protect their constituents. I urge all Hon. Members to support this motion and to see that it passes so that the Government can introduce legislation for the protection of whistleblowers in Canada.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I too have a motion before the House on the establishment of whistleblower legislation and I am glad to be able to support this resolution on the same subject. Indeed, I hope it can come to a vote and that the Government will take account of the feelings of the House and will bring in whistleblower legislation in short order.
From the thought I have given the subject and the discussions I have had on it around the country, I have no doubt myself that it is an idea whose time has come. Canadians, as are people in other democracies referred to by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), are indignant when they find that a person who, in their opinion, in editorial opinion and in media opinion, is performing a public service has been fired or charged with an offence under Section 114 of the Criminal Code on the grounds of breach of the duties of a public servant.
While the Hon. Member for York East was speaking, I was thinking not of the cases he mentioned which have occurred in other countries nor was I thinking of the Quigley case. I was thinking of the Richard Price case. In that case, a Canadian official, during the term of this Conservative Government, was working in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs at a time the Minister was reassuring the Indian communities of Canada that no cut-backs were being planned in Indian programs. At that time, Richard Price and his fellow workers had been assigned by the Minister and the Government to prepare cut-backs in the budget for programs of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Mr. Price, who was a highly principled man and a lay clergyman, got in touch with the head of his religious order in British Columbia and had some consultations with him about how he could square his duty under the Criminal Code and his normal master-servant common-law duty, which is also very clearly defined, with his sense that there was a higher public interest to be served by going public.
In this case, Richard Price went public. He gave his information to a Member of Parliament who raised it here in the House of Commons and across the country. The public servant was suspended and charges were laid against him by the Attorney General of Canada. Then there was a big public outcry in this House and elsewhere in which I was involved on behalf of our Party. In the end, the Attorney General backed off and did not proceed with charges.
There is a balance that must be achieved. I have been a Minister of the Crown and I hope to be one again. I would like to see us move on reforms with which we can live. I think the general duty of a public servant to respect his undertakings of confidence and loyalty to his employer, the Government, not the larger sense of the Canadian people at large, must be real. Again, while the Hon. Member for York East was speaking, I was thinking of a situation I experienced which Hon. Members might find enlightening.
While I was Solicitor General, I received a letter from a corporation that owned an island off the coast of Canada, and I will not be any more specific than that. This corporation was closing down an industrial operation on that island and had the idea that it might make a good prison colony. Canada does not have prison colonies. A prison colony is a place where inmates and free people together go to live in a community. There is some measure of surveillance, but the people who are serving time basically act like the other people and interact with the other people. Those who are serving time can hold regular jobs and can live with their families. In other words, it is an interesting idea that has not been part of the Canadian tradition.
I wanted to give the matter some thought. One of the first things I was advised about by my political advisers was the political aspects of the matter. We were worried on the one hand that some Canadians would say we wanted to set up a Siberia in Canada while, on the other hand, others might say that we wanted to set up a paradise island where inmates could live with their families rather than being punished for having committed crimes. I wanted to think my way through the problem, but I also wanted some time to decide what position 1 could take with respect to my colleagues in Cabinet, what position we could advocate.
If, during my consideration of the matter, a member of my Department had felt free to go to the media to reveal the story that the Minister was thinking about establishing a Siberia or thinking about establishing a paradise island for inmates, I would not have been able to respond properly to the idea. That is only one example showing why a balance is needed. There are thousands of examples, some more sensitive than others, proving that a Minister should be able to count on the discretion of his or her officials and should not feel that the officials will go around thinking that while they work for the Government, they also work for the taxpayers and they had better warn the taxpayers about certain things.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for York East, has come up with a pretty good list of exceptions, cases in which officials should feel entitled to go public and to be protected. Obviously a good case is when a crime is being planned or committed. Another good case is when there is a danger to public health, public safety or the environment. As well, it is possible that a Minister could lie in the House, as occurred in the General Belgrano case. In that case, a Minister of the Crown in Great Britain said the reason the armed forces shot the General Belgrano was that it was approaching their theatre of war,
March 27, 1987

while in fact all the records of the department showed that the General Belgrano was leaving the area of conflict and therefore there was no excuse for shooting it. This aggravated the war and resulted in the loss of lives. Such a case, which I am sure my friend would add to his list, would be a good one as well.
Just before I conclude, I want to deal with another dimension of the problem, and that is the sanctions that should be available to the Government for a government employee who improperly blows the whistle. I wonder why the Crown requires the protection of the Criminal Code in so many cases. If an official blows the whistle when he should not have, why does the Government not use the ordinary remedies open to an employer whose employee is in breach of his duties? Why does the Government not simply fire the employee, demote him, dock his pay or put a black mark on his performance record? The sanctions available to the Crown are pretty dramatic. Fourteen years in prison is too great a sanction for an employer to have, even if it is the Government, in order to force employees to toe the line and comply with the duties attached to their employment. I am not saying there are not certain areas where blowing the whistle improperly or going public improperly could cause a disaster. For example, an official giving secrets to a foreign power that would use them against Canada is a good example of where Criminal Code sanctions should apply. However, in this case it is broader than it needs to be. I would like to see a whistleblower law, but not the way some states have it where an official can go public when it is in the "public interest" to do so. That just gives the problem to the courts, and I do not think that is an appropriate way for legislators to deal with the problem.
My third point is that we should have sanctions which are more like those that a normal employer has when an employee steps out of line.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words in support of this resolution. I think the notion of having legislation to cover those people who speak out in the public interest when their organization is doing something wrong, or contrary to the public interest, is an idea whose time has come.
When an organization, whether it be government or private, is threatening people's health or safety, wasting public resources, or breaking the law, people who work for those organizations should have the right to blow the whistle, so to speak, so that the public is informed about what is going on. When I say "blow the whistle", that brings to mind the image of a policeman, a cop. What we are really looking for here is a citizen cop who can make a citizen's arrest when organizations are operating contrary to the public interest. We have had examples in Canada where it would have been worthwhile to have legal protection in place for someone who is willing to speak out. We all know that there is pressure to fall in line, and that includes legal sanctions. It takes a great deal of
Public Service
courage for someone to speak out. If a law is being broken, then someone should be able to speak out about it and be protected when doing so. There was the example of Ad Varma, who worked for the Post Office. He said millions of dollars were being wasted and spoke out about it. He lost his job as a result. The newly-elected Government took another look at that case and decided he had been unfairly treated and should be given his job back. In fact, an investigation was made into his claims. The outcome was not entirely satisfactory in that the report says that the investigators were not really able to determine whether his claims were accurate. Perhaps more facts about that case will come out in the future, who knows?
There have been examples in the auto industry involving safety. People have had knowledge that a car their company produced was unsafe. I remember one gentleman who waited until he retired before he spoke out. He lived for years with this knowledge, and of course people died in the interim. Therefore the time has come to strike a new balance between responsibility to the public and responsibility to the organization you work for.
In the case of Government, obviously there has to be confidentiality in order for Government to function and develop policy. We all have a lot of experience in this city with government documents being leaked, and it does not seem possible for a Government to keep anything confidential. It always ends up in the public arena before the Government wants it there. There has to be a balance between the need for secrecy in Government and the need to provide some protection for those willing to speak out when the public interest has been severely breached. That applies whether it is a law being broken or whether it involves people's health and safety. That is where we need to strike a new balance so that people who are willing to speak out can be given some protection.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I support this motion, because it is about time we provide protection for employees who have the courage to indicate that their organization is acting in a way that is detrimental to the public interest. It is necessary to balance this protection with the organization's need for confidentiality. Now is the time to find a new balance.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion I would like to thank the Hon. Member from York East (Mr. Redway) for this expression of his concern for the rights of Canadian workers. I share his concern, and I am eager to support any measure that would improve the safety of Canadian workplaces and the accountability of employers in the federal jurisdiction.
I will limit my comments to the safety and health implications of the motion, for I am very concerned about the appalling losses of life and property caused by industrial accidents. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, every year in this country about 1,000 workers die and many more are seriously injured because of workplace accidents and employment-related illnesses. In addition to the pain and suffering that

March 27, 1987
Public Service
result, these accidents and illnesses take some $14 billion out of the economy in the form of lost wages, lost production, equipment damage, and workers' compensation payments. If the Hon. Member's motion represented even a partial solution to this serious problem I would gladly support it.
Unfortunately, I fear that the action suggested by this motion would not offer such a solution. In fact, it might reduce the efficiency of existing procedures under the Canada Labour Code for preventing potentially hazardous working conditions. It might even create an atmosphere of confrontation and hostility in certain workplaces, which would be both contrary to the goals and policies of this Government and itself a threat to workplace safety.
The Hon. Member's motion is intended to protect workers who resort to a practice known in labour affairs circles as "whistle blowing". The phrase implies that, if an employee knows that his or her employer is engaging in illegal, unscrupulous, or dangerous practices, he or she is not obliged to meekly go along with a course of action that is wrong, but may instead "blow the whistle"-that is, inform the authorities or the general public through the news media and thus help end the abuse.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the responsiblity of the law-abiding citizen to defend the public good does supersede the employee's loyalty to an unscrupulous employer.
But there are ways already provided in law for employees to report irregularities without inviting retaliatory action from the employer.
The majority of workers under federal jurisdiction belong to unions, and a union can bring strong pressure to bear on a delinquent employer. In most cases, a concerned worker would be best advised to inform his or her union of any irregularities such as are foreseen in this motion and rely on the established practices of the industrial relations system to correct the matter. The employee who complained would remain anonymous and so need not fear retaliation. Where safety and health are concerned, both unionized and non-unionized workers are protected by provisions of the Canada Labour Code that guarantee the right to refuse dangerous work.
Let me briefly describe what happens under present legislation when an employee believes that his or her employer is in violation of safety and health regulations or engaging in practices that could create, in the Hon. Member's words, "a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety". Section 85 of the Canada Labour Code states that, if an employee has reasonable cause to believe that a particular work process or condition could be dangerous to himself or any other employee, the employee has the right to refuse to do the work, without being subject to any disciplinary action or discriminatory treatment because of the refusal.
In certain cases, these conditions could have public safety implications. For example, a truck driver required to drive in excess of the maximum hours permissible under the Code may pose a threat to employee and public safety. There are
established steps that must be taken when an employee refuses to do dangerous work. First, the employee must inform the employer of the refusal to work and the reasons for it, and also report the incident to the workplace safety and health committee or representative. Second, the employer must then investigate the condition, along with the safety and health representative or a member of the committee. Third, if the condition is not corrected to the employee's satisfaction, a Canada Safety officer is to be called in to investigate the complaint. Fourth, if the employee is still not satisfied that the condition is safe or has been corrected, the matter may be referred to the Canada Labour Relations Board for adjudication.
Throughout this procedure, the employee is protected from dismissal or discriminatory treatment for refusing to work in dangerous conditions. The Canada Labour Relations Board has the authority to make the employer reinstate an employee who has been dismissed for this reason, rescind any disciplinary action, and repay any wages the employee may have lost because of the employer's discriminatory action.
Furthermore, under Section 72 of the Canada Labour Code, an employee who complains to the Minister of Labour about any irregular working conditions imposed by the employer may request that his or her identity be kept secret. Clearly, a worker who chooses, instead, to blow the whistle on his or her employer by reporting abuses to the news media cannot expect to remain anonymous. In short, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the Hon. Member's motion, insofar as it concerns circumstances under the purview of the Canada Labour Code, is already being adequately met by the existing legislation.
Furthermore, the measures recommended in the motion, if adopted by this House, could potentially disrupt the Government's whole approach to ensuring workplace safety and health. This Government takes very seriously its responsibility to improve the safety and health of Canadian workplaces. Over the past year it has implemented a coordinated policy to ensure that employers and employees comply with the occupational safety and health regulations that have been drafted into law.
Fundamental to this compliance policy is the recognition that occupational safety and health is the joint responsibility of employers and employees. Mandatory joint safety and health committees have been established because we believe that, whatever their differences at the bargaining table, employers and employees have a common interest in making their workplaces safer and thus more productive. We do not assume that all employers are angels, and the policy does provide for swift and strong action against an employer when warranted.
But we do give employers credit for acting responsibly in this area of common concern, and we recognize that it is the people who work in an establishment, employers and employees together, who are best able to ensure the safety and health of that establishement. Only an atmosphere of cooperation will help ensure safer workplaces and a less secretive management.
March 27, 1987

The measures proposed in the Hon. Member's motion, on the contrary, would foster an adversarial approach, which I believe is in no one's interest. The potential is there for a few disgruntled employees to make frivolous disclosures inspired by spite rather than commitment to public good, and this could discredit many others whose concerns are well-founded.
Equally dangerous, complex issues involving interpretation of the law might end up being debated in the news media, with all the inaccuracies and confusions that would inevitably result. So, by encouraging public disclosures rather than cooperative problem solving, the procedures recommended in this motion may well result in a hardening of attitudes that would work against a speedy resolution of problems in the workplace.
This could only result in more confrontation, less cooperation, less sharing of information on safety and health matters, and therefore greater secrecy and suspicion and a more dangerous working environment for Canadians.
For all of these reasons I recommend that all Hon. Members reject this well-intentioned but ill-conceived motion.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of my hon. colleagues on the Bill introduced by the man we call Mr. Redway. I prefer to use his name as we see it here.
Members always say that they did not intend to participate and will not be long, but end up talking extensively. However, I will try to make the shortest speech of my 23-year career.
I favour this Bill. I hope that all my colleagues will indicate whether they favour the Bill, object to it, or would like to have it referred to the appropriate committee where the subject matter can be discussed. I am sure that the Hon. Member who moved the motion would be prepared to change it after having listened to the remarks today.
My hon. colleague, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), has put on the record his views in favour of the motion. I do not wish to repeat what he or the Hon. Member for York East said. 1 favour the Bill. I see nothing wrong with studying it further in committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have participated so briefly. 1 believe that my colleagues, too, should speak briefly and allow the motion to be sent to the appropriate committee for further study, amendment and action.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak concerning motion M-92, proposed by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).
Basically, the motion calls upon the Government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect federal public servants, employees of Crown corporations, employees in businesses regulated by the federal Government and employees of businesses contracting with the federal Government from being discharged, threatened or otherwise discriminated against for having reported legal violations, mismanagement or other wrongdoings on the part of their employers. The motion further stipulates that the employee
Public Service
should have the right to bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages in cases where he or she is made to suffer for his or her disclosure.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this motion seeks to achieve a number of desirable goals. At least in its principle in our society, and in an age when many persons distrust large and powerful organizations. The lone employee who risks his or her job in order to bring abuses and wrongdoing to light has taken on the status of a hero.
Indeed, such disclosures often play an important role in maintaining integrity and efficiency in business and government. However, Mr. Speaker, 1 find I must strongly oppose this motion. For no matter how commendable may be the sentiment that inspired it, it is seriously flawed because it is too sweeping, too general, and too vague, and because it fails to take into account a great many realities and factors in the areas of labour law and of employer-employee relations.
In short, it seems to me that the full repercussions of these proposed measures have not been sufficiently identified. Or considered. In the first place, human nature being as it is, it is obvious that not all disclosures are necessarily motivated by high ideals. Frivolous disclosures inspired by reasons other than commitment to the public good can and do occur, and may well be in nobody's best interest.
Mr. Speaker, when we examine this motion in detail rather than dwelling on the overall principle that inspired it, its flaws become clearly evident. For instance, the motion mentions disclosure of "mismanagement", as well as disclosure of legal violations. Now, Mr. Speaker, a legal violation may be determined by referring to definitions contained in law. But what exactly is mismanagement? When does a waste of funds become "gross"? What exactly is an abuse of authority? One person's mismanagement is another's reasonable decision. What one person sees as an abuse of authority may appear as firm, decisive action to another.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to another serious problem with this resolution. It is proposed that employees who make such disclosures shall enjoy protection "unless the employee knows that the report is false." Who would bear the onus of proving that the employee knew the report was false? Could any employee who wishes to discredit an employer avail himself of this provision? In many cases, disclosures may be based on half-truths and partial information. The employee may happen to see a document proposing a course of action that would in fact have been illegal but which, unknown to the employee, had been rejected in a subsequent decision. Could such an employee not honestly claim that he did not know his report was false? If the employee's disclosures were reported in the media, subsequent corrections and retractions would, in fact, do little to repair the damage caused by the initial publicity. Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, to an unjustified assumption upon which this entire motion seems based, namely, that the media will in all cases accurately assess the credibility of a disclosure and report the pertinent facts in a just and even-handed manner, and that the significance of a particular fact or event will be reported in context.

March 27, 1987
Public Service
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed measure could lead to serious problems for employees as well. Employees who unknowingly cause a false report to be published in the media might be protected from dismissal, but they would not necessarily be protected from a libel action by employers.
The provisions of this motion would affect roughly 900,000 persons in the federal Public Service, and in industries and Crown corporations regulated by the Canada Labour Code, but would also apply to "employees of businesses contracting with the federal Government".
Also, Mr. Speaker, since the provinces have jurisdiction over labour law in most enterprises in Canada, it can safely be assumed that many or most of the businesses contracting with the federal Government are under provincial labour jurisdiction, including construction firms, almost all forms of manufacturing, and many forms of service industry. Yet, according to the terms of this motion, the Parliament of Canada would be assuming the right to regulate an aspect of employer-employee relationships within these enterprises. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I have serious misgivings as to whether this particular provision of the motion, if enacted, would even be constitutional.
In respect to labour relations, this motion ignores another important reality, namely, the privacy of the collective bargaining system as a preferred and viable way to achieve realistic solutions to workplace problems. Intrinsic to this principle is the fact that group rights, with certain caveats, take precedence over individual rights. This means that the locus of responsibility for workplace problems primarly rests with the duly elected representatives of workers-union officials. These officials are expected to, and in fact are required to-pursuant to the duty of fair representation requirements of Section 136.1 of part V-act faithfully and fairly on behalf of the employees they represent.
This would clearly include a responsibility to respond to the kinds of problems detailed in the Hon. Member's motion. It would not necessarily, however, involve a rather kneejerk public disclosure of the alleged problem. This is so because the collective bargaining system rightfully recognizes that with few exceptions the most meaningful forum within which to address and resolve such problems is either the bargaining table during the open period of collective agreements or by ongoing dialogues with management during the term of agreements. It should be stressed that disputes arising during the term of agreements can, where impasses occur, be resolved through the grievance/arbitration system, as the previous speaker said.
Mr. Speaker, this motion, when examined in detail, proves to be ill-conceived, vague, overly general, and basically
counter-productive. That is why I urge this House to vote against its adoption.
[DOT]	(1640)


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a motion introduced by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), a member for whom I have a great deal of respect.
This matter was given a thorough airing in this Chamber only some six weeks ago, on the second reading of a Bill which was introduced by another colleague, the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet). The Bill was aimed at providing sanctions to help prevent public sector employers from discharging employees in retaliation for reporting, or blowing the whistle, on serious misconduct by their employers. Bill C-229 called for amendments to the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Public Service Employment Act.
The motion we are debating today, if adopted, would have the Government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect a wide range of employees, including those in the federal Public Service, Crown corporations, the transportation and communications sectors, and those employees of companies which contract with the federal Government. As you will appreciate, this is a huge number of people, so huge that I dare say no Member of the House, and certainly not myself, could tell you today what that number is.
These people would be employees of organizations that are very different in size and mandate. They vary enormously also in the amount of influence they might have on the daily lives of ordinary Canadians. At one end of the spectrum we would have the federal Public Service, the largest employer in Canada, with approximately 230,000 employees across the country. At the other end, we could conceivably have small businesses, perhaps consisting of no more than a few employees. The motion proposes that these people be afforded special protection from a variety of sanctions when they report on such things as perceived violations of the law, alleged mismanagement, possible gross waste of funds, or abuses of authority.
[DOT]	(1650)
I would like to look back for a moment to Bill C-229. Its purpose was to provide sanctions for those who might retaliate against whistleblowers. As one way of looking at these two approaches, we might say that one could take a punitive approach, and as the other, a protective approach. It would seem to me that the latter, the protective approach, would be more in keeping with modern human resource management if, indeed, new protective measures are actually warranted.
March 27, 1987

Bill C-229 proposed amendments to legislation. This motion, on the other hand, envisages a new piece of legislation. No one needs to be reminded that Acts of Parliament have a habit of spawning regulations, regulations spawn policies, and policies lead to directives, which in turn call for interpretation, updates, monitoring and administration until, inevitably, they spawn their own bureaucracy to oversee everything.
During the debate in this Chamber in January on Bill C-229, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State made what I think is a very important point in relation to the experience to date since the Civil Service Reform Act was passed in the United States in 1978. This U.S. Act provides protections such as those envisaged in Bill C-229. The Parliamentary Secretary made his point in the form of a question, and I think that question is crucial to the debate on this motion as well. He asked: "What are the motives of the whistleblowers?" This nagging question has been asked many times in the United States since the passage of its protective legislation. I think Hon. Members must ask themselves that question before we proceed further in our review of this motion.
Authorities on the whistleblowing phenomenon have noted that whistleblowing can be a defensive mechanism on the part of employees who are already under threat of disciplinary action for reasons unrelated to the alleged misconduct. In other words, public servants about to be discharged for unsatisfactory work performance could seek to protect themselves by accusing superior officers of misconduct. Whistleblowing can also result from personal or organizational conflicts, again unrelated to the alleged misconduct complained of. What about employees using this blanket protection to embarrass the Government of the day for personal partisan political reasons? It seems to me that the potential for abuse is very significant.
Hon. Members will see from these serious concerns just what a complex issue this is. Its very complexity is reflected in the infinite variety of circumstances in each instance, affecting and influencing the actions of each individual whistleblower. What of those who blow the whistle using proper existing internal procedures, alerting superior officers or senior management so that appropriate action can be taken? I think it is clear that it is virtually impossible to subject all these organizations, all their people and all circumstances to the rule of rigid law and regulations, rigidly prescribed and rigidly enforced.
Hon. Members will know that there is already in place legislation which deals with the abuse of authority and responsibility by public servants at all levels. Section 110(1) (c) of the Criminal Code, for instance, makes it an offence for any official or employee of the Public Service to demand, accept or offer, or to agree to accept from a person dealing with the Government, any reward, advantage or benefit, either directly or indirectly, through anyone else, for his or her own benefit without appropriate authorization. There are sanctions in place now to prevent, avert or penalize proven dishonourable
Public Service
conduct, criminal actions, waste, extravagance, discrimination or abuse of trust.
Standards of conduct have been in place since 1973 and many departments have their codes of discipline to deal with misconduct. There is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a code of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines for public servants, much like those which apply to elected public office holders. Parliament has already seen fit to pass legislation in the context of the federal Public Service which is designed to prevent abuses and protect employees. The Public Service Staff Relations Act is a good example. It applies to about 200,000 public service employees.
That Act allows employees to grieve any perceived injustice or wrongdoing where there is no other recourse provided in law. In some cases, employees may bring their grievances before an independent third party, or even before the courts.
No amount of legislation will prevent some managers from doing what others may call or classify as "wrongdoing". The best that good internal management and legislation can offer is to present the mechanism and opportunity for fair and adequate recourse for the offended party, all the way to an independent third party, if need be. Existing legislation does that now. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects employees from discrimination. The Privacy Act provides a measure of protection as well.
Returning to the Public Service, the personal harassment policy adopted by Treasury Board for all Public Service employees, specifically forbids harassment for any reason whatsoever. It provides a simple and confidential mechanism which allows employees to bring their concerns to the attention of a neutral third party.
The Public Service Commission which is, of course, an independent agency of Parliament, has a staff of investigators who look into cases of impropriety brought to their attention. The Public Service Employment Act provides for a quasijudicial tribunal known as an appeal board, which is empowered to make rulings on alleged irregularities in connection with the staffing process. The Public Service Commission also has certain powers under the Inquiries Act to investigate allegations of fraud.
Another independent agency of Parliament, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, has a proven track record of uncovering examples of mismanagement or even fraud. Most departments, in addition, now have in place an effective internal audit mechanism which can advise senior management on these matters.
Any debate on the issue of mismanagement or abuse of power cannot overlook the power of the press in Canada or, indeed, of the power of the Public Service employee unions. Both of these bodies have demonstrated a continuing interest in keeping government employees and public sector organizations, inside the Public Service and beyond, on the straight and narrow, and they have done a very good job indeed.

March 27, 1987
Public Service
I respect the Hon. Member's motives in introducing this motion. It is an important and difficult issue, worthy of debate and further discussion. I am a former public servant myself, indeed, I am the only public servant who was elected in the last election. When I joined the Public Service I took an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, the Queen. I took an oath of secrecy as well. That always meant something to me as a public servant and I think it means a good deal to most public servants. An oath is something which is just that, something sacred and important to all good citizens.
It seems to me that this motion in its present form would undermine the basic obligation to the Crown which all public servants have and the obligation to an employer which any good and dutiful employee has to that employer. There may
well be room, from my own point of view, for consideration of whistleblower legislation for a narrow area of public policy. I think particularly of serious environmental dangers or hazards to public health or safety. However, this motion, in my view, is too wide and simply too open to abuse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour set aside for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 5 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m..
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 30, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers