1987-04-10

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, to mark the 50th anniversary of Air Canada, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada I am pleased to pay tribute to the management and employees of this Crown corporation which, over the years, has gained national and international recognition.
Now that the Conservative Government is on the verge of adopting Bill C-18 which will bring about complete air transport deregulation, it is appropriate to question the wisdom-let alone the need-to privatize Air Canada at this juncture. The Government would be much better advised to convert the Air Canada debt into equity, commit itself to make it easier for the corporation to seek private sector funding to upgrade its aircraft fleet, and abide by the unwritten rule under which Air Canada deserves preferential treatment in the attribution of international and transborder routes, were it only because in many instances Air Canada is the only carrier providing domestic services in the most remote and least profitable regions of Canada.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, right here in the National Capital Region and in the area immediately beyond we have a great national asset which has never been given the importance or attention it deserves. I am talking about the majestic Ottawa River which flows for hundreds of miles as a borderline between Ontario and
Quebec. It flows from the massive waters of Lake Timiskam-ing and joins up with the navigable waters of the historic St. Lawrence at Montreal.
The Ottawa River and its many tributaries were the highways for hundreds of fur traders during the formative years of Canadian history.
In today's world this great Ottawa River and its tributaries can become the recreational paradise and the waterway route for small craft navigation for years to come. It can become the answer in part to the economic problems which plague eastern Ontario and western Quebec. We have the imagination and the plans to bring this new development into reality with proper environmental considerations. Now we need the political will to do the job.
The boating industry brings in more than $1 billion a year in taxes alone for provincial and federal Governments. Why can we not reinvest some of this money and create more tax resources for the development of waterways in Canada? Let us be prepared for the leisure world of the 21st century which we created in this century.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government side of the House it gives me great pleasure to advise you and the Canadian public that on this date 50 years ago, April 10, 1937, the Trans-Canada Airlines Act was passed in this House. Trans-Canada Airlines later became Air Canada and is today celebrating its 50th anniversary.
This corporation has served our great country and its people with distinction. Over the years it has become one of the world's largest and most respected airlines. I think all Canadians can share with the employees of Air Canada their pride in an airline which is truly recognized around the world for its professionalism and expertise. Mainly, I commend to all Canadians the quality of the service given to us by the crews and the staff of Air Canada.
I ask all Hon. Members to join me in wishing Air Canada a very happy 50th anniversary.

April 10, 1987


INCOME TAX
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the New Democratic tax probe revealed that since the Government virtually eliminated capital gains taxes in 1985 the chief beneficiaries have been the 1 per cent of tax filers earning over $50,000. Fifty-seven per cent were wealthy investors.
Wealthy investors who earn over $250,000 will receive, on average, a tax break of $28,700, $8,700 more than the average Canadian earns in a year. Only 8 per cent of those using the capital gains exemption were farmers. By 1990 $5.6 billion will have been lost to the federal Treasury because of this Tory tax boondoggle.
A fair and progressive tax system, as advocated by the New Democrats, would allow farmers, small businessmen and home owners an exemption on capital gains at little cost to the Treasury. However, farmers, small businessmen and home owners were not the people the Tories had in mind when they introduced their $500,000 capital gains exemption. The Tories, as usual, had their relatives and Bay Street friends in mind.
1 call upon the Minister to bring in a more realistic capital gains tax exemption plan when he reforms the tax system this spring.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to recall that on April 10, 1937, Parliament passed the Trans-Canada Airlines Act. Subsequently re-christened Air Canada, our national carrier is celebrating its 50th anniversary today.
The corporation has served the country and Canadians with distinction, becoming over the years one of the largest and most respected airlines in the world.
I think all Canadians will share the pride Air Canada personnel feel in an airline famous the world over for its professionalism and its technical excellence.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members here in the House to join me in wishing Air Canada a happy 50th birthday and a very successful future.


INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in order to focus attention on the quarter of the world's population that does not have adequate shelter the United Nations has declared 1987 to be the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
Canada is helping to fund an international conference of some 100 countries to be held in Ottawa this September and will be providing financial support to 35 demonstration projects in developing countries to improve housing conditions. At home, CMHC and provincial authorities will fund the construction and rehabilitation of 45,000 housing units for needy Canadians.
[DOT] (mo)
Canadians, with their expertise in construction technology and real estate development, can play a major role in providing affordable dwellings for the homeless throughout the world.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I questioned the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) about the Government's decision to abandon yet another of its campaign promises, this one to replace the antiquated rolling stock of VIA Rail with new cars which would be built jointly by Can-Car Rail of Thunder Bay and Bombardier of Montreal.
While the Minister refused to confirm reports that the Government will go shopping for second-hand cars in the United States instead of building our own cars, his tone was clear that the Government just does not want to spend the money.
This incredibly short-sighted decision is made in spite of the knowledge that it will cost over a thousand jobs for Canadian men and women in Montreal and Thunder Bay, and that it is not going to save any money in the long run anyway.
There is an alternative. Instead of buying second-hand U.S. cars, why not enter into an agreement with Can-Car and Bombardier that, if those companies build the cars in Canada, the Government will agree to lease them on behalf of VIA for 15 to 20 years? This will avoid the massive lay out of funds that the Government is afraid of, and will also save the hundreds of jobs about which I am concerned for Canadian men and women. It is worth considering.
April 10, 1987


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the Private Members' motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) that would entrench the rights of the unborn in our Charter of Rights.
About two weeks ago some Members of Parliament and the public viewed a film in Room 200 of the West Block. It was on the subject of abortion. In this documentary film a camera probe was inserted into the mother's womb and took pictures of the unborn baby while it moved. Then we saw the surgeon insert into the woman's body forceps which crushed the baby's head and then pulled the baby apart, limb by limb, and pulled the parts out of the woman's body.
It is shocking to realize that babies are being murdered. Members should realize that this is not only happening in the first trimester, but in the third trimester as well, which means that after seven or eight months a baby in its mother's womb can be aborted. That is certainly murder, and I want to reiterate my support of the Private Member's motion by the Member for Grey Simcoe, that babies' rights be entrenched in the Charter of Rights.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the latest unemployment figures are out and, once again, they are not encouraging. Almost 1.4 million Canadians are unable to find jobs.
Ontario again has the lowest unemployment figures, with an unemployment rate of less than 7 per cent, while in Newfoundland it is over 20 per cent.
The Government's job-creation policies are not working. Premier Peterson's Government of Ontario has created hundreds of thousands of jobs over the last two years with good Liberal policy initiatives. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to seek an immediate meeting with Premier Peterson to have a briefing on how to get the economy going, and how to create jobs by adapting those policies of Mr. Peterson on a national basis.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party inquiry into the future of the
nuclear industry was in New Brunswick last week. We visited the Point Lepreau nuclear facility and heard from a number of people in Fredericton.
Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick is saying that he is cutting a deal with Ottawa to finance Point Lepreau II, a 300 megawatt reactor, with federal loan guarantees of up to $2 billion.
The lobby behind this project is by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is desperate for new projects, and by a provincial Premier who is desperately trying to get re-elected.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), whom I questioned in committee yesterday, knows very little about any deal, so Premier Hatfield is really misleading his people in New Brunswick.
There should be no nuclear reactors constructed in this post-Chernobyl period, at least until safety, monitoring, and waste disposal problems are solved, and maybe not even then.
We heard from the wood-lot owners of New Brunswick who told us of the immense biomass potential, the potential for jobs in New Brunswick. The Minister should look at this possible future option. There are 21 plants manufacturing biomass in Maine and making energy from it. I ask the Minister to look at this project before going ahead with any financial guarantees for Lepreau II.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government seems prepared to proceed with amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act incorporating our multicultural reality but which would exclude a separate Multiculturalism Act. This initiative is ill conceived and completely out of step with the aspirations of Canada's ethnocultural communities.
The previous Liberal Government introduced legislation creating a distinct Multiculturalism Act which, unfortunately, died on the Order Paper. Subsequently two former Conservative Ministers for Multiculturalism carried on this Liberal initiative and consulted extensively with organizations across the country. The third Conservative Minister for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie) is now prepared to turn the clock back. I urge him to recognize that Canada's multicultural policy requires a strengthening of its legislative foundation.
The structures underpinning bilingualism and multiculturalism, which were born from the same B and B Commission, have taken very different paths. It is crucial that strides toward rectifying this be undertaken now.

April 10, 1987
Oral Questions
Minor amendments will not do. There is only one type of citizenship in this country and that is first-class citizenship for one and all.


CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to salute thousands of volunteers who lent their time and energy to the 1987 Canada Winter Games in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. More than 6,000 people volunteered their services in a great variety of ways. They provided first aid to the athletes, assisted the media, provided back-up support to the many performing artists, and their warm hospitality extended not only to athletes but, indeed, to all visitors.
The efforts of these people were a vital part of the success of the Games which most observers agreed were the very best. All Cape Bretoners ought to take pride in the success of the Games. From the time the athletes arrived to the moment the flame was extinguished, all events associated with the Games proceeded flawlessly.
All Canadians and all Members of the House would, 1 am sure, want to join with me in saluting the efforts of the people of Cape Breton in making the 1987 Canada Winter Games such a significant success. Congratulations, volunteers, for a job well done.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today the Manitoba Sugar Company announced the closure of its Winnipeg plant and the lay-off of 73 employees by July 10. Sugar beets will not be contracted in Manitoba this year. The industry will lie dormant due to the deception of the federal Government and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board who promised on May 2, 1985, that: "The federal Government will not require any further financial participation by the Manitoba Government beyond the 1985 crop year". Manitoba provided $2.8 million that year. Alberta planted no beets.
The Minister now says there is no agricultural stabilization plan for beet producers except a tripartite proposal. The Government continues to provide full funding under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for eastern farmers. It is also fully funding the five-year dairy program. But it cannot live up
to this commitment to Manitoba farmers. No wonder Canadian farmers are displeased with the Government. It is playing political games with their future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and again concerns the role played by Mr. Jean Peloquin in awarding certain advertising contracts. I finally received a copy of Mr. Peloquin's contract, and I want to thank the Minister for sending it to me yesterday and for reversing the decision of those persons who had turned down my initial request. Incidentally, I hope the Minister of Public Works will do the same for the contracts for Place Vincent-Massey.
I would like to ask the Minister, since article 19 of the contract signed by Mr. Peloquin with the Government says clearly that the entrepreneur should have no pecuniary interests that might influence him in making his decisions, whether in the light of these facts, she is now prepared to demand a public inquiry so that all Canadians will know exactly what happened?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this week I said time and time again in the House that following allegations that were made about Mr. Peloquin's behaviour, I asked for legal advice. I received that advice yesterday from my legal adviser who is recommending, first of all, that we order an internal audit of the activities of the Advertising Management Group and second, I asked the Department's security service to investigate the allegations. My Department's security service will therefore have full authority to do whatever is necessary to shed light on the present situation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Minister that it seems even this group will have no official investigating powers. We have just gone from one level to another level in the same department.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Don Boudria: What we are talking about here is not an everyday contract. We are talking about a contract to provide advice to the Tory Government in relation to selecting which Tory firm is to be rewarded by Tories.
April 10, 1987

In view of this type of politically-charged atmosphere in which these incidents are happening, will the Minister not do the right thing and call for a full public inquiry concerning the Peloquin affair?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I intend to act on the advice I received from my legal adviser, and an audit will be made by the security committee within the Department.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that I think it is pretty scandalous I should be asked such questions this morning, especially by a Member who belongs to a party that shared this patronage concept when it awarded all its advertising contracts on the basis of a phone call to their friends.

EMPLOYMENT OF MR. PfeLOQUIN


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that she is scandalized. With the way her Government is performing, she should be scandalized.
Yesterday the Minister said in the House: "That contract ended on March 31st.. . Mr. Peloquin no longer works in my" office.
In view of the fact that as late as Wednesday of this week members of her staff in her Department were still answering phone calls claiming that Mr. Peloquin was only out for the day or out momentarily, why are they still answering as if this person were still working there? Is he or is he not working there? If he is not working there, is he a volunteer? What is he doing in that office?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peloquin ceased to work for my Department on March 31 this year. He is no longer working with our advertising group.
We have put in place an effective system and effective working methods, and I want the House to know that as the Minister reponsible for this system, I will never let anyone tarnish its success, be they Liberals, Conservatives or members of the NDP.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Prime Minister's misguided exercise in pork-barrel politics, that is, his $68 million prison in his own
Oral Questions
riding. We now know how the Prime Minister intends to pay for the prison in Port-Cartier.
According to information I received yesterday from Correctional Services Canada the Government has cancelled 25 much needed capital projects in the correctional services. Ten of these projects were scheduled for western Canada. Is it any wonder that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and westerners generally are as mad as hell at the Government? I would now like to put my question to the Government.
How can it explain the cancellation of these 25 capital projects? Will the Government not admit that the Prime Minister's prison in Port-Cartier is being built at the expense of jobs and correctional facilities in western Canada?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amazing-


Gerry St. Germain: Sickening!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -my colleague says "sickening"-that members of the Liberal Party are so much against making progress on the North Shore of Quebec-


Mr. Riis:: At the expense of western Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that they would constantly criticize this excellent facility that will be built for the benefit of people in that region in terms of economic development. There is no linkage at all with respect to the program going on in the Solicitor General's Department. The basis on which the Hon. Member puts his question is erroneous, false, mischievous, and quite out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know Hon. Members would want me to comment first that it is for the Chair to decide what is out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members would also want me to remind the House that the Hon. Member had a very lengthy preamble. I am conscious of the fact that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is the second lead questioner for the Official Opposition, but I would expect the Hon. Member to make his preamble and question short.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as a western Canadian the Justice Minister ought to hang his head in shame for not standing up and fighting for western Canada.


CANCELLATION OF EXPANSION OF EDMONTON INSTITUTION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government to explain why a $50 million capital project in Edmonton, the expansion of the Edmonton institution, was cancelled. Can the Minister explain why this much needed expansion in western Canada which would have

April 10, 1987
Oral Questions
created jobs for western Canadians was cancelled in order for the Prime Minister to build a prison in his riding?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, not only am I proud to represent western Canada in this Cabinet but I would suggest that, if the Hon. Member ever gets a chance to get out to western Canada, he should check his facts. Any suggestion of any linkage between these two projects, without infringing in any way on your consideration of the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily out of order but is certainly mischievous, wrong, and false.


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will know full well how serious the economic situation is in western Canada, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia. He is probably aware that this morning we found out that the unemployment figures in Alberta had remained virtually unchanged and the situation in British Columbia has actually worsened. He will know that westerners do not want special treatment, they simply want fair and equitable treatment, the kind of treatment they are seeing other parts of Canada get.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that three years ago he and his Government promised the development of a Canada Opportunity Development Board to assist community-based economic ventures financially particularly in western Canada. Will the Secretary of State explain why absolutely no action has been taken on this promise made three years ago? If there is to be action, when will it take place?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, unless his status has been changed by a recent telephone call, will know from his close association with the former Liberal Government that there has been a dramatic change in the degree of attention given to western economic priorities as a result of the election of a Progressive Conservative national Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The National Energy Program is gone, the Foreign Investment Review Agency is gone, the deficit is going down, and issue after issue raised by western Canadians, whether aid to the farmers, aid to the energy industry, or aid to other sectors of the western Canadian economy, were all undertakings given by the Government on the way to office in September of 1984, and delivery has begun in spades in western Canada.


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has outlined a whole number of policy areas that might have gone. I want to remind him that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona is also gone from his caucus. The one Member of Parliament from the Province of Alberta who has spoken out on behalf of Albertans has been kicked out of the caucus. That is not the kind of representation westerners are prepared to accept. My supplementary question is again directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He may think that things have improved in western Canada. I would recommend that he go home to his constituency to take a little tour of Yellowhead and find out what real Albertans are experiencing under this new federal regime.
In the last month the situation in British Columbia has worsened. At a time of year when unemployment would traditionally be going down, it is actually going up.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain whether or not the Western Economic Diversification Strategy will be applied to that western province? If so, when can we expect an office to be opened? And, if that office is opened, will it have new money, new staff, and new policies, or will it simply be retreaded programs and people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. for Kamloops-Shuswap should be the last Member to speak to me about Members of Parliament who consider straying from their caucus.
Let me make the point with regard to Yellowhead, if I may, since the question was raised. I was recently in Yellowhead as a result of the Freedom to Move legislation introduced in the House of Commons by the Government. As a result of that legislative initiative there has been a significant plant expansion in Hinton. There will be other developments if that legislation passes through the House of Commons.
However, we notice that that legislation to bring an end to historic prejudice against western Canada is being opposed in Parliament by an unholy alliance of the NDP and the CPR.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The responses of the Secretary of State for External Affairs get sillier by the bloody day. The people of Alberta-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: If I were a Member of Parliament from Alberta I would be standing up and doing something for Alberta as opposed to cheap shots during Question Period.
Stand up for your province, stand up for the people of Alberta. Do something instead of kicking one of your colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 10, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members would give courtesy to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap who, I know, will put his question.


Mr. Andre:: He has given speeches so far.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are a little touchy this morning Harvie; I understand why.


COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have been hearing about a comprehensive energy program for many months now. We have been seeing dribs and drabs coming in, with a little program announced here and another little program announced there.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs be specific to the Province of Alberta, particularly, and explain when his Government plans to announce a comprehensive energy program, so that Albertans will be able to plan their future and get on with developing the economics out there they wish to develop?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member began his question he said that nothing had been done. Now he concedes that the PGRT is gone. The National Energy Program is gone. Recently there has been a $350 million to $400 million program of support to drilling and service industries-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unemployment is 13 per cent in Edmonton today. Do you agree with that? You created it.


Charles Joseph Clark: He quotes the unemployment statistics in Alberta now. It is precisely because there have been those serious economic problems in western Canada that the Government has reversed the policies of the Trudeau-NDP alliance, policies which were dragging down the economy of western Canada, and has brought in a series of changes that are bringing and will continue to bring real benefits to that region.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Go to Yellowhead and say that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau.


André Ouellet: The vigour of the Minister makes us all realize that they are in deep trouble in western Canada.


AIRPORTS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the invisible Minister of Transport or whatever
Oral Questions
Minister wants to do the job which it seems the Minister does not want to do.
After all the promises by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Transport that the Government would not compromise at all-they told us that there would be no compromise-on safety at airports, how can the Government explain that the Toronto Island Airport does not meet the fire safety rules?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in the House as a Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I should like to thank my colleague opposite for his question, which I am sure he intended to be a tough one. He also knows-


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that the usual courtesies have been extended to the Hon. Member as a new Parliamentary Secretary, and I notice that the announcement was made with some friendly and warm applause.
Of course the obligation on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary now is to give an answer, and we will see whether there is the same reaction.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you would be generous on the first question.
I assure my colleague opposite that safety is first and foremost. In fact, under the National Transportation Act, which is in the process of being passed through committee clause by clause, and in which my friend opposite is playing a very constructive role, safety is the number one factor in respect of the Toronto airport. That will always be the case. It is being examined closely. There is a process for upgrading fire protection if, as, and when it is needed.


André Ouellet: Indeed I appreciate and thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. However, I think words are not enough; action is needed.


REQUEST FOR REDESIGN OF AIRPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that this is one of the busiest airports in Canada, will the Government immediately redesign the airport to make it a category five facility, and will the Government assume the cost of the appropriate fire equipment needed there, right now?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, that whole question is being looked at very closely at the moment. There is a report in the works, and I am sure that its conclusions will be out momentarily.

April 10, 1987
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


PLANT CLOSURES IN MANITOBA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was recently in western Canada.
He just returned from Manitoba and knows that Canada Packers has closed the doors of one part of its operations, laying off 300 people yesterday. He also knows that 300 more people in that operation will lose their jobs next year. He should know that the Manitoba Sugar Company announced today that it would be closing its operations this summer.
What is the Government doing for those affected workers and, just as important, what it is doing for farmers who depend upon those plants in Manitoba?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Manitoba and had the opportunity to meet with a range of individuals, including the Canadian Grains Council.
In respect of the specific question, I will have to take it as notice on behalf of the relevant Minister and will ensure that an answer is provided next week.
I can say that among the facts brought to my attention when I was in Manitoba was that over 80 per cent of Manitoba's exports are to the United States. Consequently, the present situation of protectionism in that country, which puts both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the path of Manitoba exports, creates a very real and continuing threat to the economic vitality of the Province of Manitoba.
One of the reasons the Government is prepared to undertake a comprehensive trade negotiation with the United States is to try to bring some kind of benefit and job security to the people of Manitoba and the rest of the country.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That may be the statement the Minister wanted to make, but it has nothing to do with the two industries about which I am talking. The beef packing and sugar industries are internal industries. We are losing our jobs in Manitoba, and I wish there was somebody in that Government who could answer these questions today. Apparently there is no one over there who can do that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Ask the provincial Government. It has a responsibility.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Manitoba Government is doing damn good for the people of Manitoba. We want something from the feds.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members, because there have now been two inadvertent slips in the use of language which is perhaps not suitable for this place, to be careful.
I know Ministers are very anxious to answer questions, but perhaps they could wait until they have actually been asked a question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I take back the word "damn" from my comments but not from my thoughts.


TELEPHONE CALLS SUPPORTING MEMBER FOR EDMONTON- STRATHCONA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. To whom should we refer the calls we are receiving supporting the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona? To whom should we refer them in the Government?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if there are questions which are genuine questions respecting the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona-and I took a number of them on the Warren radio show in Manitoba the other day-I am prepared to take more. If the Hon. Member wants to direct those to me, he can certainly do that. Let me also say, since we are speaking of telephones, that if he has any difficulty getting in touch with his Leader, we can perhaps help him in that way as well.


PRIVATIZATION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would put my question to whomever is answering for the Minister responsible for privatization. It concerns the compensation that the Boeing Company is reportedly asking for de Havilland. Under the agreement with Boeing, the Government agreed to contribute 35 per cent of the cost of modifications to production facilities and equipment to a maximum of $8.75 million. Can the Minister confirm whether the compensation Boeing is now asking is provided for in the agreement between the Government and Boeing, and that such compensation does not exceed the agreement or the maximum amount set out in that agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a very detailed and specific question. The Minister responsible for privatization is unavoidably not in the House. I will have to take the question as notice, and either that Minister or another of the Government will try to get back to the Hon. Member as soon as we can.


REPORTED DEMANDS MADE BY BOEING
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Minister that the Chairman of Boeing told the House Committee on Regional Development that a team of 12 experts from that company conducted an exhaustive six-month study of all facets of the de Havilland operation. They found a company that has "fine products, impressive managerial design and production skills and experience and adequate
April 10, 1987

facilities". They acknowledged, however, that considerable investments would be required to bring the company up to Boeing standards and indicated that Boeing was prepared to make those investments. In the light of the testimony of the Chairman of Boeing Canada to the parliamentary committee, how can Boeing make these demands today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the original question had to do with whether or not demands were made and whether or not those are consistent with the original undertaking. I indicated to the Hon. Member that since that was a detailed question of which no notice had been received and the Minister is absent, I will have to take it as notice. His second question was contingent upon the first. I cannot make reference to representations that have not been confirmed.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns one of his former employees of that Department, Herbert Norman, who was Ambassador to Cairo and who committed suicide in 1956. The federal Information Commissioner is taking the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency to court because the Government does not want to reveal information in the spirit of freedom of information. Could the Secretary of State reveal what is behind the cover-up? Why is Canada still protecting a former mole of the Soviet KGB? Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer that question please?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about the case of a man who died more than 30 years ago and about allegations that trace back at least five decades. The question is about information that might have been made available.
Speaking for my Department, which is the Department which employed Mr. Norman and which he served, all of the information that is allowed to be permitted under the Privacy and Freedom of Information legislation was made available to various authors who were conducting investigations. There are no skeletons left in that closet. I would suggest that the Hon. Member not pursue skeletons that do not exist. I would also suggest that he repeat his own observation in the prelude to his question that there are legal remedies that can be pursued by the Privacy Commissioner or by the Access to Information Commissioner. If those are being pursued, they will be respected and honoured. Otherwise I think it would be unnecessary and unworthy to raise 30 year-old questions here in this House.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INITIATIVE-ROLE OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister regarding government policy. The Minister of Transport announced yesterday policy regarding the transferring of Canadian airports to municipalities. The Minister will be aware that the only airports any municipality in its right mind would consider taking over are the ones making a profit.
In British Columbia the profit from Vancouver Airport in effect pays for the losses of all the other airports in B.C. Is it the intent of his Government's policy in getting rid of these profitable airports that the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for the remainder?


Blaine Allen Thacker: There is no such intention at all, Mr. Speaker. The policy is a good policy that, on a voluntary basis, permits local municipalities, regions and commissions to take over the management or indeed possibly the ownership of an airport and apply the local energy and initiative from a region to make an airport profitable. Compare that to the NDP philosophy which would be to keep control in Ottawa, guaranteeing a drain on the taxpayer.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, someone called that a national airport system.
If the Government is not going to pass on the 10 per cent airport transportation tax to any airports that municipalities take over, how does the Government expect those airports to make money? By taking up a silver collection perhaps?


Blaine Allen Thacker: No, quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. For example, at the airport with which I am familiar in Lethbridge, an enormous number of hangars are sitting there. They could be used. With local initiative and enterprise that airport could be turned around and could be making income tax money for us here in Parliament to redistribute to the people in the country who really need it.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision not to hear an appeal which, in effect, has invalidated mandatory incarceration for a second

April 10, 1987
Oral Questions
drunk driving conviction. I would remind the Minister that when Parliament introduced that provision it had very great public support. Is the Minister of Justice prepared to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code to correct the technicality which resulted in the invalidation of mandatory incarceration for a second conviction?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. As he knows, the matter is going to receive a review. 1 will have an opportunity to discuss this and other matters with my provincial colleagues involved in the administration of justice at a meeting which will take place at the end of May. At that time I hope we can work together in terms of having an appropriate balance in this important question.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is disappointing, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Justice still have the conviction-and is it still the firm policy of the Government, a policy with which the whole of this Parliament agreed-that there should be mandatory incarceration on a second conviction for drunk driving?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this Government has brought in legislation which has done more in terms of the Criminal Code provisions concerning drinking and driving. Our commitment is beyond question. The whole point of this endeavour is to make sure in a co-operative effort that we can move forward. I have involved myself in consultation with my provincial counterparts so as to get the benefit of their points of view. 1 intend to carry on consultation. We will act decisively once that consultation has been completed.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I have a question for him about eastern Canada. As the Minister knows, Harbourfront, which is a Crown corporation managing Toronto's waterfront, made a dozen secret deals allowing developers, such as Huang and Danczkay, to build high-rise towers that violate City of Toronto by-laws for Harbourfront. Does the Government of Canada intend to order a public inquiry into such mismanagement of a Crown corporation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, at last reading of my geography book, the Hon. Member is referring to central Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As we say in Saskatoon, the Hon. Member represents a central Canadian riding. Having said that, I do not accept the premise of the Member's question. Given the allegations made by the Hon. Member, I think the matter is the responsibility of the provincial Attorney General. However, I will give consideration to his representations.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Hon. Minister's preference for his own geographical language which differs from a former Premier of Alberta who proposed to let those eastern so-and-sos, including Ontario, freeze.
My supplementary concerns the same project in Toronto. One of the buildings being constructed by Huang and Danczkay will bring no revenue to Harbourfront for 10 years. Yet all the non-profit projects were required to pay right from the beginning. Does the Minister not consider that such gross favouritism and discrimination by a federal Crown corporation deserves a very thorough public inquiry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate if the Hon. Member has any proof of any wrongdoing then he should report it to the appropriate authorities rather than standing up in this House and grandstanding with allegations he is not prepared to turn over to the authorities. Our system of justice does not involve making allegations under the protection of the House of Commons and getting publicity for a position which may not be justified in fact. I suggest the Hon. Member respect the traditions of Canadian justice.


DISADVANTAGED YOUTH-TERMINATION OF BRIDGING THE GAP PROGRAM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. He will know that a program called Bridging the Gap is designed to assist severely disadvantaged youth in Lunenburg and Queens County, Nova Scotia. Can the Minister inform the House why funding for this project has been terminated when the Ministry knew the program did not duplicate any other program from any level of government? Educators, parents of these young people, the private sector, and all three levels of government, including the regional office of CEIC, were in favour of continued funding for this most important project.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for South Shore also made representations concerning this program.
April 10, 1987

The information I have this morning is that the program was not continued because there was apparently some element of duplication. As the Eton. Member knows, if we had enough resources we would continue a lot more of these programs. The fact is that half of all funding in CEIC for employment programs goes to young people. If we can avoid some duplication and get more for our money we try to do it.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that his Department requested that this organization select a consultant to examine the operations of the program and make recommendations to the federal Government. That consultant recommended the continued funding of the project. He said in part: "In discussions with more than 100 persons only three negative comments were elicited and these were directed not at the Bridging the Gap program, nor its philosophy or staff, but a member of the board of directors."
I ask the Minister respectfully, on behalf of those severely disadvantaged youth in Lunenberg and Queens County, to commission a report or discussion with that group so that the funding can be continued and the objectives of the program can be achieved. Can I have that undertaking?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's comments as being representations. I think he will find on this side of the House we recognize the fact there are a lot of programs, in fact a great deal of them, that we would like to pursue. Half of our resources always go, at least with this Government, to youth employment programs. We intend to pursue that policy, so I will take his comments as representations.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister in charge of the Post Office. As he might be aware, earlier this year I raised the ' concerns of various trade and religious magazines, such as Beef in B.C. and Canada Lutheran which were being denied second-class mailing privileges. The Post Office then suggested to Canada Lutheran that it reapply for second-class mailing privileges. They were also led to understand that some decision would be forthcoming about the beginning or middle of March.
Can the Minister inform us whether his Department is prepared to give second-class mailing privileges to Canada Lutheran?
Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am not current with that particular application but I will become current. Just by way of correction, it is not my Department. It is an independent Crown corporation. However, I will inquire as to the status of that application.


CONTENT OF RELIGIOUS MAGAZINES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the reason why Canada Lutheran was denied second-class mailing privileges was that the Post Office considered it was not religious enough, that it did not have enough religious material.
Obviously there is some question about the way Canada Post decides which religious publication should get second-class mailing privileges and which should not. For example, The United Church Observer and the Presbyterian magazine get second-class mailing privileges but Canada Lutheran has been denied that privilege. I think the Minister would agree that it is not the job of the Post Office to determine what magazine is more religious or which has more religious content than other magazines.
In reviewing the policy will the Minister not straighten out Canada Post so it does not become involved in looking at the content of religious magazines?


Harvie Andre: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I should point out in fairness, however, that that really is not the determining factor. It has to do with the extent to which a publication on behalf of any group uses advertising. In other words, where does its funding come from? If it is clearly for charitable purposes, without reliance on advertising revenue, and is of a religious nature, that is one thing and it receives second-class status. I think it was on that point rather than concerning the religious nature of the magazine. However, I hear the Hon. Member's representations and I will certainly transmit them to the Post Office.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he confirm that he will shortly be visiting several Warsaw Pact countries, and tell us about his itinerary and the purpose of these visits?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that in early May I will be visiting Hungary, Poland, and East Germany. As the House will know, I had the opportunity two years ago to be the first Canadian Foreign Minister in nearly 12 years to visit the

April 10, 1987
Oral Questions
Soviet Union. I have not yet had an opportunity in this capacity to visit eastern Europe. I am interested in doing that, both to advance East-West relations and to pursue some of the important and growing opportunities for commercial relations between Canada and the countries I will be visiting.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. She may recall that last October I asked a question concerning the possibility that Canada may have been overcharged by as much as $18 million on the purchase of torpedoes manufactured by Honeywell in the U.S. Her answer at that time was that there was "no reason to believe that Canada was overcharged". She went on to say she would not know whether we were overcharged until 1988. It has since been confirmed that Canada has been overcharged.
Why did the Minister deny last October any possibility of having been hoodwinked before she knew all the facts? What is she prepared to do now to assure Canadians that their defence dollars are carefully monitored at all times to prevent this kind of skullduggery, particularly when it involves an overcharge to Canadians of $18 million by the Pentagon?


Monique Vézina: few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I was given a progress report on this contract. The Hon. Member is quite right, there is a difference in the two prices. Of course Canada will be credited in the coming months or whenever we make other purchases or sign other contracts. Unfortunately I am still waiting for the final report, but I should think that indeed Canada will be credited for the additional amounts.


PURCHASES MADE BY NATO COUNTRIES THROUGH PENTAGON
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's own officials have informed me that Canada is not entitled to copies of contracts made between the Pentagon and private companies in the United States and, therefore, cannot possibly monitor the process to ensure honesty and fairness on behalf of Canada and other NATO countries.
Does the Minister realize the implications this case has for the hundreds of purchases made by Canada and other NATO countries through the Pentagon? Will she inform this House how she plans, now that the facts are clear, to prevent this from occurring again instead of treating the issue as if the wastage of taxpayers' money is of little importance? There
must be a clearly defined pattern through which Canadians in fact know what is going on in the Pentagon if the Pentagon is going to be the agent for purchase from industries in the United States.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the concern expressed by my colleague and I will ask for a complete report which I will gladly send to the Hon. Member.


PRIVATIZATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct questions on the de Havilland matter to the Minister of External Affairs who is the Acting Prime Minister today. A headline in the newspaper today reads: "Boeing wants money back on de Havilland". As the Minister knows, the Government of Canada entered into a sweetheart deal in which the taxpayers lost $70 million through the sale of de Havilland to Boeing.
Will the Minister show some western Canadian backbone? Will he stand tall in the saddle and tell this American company that it will not get a penny more of the taxpayers' money and will not be able to renegotiate this deal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know, it has never been my style to engage in gunslinger politics. One of the facts about the de Havilland arrangement is that since it was made some 1,100 new jobs have been created in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It may be that members of the New Democratic Party are not interested in job creation. One can certainly conclude that from certain of the questions they have asked and positions they have taken, particularly with regard to the trade initiatives. We are interested in job creation. We are also interested in respecting the letter of contracts which were entered into.
A question which falls within the responsibility of a Minister who is unavoidably absent from the House with respect to the detail of a contract was asked of me earlier today. We will take a look at the detail of the contract and will ensure that what Canada entered into Canada will observe.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right. He is not into the gunslinger pose. As a matter of fact, Mr. Trudeau told me that.
April 10, 1987


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CONTRACTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is this a pattern? We have seen it across the river in the reopening of the Place Vincent Massey contract. Is the Government prepared, through pressure either from its friends or from foreign companies, to get into the pattern of reopening contracts which it has already signed?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.
Allow me to deal with the practice of conversations between members of the New Democratic Party and Mr. Trudeau. That, of course, is not a revelation to us. We know very well about that practice which led to the description of the organic union. It is interesting that those conversations which used to be among Parties are now becoming increasingly difficult, even within the respective Parties. The Leader of the Opposition cannot appear to get agreement from any of his members. The Leader of the New Democratic Party can only speak to his by long distance telephone.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that there will be a question from the Hon. Member for York West, followed by the last question from the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It has been almost three years since the Prime Minister promised that an honourable settlement to the issue of Japanese Canadian redress would be an urgent and important priority of the Government. Yet after three Ministers of Multiculturalism not only is the substance of any agreement nowhere in sight, but a formal process of talks has not even been established.
This lack of commitment to a very clear promise is an affront to the Japanese Canadian community. Therefore, when will the Government initiate a full and formal process of talks-not individual meetings here and there but full comprehensive talks-so that a fair and meaningful settlement will have a chance to come to fruition during the life of this Parliament?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the affront to the Japanese Canadian community was the position taken by the former Prime Minister, the then Leader of his Party, who refused to deal with this question at all. The Hon. Member knows that that matter is being pursued actively by the Secretary of State who will make the appropriate announcements.
Oral Questions


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a clear promise of the Prime Minister who has had neither the decency nor the respect after three years as Prime Minister to meet even once with the leadership of the National Association of Japanese Canadians.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, since the Government is hesitant about dealing with Japanese Canadian redress, would it not agree to mandate the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which has representation from all sides of this House and which, for this issue, could include one or two Members from a Japanese Canadian community, to work on and recommend a settlement which would be honourable to the Japanese Canadian community and do honour to this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into comparisons of the attitudes which have been taken by Leaders of respective Parties. That is clear and on the record. The Liberal Party refused to recognize that an injustice had been done to which there needed to be a response. This Party and this Government changed that practice. The Secretary of State is pursuing the question and will make appropriate announcements.


THE ECONOMY
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister and is really a supplementary question to that posed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap through which, I believe, he sort of left the misconception, with regard to the western diversification initiative, that not all parts of western Canada would be brought into the process. I would like clarification from the Right Hon. Minister as to whether all of western Canada will be encompassed in this initiative. Can he tell the House at this time when this very important initiative will be brought forward?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course the Western Economic Diversification Program will apply to the whole of western Canada including British Columbia. The Deputy Prime Minister is co-ordinating activities on that initiative and will be making an announcement shortly.
One of the fundamental changes which has been brought to the country by the present Government is that it treats the country as a whole, the regions and the provinces, as equals. That is a change from the Liberal-NDP period. That certainly

April 10, 1987
Business of the House
brings benefit to British Columbia and the rest of western Canada.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties as to the business for today. I think you would find unanimous consent for the proposal that immediately after the item of petitions in Routine Proceedings the House would move to Orders of the Day. The Government undertakes to call Bill C-44 and to recall it after the lunch recess. Bill C-44 would be the only item of business called by the Government between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m. At 4 p.m. or earlier, if there is unanimous consent, the House will proceed to Private Members' Hour. That proposition is made with the understanding from my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, that we should be able to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-44 today in order that the other place can deal with this important matter on Monday.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been consultations between myself and the Deputy House Leader for the Government and what he has said reflects the results of these consultations. We will give consent on the part of the Official Opposition to the proposal he has made.
However, I want to make two points by way of clarification. First, I think it flows from what the Deputy Government House Leader has said that there will be no attempt by the Government to call Bill C-22 or anything connected with it today.
Second, I may be anticipating debate, but I hope the House will consent to allowing the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to move certain amendments at report stage which are in the name of the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who is unable to be here this afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we certainly can confirm that there have been discussions between myself and the Parliamentary Secretary, and we are certainly willing to entertain the introduction of amendments by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) as part of the understanding.
This discussion is a little bit out of the usual this afternoon, but the reason for it is that we oppose the principle and content of Bill C-22 in its present form and plan to do whatever is necessary to stop the imposition of this legislation on the
people of Canada. However, when the Government House Leader and, in this case, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated the need to proceed with Bill C-44 on the whole matter of equalization, I pointed out that it was always our intention to co-operate as much as possible to facilitate the expeditious passage of that Bill. We were planning to do that earlier in the week.
Once we have this commitment by the Parliament Secretary that the Government will not try to use some devious route to introduce a form of closure on debate on Bill C-22, we are more than willing and, as a matter of fact, anxious to get on with Bill C-44 and complete all deliberations today.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the proposition put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary is accepted. I see the Parliamentary Secretary rising. Does he have something further to add?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to put on the record that the Government will not deal with Bill C-22 in any way today and that we would be quite prepared to have the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) move any amendments at report stage which are presently on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to delay things at all. I am quite happy with the proposal that is put forward. I thought that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader made a mistake when he said that "we should" be able to complete report stage and third reading". It is our understanding that we will indeed do that in an effort to pass the equalization legislation. I would like to see his government proposal strengthened.


Philip Derek Lewis: My discussions with the House Leaders of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party were on the basis of "should". If it becomes "would", I am very content.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the undertaking. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out, especially to Canadians who are watching, that it is, of course, no secret that there have been a number of interesting, brisk, and fascinating events taking place in the House with respect to Bill C-22. That has been going on since November.
However, I think it is also appropriate to point out that on other matters and on other Bills there has been a very considerable degree of co-operation between the Government and the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. Of course, that is as it should be, because without it this place cannot function. I compliment all Members in that regard.
April 10, 1987



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-1212, 332-1266, 332-1275, 332-1301, 3321510, 332-1514 and 332-1521.



AIR CANADA


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Air Canada's fiftieth anniversary I am pleased to table in our two official languages its annual report for 1986.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on the review of the report and recommendations of the 1986 Commission on Judges Salaries and Benefits.



STRIKING COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF NINETEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

["Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the honour to present the last petition today. It is from a number of residents of New Brunswick from the communities of Edmundston, St. Basile, Moncton and Francoeur. In this petition the petitioners express their concern with the Government's attempt to pass legislation, in particular Bill C-22,\nwhich will increase the cost of prescription drugs. They also state-", 'That people whose health condition requires the continuous use of prescription drugs will be particularly hard hit by the proposed changes.', 'Pardon my French, Mr. Speaker. The petition is signed by a number of people from New Brunswick. I hope that the Government will listen to them.']
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the nineteenth report of the Striking Committee.
(For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a set of four petitions dealing with the question of the
Petitions
Auto Pact. These four petitions add to the previous petitions on this issue which have come from my constituency.
At this particular stage we have a total of 2,258 additional names of people indicating their severe concern about the thousands of jobs that could be lost to our area and many parts of Canada if the safeguards in the Auto Pact are eliminated. The petitioners pray that the Government will defend these safeguards in any free trade talks and see to it that the Auto Pact is maintained intact.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of other petitions to present. The first comes from Pickering and Kingston and deals with the question of refugee determination.
The petition stresses the unhappiness of the petitioners with recent government moves which run in the face of the position of our churches across Canada, that refugee determination should be carried out as expeditiously as possible within this country.
The petition concludes that the Government and Parliament should enact legislation to embody a principle of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission. It also calls for universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which comes from the area of Edmonton, Alberta, and expresses the very strong unhappiness of many westerners in that city about Bill C-22, which is attempting to make changes to the patent legislation in this country which, in the opinion of the petitioners, will dramatically increase the level of drug prices in this country both for individuals and provincial Governments.
The petitioners also see this proposed change as an example of Government concessions to the United States in the context of free trade negotiations.
My final petition deals with the same subject but comes in this case from British Columbia. The petition presents as strong a case for this Parliament to listen to the thousands, indeed, close to a million voices which have now been heard on this serious issue.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have eight petitions signed by hundreds of constituents who humbly declare that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from less expensive generic drugs which, as we know, will result in an increase in drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely

April 10, 1987
Petitions
restrict the ability of many people to buy necessary prescription drugs. It follows that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not covered by private or governmental medicare programs, that the Government's proposal will raise the already high costs of provincial health care programs, and that the proposed Bill C-22 amendments to the Patent Act are another good example of the Canadian Government's concession to the United States in the current free trade negotiations, at the expense of ordinary consumers. Wherefor the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject the Bill C-22 proposals which will surely increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present several petitions. The first petition is from residents of my constituency of Spadina. It concerns the subject of unemployment insurance.
The petitioners point out that the report of the Forget commission would end regional benefits and thus take $1 billion in income transfers out of Quebec, $660 million from the Atlantic and $670 million out of the West; it would also cut out Government contributions to unemployment insurance benefits and, all in all, it would reduce the income of unemployed persons to less than $140 a week in many cases.
Therefore the petitioners request Parliament to reject any legislation designed to eliminate federal contributions to the unemployment insurance program or to reduce unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have another petition from a number of residents of Toronto and municipalities adjoining Toronto. The petition concerns the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador, and the low level flight training there of pilots of NATO countries. It points out that these training flights not only hurt the local ecology and disrupt the life of the people but are also a provocative and aggressive war fighting action which tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister 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.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a petition from more than 100 Canadians from Toronto and adjoining areas in Ontario on the subject of refugees. The petitioners point out that in the past Canada had fairly good standards of refugee status determination but recent strains have broken it down and that the relevant committee of Parliament has proposed a new system which would be quicker
and fairer but that the Government has not yet taken action although this has support from the churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government and Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, for universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and for a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present this claim.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is in regard to the regulations governing the entry of refugees and calls upon Parliament to enact legislation which would allow fair and quick oral hearings for refugee claimants who are trying to enter Canada.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: My second petition is in regard to the change in the Patent Act and calls upon Parliament to reject proposals which would increase the price of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly senior citizens and those who require those drugs on a continuing basis.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first petition is signed on behalf of a number of residents from Rogersville, Ste. Anne, Black River Bridge and so on, in the Province of New Brunswick. The petitioners oppose the proposed changes to the Patent Act and maintain that this will directly increase the cost of prescription drugs in Canada.
I also have another petition on the same subject. It is signed by residents of Sydney, Cape Breton and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The petitioners oppose the proposed changes to the Patent Act and humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject these proposals which will increase the price of prescription drugs for Canadians.
I have another petition from residents of Sydney, Glace Bay, Nova Scotia and the surrounding area. These petitioners also oppose the changes to the Patent Act which are being proposed by the Government in Bill C-22.
My fourth and last petition is signed by residents of Shediac Bridge and the surrounding area, and from Robichaud, New Brunswick. These petitioners also ask the Government not to go ahead with Bill C-22. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposals in Bill C-22 which will increase the price of prescription drugs for Canadians.

Mr. Sergio March! (York West): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to present to the House three petitions signed by a number of Canadians of the Province of Ontario.
April 10, 1987



The individuals come from Parry Sound, Burlington, Downsview, St. Catharines, and the surrounding area. These Canadians who signed these petitions are requesting that the Government abandon its course on Bill C-22.
Canadians are questioning the advisability of moving to reform the Patent Act which will have the ultimate effect of increasing prescription drugs for Canadians in need. The petitioners request that the Government recognize the harm that this will create, and that if it is to reform the Patent Act, it do so in a way that the needy and sick will have accessible and affordable drugs in Canada.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition which I have the honour to present on behalf of constituents in Hamilton West and other residents of Hamilton-Wentworth, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to protest to the Government of El Salvador the disappearance of Mr. Miguel Rivas Hernandez. They demand that our Government stop bilateral aid to El Salvador until arbitrary arrests, disappearances and torture are practised no more by the security forces of that country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a pile of petitions to present today, although none of them are from Edmonton, which in a sense is not surprising. They are from Melfort, Saskatchewan; Lorette, Manitoba; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Regina, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Pembina; Gimli, Manitoba; New Westminster, Aldergrove, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Langley, Clearbrook, Vetter Crossing, Chilliwack, Mount Lehman, Vancouver, Kelowna, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, and Port Coquitlam, British Columbia; as well as from McBride which is near my own constituency; and from Prince George and Quesnel, British Columbia.
The petitioners from all these communities indicate their displeasure with the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which they believe will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy those necessary prescription drugs. They therefore call upon the Government to stop proceeding in this way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another short petition to present. It contains a list of individuals from Baie de Verde, Newfoundland. These people are all fishermen. They indicate that fishermen in Newfoundland really do require unemployment insurance benefits to get along for a certain portion of the year. They are concerned
Petitions
about what they perceive to be the Government's plan to implement changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which would restrict fishermen access to these benefits. Obviously, they are saying that the Government should reject any recommendation from the Forget Commission that would deprive fishermen of their rights.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to present today two petitions to this honourable House.
The first is signed by the residents of communities such as Toronto, Brampton, Nepean, Willowdale, Thunder Bay, Gloucester, Ottawa, Sudbury, and also residents of Edmonton and Calgary in the Province of Alberta, as well as residents of such picturesque communities as Blezard Valley and Val Caron, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a board independent of the Immigration Commission.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present is also duly certified and is on a somewhat different topic. It is one that has attracted great attention from all parts of Canada and on which this Party has had great support.
This petition is signed by residents of Calgary, Alberta, who protest the Government's plans to make instant concessions before free trade negotiations are even really under way by allowing the passage of Bill C-22 which will inevitably increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition. I noted that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) had a petition on behalf of fishermen from Newfoundland. My petition is from the other side of the country. It is from Alert Bay, British Columbia, that great little fishing area. Fishermen there petition the Government to ensure that the Minister of Employment (Mr. Bouchard) will reject any recommendation that would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance and to enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in order that improvements to the program offered to fishermen are made.
It is a great privilege to present this petition, Mr. Speaker. I know that Your Honour is from Alberta. However, I know that you know about fishing and fishermen. Thus I present my petition on behalf of the fishermen of Alert Bay.

Motions


[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1987
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present, although not as many as yesterday. I have petitions signed by residents of the Province of Newfoundland who are opposed to the proposed amendments to the Patent Act. They believe this is another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians. They call upon Members of Parliament to reject Bill C-22.
I have another petition signed by Canadians from Kempt-ville, Ontario, who likewise are opposed to the provisions of Bill C-22 which they believe will unfairly raise the price of prescription drugs in this country affecting the poor, the elderly and the disabled.
I have another petition from residents of Victoria, British Columbia, and elsewhere in western Canada, who are also opposed to Bill C-22 because they believe that it will negatively affect Canadians, in particular the elderly, senior citizens and the poor.
I have another petition to present signed by residents of Ottawa who are opposed to Bill C-22. They too wish to call upon the Government to withdraw the Bill because of the negative effects it will have on Canadians, in particular senior citizens, the disabled and the elderly.
My second-to-last petition to be presented this morning is signed by residents of British Columbia who wish to call upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-22. They believe it affects negatively senior citizens and the disabled.
Finally, I have a petition to present signed by residents of the constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond and such communities as Howie Centre, Coxheath, Henry Street, Whitney Pier, Marion Bridge, Heathview Drive, South Bentic Street in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and a number of other communities in my riding who state that the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase of drug costs and prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the honour to present the last petition today. It is from a number of residents of New Brunswick from the communities of Edmundston, St. Basile, Moncton and Francoeur. In this petition the petitioners express their concern with the Government's attempt to pass legislation, in particular Bill C-22,
which will increase the cost of prescription drugs. They also state-

That people whose health condition requires the continuous use of prescription drugs will be particularly hard hit by the proposed changes.

Pardon my French, Mr. Speaker. The petition is signed by a number of people from New Brunswick. I hope that the Government will listen to them.



STRIKING


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, earlier this day I had the honour to present the nineteenth report of the Striking Committee. At that time I failed to ask for unanimous consent for concurrence in this report. I have now made arrangements with the House Leaders of the Opposition and have ascertained that there is unanimous consent. It is a simple change with respect to one person on the committee. Therefore I should like to move concurrence at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As per agreement made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Garneau, p. 5017).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When debate ended yesterday the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) had the floor. He still has the floor for one minute if he wishes to carry on.
April 10, 1987


Rodney Edward Murphy: No, he does not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) on debate.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to the motion standing in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
This motion would limit the application of Bill C-44 to the year 1990 as opposed to the year 1992. The reason for this is the Government's proposed changes to the taxation system.
For the last two years, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has been promising changes in the taxation system and indeed we understand that a White Paper will be forthcoming shortly. We understand that this will involve very comprehensive tax reform which would affect personal and corporate income tax, that the tax base would be modified and broadened and that some taxpayers would be taken off the tax rolls and a heavier tax burden would be carried by corporations. If and when these changes come into effect, there will be obvious implications for the provinces.
We have also been given to understand that there will be changes to the federal sales tax which could be replaced by a value added or a transaction tax. If that is the case, then the provinces would want to review their own provincial sales tax systems and we would face a very significant change in the taxation arrangements of both the provincial and the federal governments. If that is the case, it would obviously be undesirable to be locked into a five-year commitment on equalization payments.
Therefore, the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, would strike out line 19 at page 1 of Clause 2 and substitute the words "and ending on March 31, 1990" in place of March 31, 1992. I believe that this is a reasonable amendment. It seems to be a prudent step. I hope the House will consider adopting it.


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 Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Aideen Nicholson: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-44, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 1 to 21 at page 2.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this amendment is to introduce in the first year the technical changes to the equalization formula rather than to phase them in over two years as proposed by the Bill. In our view, the Government should have introduced changes in the formula to calculate revenue from the first year of the renewal of the arrangements, something which is generally understood to have been promised by the Minister. Instead, the Government is phasing in the introduction of these changes over two years. This means that the provinces will lose $87 million in 1987-88.
Bill C-44 introduces a number of technical changes to the calculations of revenue for purposes of equalization. As I said, however, the changes will not be introduced from the first year but instead phased in over two years. There is a disagreement here. Most people understood that the Minister promised that the change would be introduced in the first year. Therefore, the provinces are unhappy about being deprived of approximately $87 million which they considered was promised to them. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has claimed that he never made such a promise. Obviously, one must accept his word. However, there is a perception that the promise was made.
The perception that the promise was made is based at least in part on some public statements. For instance, in an interview with the Minister which was quoted in The Globe and Mail of November 1, 1986, the Minister was quoted as having said: "We offered $175 million a year in enhancement or almost $1 billion over the next five years".
Furthermore, in a television interview given by the Minister of Finance carried on national television in December of 1986, the Minister said: "I believe that an augmentation of $175 million a year, close to $1 billion over a five-year period, is a very major increase in that program". Those figures were used and the provinces understood that those figures were Firm, but now, by changing the formula so that the changes will be introduced over two years, something which was not negotiated with the provinces but simply appeared in the legislation, the provinces will lose about $87 million.

April 10, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
The amendment standing in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), would have the effect of having the technical changes to the equalization formula introduced in the first year, and that is what the provinces understood would happen. I trust Hon. Members will be able to support this motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for only a few minutes on this motion. In seconding the motion, I wished to express the support of the New Democratic Party for this motion. It was an idea that we had also put forward in committee and it is something that we stated at second reading stage.
We believe the Government made a promise to the provinces through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Minister was recorded on the CBC and in the national news as having said that that money would go to the provinces in a one-year period. I believe it is very unfortunate that that offer was withdrawn and that the money will go to the provinces over a two-year period.
I would hope that government Members, in redeeming their word to the provinces, would accept this amendment. I do not expect them to do so, but I hope that that will be the case.


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 Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the House to know that if we do call in the Members, we will not be able to go on to third reading.
May I call upon the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) to indicate the exact disposition of the House.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Liberals, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), who knew the game plan, came into the Chamber and stood up. Originally they had intended to vote on each of the amendments. However, I think we have unanimous agreement, in order to get the Bill through, to move now to third reading and forgo the votes which were indicated earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will put the question on both amendments again and hope that I receive the consent of the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 2?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the Nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Garneau) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that Motion No. 4 is also defeated on division?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Garneau) negatived.


Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Finlay MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, all Members recognize the importance of the equalization program and the need to renew the program as soon as possible. By renewing the equalization legislation, Parliament will authorize the transfer of an estimated $5.6 billion to the four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan this year.
As the House is aware, annual increases in equalization of about $300 million, or over 5 per cent over the next two years, are expected under the Bill. This includes the positive impact of improvements to several of the revenue measures used in the program.
In addition, the Bill contains a net forgiveness provision in respect of the amounts owed by provinces because of census related overpayments over the last two years. This is also of significant benefit to the less wealthy provinces which are anxious to receive the support it provides.
The Bill will also maintain the broad framework of the federal Government's fiscal relations with the provinces by
April 10, 1987

renewing and updating other programs and provisions authorized by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
1 want to thank Hon. Members for the constructive and cooperative approach shown in the course of the debate. I should also like to extend my appreciation to colleagues on both sides of the House and those who served on the legislative committee on Bill C-44. I am particularly grateful to the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for so ably chairing the committee.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, has four aims.
Its first purpose is to renew for a five-year period the current fiscal arrangements for the equalization program. The amendment which we moved and that has just been defeated would have renewed it for only a three-year period in view of the Government's proposed taxation reforms.
The second purpose of the Bill is to forgive a total of approximately $270 million in federal overpayments over the past two years to the four Atlantic provinces, to Quebec, and to Saskatchewan. The overpayment appeared when the preliminary 1986 census data were released. Since the equalization payment formula is in fact based on population data, adjustments had to be made when the final census results came in.
The third purpose of the Bill is to change the revenues included in the equalization calculation. These changes will be phased in over the next two years. The most significant technical change concerns property taxes. As my colleagues from Quebec have pointed out in the House, there is dissatisfaction with the proposal.
The fourth goal is to end the three-year revenue guarantee which the previous Liberal Government introduced following the 1982 changes to equalization. This revenue guarantee set a floor for payment to the provinces during the first three years following equalization reform, that is, from 1982-83 to 198485. However, the Conservative Government has not seen fit to renew this guarantee.
The history of equalization indicates that it has been very important to successive Liberal Governments. It has also been very much a part of our view of nationhood and what holds the country together. In the middle of the 1950s, following a recommendation made by the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission of Inquiry, the Liberal Government of the day introduced a series of measures in an attempt to improve the balance between Canada's various regions, the principle of equalization. Equalization means enabling each province to offer the people of that province the same number and quality of services. The aim was to give Canadian citizens the same opportunities whether they live in Newfoundland, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, or Quebec. It is a very important part of the Liberal philosophy that Canadians all across
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
the country should have the same equality of opportunity and access to comparable services, whether they live in a rich province or a poorer province.
I might add that after equalization had been in place for a number of years, a study done by the Economic Council of Canada confirmed that equalization payments should not be regarded as a disguised form of welfare, but that the economic value of equalization payments was important for all regions of the country-for the Canadian economy in general, not only for the less prosperous regions.
The legislation which became effective in April 1957, and has been maintained all these years, established a formula. It took the per capita income received by the provinces from various fiscal sources and set a national average, the national average being based upon the income of the richest province or group of provinces.
Some changes have been made to the formula over the years because of developments in the economy and because of variations in the prices of certain raw materials, so there are always some changes involved-either additional payments or a reduction of certain payments. However, the basic principle of the legislation reflects a perception of the country and a commitment to equality of opportunity for all citizens wherever they live. It also reflects a view of the role of the central Government in order to maintain a political unit, regional balance, and a commitment to use national policies to build nationhood.
May I continue after two o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) had the floor.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I was speaking about the importance that my Party attaches to equalization payments as a method of building this nation, as a method of providing equality of opportunity for Canadians no matter where they live.
A particularly important part of these equalization payments is their contribution to post-secondary education, or what is called the Established Programs Financing. If we are to have true equality of opportunity, obviously bright young people must have access to higher education whether or not their parents are rich. There are few things about which we in this Party feel more strongly than the principle of equal access to higher education for Canadians whether they have rich

April 10, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
parents or poor parents or whether they live in a poor province or a more prosperous one.
This Government has been making changes in the Established Programs Financing arrangements. We do have to be concerned, because the result of the measures taken in successive budgets and also in this Bill before us is that the provinces will be losing $8 billion by 1990; nearly $2 billion in Ontario and about $2 billion in Quebec. This short-fall in transfer payments will oblige the provinces to increase their deficits, increase their taxes or reduce services. We have to be very concerned about that.
While we in the Opposition are making it very easy for the Government to pass this Bill, we are not at all in agreement with the policies. We do realize that there are reasons that this Bill, with its flaws, must pass, not the least of which is that legally speaking since April 1, 1987, the Government has had no authority to make equalization payments to the provinces and is, therefore, breaching the constitutional agreement. The existing equalization program expired on March 31, 1987. It has been difficult for us to understand why the Government did not move more promptly. It certainly had every assistance from us on this side of the House, but the Government did delay in introducing the Bill. We are prepared to pass this Bill in a few minutes so that the equalization payments can continue, but we are not at all in agreement with the cuts that have been made thus far.
Although the Government quotes over-all increases in employment figures, which one would expect at this point when we are recovering from a recession, the fact remains that all the increases in jobs are pretty well in Ontario, central Canada, while in several other provinces the unemployment picture is as bad as or worse than it was in the depths of the recession in 1982. This is a case for more sensitive use of the equalization payments rather than a case for cutting.
If you take the additional equalization transfers that the provinces are to receive as a result of this Bill and balance them against the cuts they will suffer in health care and postsecondary education financing, you see that the provinces will lose $374 million in 1987-88. We must also remember that the Government has already considerably reduced the amount spent on regional economic development.
Again I would repeat what I said earlier in speaking to the amendment, the Government is locking the provinces into an agreement here, an agreement which is not based on known facts because we are expecting tax reform which may totally change the provinces taxing situation. It is obviously unwise to lock us into five year agreements in the face of this big information gap when we do not know what changes the tax reforms will bring. Even the technical changes made to the formula for calculating revenue were not unanimously agreed upon.
The transitional equalization guarantee was not met for Quebec, which represents a $97 million short-fall in entitlements. The Government has also refused to include the export
tax on softwood lumber in the equalization formula so provinces will be losing millions of dollars as a result of that.
This Bill also ends the special three year transitional payments which the previous Liberal Government had agreed on. The Constitution guarantees equality of access to basic public services to all Canadians. Subsection 36(2) reads:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of
making equalization payments to ensure that provincial Governments have
sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services
at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
The measures before us endanger this principle. While there is some enrichment in some places and there is some guarantee of continuity, there are cuts that we know about, and there is a locking in to a formula without knowledge of the changes that will be coming very shortly in taxation which may totally change the base.
Quebec for one province has made it very clear that the current equalization program does not allow it to provide levels of public service that are comparable to those of other provinces without increasing the tax burden on taxpayers or going further into debt.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I will not be making a very long speech at third reading because I had the opportunity at second reading and at report stage of speaking against this legislation, but obviously not against the principle of equalization. That is in our Constitution and it is something that we support. We do not like the process between the federal Government and the provinces in passing this legislation. It was obviously unilateral action. Premiers from all three political Parties were critical of the federal Finance Minister because of this action. We have a situation in which there is a sense of betrayal in many parts of this country because of the legislation.
In my second reading speech I quoted Premier Peckford. He thought that this would create a situation in his province which could equal the economic depression of the 1930s. This results from the fact that this legislation does not deal with the serious problems of people in our poorer provinces. That is my main concern.
We have agreed that this legislation will pass today, allowing the Senate to look at the legislation for the usual length of time, and then the cheques can go out. The provinces need the money. However, we need a new system of dealing with Established Programs Financing, the money used for post-secondary education and medicare, so that a boy or girl growing up in Atlantic Canada has roughly the same opportunity for education as someone growing up in Toronto.
We need this so that people in other parts of the country have a sense that the federal Government does care and wants to see people prosper in all parts of this country. Whether it be transition houses for women, child care, or a whole host of federal-provincial cost shared programs, we need some
April 10, 1987

indication of where the federal Government is going. We must have some commitment by the federal Government to sit down in honest negotiations with the provinces to ensure that we have the legislation that will actually meet the needs of the provinces receiving equalization payments.
1 realize there is at least one other Member of the House who seems to have an urgent desire to speak on this issue, and I will let that person speak in a few minutes, especially since he is my House Leader. In the meantime, let me say that what I would really like is this House, through one of its standing committees, to do what we did in 1981; to look at the whole issue of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements to see how it could be better done, and how to bring the provinces into the process. That would be better than having the kind of meetings we have at present, where the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) looks at his Budget, his deficit, and tries to negotiate downward the federal Government's commitment in these very important areas. That was the promise we had from the former Minister of State for Finance, the present Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall). She said we would have that process before now, but it did not happen.
I say that before we bring forward new legislation on EPF and equalization payments, those matters must be dealt with. We must get away from this process where the Premier of Newfoundland is screaming at the Minister of Finance, along with the Premiers of other provinces. That is not the way to develop a constructive system of federalism. This just has to stop, and we have to work toward a process which will improve co-operative federalism.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words regarding Bill C-44. The concern that has been registered by my colleagues about education and health care is shared by all Members of this House. We recognize that, for whatever reason, the federal Government recently cut back on the usual increase in Established Programs Financing for health care and post-secondary education.
Just to make it very clear, while the Government increased EPF to assist post-secondary education and the health care funding, there was not the usual increase. Consequently, had the federal Government not intervened, more dollars would have gone to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education.
I know you will recall that the Canadian Medical Association intervened at the time and very strongly suggested that what this will mean is that there will be two levels of health care; a lower level in the poorer parts of Canada and a higher level in the richer parts. Those provinces such as Ontario which have a strong buoyant economies as a result of so many government initiatives, both provincially and federally, will likely have more revenues to fund a better level of health care and post-secondary education than you will find in the Atlantic or western provinces.
What we are dealing with today is an effort by the federal Government, which has been undertaken now for many, many
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
years, to equalize opportunities in Canada. If you are a young man or woman in Atlantic Canada or western Canada, you should have the same opportunity to go to school or receive various types of support and assistance from the federal Government. We all agree that is a good move. That is what Canada is all about. Where revenue is generated in the have provinces, where for a variety of reasons things often go better, they would share those revenues with those less fortunate areas of Canada where things are not going as well.
Equalization provides grants to provinces for education if they so desire. This is not post-secondary education but general public school education, primary school, junior secondary and secondary schools. I am sure everyone in the House applauds that. We would like to see more money made available to ensure that youngsters in the have-not provinces have opportunity equal to those in the have provinces.
I have been looking at some of the material provided to us regarding primary and secondary education expenditures per province. When you look at school board expenditures as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, an interesting anomaly appears. For example, in Newfoundland that percentage is 7.2 per cent, one of the highest; in Prince Edward Island it is 6.2 per cent; in Nova Scotia it is 6.1 per cent; in New Brunswick it is 6.3 per cent; in Quebec it is 5.3 per cent; in Ontario it is 4.3 per cent; in Manitoba it is 4.8 per cent; and in Saskatchewan it is 4.6 per cent.
When you look at the list the one province that stands out as having the lowest percentage of GDP for education is the Province of British Columbia. By national standards B.C. is a have province. Quite frankly it should be in a position to put significant amounts of money into education for its young boys and girls.
When you look across Canada to see which province has virtually the worst record when it comes to providing funding for education at all levels, the one province that stands out above all the others with a most miserable performance is, I am ashamed to say, the province from which I come, the Province of British Columbia. I hope that one day we take the necessary steps in that province to put the Government in a position to provide the necessary education to ensure that young people from British Columbia receive opportunities equal to those of the rest of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1987
Motions


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to do two things. First, with respect to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, I move:
That, the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, from April 12 to 15, 1987, inclusive to observe a course on orientation to chemical dependency pursuant to the committee's ongoing study of alcohol and drug abuse, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to indicate that there have been consultations for a number of days. While we will certainly give unanimous consent to support the committee travelling to Halifax on this matter, I would like to add the note that we ought to be very cautious with regard to standing or special committees which want their representatives to travel to other parts of Canada to take courses. When we are funding people to attend courses to better inform themselves, that means they are not in the House of Commons or here participating in committees. We approve this today, but we will want to look very carefully, on an individual basis, at every request so that this will not become simply a matter of course.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to confirm that the Official Opposition was consulted as well and agrees with this request for the committee to travel to Halifax to observe this course. We are in total agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we agreed earlier that there would be no further government business on this day. There were discussions with the other Parties well in advance of this time and I think you will find unanimous agreement to proceed to Private Members' Hour at this time and that 60 minutes after Private Members' Hour commences, or whenever the particular item of business is dealt with, the House will adjourn for the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I call it four o'clock?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Discussions took place earlier today with regard to identifying
ways and means to facilitate the business of the House in terms of ensuring that the important legislation that must pass does in fact pass expeditiously. I simply want to go on record as saying that as an opposition Member I appreciate that approach to the business of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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   CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT PROPOSAL TO AMEND
Ian Gardiner Waddell: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act by eliminating the condition for entitlement of serving at sea for at least six months in order that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for the Civilian War Allowance on the part of Canadian merchant seamen.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very fortunate day for me, having this motion drawn for debate. Yesterday was the seventieth anniversary of the great battle of Vimy Ridge. I noted today the remarks about the speech of the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) who, according to the press, gave one of the most eloquent speeches of his long and distinguished career. The Hon. Minister said: "Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren have understood and understand the ageless legacy of Vimy". He said that in the presence of 11 veterans in their 80s and 90s from different parts of Canada. The Minister recalled that day just over 70 years ago as "a day a nation was forged".
I and many of my colleagues in this House were not in the War. We are of the post-Second World War generation and were too young to serve in the Korean War. We are the beneficiaries of that for which the veterans fought. They fought, were injured, and died, or survived with scarred memories and difficult times. That is why I am very pleased to bring this motion forward for debate and consideration by the House today.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act by eliminating the condition for entitlement of serving at sea for at least six months in order that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for the Civilian War Allowance on the part of Canadian merchant seamen.
Canadian merchant seamen also served in the war, Mr. Speaker. One of my constituents, Mr. John M. Bray, of 5876 Tyne Street in Vancouver, British Columbia, has been tireless in his pursuit of what he considers to be an injustice which is being done to merchant seamen. He has asked that it be
April 10, 1987

corrected. He has lobbied me, as his Member of Parliament, to put this motion forward, as I have done. By good fortune it was drawn to be debated. Mr. Bray has also lobbied the Canadian Legion which has passed a motion that I will read shortly.
The best way to explain what we are trying to do through this motion is to read a letter which I wrote on March 9 of this year to the Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business. The Hon. Member for Burlington is himself a distinguished war veteran who served in the Burma campaign. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Kempling:
Re: Notice of Motion
I would like the Committee to rule in favour of having my Motion concerning amendments to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act be made a votable motion.
The issue is a nonpartisan one. Essentially, if an amendment such as I propose were made to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, Canadian Merchant Seamen who made at least one, and maybe several, trips through dangerous waters during wartime, would be eligible for the Civilian War Pension and Allowance. At present, a Merchant Seaman must have served at sea for at least six months in order to qualify. The law as it stands at present is inequitable, as many Merchant Seamen did serve in close assistance with the military during the war, and travelled through dangerous waters many times during a period less than six months. On the other hand, there are other seamen who did serve at sea for the period longer than six months, but who only travelled once through dangerous waters, and who, by this fact, do qualify under the Act.
In other words, those merchant seamen who travelled through dangerous waters once or many times do not qualify for the pension if they did not serve for a total of six months whereas other merchant seamen who may have only travelled through dangerous waters once but served for more than six months, do qualify. We, Mr. Bray, and the Legion, think this is inequitable.
The letter continues:
My amendment to the Act would serve to remedy the existing inequities in the law.
The Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion is very concerned about this matter, and has written me with respect to this issue.
I look forward to a positive ruling by the Committee on this matter.
I would like to read a letter written to me by Mr. Bray on March 1 of this year. It is actually a copy of a letter he wrote to the Hon. George Hees, P.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs. It reads:
Dear Mr. Hees:
BRAY JOHN M. A4924/V6523 &C.W.A. 8220741 Ex. Canadian Merchant Navy.
[DOT] (M30)
Those are the identification numbers. It goes on:
Dear Sir:
In the case of Merchant Seaman I feel that they should not come under the Civilian War Allowances Act for the following reasons.
(1)	It was obligatory to take Gunnery courses etc. and had to man the Guns in event of enemy attack. As most Merchant ships were crewed with only 8
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
Naval Personnel (D.E.M.S.) and that these ships were equipped with 2-12 Pounders or 4-inch heavy guns, 8-20 MMOrlikons and 1 set of Rockets plus Browning & Lewis Machine Guns. It is very evident that the Merchant crews had to man them.
In other words, there were guns on the merchant ships and they had to know how to man them.
It continues:
(2)	At cessation of War in a Zone did not negate the dangers as there was always the possibility of Mines and danger of accidents with the Ammunition on board, until they were stripped after arriving back in their home port.
(3)	In the case of the armed forces, their time was considered from Enlistment to Discharge. I think that the Merchant Seamen should be afforded the same consideration as the rest of the armed forces that handled Guns and Ammunition also Fuel & Oil.
(4)	Seamen especially Canadian Seamen should be at least covered until their arrival back to their home port or until the ship was denuded of all Ammunition & Armament.
So hopefully you can see your way clear to alter the existing Act to include the Merchant Navy as actual Armed Forces personnel and give them their just due. Thanking you.
It is signed: "J.M. Bray".
I think what Mr. Bray meant in his first paragraph is that there is an inequitable situation in which one group of seamen is covered and another group is not.
Let me quote the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Convention Resolution of 1986. It states:
12. Merchant Navy Eligibility
WHEREAS Subsections 75(1) and 75(2) of the War Pensions and Allowances Act, stipulate that a Canadian Merchant Seaman, to be eligible for the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance must have served at sea for a period of six months, and during that period at sea, made at least one trip through dangerous waters; and
WHEREAS during a lesser period than six months, a Merchant Seaman may have made numerous trips through dangerous waters:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Subsections 75(1) and 75(2) be amended so that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for Civilian War Allowance on the part of Canadian Merchant Seaman.
There was a response from the Department which deals with the fact that the qualifying period was established to correspond with the service time that was required by merchant seamen for the receipt of war medals, such as the 1939-45 Star of the Atlantic and Pacific Star. Thus, to qualify for the allowance, this length of service was considered to be the minimum time requirement for civilians who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime.
In my view, that is a bureaucratic response. While medals are important, pensions for veterans are needed. I see at the table Stanley Knowles, the former Member from Winnipeg, who fought many years in the House for pensions and managed to get the Government and bureaucrats to change their minds on numerous occasions. I say to Mr. Knowles and the Government that the purpose of this motion is to try to get the Veterans Department, under the very able and excellent Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), to look at this again and change the inequity for those merchant

April 10, 1987
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
seamen who were in battle zones in the war and may have gone through dangerous waters numerous times but did not serve for a period of six months. The determination of that six-month period is very strict.
I evoke the spirit of the Hon. Minister who spoke at Vimy yesterday and said that a nation was forged. That means everyone should be included and if we are to err, let us err on the side of charity to help those who served in the wars and who, because of inequity, are not getting their just pension.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to address the motion now before the House.
While it is not customary for Ministers to participate in these debates, I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) would very much have wished to be here this afternoon. As the Hon. Member knows, the Minister is representing Canada at the commemorative ceremonies marking the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I should add that he is joined by ten Vimy veterans, every one of whom deserves our pride, respect and thanks.
The motion before us is obviously one that the Government would not reject out of hand. Indeed, it was a Progressive Conservative Government which provided civilian war allowance eligibility for merchant seamen in the first place. We have, therefore, always had the interests of merchant seamen very much at heart.
In responding to the motion, we must look at two things: first, why the 180-day requirement was put into the legislation and, second, whether this reasoning has relevance today.
It becomes readily apparent to anyone who reads committee minutes on Veterans Affairs that merchant seamen made countless representations to successive post-war Governments requesting eligibility for War Veterans Allowance benefits. So did the Corp of Civilian Canadian Firefighters in respect of their service in the United Kingdom. The Voluntary Aid Detachment of the St. John's Ambulance, and the Overseas Welfare Workers, who served under the auspices of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the St. John's Ambulance, also made representations. So did the Civilian Air Crew of the Royal Air Force Transport Command. So did the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit make representation for War Veterans Allowance benefits.
The answer was always no until the election of the Diefen-baker Government and the appointment of the late Gordon Churchill as Minister. In Mr. Churchill's words: "One of the first matters I drew to the attention of the officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs was the status of the Merchant Marine, which I mentioned in particular, and other groups such as the firefighters and foresters".
In response, the Minister received all the time worn reasons why nothing could be done to help these groups. To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, he said that the time had come to help, and
that the Department's job was to find a way that would be satisfactory to everyone concerned.
Following consultations with the groups concerned and the veterans' organizations, including the Royal Canadian Legion, the result was the compromise of providing eligibility under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act for what amounted to War Veterans Allowance benefits. Parliament passed the legislation by a unanimous vote on February 14, 1962.
The compromise was not an easy one to find because feelings ran very strongly on both sides of the question. Again going back to the post-war period, the argument constantly used to deny income support benefits to merchant seamen was that war veterans allowance was for war veterans only, and not for merchant seaman. Those supporting this view said that bestowing veteran status on merchant seamen would lead to similar status for any civilian who contributed to the war effort in any way.
Merchant seamen justifiably pointed to their heroic, distinguished and very perilous service in supplying food, raw materials, ammunition and so on to our troops, and argued that they had every right to veterans' benefits. The debate was not a pleasant one, and it invariably led to ugly disputes about who did more for Canada during war time.
The six-month requirement enabled both sides to meet each other halfway. After all, any person who served, and voluntarily at that, for six months in the Merchant Marine, and who made at least one trip through dangerous waters, was someone who was well and truly committed to the war effort. No one then or today could dispute that fact.
However, the six month requirement was not just an arbitrary time period drawn out of a hat. Six months' service corresponded with the service time required to qualify for the Atlantic Star, the Pacific Star and the 1939-45 Star. If six months was the period required for enlisted personnel to be awarded such recognition it seemed only reasonable that six months should be the bench-mark for civilians who served in close support of the Armed Forces during war-time.
The motion before us is arguing in effect that one day's service should be enough service eligibility to qualify a merchant seaman for Civilian War Allowance benefits. I say this because a trip three miles out to sea would suffice to be one trip through dangerous waters. This may well be what the Hon. Member has in mind, although I expect all of us are thinking of those who were on the high seas for weeks on end. If so, Mr. Speaker, we are really saying that one day is not enough service time for merchant seamen to qualify, but six months is too long.
As I said earlier, the Government and our Party have never had any hesitation in acknowledging the war-time service of merchant seamen. Our record clearly shows that. For this reason, and given the tremendous improvements made to
April 10, 1987

veterans legislation over the past two and a half years, I am very glad that this motion is being debated today. The debate will unquestionably serve to raise public consciousness of the crucial role played by the Merchant Marine and the House can be assured that the Minister will be very much interested in the views expressed today.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I must say I am glad the Hon. Member did bring this motion forward because I can see some great merit in it.
I understand a little about what happened during the Second World War. I certainly was not very old in 1945, but I was old enough at 10 years of age to remember. Coming from Atlantic Canada, I remember quite clearly and vividly the sights which could be seen in Halifax Harbour when the merchant fleet would line up in Bedford Basin and the convoys would leave Halifax Harbour for England, mainly, to deliver supplies to the Armed Forces. Probably not too many members in the House realize, although some of the older Members and those who are actual veterans of the Second World War would understand well, that one did not have to go too far outside of Halifax Harbour, for instance, to McNabs Island, before one was into some pretty dangerous waters during the Second World War.
The German U'-boats were lying off Halifax Harbour and there was great difficulty experienced by our Armed Forces and, indeed, by those in the merchant fleet serving Canada and supporting the Armed Forces in its very important role. Many merchant ships left Halifax Harbour never to return.
The same thing can be said for St. John's, Newfoundland. St. John's had an excellent harbour and for those Members of Parliament who have visited St. John's for a time will surely know what its harbour is like. It has a very small entrance and one can look down from Cabot Tower right across to the other side. It does not seem to be much of a distance. However, during the war there was a ship sunk right at the dock in St. John's Harbour by a torpedo which came right in through the entrance to the harbour. It was a direct hit. A lot of areas in Atlantic Canada were very close to the Second World War, both in terms of the number of people who served in the Armed Forces in Europe and at home as enlisted members of the Armed Forces as well as those in the marine service.
It is well documented that during the Second World War there were quite a number of German submarines which frequented the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and created a very dangerous situation for our merchant fleet and Armed Forces vessels.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of how the six months was arrived at in Parliament back in 1962. However, I think in 1987 it is time we took another look at it. I understand the complication which can arise because one trip could mean one day. However, that is sort of bureaucratic thinking. I am sure it could be straightened out to the satisfaction of those who
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
served. They are entitled, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Hon. Members in this Chamber, to receive some compensation for their efforts. It only takes one hit. Many of those who served in the Merchant Marine can testify to that.
I believe the number of merchant seamen who qualify under the provisions of the Act as it now stands is something around 4,000. I do not see too many more being qualified if this Act was changed to what the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway is suggesting, that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary.
We have to look as well at those who were in the merchant fleet in 1945. The very youngest would probably be around 49 or 59 years of age. Some of them went to sea when they were pretty young, at 16 or 17 years of age. This is 1987 so they would be now around 58 years to 60 years. Most of them are, of course, 65 years and over. I do not see that it would be a tremendous drain on the Treasury at this time to recognize these people in a more meaningful way.
I went to sea a bit myself, certainly not in war-time, but in the late 1960s, sailing from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour, Maine. Everytime I sailed that route I thought about the number of vessels and the problems which occurred to those vessels in the waters off the Bay of Fundy, up through Louisbourg, around Cape Breton and on to Newfoundland. Those were very treacherous areas during the war.
I just want to say that I would like to support, on behalf of my Party, this motion before us today. I hope all Members of Parliament will look upon this in the right spirit and that we can present this motion to the Minister.
I must compliment the Minister. He has been a very good Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). I had the opportunity, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, to visit Holland with him on the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of The Netherlands and Italy. I was proud of our Minister of Veterans Affairs on that visit. We visited the graves of those who lost their lives in the Second World War. I am equally proud of the representations he made recently on behalf of Canada and our veterans on the seventieth anniversary of Vimy Ridge.
I will end on this note. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us as Parliamentarians to do whatever we can to help our veterans, both those enlisted and those who served Canada well in a supportive role, either in the merchant navy or by other means. It is through their efforts and the efforts of many of our allies that we are able to participate in debate in this Parliament here today in a free and democratic society. It is something that we must never forget. Parliament should be directing its efforts in whatever ways possible now and in the future, not only to support those who have served but to work toward peace from now until eternity.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too consider it to be a privilege to have an opportunity this

April 10, 1987
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
afternoon to say a few words in support of the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I think it appropriate to take a moment to read the text of the motion as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act by eliminating the condition for entitlement of serving at sea for at least six months in order that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for the Civilian War Allowance-
This is a rather special occasion for many of us in this House, myself included, who were too young at the time of the last war to serve our country. I recognize that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKenzie) served our country. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), trained and was ready to serve as the war came to an end but never had the opportunity to go overseas. I noticed earlier in the Chamber our colleague, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), and I am well aware of his record, and the records of many others.
As my hon. friend from the Liberal Party has indicated, it is because they were prepared to serve and give the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, knowing the suffering, torment and worry that resulted to their families as a result of their service, that we are able today to consider a motion to recognize the service of those people who served in the Merchant Marine but do not fall within the appropriate regulations to be entitled to financial recognition, though they were willing to lay their lives on the line for Canada.
My hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway reminded us of the very eloquent words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) at Vimy Ridge when he indicated that it was at Vimy Ridge that the nation of Canada was forged. I know that all of us in the House have been supportive and appreciative of the work done by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
When we consider those who served in our Merchant Marine and who were quite prepared to sail through dangerous waters, and know that those individuals are likely now about the age of 60, and when we consider the contributions they made and the willingness with which they approached their careers to serve Canada during hostile times, it seems to me that the least we can do is recognize that contribution and provide them access to the benefits provided by the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
This would not involve much money when we consider the relatively small number of Canadians who would be involved. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, not all would take advantage of this opportunity. However, those who need financial support and those with families who could use that financial support would be entitled to this allowance.
There is no question that we owe it to these individuals to at least refer this motion to the appropriate committee for further consideration. Perhaps there are other ways more appropriate-even better ways-to recognize their service to Canada and to provide appropriate compensation.
We must consider the sacrifices they made for us. As I have said, many of us were not old enough to serve our country. We only see the embattlements, for instance in my Province of British Columbia on the West Coast and around the City of Vancouver. We can see the remnants of the big gun placements which were used to protect our coast from invasion. That is as close as we get. Yet we all know individuals who served, not only in the Canadian services but also in the Merchant Marine. We know the lives that they led during those difficult times.
I now wish to read for Members of the House a motion put forward at the 1986 Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion. As a member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 213 I wish to say that the motion presented at the convention in terms of the merchant navy was a thoughtful one. It is a motion that received a great deal of consideration before it actually went to the convention floor. It states:
WHEREAS Subsections 75(1) and 75(2) of the War Pensions and Allowances Act, stipulate that a Canadian Merchant Seaman, to be eligible for the Civilian War Pensions and Allowance must have served at sea for a period of six months, and during that period at sea, made at least one trip through dangerous waters; and
WHEREAS during a lesser period than six months, a Merchant Seaman may have made numerous trips through dangers waters:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Subsections 75(1) and 75(2) be amended so that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for Civilian War Allowance on the part of Canadian Merchant Seamen.
In a sense that is what the motion of my hon. friend encompasses. When we consider the work done by the Royal Canadian Legion for so many years, and the extremely important work it continues to do on behalf of Canadian servicemen and women, and the concern it has indicated in terms of the merchant navy, individuals who would now be eligible for some compensation if this motion is passed, I encourage Members of the House to give the motion the opportunity to be referred to the appropriate committee for further consideration.
The six-months qualifying service for civilians was established to correspond with the service time that was required by merchant seamen for the receipt of war medals such as the 1939-45 Star, the Atlantic Star and the Pacific Star. Thus to qualify for the allowance this length of service was considered to be the minimum time requirement for civilians who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime.
I think that today in April of 1987 it is time that we recognize those who served in our Merchant Marine. It is time for us to recognize those who were prepared to sail through extremely dangerous and hostile waters to serve their country. This is but a small way of saying as a Parliament: "We recognize your contribution. We appreciate your contribution. We want to acknowledge it by making you eligible under the appropriate compensation program."
April 10, 1987


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the motion before the House today.
As the House is aware, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) would have liked to give us his comments on the motion, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is over in France this week where with his usual dignity he is representing Canada at the ceremony to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are considering a motion asking the Government to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act by eliminating the condition for entitlement of serving at sea for at least six months in order that one trip through dangerous waters would be the only qualification necessary for the Civilian War Allowance on the part of Canadian Merchant seamen.
Mr. Speaker, as you know it was a Progressive Conservative Government that introduced this legislation in 1962, thus demonstrating a very real interest in the fate of those civilians who served in a theater of war to support the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer at this point to an excellent brochure published by Veterans Affairs and entitled: War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Allowances, published in April 1985, and with your permission, I will give a short description of the various groups of civilians who served in a theater of war, as I said earlier, and are entitled to a civilian war allowance. They have to meet certain criteria, and I shall, if I may, quote this brief passage.
Eligible are the following groups of civilians, provided they meet certain criteria as to duration and area of service:
(1)	Canadians who served in the Merchant Marine in either war or in the Korean War;
(2)	Non-Canadians who served in Canadian merchant ships in either war or in the Korean War;
(3)	The Canadian Voluntary Aid Detachment of the First World War;
(4)	Canadian Fire Fighters of the Second World War;
(5)	Canadians overseas welfare workers who also served during the Second World War;
(6)	Canadian Trans-Atlantic Air Crew of the Second World War; and
(7)	Members of the Newfoundland and Overseas Forestry Unit of the Second World War.
In responding to this motion, we must consider two major points, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the reason why a minimum of 180 days of service is required to be eligible, and second, the relevance of this criterion in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, anyone interested in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would know that merchant seamen made repeated representations to the various
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
post-war governments concerning their eligibility for veterans allowances.
And so did the following groups:
-The St. John Ambulance volunteer help detachment during the 1914-18 war;
-Volunteer Firemen during the 1939-45 war;
-The social assistance service members who served under the auspices of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance during the 1939-45 war;
-The Royal Air Force Transport Command transatlantic flight crew in 1939-45; and
-The Newfoundland Foresters, again during the World War II of 1939-45.
Mr. Speaker, the response was always negative until the election of the Diefenbaker Conservative Government in 1962. The then Minister of Veterans Affairs-we all remember the Hon. Gordon Churchill-had drawn the attention of his senior officials to the position of merchant seamen and the other groups I have just mentioned.
Consultations with the groups involved and such veterans organizations as the Royal Canadian Legion led to a compromise: civilians who served during the war became eligible under the Civilian War Pension and Allowances Act which, as you recall, was unanimously adopted by the House on February 14, 1962.
As we all know, the benefits provided under this legislation are similar to those provided under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Mr. Speaker, it was not easy to reach a compromise, considering the vastly divergent views on this matter. The argument most frequently heard against awarding these benefits to civilians was, in essence, that civilians should not be given a veteran's allowance.
Supporters of this position were against the principle that civilians who had in any way contributed to the war effort should have the same privileges as veterans.
Civilians described, and rightly so, the heroic, distinguished and extremely perilous services rendered in carrying food, raw materials and munitions to our troops overseas and claimed they were eligible for veterans benefits.
The criterion of 180 days of service enabled the parties to reach a compromise. After all, Mr. Speaker, any person who had served voluntarily for six months in the Merchant Marine and who made at least one trip in dangerous waters was truly engaged in the war effort. No one could deny that.
The 180-day criterion is no accident. It corresponds to the days of service required to qualify for the Atlantic Star, the Pacific Star, the 1914-1918 Merchant Marine War Medal and the 1939-1945 Medal.
If the six-month criterion is acceptable for the military to qualify for these medals, I think it is entirely proper and

April 10, 1987
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
reasonable that the same criterion should apply to civilians who seconded the Armed Forces in wartime.
According to the motion under consideration, only one day's service would be enough for civilian war allowances eligibility. For instance, one three-mile sea cruise would be deemed to be a voyage in dangerous waters. This may be the position of the Hon. Member, but I think these allowances were intended for people who have spent several months on the high seas.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that only one day's service is insufficient, while 180 days as a criterion may very well be too long. As I said, the Government and our Party in particular have never hesitated to rate merchant seamen wartime service as being acceptable.
For this reason and in view of the significant improvements made to the veterans legislation in the past thirty months, I am glad this motion was debated in the House today.
The debate will undoubtedly make the general public more aware of the important role of merchant seamen, and Hon. Members may rest assured that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will give due consideration to the views expressed today. This concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and 1 thank you for letting me use the precious time of the House to say what I think of this motion.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I too take great pleasure in speaking to the motion of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) would have liked to have been here because he has said on many occasions that not enough tribute has been paid to the role of the merchant navy in the Second World War.
The Merchant Marine was the lifeline stretching across the Atlantic. Weather, aircraft and U-boats threatened to snap that lifeline but, happily for all of us, it never broke. The Minister himself was a soldier who fought in the battle of the Scheldt. The purpose of that battle was to clear out the enemy so that the Port of Antwerp in Belgium would be opened to allied shipping. This was accomplished and the merchant fleets landed enough supplies to arm, fuel and feed the invasion forces. General Eisenhower said that Naziism was finished when the first ship sailed into Antwerp. Incidentally, it was a Canadian built vessel.
I thank the Hon. Member for allowing us to recall just how much the Armed Forces were dependent upon the merchant navy. The seamen manning those convoys were heroes, fully deserving of the House's time and attention today.
There is another group which also deserves our attention, the wives and girl-friends of those who went off to war. For many of them, the war meant loneliness and worry. A telegram could put an end to life's sweet young dreams. Many
had to bring up families alone, and a Fine job they did of raising a generation of young people.
I am glad this Government has been able to do something for these spouses. For instance, one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Minister included a measure to help recently bereaved widows or widowers of disability pensioners. Before the Minister acted, the money coming into the family was drastically reduced within 30 days of the death of the pensioner. One month there was a cheque reflecting the married rate; the next month it was the single rate.
We must think of the consequences, Mr. Speaker. The couple could well have had a large apartment on a long lease. There were likely other ongoing expenses linked to the pensioner's physical condition. Yet, on top of great personal loss, the widow had to sustain the double whammy of financial pressure.
I congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs, with the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), for showing immediate concern. Widows now receive a married rate pension for one year following the death of a spouse. It is another example of how the Minister and the Government have applied scarce resources very wisely indeed.
I hope all planning with regard to veterans' programs reserve a large place for widows and widowers. It is a fact that women live longer than men. It is inevitable that sometime in the future the number of widows of veterans will exceed the actual number of veterans. By looking after these widows, we will be keeping faith with our veterans and recognizing another type of wartime sacrifice which has largely gone unheralded.
I again thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway for giving us this opportunity to discuss the needs of some very deserving Canadians. He has put his case very well indeed. I am sure his words will be given every attention by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Government. As I have shown in the case of those widows, the Minister's record, as well as the Government's record, is one of understanding and compassion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier I made reference in my speech to Mr. Knowles being at the table. He is now an officer of the House. It occurred to me that I am not supposed to make reference to the table, to bring them into disrepute. Some of them are disreputable enough occasionally, so I apologize if I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is Friday afternoon. After one has a little experience in this place, one knows that there are ways of telling that.
It is a pleasure to rise on this particular Friday afternoon, which happens to follow by one day the commemoration which characterized our news screens last evening as we watched the
April 10, 1987

Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) at the ceremonial before the Memorial at Vimy Ridge. It identified for all of us and for generations to come the reality that Vimy Ridge was a landmark in Canadian history which took place in a foreign land.
It was the first time that the fledgling nation of Canada had elements of its forces come together in a great battle in defence of a free world. It was part of a European tradition in one form or another which perhaps went back hundreds of years. Certainly it was something new and different for the land across the sea, the land we so affectionately call Canada, the nation about which we feel so deeply.
Therefore, I think it is appropriate to have a Private Member's Bill dealing with the subject of war allowances before us today. Both the people who fought for us back in the First World War, in that fight for freedom, and those who fought for us in the Second World War, in a repeat of that fight for freedom, are owed a great deal by those of us of later generations who have had the opportunity to benefit from the kind of world for which they fought and which they protected.
The group in the First World War which Canada commemorated at the seventieth anniversary of Vimy Ridge had not only a role to play in protecting our freedoms and making the world a better place for us, but they had a role to play in nation building, because it was an inspiration to what was then a very fledgling nation.
With some consciousness of some of the difficulties in Canada today, perhaps one becomes a little homesick for something inspirational which might happen to all of us-if that could be, what a lift it would be and what a difference it would make.
Perhaps I would be remiss as a member on the government side of the House if I did not take this opportunity to draw attention to some of the achievements of the Government and past Progressive Conservative Governments in their treatment of Canadian veterans. I do that partly because the achievements of the Government over the last 2.5 years have been so many and have happened so rapidly that there is not really a comprehension throughout the land of the difference we have wrought. The situation today is not the same as it was in September, 1984.
Those of us who have memories going back to September, 1984, say: "Thank God, thank heavens it is not the same situation as in September, 1984". It is a better situation. There are more people working in every province of the country. There are fewer people unemployed than there were in September, 1984.
I should like to refer to the activity level of the current Minister of Veterans Affairs. Certainly in the eight years that I have been here-and there are Members who have been here longer-we have not had a Minister of Veterans Affairs who has helped make all of us more conscious of the reality of our veterans-what they fought for, what they stood for, and what they accomplished on our behalf-than the current Minister.
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
He has visited many points in the world. On each and every occasion, whether commemorating one event or another, he has been accompanied by veterans.
On our television screens last evening which showed the commemoration of Vimy Ridge, the veterans who were with him were about 90 years of age. Their war, their triumph, was a long time ago. I think the children of today and some of us who are not quite children any more need to be reminded of such things. Certainly the Minister of Veterans Affairs is both a symbol and an activist in helping us look at and remember that reality.
Let us look back at the Throne Speech of the Government and its promise of or commitment to a veterans' independence program. The phasing in timetable was laid down years and years ago. I remind Hon. Members that most progress in veterans' pensions has been made by Conservative Governments. I do not think it is a public image which we enjoy throughout the land, although veterans and military people know about it. Some parts of that program were eliminated in terms of First World War veterans and, overnight, a piece of existing public policy became available to 6,000 Canadians who, the day before, were not eligible for it. That is an achievement. It is not one you see on the front page of newspapers, but it is one that you do see in the minds and the hearts of the 6,000 veterans who, all of a sudden, were eligible to participate in a program. I think that for their spouses and their relatives it was also an important event.
That change in public policy announced in the Throne Speech by our Government means that 75 per cent of all First World War veterans with overseas service are now able to apply. The remaining 25 per cent are either self-sufficient or are not in need of financial assistance. I think we can stand in this Chamber and say that 100 per cent of our veterans from the First World War are getting in Canada today, either through their own efforts or through the assistance of Government through our programs, the kind of help and assistance that they need. I think it is consistent with our reputation around the world. We are a nation that cares about our veterans. I see you are looking at me, Mr. Speaker. Does this indicate that the day has come to a close?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I thank you for your generosity. I think you did give me a few extra seconds, Sir. There is much more that can be said, but if we can all leave this Chamber and remind our children and grandchildren over the weekend about our veterans and the contribution they have made, they will never forget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.

April 10, 1987
Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act
It being 3.25 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 3.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 13, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers