1987-03-25

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, just a little over a year ago the Government discontinued grants under the Petroleum Incentives Program after denouncing them for several years.
Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced in Edmonton the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, which is a new system of incentive grants to stimulate exploration and development in the oilfields. He is providing some $350 million in grants which will provide about $1 billion in exploration and development and create some 20,000 jobs.
It is interesting that the Independent Petroleum Association indicated that the net costs, after taking into account unemployment insurance, welfare and social costs in a $350 million program like this, would be about $60 million for the Government. If those figures are correct, why is the Government so timid? Why did it not provide a program which would create more than $1 billion worth of exploration and development when, over the past year, we have lost $5 billion worth of exploration and development? If the Premier of Alberta had not threatened to split the Tory Party unless there was action on this issue, we wonder whether there would have been any program at all to assist the oil industry.


VIA RAIL
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, last week in this House I expressed my extreme dissatisfaction with VIA
Rail and the arrogant way in which it makes its decisions. So far I have received no response either to my letter to Mr. Hanigan or to my comments in this House.
My request to VIA is really a very simple one-and if my Liberal friends would keep quiet, it could be heard. I want all plans to remove trains or to change train times on the Toronto-Guelph-Kitchener-London run delayed until these plans have been discussed with the liaison committee in Guelph which was established for just such a purpose. If VIA will not do this on its own initiative, I ask the Minister to step in and see that common courtesy is given to the people of Guelph.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whether he approved of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) accusing U.S. Congressman Gerry Sikorski of engaging in partisan tripe when he was critical of the Canadian approach to President Reagan. I had hoped that the Prime Minister might moderate the tone of his Minister's words and, consistent with his own rhetoric about Canada-U.S. relations, show some respect for differences among friends. Instead, the Prime Minister made matters worse. He either pretended not to have heard of Sikorski before-a deliberate insult-or has not actually heard of him. I am not sure about which we should be most upset.
Yes, Mr. Sikorski has not persuaded many in his own Party to act on acid rain, but he has an extremely well-known record as one of the handful of people in the U.S. Congress who have persistently tried to get both Republicans and Democrats to wake up to this issue. For our Prime Minister either not to know or not recognize this is ignorance on a level that should make all of us embarrassed.
Perhaps Mr. Sikorski's unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Prime Minister was his devastatingly accurate comparison between the Prime Minister and Charlie Brown, who, every year, takes a kick at the football held out for him by Lucy. Every year she pulls it away and Charlie is the laughing stock. President Reagan is holding out the acid rain ball again, and the P.M. has got his kicking shoes on.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1987

Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, many of our progressive western farmers have been looking to alternative crops to grow rather than the traditional wheat, feed grain and oil-seeds. The farmers and export companies have developed markets to the extent that there are now about 1 million acres in Saskatchewan alone producing specialty crops, thereby reducing grain acreage. Dry peas, beans, lentils, mustard, canary seed and dehydrated alfalfa products are the main specialty crops grown.
When the Special Canadian Grains Program was instigated this year, these crops were left out of the payments. Because this acreage is out of grain production, the farm groups who were in charge of the program should reconsider their decision and see that a payment is made this time around out of the balance due later this spring.

[Translation\


ACID RAIN
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, although irrefutable scientific proof is not yet available, an increasing number of researchers and scientists, both in Canada and abroad, agree with the UPA that acid rain is causing the deterioration of our maple trees.
The UPA is therefore asking the Government of Canada to get involved and intervene quickly and decisively in this matter by negotiating a genuine bilateral agreement with the United States; by establishing a calendar for these negotiations and the implementation of the agreements that will be negotiated; by assigning research teams to finding ways of at least putting a halt to further deterioration of our maple trees and other hardwoods; and finally, by compensating producers for the losses and damages suffered which amount to $100 million.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association is progressive, active, and innovative. Its analysis shows that wheat farmers are facing a crisis because of loss of overseas markets for wheat,
but instead of crying the blues this association looked for opportunities to redirect the lost export volume of wheat and have come up with a significant plan to convert surplus grain into fuel ethanol for blending with methanol and gasoline. The economy of western Canada depends upon grain just as much as it depends upon oil and gas. This innovation would create jobs, keep people on the farm, support livestock on animal feed which is the by-product of methanol manufacture, and even help the petroleum industry.
The leadership of the federal Government is needed. The refiners can help by realizing that alcohol blends serve the interests of the region, contribute to energy security and have significant environmental benefits. Congratulations to the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. With the help of government, we can have another industry in western Canada.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, when Canadians elect representatives to speak for their concerns in Ottawa, they do so in the hope that, when appropriate, all Parties will work toward constructive ends. As the spokesman on aboriginal issues for the New Democratic Party, I have and continue to hold the view that partisan concerns and parochial attitudes do nothing to further the cause of Canada's first people.
Yesterday the Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada were reminded again of that truism. In an anonymous office tower, behind closed doors and safely tucked away from probing microphones, four Members of Parliament abrogated their responsibilities to aboriginal people. In a recorded vote, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) voted to block the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in breach of the committee's traditions and the spirit of the McGrath reforms.
Tomorrow the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will chair the last First Ministers' Conference on the self-government aspirations of our first citizens. He and the other 16 participants at the table will decide on the constitutional rights of future generations. We in the New Democratic Party hope Governments will take the opportunity to deal fairly and to end many years of injustice. It is a sad comment on democracy that the views of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will not be heard.
March 25, 1987


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, recent statistics have again demonstrated that the County of Restigouche suffers from chronically high levels of unemployment and the lack of a dynamic industrial base. With lay-offs at CN and two other major industries in my riding, the federal Government and the Government of New Brunswick must continue to work together to create more durable employment in Restigouche.
To that end, I would urge the Government of my province and the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission to locate in Dalhousie their proposed carbo-gel thermal generating unit. This new process, developed with generous assistance from the federal Government, uses New Brunswick coal mixed with Venezuelan oil, and would be a natural for the second unit at the Dalhousie thermal plant.
We have the port facilities in Dalhousie for the transportation of the raw materials, and we have the manpower. We are located close to the New Brunswick-Quebec interconnections. Restigouche needs the 200 permanent jobs that this project would create.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of Canadians a serious minority rights problem within the communist bloc. The Canadian-Hungarian community is crying out for pressure to be brought on the communist Governments of Czechoslovakia and Romania over the plight of the Hungarian minority living in those two countries since the partition of Hungary following World War I.
Four million ethnic Hungarians live in Transylvania and Slovakia. They are forced to give up their national identity, language, religion, and culture. A growing protest is being registered by the community mainly through the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation which is sponsored by religious and community organizations in Canada.
Canadians fully understand the importance of cultural expression as a part of human identity. The Liberal Party urges the Government to send a strong message to Romania and Czechoslovakia in the cause of human rights denied.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals still think they own Canada and Quebec. Their political stars from Quebec still want to rule the roost.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and Senator Rizzuto are practising a form of blackmail against municipal authorities. Is the Liberal Party in such financial straits that it has to resort to threats to get back in the black?
On February 23, 1987, the municipal authorities of the riding of Saint-Jean received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Member might want to reconsider his statement and discuss it with the Speaker. Perhaps he can rise again tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians join with Greeks all over the world to celebrate Greek National Day. On this day, March 25, in 1821 began the uprising which resulted eight years later in independence from Turkish rule. Greek men and women then endured brutal repression to secure their freedom. As we salute them we remember the courage of other peoples all over the world who still live under foreign domination and continue to struggle for freedom. Today we remember especially the people of Cyprus where our own troops guard the fragile Green Line which demarcates the Turkish Army occupation zone.
There is still some unfinished business from the period of Turkish domination of Greece which is of particular concern to Canadians and other members of the Commonwealth. I refer to the removal of the so-called Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon to London. All civilized people must denounce this act of cultural terrorism and call for it to be undone, specifically by the return of this great work of art to its original home in Athens.

March 25, 1987
The Late Alexander Small SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY AND MEASURES
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks the Opposition has been uncharacteristically silent about science policy. I have not refrained from criticizing government policies when I felt they needed criticism, but fairness demands that when real progress is made we are as even-handed with our praise as we are with our criticism.
Real progress is being made. First, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) established and now chairs a National Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Second, the Estimates tabled recently give the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) and the research councils substantial real increases in funding. Third, the Minister negotiated a genuinely historic agreement with the provinces to co-ordinate national science policy. Yesterday he gave us the broad, general direction of the federal strategy to promote scientific and technological development in Canada. There is more to come. The situation is not perfect but this House really should applaud the Prime Minister, the Minister and the Government for the real progress made in recent months in bringing science and technology policy to the forefront of our national priorities.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of 17 Lebanese immigrants was raised in the House by my colleague for York West (Mr. Marchi), and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) missed a golden opportunity to show compassion by using his discretionary power to relieve the sufferings of these 17 people.
A Minister of Immigration ought to know the value of human life. His main responsibility consists in preserving the dignity of men and women who are hoping to find refuge in Canada.
But what does he do? He hides behind the mountain of paperwork to justify his actions and his decisions. He is totally insensitive to the fact that 17 desperate and helpless individuals are carted around from one country to another and from one airport to the next.
Instead of being adamant and unflexible the Minister should contact the Canadian embassy in Damascus to find a temporary refuge for these people while waiting for his officials to deal with the required red tape formalities.
In addition, since some of these immigrants have relatives waiting for them in this country, my own riding included, in this case the Minister should use his discretionary power to reunite the families involved as soon as possible, thus saving them from further torments and worries.


THE LATE ALEXANDER SMALL
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will want to pay some attention to the following statement which it is my unhappy duty to make. I ask for the attention of all Hon. Members.
Hon. Members will no doubt have learned that Mr. Alexander Small, a former officer of this House, died on Saturday, March 21. I am sure all Hon. Members would agree that it is fitting for me to pay tribute to him for his past services and express, on behalf of the House, our deepest sympathy with his family.
Alex Small joined the House of Commons staff in 1952 as a committee clerk. He gained steady promotion, becoming Assistant Chief of English Journals in 1958 and Chief of Journals in 1961. In 1964, as part of an administrative reorganization of the House of Commons, he became Director of Legislative Services and Third Clerk Assistant. In 1969 he was appointed Second Clerk Assistant, a position that he retained until his retirement in 1982.
Alex Small served as a Table Officer for a considerable part of his career and his face was familiar to many of us who are still Members of this House.
Alex Small also had a distinguished war record in the Royal Canadian Air Force and was held as a prisoner of war during the last year of the war.
He died following a courageous fight with cancer, and will be greatly missed by his friends and all who knew him.
On behalf of Members of the House of Commons I will convey a copy of this message to his family.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, although I thought I saw the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs earlier, in his absence I will direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I see we have now flushed him out, Mr. Speaker.
March 25, 1987

The Minister has always taken the position in this House that he never came under American pressure to change our drug price legislation. Will the Minister confirm that on pages 54 and 55 of the official 1986 United States Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, which I cited to the House of Commons during the trade debate, it states that Canadian "practices cost U.S. pharmaceutical interests significant lost revenues each year. The United States continues to raise its concerns at senior government levels." "The United States "urges speedy submission of modifying legislation"."
Why did the Minister and his colleagues cave in to that style of American pressure on drug prices and sell out our elderly and poor and those dependent upon drugs on a daily basis?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House on many occasions, I have never been approached by the American Government. The Minister for International Trade has never talked to me about this being a trade issue. We are introducing this legislation because it is good for Canada. It is going to generate $1.4 billion of incremental new research and development, at least 3,000 jobs, and better health care for Canadians. It is a good Bill for Canadians. The only people who are preoccupied with what the Americans think about this are the members of the Opposition.


REPORTED LOBBYING OF AMBASSADOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that Mr. Edmund J. Pratt, Chairman of President Reagan's United States Advisory Committee for Trade, personally lobbied Canada's Ambassador to the United States to change our drug price legislation? Will the Minister also confirm that the same Mr. Pratt is the chairman of Pfizer Corporation, one of the world's largest drug companies? How could the Minister sell out Canadians under this kind of pressure?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of those accusations. The Canadian Ambassador to the United States informs us that his recollection of the conversation is entirely different.
Will the Leader of the Opposition confirm that when he was chairman of Sandoz, a Swiss-based pharmaceutical company, he, according to the president of another Swiss company, Ciba-Geigy, on many, many occasions expressed his opposition to compulsory licensing and the damage it was doing to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the appointment, but I never made such a statement because I brought that legislation into the House of Commons in 1969.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF UNITED STATES GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a sworn affidavit in my hand from Mr. William Haddad, Chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association of the United States, which states in part that on September 10, 1986, "the ambassador" that is our ambassador, "said that Mr. Pratt took strong positions on the Canadian drug legislation and placed it high on the list of U.S. demands on Canada, but that it was not clear whether in doing so he was speaking for Pfizer or the U.S. Government".
I will put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since his embassy received a copy of the affidavit 48 hours ago, he must be up to date on the information. Will he confirm that the Canadian Government came under high level pressure to change our drug price legislation and that the Canadian Government yielded to that pressure?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that because that is false.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns a question he was asked about drug prices in the Patent Act. On November 19, 1986, as reported at page 1320 of Hansard, the Minister said:
No one made representations to me either from the United States, through the
trade office or through the External Affairs office or in any other way.
This sworn affidavit clearly indicates that the Canadian Ambassador felt that the Canadian Government was under heavy pressure from the United States Government. Will the Minister reconcile these two contradictory statements and confirm that the Canadian Government was under great pressure from the multinational corporations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just denied and said that that affidavit is in fact not true. But when talking about pressure, part of the pressure that was applied was of the type of pressure the Hon. Member for Sudbury and other colleagues brought to bear. The Member for Sudbury said in a Canadian pharmaceutical magazine:
1 may be branded as a heretic amongst Liberals in this country-but I happen
to believe in intellectual property rights, and 1 think the patent laws of 1969
went too far in one direction.
That is the kind of pressure to which we are responding. Those changes went too far.

March 25, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister stand up to protect the elderly in this country as opposed to the multinational corporations? The Minister knows that drug prices will rise dramatically in this country. Is he prepared to withdraw this unfair and unjust legislation in view of the evidence which has been submitted by affidavit and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Canada was lobbied by multinationals and undue pressure was put on the Canadian Government? Will he not do that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter that a colleague received from a 35-year-old physician who has two children and was just diagnosed as having leukemia. He wrote:
-please do not oppose the new drug Patent Act for soon forgotten political
points and newspaper coverage.
Please remember that to oppose this legislation will deny the hope of new
treatment and cures for patients like myself. . . . Please give the hope of new
drugs-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Harvie Andre: 1 am listening to that person.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, after more than five years of negotiation, countless meetings and boatloads of promises, the Prime Minister will chair the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights tomorrow. In echoing the voices of hundreds of thousands of native people in Canada, will the Minister of Justice tell us what success the Government believes is possible in these talks if the Government is not prepared to move from its position that the right to self-government should be contingent rather than inherent?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking this question, which is very appropriate on the eve of most important meetings between aboriginal leaders and the leaders of Governments of our country. I must say, though, that the premise to his question is not correct. The fact is that it is not the federal Government that has been inflexible in terms of positions it has been putting forward with respect to constitutional amendment. We have been giving leadership and, according to independent impartial observers, the Prime Minister has been recognized as doing more in moving this debate toward a positive conclusion in the interest of the aboriginal people than any other Prime Minister. We are going into these discussions with the determination that we will do
everything possible in order to achieve the amendment within the constitutional period set down, in the interest of aboriginal people and, indeed, in the interest of all Canadians.


John Edmund Parry: If the Minister of Justice seriously believes that he can put that message out unchallenged, he had better buy some commercial time.


SELF-GOVERNMENT-ABORIGINAL PEOPLE'S CLAIM OF INHERENT RIGHT
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the aboriginal people of this country are looking for a recognition of their inherent right to selfgovernment. Is the Government prepared to sacrifice these talks on the legalism of contingent right in the face of the fact that the aboriginal people of this country have never, through treaty or otherwise, renounced their right to self-government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member and his Party will not resort to partisanship with respect to an issue which I believe should transcend partisanship. I think this is far too important to try to achieve cheap political points. I say to the Hon. Member that when he is making these kinds of allegations with respect to positions which have been put forward, he should be mindful of the fact that we have been working tirelessly-the Prime Minister has given this a very high priority-in order to achieve an explicit recognition of the right to self-government, and we want to find the wording which will be appropriate to all the participants.
I remind the Hon. Member that it requires the co-operation of provincial Governments. We need seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of this country in order to have a constitutional amendment. I say to the Hon. Member that he should go to some of his political friends and tell them what he thinks about this matter and ask them to be a little more flexible in this area.


John Edmund Parry: We will soon find out whose political friends are found wanting in this matter.


CONFERENCE AGENDA
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is so committed to finding a formula to which all can agree, would the Minister of Justice tell this House why his telex read that the first part of the conference will focus neither on the specific language nor on specific proposals? How do we get a constitutional amendment in this country without specific language?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member by his question indicates he does not know what this meeting will be dealing with. The telex is clear. If the Hon. Member were fair he would know that the telex indicates we will use as a basis, or what we are proposing to put forward as a basis for some
March 25, 1987

discussion, the Nova Scotia third draft, with amendment, as representing the basis upon which all the items which require to be attended to at this conference could be addressed. So there is a specific piece of paper, and other participants are now coming forward with their suggestions.
Let me put it this way-I hope there will be flexibility. I hope other Governments and the aboriginal people will follow the lead of the federal Government which has shown leadership, the determination to work toward an agreement, and that it is prepared to be flexible in order to achieve agreement.


CONTINGENT RIGHTS ISSUE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Justice. Would the Minister explain to the House, to the aboriginal people of Canada and to the citizens of Canada, why his Government would take the position that an aboriginal right must be contingent upon agreements being made, when with respect to other rights, for example, the rights of women and linguistic rights, we have never insisted they be contingent upon agreements negotiated and signed with the Government. Why, Sir, are aboriginal people being treated so differently in the seeking of their rights?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again 1 think the Hon. Member attempts to put labels on the position put forward by the federal Government. If the Hon. Member were to consider the position of Liberal Governments across this country, he may be dealing with a contingent concept, but he cannot make that accusation with respect to the federal Government. What we are saying is that we want to recognize an explicit right. We want the right of self-government to be within the Canadian Confederation. I hope the Hon. Member shares that basic and fundamental precept with respect to these discussions. Indeed, a recent polling has indicated that most Canadians support the idea that the articulation of self-government should be through negotiated arrangements. This is the Canadian way. This is the appropriate way in order to achieve self-government.
We recognize, and we are prepared to recognize explicitly and clearly in the Constitution, the right to self-government. We say we are going to include in the agreement a nonderogation provision which will say that nothing in this amendment derogates in any respect whatsoever from any rights the aboriginals have under our Constitution. That is our position. I would like to know what the Liberal position is.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT INHERENT RIGHT CONCEPT
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will carefully reconsider the position being taken by the federal Government at this time and follow the lead offered by the Leader of the Official Opposition in his motion last Friday, and make a declaration when he goes to that conference tomorrow that the
Oral Questions
right to self-government is both an inherent right and an inalienable right? Will the Minister do that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to say with all deference to the Hon. Member-who I acknowledge has had a long interest in this matter and I commend him for that; he has been very much involved in aboriginal matters-that I have a very difficult time understanding the position put forward by his Leader on the basis of last week's discussion. I do not know what else we can possibly do in a constitutional document, and I remind the Hon. Member again, it is not a matter which can be dealt with unilaterally by the federal Government. We must have with us seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of this country in order to get-


John Napier Turner: Show the leadership.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We want to ensure that we can build a plateau upon which the aboriginal people can go forward. We are putting forward propositions which meet all the criteria of the things the aboriginal people have asked for, yet do reflect the fact that our preferred route is through negotiated settlements. I hope the Hon. Member will support us in our endeavours.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Minister knows, since 1969, when Canada changed its Patent Act insofar as pharmaceutical products were concerned, there have been no less than four major studies which have examined that policy and concluded that it was a sound one for Canada. Would the Minister now stand in his place, in face of this additional evidence, and simply tell the Canadian people that the only reason the Government is now changing that policy is because of pressure from the industry in the United States and President Ronald Reagan?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had participated in the committee deliberations on this Bill, and I might remind the Hon. Member the House has already approved of the Bill in principle, he would have seen the studies and examination, and had he kept an open mind he would realize that this Bill provides an enormous net benefit to Canada. I frankly cannot understand why the New Democratic Party is opposed to more research in this very important health care area here in Canada. Why do the New Democrats insist we let the rest of the world do that research and that Canada should opt out of this important area, thereby denying hope to people like the young sufferer of leukemia about whom we talked?

March 25, 1987
Oral Questions


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the only person who believes that flimflam is the Minister and his Conservative colleagues, no other Canadians.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister whether he will now come clean with Canadians, and rather than trying to make a case about who pushed hardest for changes in this policy, the previous Government or this Government, will he just stand in his place and tell Canadians he is prepared to stand up for Canadians and withdraw the legislation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, standing up for Canadians is precisely what we are doing in the face of hysterical, false accusations as to the impact on the consumer, in the face of misrepresentations by the New Democratic Party, and in the face of so-called financial analyses, the authors of which deny they put together. In the face of all of that, we are standing up for Canadians because this Bill is good for Canada, and reasonable Canadians know that.


APARTHEID
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns communication with the South African Government. The Prime Minister visited several front line States a few weeks ago. Yesterday I read a report that the Prime Minister may meet with a senior African National Congress spokesman here in Ottawa. In our earnest efforts to help bring about an end to apartheid can the Secretary of State assure us that constructive dialogue is still taking place with President Botha and the South African Government? Will he, or the Prime Minister, be visiting South Africa this year or next?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, neither the Prime Minister nor I have any present intention to visit South Africa. However, if it would serve a constructive purpose toward bringing an end to apartheid, I would certainly be prepared to undertake a visit of that nature. The Prime Minister and I will both be meeting with Mr. Oliver Tambo, the President of the African National Congress, when he is here sometime over the next several weeks.
With regard to relations with South Africa, embassies are open in both countries. Despite my natural modesty, I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member remarks in a speech I made in Montreal the other day when I said:
-we must all seek means to keep lines open to all parts of South Africa- black and Botha, Buthelezi and Tambo, Mandela and Afrikaner. The worst result would be for us to cause the Botha Government to change its view, and then not have the channels to effect that change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the revelations that Canadian immigration officers in Portugal are linked with unscrupulous consultants in an extensive immigration scam. We have an immigration policy that is misguided, a program paralyzed by confusion, and now allegations of visa officers peddling visas for $4,000.
Given that I urged the Minister of State for Immigration last May to conduct a full investigation and to take action on the ring of unscrupulous consultants behind the movement of Portuguese refugees, I want to ask the Minister why the Government failed to take this affair seriously. Why has there been no action or charges laid by the RCMP after a full year of investigation? Why did the Government appoint this morning a second RCMP investigation when we already have one which is ongoing? Canadians want action, not whitewashing.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York West may very well ask me why the RCMP did not take action, but he should direct his question to them. What I can tell him for now is that indeed I was told Monday night about the case he is referring to. I did ask the RCMP to make a full investigation in this matter, and I would suggest we would be ill-advised to comment any further since the police are investigating.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, a once proud immigration record in the department has become a national disgrace, something which Canadians regret. I ask the Minister again why his Government failed to act on the network of phoney consultants when, as a Party and as Members of Parliament, we brought them to his attention fully one year ago. These consultants are now turning their eyes on other countries such as Brazil. Will the Minister agree to a full and public review of the entire Department of Immigration so that we can clean up this mess once and for all and regain the confidence of Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 25, 1987


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is entitled to express his opinion on the Department of Immigration and its employees, but as far as I am concerned I think that the people who work for the Department of Immigration are quite competent.
As to his question concerning these allegations, I said a moment ago that the matter is under investigation, and I should think that the RCMP are qualified and competent enough to assess such cases. We will act in accordance with their recommendations.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice regarding the dispute being fought between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development before the Federal Court of Canada. Since Canada approved a policy to negotiate comprehensive land claims in British Columbia just three months ago will the Minister explain to the House why the Department of Justice and the Minister of Indian Affairs are supporting and funding the position of the Nishga Tribal Council and the Government of Canada before the Federal Court, while the Minister of Fisheries has approved at the same time funding of up to $100,000 for the plaintiffs who wish to strip the federal Government of its powers to negotiate a settlement constitutionally?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member is acting as the justice critic for his Party even though that is usually the job of the Hon. Member for Burnaby who I see is now here breathing fully again in the House. We are glad to see him back.
As far as the position put forward is concerned, I want to say to the Hon. Member that, naturally, we are looking after the Department of Justice which, in fact, is looking after the expenses of the federal position. Other departments will in fact entertain and receive applications in respect of funding. I know that the Hon. Member is supportive of an application for funding concerning the aboriginal peoples' position in this litigation. Each department will look at particular interests and determine whether or not appropriate funding should be made available for important constitutional issues that should be clarified before the courts. That is the simple explanation to the Hon. Member.
Oral Questions FEDERAL POSITION


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are that B.C. fishermen and B.C. Indians are being used as cannon-fodder in a dispute between two Ministers. Will the Minister of Justice tell the House if the cabinet policy passed in December of 1986 to negotiate comprehensive land claims in British Columbia still stands? If it does, why is the Government of Canada paying for the plaintiffs, the Department of Justice, as well as for the defendants there in the Federal Court? Why does the Government not resolve this issue at the cabinet table or the negotiation table rather than dragging it through the courts at the cost of millions of dollars?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member gets sued some day and decides that he will not enter a defense he will understand the position we have taken here. We are not the ones who initiated this litigation. The fact of the matter is that we have been brought into this litigation as a defendant.


James Ross Fulton: But you are paying for it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are dealing with these matters. I can only speak for my own department. We are dealing with these matters in order to resolve important issues because we have been brought in by motions of the party who initiated these actions, that is, the Province of British Columbia, in order to put forward the federal Government's position in terms of the claims made. We have done that. The Hon. Member has approved of the position taken by the federal Government in this matter, which I think is a responsible one. We have done it for the purpose of having the matter determined by the courts. Our preference is a politically negotiated settlement. I repeat that. It is something I have said a number of times to the Hon. Member. I know that he would accept that as being the better way of doing things.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last November 19 I asked the Minister whether during the trade negotiations or by any other diplomatic means there had been any form of negotiation or representation by U.S. Governments on the Patent Act, something which was categorically denied. We now have a sworn affidavit from Mr. Haddad, Chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association in the United States, which seems to indicate that the Minister has been suffering from an extensive lapse of memory for the last several months.

March 25, 1987
Oral Questions
In light of the information revealed in this affidavit is the Minister still prepared to say that at no time, or by any means, has a representative of the United States Government, or its advisers, made representations to the Government concerning the Patent Act, especially in light of the statements made by Ambassador Gotlieb that Mr. Pratt was directly involved in those trade negotiations and discussions and that the drug matter was raised? Is he still prepared to stand by his words of November 19?


Harvie Andre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. The previous Government, the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part, issued a paper in 1983 stating that the Patent Act needed to be changed in respect of pharmaceuticals because it was damaging Canada. It did not get any further than that declaration. We have taken it further because we agree with the previous Liberal Government which said that the Patent Act as amended in 1969 went too far. We put in place a package that protects consumers and provides enormous benefits to Canadians. That is why we are doing it. We do not care what Mr. Haddad has to say, what Mr. Pratt has to say, or what anybody else has to say. We are doing it because it is good for Canada.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AMBASSADOR APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the major discrepancy between the Minister's continued declarations and the sworn affidavit of the Chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association, is the Secretary of State prepared to authorize Ambassador Gotlieb to appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to testify concerning the meetings that were held between Canadian and U.S. officials on the Patent Act to determine if in fact there was undue pressure put on by Mr. Pratt acting in his capacity as a major trade adviser to the U.S. President?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were a rookie who had just rolled in here from nowhere, a question of that kind might be accepted as being on the basis of simple innocence. However, the Hon. Member is a former Minister of the Crown. He knows that what he is asking is nonsense. He knows that on every-


Lloyd Axworthy: You are afraid, Clark, to go before the committee. You are chickening out.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am accused of being afraid by this man who cannot even support his Leader on any one of 15 questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: What are you afraid of?


Charles Joseph Clark: He does not cause me any fear but, by golly, he causes his Leader to shake and tremble.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANADIAN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Edmonton today. I want to tell him that I generally regard the measures as positive for small oil companies. However, why did it take the Government so long to announce the program? Why was there so much squabbling associated with it? Why did the Government not use our proposal, which was to take the money raised from the one cent per litre tax on gasoline, or about $450 million, and earmark that amount for grants for small oil companies? It would have been a greater amount, and it would have been a better amount.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's support for the announced initiatives. We believe that they will go a long way toward enhancing exploration and development, creating new energy activity and, most important, creating some jobs-anywhere between
10,000	and 15,000 direct and probably 10,000 indirect jobs. We expect some 2,000 wells to be drilled.
This policy was developed in concert and close discussions with the industry. We believe the industry will be very supportive of the initiative, as well as the producing provinces. In so far as the Hon. Member's suggestion is concerned that there was a delay, I remind him that the Government has taken firm action in the energy area since it assumed office, with the Western Accord which was signed in early 1985, plus further action on the PGRT and other very important measures. However, most of all, it is the result of the economic policies of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister which brought down interest rates to the lowest level in 15 years. This will be most complementary to the initiative announced this morning.


GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister must know that the energy industry and the economy of Alberta are in disastrous circumstances. Now that we have PIP-2 today, these grants, would the Minister tell the House why we are getting an energy policy by dribs and drabs? There are already rumours that this might be it, that this might be the last initiative. Will more initiatives be taken, or is this the last one? When will the
March 25, 1987

Government come out with a real, coherent energy policy rather than bits and pieces from time to time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House know that the Hon. Member was a very strong advocate of the NEP. We do not share that view. In the last election we campaigned on a platform of dismantling the NEP, and we did that. We brought in the Western Accord, which has been very well accepted. That is the basic policy. The fact of the matter is that when there was a rapid decline in oil prices, as the Hon. Member is aware, the Government responded. This was the latest response. The province has responded. The industry has responded. We hope the Hon. Member will respond by being co-operative and seeing that the legislation is passed with all due dispatch.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister denied what was said by Mr. Mackay of DRIE before the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology on March 18, namely that for the time being, he was unaware to what extent the $40 million from the Laprade and Lower St. Lawrence Fund in the Gaspe would be specifically earmarked for these regions or for regions immediately adjacent.
Mr. Speaker, is there a possibility that part of the Laprade Fund will leave our area to go to one of the regions immediately adjacent to ours? Who is telling the truth? The Minister or Mr. Mackay?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can rest assured that no part of the Laprade Fund will be earmarked for regions other than those originally specified. The Hon. Member can also rest assured that the reason we are using permanent jobs as one of the criteria, unlike the temporary jobs originally created by the former Laprade Fund, is because we have regional Members who are taking the interests of local workers to heart.


NEED TO ALLOCATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I said I was going to be the Laprade Fund watchdog, and I intend to play that role to the end.
Mr. Speaker, I want to urge the Government to promote the development of the aerospace industry in our region. My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Oral Questions
Since when have local economic partners been aware of this new development approach for the Mauricie-Bois-Franc region being promoted by the Government through its use of the Laprade Fund? Will the Minister retain sufficient funds to complete the industrial, commercial and tourism infrastructures already identified by local economic partners?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, when we came to power in September 1984, there was $87.3 million left in the Laprade Fund. These $87.3 million will be spent in the Laprade region. They will be spent on creating permanent jobs. They will be spent in the areas identified by local economic partners and by local Members who have made many representations urging the development of a program for the creation of permanent employment, instead of the program for temporary employment on which the previous Government spent $112.7 million, with very few economic results.


TOBACCO-PROPOSED GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROTECT CANADIANS' HEALTH
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the regulations and legislative measures he intends to introduce in the House soon to protect the health of Canadians. Can he assure the House that these measures will be as adequate as or perhaps even better than the provisions of my own Bill C-204? Will all non-smoking employees under federal jurisdiction, including the Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Crown corporations and Parliament Hill staff be entitled to a smoke-free workplace? And will tobacco advertising be banned outright?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat today what I have said many times, that is, the Government is working on a tobacco policy and when it is ready it will be announced.


GOVERNMENT'S TOBACCO POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians and all health agencies that are supporting my Bill C-204 want to know whether this is a serious attempt or whether this is an attempt to undermine the growing support for that Bill. Will the Minister assure the House that the measures he will introduce will be serious ones and, particularly in the case of advertising, that they will not be a half measure which will make things worse by allowing advertisers to shift from one type of advertising to another? Will it be a serious measure, or is he just playing with Canadians for his own publicity purposes?

March 25, 1987
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, regarding tobacco policy, right from the first Speech from the Throne the Government said that health promotion and disease prevention were a major plank. I have been working on that very diligently. In fact, I have often been accused of being too active in that field. When our policy is announced, I hope the Hon. Member will endorse it and will obviously see it as a great improvement on what she has done.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who knows that there is considerable uncertainty at the moment in respect of the extent of landlords' entitlement to a share of the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program. Would the Minister explain to the House whether a payment should be considered as part of grain receipts, and whether a landlord should be entitled to a share of that payment?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to clarify this matter the department sent a letter to all permit bookholders the first part of this month. I welcome this opportunity to clarify the matter further. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the cheques will be issued directly to the producers or to the farmers themselves. We would expect that the normal tenant-landlord agreement will be applied with respect to the Special Canadian Grains Program.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. According to the Canadian Press, the Minister stated that he does not believe the chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations that studied the postal plan intended it to give rural residents a veto on post office closures or changes to postal services as recommended in the unanimous report released March 23. Did the Minister meet with the committee chairman and, if so, what made him retract his unconditional support for this unanimous report?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the recommendations of the report are already policy. The Hon. Member would know that if he read the letter that I sent to all Members. Under the Canada Post Corporations Act, which was supported by all Parties in this House, the Post Office has the responsibility to manage. I have indicated that I will guarantee that Canada Post will do that in a sensitive and a proper way and a way which reasonable people can understand, appreciate and agree with. That remains a commitment. If that remains at odds with what the committee recommended, then so be it. 1 have to fulfil my responsibilities.


RURAL POST OFFICES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell this House what the misunderstanding is? The committee report was unanimous. In clear language we find this is the report:
(a) that no closure of a rural post office or change in rural service be
undertaken without meaningful consultation and the consent of the community
affected.
How clear can it be? Why is the Minister playing with words and creating fear in the community?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is the Hon. Member and people like him who are creating fear. In the letter I wrote to the Hon. Member-and again I plead with him to reread it-I indicated that in the event of any change Members of Parliament will be the first to be told. There will be consultations with the people affected and the changes should be of the sort that reasonable people can agree to. I do not know how much clearer I can make that statement. It is just a repetition of what is in the letter. Why does the Hon. Member not read the letter?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. I would ask the Hon. Member for one question, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the Minister of Health tell us whether his proposed tobacco program will contain more assistance to reduce tobacco acreage than has already been proposed under the Alternate Crops Program, which is a $15 million program to find alternate crops to tobacco, or is the $15 million crop payment to take tobacco acres out of production? Is the Minister proposing any further programs to that in his soon to be announced tobacco program?
March 25, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that was a fairly convoluted question. My answer is specific. When the announcement will be made, it will be clear.


FINANCE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Last year the Government introduced an important new program for low-income Canadians, the Sales Tax Credit Program, $50 for an adult and $25 for a child. In order to get the credit for 1986, one needs to file an income tax return. The problem is that many Canadians who are eligible for the credit, such as students, seniors, and social welfare recipients do not have enough income to be taxable and do not file income tax returns. What steps is the Minister prepared to take, along with cabinet colleagues, to make sure that all eligible Canadians are aware of this program and do receive the tax credit?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague for her interest in making certain that eligible Canadians are aware of this very progressive tax measure brought in under the auspices of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. We have received good co-operation from the media in getting out the message. I will be putting out a press release to remind Canadians of this program.
We have a volunteer program which helps Canadians file income tax. They will be asked to stress this measure this year. Any Canadian who neglects to file his or her income tax return and is unable to get the credits this year will be eligible to receive those benefits for the next two years.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret 1 cannot recognize any other Member. We are significantly over the time for Question Period. I will try very hard to see the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie demain.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission on sentencing entitled Sentencing Reform-A Canadian Approach.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I have the honour to table in both official languages, the summary of the 1987 corporate plan and capital budget of the Canada Development Investment Corporation.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the privilege of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation that took part in the work of the ad hoc committee responsible for evaluating the implementation of the recommendations of the Interparliamentary Conference on the Environment, held in Nairobi, Kenya, from February 23 to February 25, 1987.

March 25, 1987
Committee Reports


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour as chairman of the committee to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, with amendment, in both official languages.


AGRICULTURE-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Manitoba. They indicate that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year and that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which is extensive, deals with Canada Post. It indicates that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration of service of the Post Office and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is an extensive one and has to do with the Patent Act. These petitioners from my riding indicate that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The
petitioners call upon the Government to withdraw its patent drug legislation.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the residents of Bird Cove on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland. The petition is signed by some 270 residents of Bird Cove who live on the northern peninsula, an area of small and isolated communities. The petition asks of the Members of the House of Commons, under the ancient and traditional rights of residents of Bird Cove or any other small community to make themselves heard, to consider the postal plan announced by the Minister responsible for the Post Office that would set up a system of supermailboxes across Canada and would affect in a very negative way the quality and means of rural postal delivery in all parts of Canada and particularly in the community of Bird Cove. The petitioners call upon Members of Parliament and more important the Government of Canada to bear in mind the essential nature of the postal services in a community such as Bird Cove which is located some 400 or 500 miles north in a very isolated part of Newfoundland where this service is essential to the rural way of life.
I have a petition signed by 60 people from the community of the River of Ponds in the great historic area of St. Barbe again concerned with the postal plan as enunciated by the Government of Canada and in particular the notion of withdrawing from the petitioners their rural postal delivery. It should be noted that in communities such as Bird Cove and River of Ponds, when we talk about a post office, we are talking about the only federal service or facility directly available to those people. We are not talking about the kind of services available in urban communities.
I have a petition from residents of Piccadilly, Pointe au Mai, Port au Port East and Port au Port West on the great historic Port au Port Peninsula of Newfoundland's southwest coast, a great historic area, and these petitioners as well seek the attention of the House for their concerns that rural postal delivery be maintained in that part of Newfoundland.
I have a petition which comes from the Burin Peninsula of Newfoundland which is not in my riding but is on the South Coast and is also a great historic and beautiful area. The petition is signed by some 30 people from a number of communities all of which are composed of under 500 people, again concerned that their right to expect postal delivery and service in their communities be maintained.
I have a petition from the people of St. John's East which is on the East Coast of Newfoundland. People from the community of Portugal Cove wrote to me and I sent them back a petition. Some 27 people from this small but vibrant and dynamic community signed this petition again availing of their ancient right to be heard in Parliament petitioning the Government of Canada to ensure that those people who live in these small rural communities are able to maintain this service which is so essential to their way of life.
March 25, 1987

I have a petition signed by 95 people from the community of Trout River in the great historic area of Bonne Bay and Gros Morne National Park which represents the crown jewel and the gem that is western Newfoundland. These 95 people living in this community at the end of the line petition the Parliament of Canada to never forget that some people live off the beaten track and away from the towers of concrete, glass and steel. They demand that the only federal service available to them, a post office, is maintained so that the quality of their lives is not seriously jeopardized by the actions of an uncaring, unthinking, insensitive Government. 1 know if Hon. Members think about it, they will cant this action.


Mr. Speaker:: I warn all Hon. Members that that will be a hard act to follow. If any Hon. Members want to follow it, perhaps they could send the Speaker a map.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the travelogue. I have the honour to present two petitions today from citizens of my riding and that of my neighbour, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). The first is a petition regarding smoking and the need to do something to eliminate the health hazard of smoking in the workplace and in the modes of transportation. The petition was prepared by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), and is in support of her Private Member's Bill C-204. It is interesting to note that I know one of the people who signed the petition. She is an entertainer in Thunder Bay and wants to be able to work in a smoke-free environment while she sings and plays the organ before crowds in Thunder Bay.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Thunder Bay area who are concerned about a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to transfer the direct mail unit from the CEIC office in Thunder Bay to Belleville thereby necessitating very lengthy delays in the processing of UI claims and the returning of cheques to the citizens of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. These petitioners call upon the Government to re-establish that very important service.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from my constituents from Prince Albert, Birch Hills, Kenistino and Lac La Ronge. The petitioners feel that the passing of the Patent Act will increase the costs of drugs to Canadians and it should be stopped.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from people from Dartmouth, Halifax and Dalhousie University in the Province of Nova Scotia. The petitioners are speaking up in support of the non-smokers'
Petitions
health Act, Bill C-204, and would appreciate it if this Act were to be passed by Parliament.


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition signed by 121 residents of Cadillac and by myself. Petitioners are strongly opposed to any cuts in staff and services to which rural areas are entitled. They object to the closing of the Cadillac post office and will not tolerate Cadillac being penalized through lesser postal services. Mr. Speaker, they ask that Parliament confirm that people in rural areas will suffer no discrimination through the quality of their postal services and that the Cadillac post office will not be closed either now or in the future.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from residents of the City of Thunder Bay and surrounding areas. The petitioners are residents of the riding represented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), as well as the one represented by me and are from the city as well as areas outside the city like Kaministiquia, Red Rock and Nipigon. These residents show that the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance, the Forget report, proposes to eliminate regional extended benefits, taking $1 billion in income transfers out of Quebec, $660 million out of the Atlantic provinces and $670 million out of the West, devastating the regions with the highest unemployment rates in Canada. They point out that the Forget proposals to annualize the UIC program would reduce benefits to the unemployed overall by 31 per cent and that the Forget recommendations would also eliminate any contribution to benefits from federal Government revenues, putting the full burden of regional disparities and employment opportunities onto the provinces and individuals in hard-pressed regions of the country. Therefore they humbly pray that the Parliament of Canada will not pass any legislation designed to eliminate federal contributions to the unemployment insurance program or reduce benefits for unemployed Canadians.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada in Halifax, Gabarouse, Wolfville and Port Williams, Nova Scotia, and from Toronto. The petitioners point out that the Goose Bay low-level flight training program not only disrupts the traditional way of life of native people in that area, but is also a regressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace rather than protect Canada. Therefore

March 25, 1987
Motions
the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for establishment of a larger base there.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a number of residents of Toronto, Scarborough, Richmond Hill and other parts of Ontario who point out that Canada needs to improve its standard of refugee protection and to adopt the proposal of the standing committee tabled 18 months ago, supported by the major religious groups in Canada, the Bar Association and other groups. Therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principle of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission. There should be universal access to such hearings by every claimant, and there should be a fair chance for those concerned to arrive in Canada to present their claim.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from residents of Burlington, Willowdale, Oakville, Hamilton, Toronto, St. Clair Beach, Kingsville, Amherstburg and other parts of Ontario. They point out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year. They request attention to Bill C-204 which seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco, guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, and call upon Parliament to enact the non-smokers' health Act, Bill C-204.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions. I am pleased by the support growing across the country from health agencies and concerned Canadians for Bill C-204, the non-smokers' health act. The petitioners are Ontario residents and they point out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard, responsible for the deaths of some
35,000	Canadians every year. They point out that secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. They ask the House to enact Bill C-204.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition largely from citizens in my own riding of Broadview- Greenwood. The federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug
prices for Canadian consumers and restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Accordingly, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my own riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam, in Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, Surrey and Delta, some 90 signatories in all. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204, introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). That Act seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. It is my duty to present this petition.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to this House a whole host of petitions from my riding of Kent. The number of signatures is in excess of 1,100. The petitions are properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will support Motion No. 37 and allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to deal with a government motion standing in my name. There have been all-Party discussions on this and if you would seek unanimous consent of the House so I can put the question, I will then proceed.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm there have been such discussions and there would be unanimous consent to have the motion in question put before the House at this time.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I move this motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). There is a blank space in the motion which we hope will be filled in by the Senate to incorporate the Senate of Canada. The motion is as follows:
March 25, 1987

That the House of Commons andresolve that July 2 and 3, 1987. coming between July 1, Canada Day, and July 4, U.S. Independence Day, be designated "Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship" in recognition of the close and peaceful relations that exist between the two countries, the warm, personal links that prevail between neighbouring communities along the length of the common border and the commitments to freedom, democracy and human rights shared by the two nations.
And that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the said resolution by filling in the blank with the words, "The Senate of Canada".
Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States share a unique relationship, one in which all of us take pride. Our two nations are friends and allies. We share the world's longest undefended border. We share common ideals and institutions. We stand for freedom, democracy, human rights, justice under law, and the desire for global peace.
The motion which I put forth today symbolizes the bond of friendship and the desire to further advance our mutual objectives through diplomacy and goodwill. A similar resolution commemorating continued peace and friendship between our two countries was passed in the United States Congress in the fall of 1986. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I put this motion before the House. I trust that all Members will share in its spirit and trust and will support the Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this resolution has special meaning for my own city of Windsor, Ontario. It has special meaning for myself as the Member for Windsor West. I say this because for the past 29 years Windsor and the adjacent city of Detroit, Michigan, have been doing, in a practical and meaningful way, exactly what the resolution calls for through a major event known as the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival. The festival was founded to jointly celebrate the national holidays of Canada and the United States.
Twenty-nine years ago, in creating the International Freedom Festival, the people of our two cities recognized and anticipated the ideas in this resolution, to use its words, "the close and peaceful relations that exist between the two countries, the warm, personal links that prevail between neighbouring communities along the length of the common border and the commitments to freedom, democracy and human rights shared by the two nations".
The festival has grown since 1959. Instead of covering only the 1st and 4th of July and the two days in between, it now extends for 17 days and is attended by some three million people at events on both sides of the international border. I am told it has become one of the nine largest outdoor festivals in North America. In Windsor the Canada Day celebration, marked by a major flag-raising ceremony and parade, is likely the largest such celebration outside of Ottawa, the national capital. Later there is a huge fireworks display set off from
Motions
barges moored in the Detroit River, one of the largest such displays in North America.
In Windsor the many festival events involve the entire community and are organized by 3,000 volunteers. I want to pay tribute today to the efforts of the volunteer board of directors and the 3,000 volunteers who are responsible for the success of the festival year in and year out. The festival also includes the annual Freedom Awards and an international dialogue on Canadian-American relations. I want to extend an invitation to all Canadians and Americans to attend our International Freedom Festival.

All Canadians and Americans are invited to participate in this festival.

Celebrating together, through the International Freedom Festival, our respective national holidays and our friendship and shared values does not mean that we overlook or ignore that our two countries are different and that we each have and want to maintain our distinctive heritages, our traditions and our independence. We do not forget that, even as good friends and good neighbours, Canada and the United States can and do have differences. However, as the resolution says, we do share a common border. As Robert Frost, the late distinguished United States poet wrote: "Good fences make good neighbours". Knowing and recognizing what we have in common yet how we are distinctive is part of being and remaining good neighbours. Yet, any differences between our two countries and the strong desire of Canadians that their country is and continues to be truly independent and sovereign do not in any way diminish or detract from the highly valid sentiments of this resolution.
Therefore, personally as the Member for Windsor West and on behalf of my Party, I am pleased and honoured to second the motion for the adoption of this resolution by this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons I should like to support this resolution. As we have already indicated, we would like to give it unanimous support. Canadian communities, particularly those along the great, long undefended border with the United States have, over many, many years, developed very close links, and often very special occasions to celebrate those close links, with their neighbours to the south.
To strengthen these links we in the New Democratic Party think it is a very good idea to choose two particular days in 1987 to be designated as days of peace and friendship between Canada and the United States. July 2 and 3 of this year are very appropriate days for this.

March 25, 1987
Motions
As a Member of Parliament from the greater Vancouver area in southern British Columbia, I can say that we have continuing ties involving visits, the attending of seminars, and business and labour relations with our great neighbour to the south. Indeed, in the last many years many of us have been engaged in the cause of peace and disarmament. There are people on both sides of the great border who have a strong and common view on the need for de-escalating and finally eliminating nuclear arms. We meet very frequently indeed on this matter as well as on many others.
Our foreign policies on many matters are different, of course. We are an independent country. We in this Party strive to ensure that we have and retain an independent foreign policy on matters on which we are at variance with the views of the United States. This does not prevent friendship. In fact, it enhances friendship when two mature societies can argue their differences peacefully. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that we in the New Democratic Party join in the designation of July 2 and 3, 1987, as Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and privilege for me, as co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, to associate myself with the remarks of my House Leader and those of the House Leader for the Official Opposition and the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).
I would like to give credit in particular to David Boyer, a private U.S. citizen who, through persistence and diligence both in the United States and Canada, has brought this matter to fruition. He exerted proper lobby pressure in the United States to have this motion passed through both the Senate and the House of Representatives and we are now in effect closing the circle.
As one who has practised what we are preaching here today, having married an American many years ago, I am hoping that the Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship will extend to the days in one's matrimonial home.
The purpose of this motion is to encourage and formalize community arrangements for joint national days along the undefended border. I do want to pay tribute today to Mr. Boyer for making us move on this in a symbolic way. Symbolism is part of the spice of life. In further congratulation, I would like to give credit to my colleagues, the Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) who, in their respective constituencies, already have joint national days between the two countries. Through their diligence and persistence they got the executive of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group to consider this motion. It is as a result of the unanimous recommendation of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group that this be sent to the House Leaders that the matter is before the House today. This is indeed a very happy day to be dealing in such a positive frame of mind with such a positive resolution.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise and comment on this resolution. I want to express my thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) as well as the House Leaders of the other Parties for putting this resolution through with unanimous consent. I also want to express my thanks to my colleague, the Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) for his support over the last few months, as well as to my colleague, the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), for the support given by the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group.
This resolution is the direct result of a unique hike celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of Parks Canada and the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Glacier National Park, which was taken in Waterton and Glacier National Parks during July, 1985.
The sponsors were Mr. Bernie Lieff, Superintendent of Waterton Lakes National Park and Mr. Bob Haraden, Superintendent of Glacier National Park.
The hike was along a trail from the top of Logan Pass in Glacier National Park to Waterton town site in Alberta. During the hike, which involved a camp-over, the idea was brought forth, discussed and agreed to that the two nations should celebrate July 2 and July 3, between July 1, our national holiday and July 4, the U.S. national holiday.
I want to pay particular attention to the unheralded work done by Mr. David Boyer who, over the months since July, 1985, nurtured the idea, put in many hours of work on it which resulted in its ultimate passage through Congress and now Parliament.
Because of the historic nature of the hike, and because we hope that these "Days of Peace and Friendship" continue for hundreds of years, I want to put on the record the names of the 17 participants who undertook the unique hike. We were led by Mr. Bernie Lieff, Superintendent of Waterton Lakes National Park and Mr. Bob Haraden, Superintendent of Glacier National Park. U.S. Congressman Pat Williams participated, as did the Hon. Fred Bradley, Minister of the Environment for Alberta and Member of the Legislative Assembly. Other participants were: Mr. Lowell Georgia of National Geographic magazine; Joanne Speelman, editor of Kalispell Weekly News; Lori Dowling, Marketing Consultant with Travel Alberta; Duanne Barrus, Chief Interpreter, Waterton Lakes National Park; David Boyer, National Geographic magazine; Ray Baker, Tamarack Mall, Waterton Lakes National Park; John Flink, Press Secretary for U.S. Senator Max Baucus; Bob Frauson, retired District Ranger, Glacier National Park; Brian Kennedy, editor of Hungry Horse News; Charlie Russell, rancher, Twin Butte, Alberta; Michael Drew, Alberta Report magazine, Mountain Standard Times, Lethbridge, Alberta; Jo Ann Meisser, Kootenay Bayshore Hotel, Waterton, Alberta; and myself. It was a unique experience and I am indeed honoured that flowing out of that experience will develop these "Days of Peace and
March 25, 1987

Friendship" between Canada and the United States of America.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and certainly a pleasure to speak to this motion on Canada, the United States, and friendship. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) for his interest in this important matter. I thank the Opposition for their support today. We can look at a map and see a great frontier stretching over 3600 miles, scratch our heads and ask what is defending it, and know there is nothing but the sound common sense and goodwill of two practical nations. That is what Admiral David Beatty said before the Canadian Club in Toronto in November, 1921. Sixty years later, common sense and goodwill prevail with the knowledge that over 70 million people cross our border without a passport. While it is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the year 1812 that the acquisition of Canada would only be a mere matter of marching, and one hears the same talk today of Canada becoming the fifty-first state, it is utter nonsense. Such myopic views have proven and will continue to prove to be groundless. Common sense and goodwill are the key ingredients that make us special neighbours and an example of the peaceful and amicable coexistence of two neighbours which ought to be upheld for all countries who share their borders to see.
Arthur Meighen may have described the special relationship between us and the United States best when he commented: "We are not in the same boat but we are pretty much in the same waters". Indeed, we are not the same and we have our differences, but we can discuss and negotiate our differences in a friendly fashion, without war.
The motion before us today began in earnest nearly a year ago when Mr. David Boyer, whose name was mentioned today, as senior editor for the National Geographic magazine, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and I met and discussed the merits of a proposal to recognize not only the unique worth but the warm and friendly feelings that each country holds for the other.
The "Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship" will begin in 1987, centred on July 2 and July 3, between Canada Day on July 1 and Independence Day on July 4. Hundreds of American and Canadian towns and cities will pair themselves off and celebrate the close ties that each have shared historically and geographically.
I want to pay special tribute to the Chairman of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group who has worked with the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills and myself so closely. We appreciate his effort in bringing it before the group.
Not only was 1 fortunate to play a role in the "Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship" motion, I am also the Member from the riding of Erie at a time when this summer the communities of Fort Erie, Ontario, and Buffalo, New York, will stage a four-day celebration between July 1, Canada Day, and July 4, Independence Day, inclusive. It will
Motions
mark 175 years since the War of 1812. What better symbol to emphasize the peace and friendship that has existed between these sister communities than the Peace Bridge over the Niagara River? The Peace Bridge was initially planned to be a memorial to be completed and officially opened in 1914 to mark the one hundred years of peace between Canada and the United States since the War of 1812-14. However, due to wars elsewhere, about which Canadians are only too familiar, it was not officially opened until August, 1927. Nearly sixty years later, the Peace Bridge remains the largest port of entry between the United States and Canada. It is still useful and still vital, much in the same way as the ties of peace and friendship between Americans and Canadians, two great neighbours.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with all those Members who have spoken in the House today in lending my support to this resolution moved by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and seconded by the member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I am now aware that it comes about in large measure because of the work of three members of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary committee who just spoke. I want to commend this motion which would designate July 2 and July 3 as "Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship".
The people of Newfoundland have long had an historical relationship with the people of the United States that, in fact, predates our days as members of the Canadian Confederation. During the Second World War Newfoundland was an independent colony and not a member of the Canadian federation. The American Air Force and Navy established bases at Goose Bay, Labrador, Harmon Air Force Base at Stephenville, Pepperrel at St. John's, and the navy installation at Argentia, just off Newfoundland's Avalon Peninsula.
In those days, Newfoundland, as an independent nation, became very much a part of the Commonwealth war effort. We worked hand- in-hand with the people in the Government of the United States of America. We developed a relationship which to this day is still important to many people in Newfoundland and, I believe, very important to many people in the United States. Historically, preceding those days, Newfoundland's main trading partner was not, as some would assume, the country called Canada, or the province of Canada, but the eastern seaboard of the United States.
I am typical as a Newfoundlander in that my father was employed for 30 years with the United States Air force as a fireman and ultimately a fire chief. I grew up and lived a good part of my life on an American air force base. I recall now with some amusement that as a teenager, and a Newfoundlander living on an American air force base, living in American housing with young people from all across the great United States, I was saying things like: "Right on, man", and dancing the "bump" before most Newfoundlanders on the Island. I also recall with some amusement that quite a few of my American

March 25, 1987
Order Paper Questions
friends were saying things like : "Guaranteed, my son", and most of them could dance a pretty mean jig by the time they were 16 or 17 years old. The influence which was felt, the environmental effects, were shared on both sides.
I think this motion is important because Canada and the United States are in the midst of a number of negotiations and discussions on defence matters, on trade questions and other matters which can lead from time to time to a high degree of rhetoric from both sides of the border. From time to time some of us on both sides of the border find ourselves wrapped in the flag and saluting the National Anthem. What this motion really does is remind us that despite the differences we may have from time to time between governments on questions of policy, our two peoples share this North American Continent as good neighbours. Neither of us, particularly those on the northern side of the border, are tenants. We are co-owners. As my friend, the Eton. Member for Windsor West, said, good fences make good neighbours, but there can be no question that despite the debates which are ongoing in this country and in this Parliament, and with our differences, the people of the United States of America and the people of Canada have been and shall remain the best of friends on this continent.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 15 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 15 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCAST OF HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak on Bill C-43 this afternoon, an Act which would amend the Territorial Lands Act. If I might be permitted a personal comment, it is a double pleasure, not only because this is good legislation, but it is also something with which I have been constantly and intimately involved for at least a dozen years. Although this place operates slowly, if one is persistent and waits long enough, one can achieve success, and the people of the Territories are achieving success this afternoon.
The objective of this legislation is to allow the Northwest Territories to take over the responsibility for forest protection and management and to allow for the possibility of the Yukon doing likewise in the future, should it so wish. It is interesting to note that for many years now, forest protection, forest fire fighting in the Territories, was done pursuant to Territorial legislation. It was done by the Forest Protection Ordinance now called the Forest Protection Act of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. However, it was administered federally. As a result of negotiations, a transfer date of April 1, 1987, has been set for this transfer to take place. Hence, the need for expeditious passage of the Bill. I am
March 25, 1987

pleased to note the co-operation of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party in dealing with this legislation this afternoon. We are also dealing this afternoon with what might be described as a companion Bill, Bill C-45, which amends the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, which will allow for the transfer of certain assets of NCPC to the Yukon.
There is something of a friendly rivalry between the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory as they proceed along the road to provincial status. There is a certain amount of leap-frogging taking place. The Territories, for instance, can claim that it was first in taking the responsibility for imposing its own income tax. The Yukon can claim a first in terms of its adoption of a system of political parties in its legislature. This afternoon, both the territories will be able to claim a first. For the Northwest Territories it will be in the case of forestry. For Yukon it will be in the case of the responsibility for electric power and electric energy. 1 hope that they will catch up with each other in the near future.
I know that discussions have been ongoing since the fall of 1985 with respect to the transfer of responsibility for electrical energy in the Northwest Territories. When the former Minister announced, in the fall of 1985, that the federal Government was prepared to devolve this responsibility to the Territories, Yukon was out of the starting gates. It had its act together already.
The question may be a little more complex in the Northwest Territories. The nature of the assets is different. It got off to a slower start. But since the responsibility for negotiations at the territorial level has been given to the Flon. Tom Butters, the Minister of Finance there, I suspect that progress will be much more swift. I note with approval that negotiations between officials of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the territorial Governments are progressing.
To a casual observer Bill C-43 and Bill C-45 might seem to be technical amendments. Such a casual observer might ask: "This is so simple and so obvious. Why was it not done many, many years ago?" For someone who has devoted most of their adult life to the struggle for responsible Government in the Territories, these companion Bills this afternoon mark a major milestone. It is only a generation and a half ago that we had no vote in the Territories. We did not vote for Members of Parliament. Local government at the municipal level did not exist. There was not provincial or territorial government. The government of that day was in fact a federal public servant appointed by Ottawa who resided in Ottawa. Our laws were made by a committee of public servants in Ottawa. We had no say ourselves in what our laws were to be or how we were to be governed. We have come a long way since those days. We will not rest until we enjoy the same rights to provincial government as are enjoyed by southern Canadians.
In the last Trudeau Government the progress that was being made, and had been made up until that time, virtually came to
Territorial Lands Act
a halt. I can think of only one transfer that took place in that period of four-and-a-half years or so, and it was a very minor one in terms of dollars and numbers of people involved. It was a transfer of responsibility for mining inspection services.
With the new government in 1984 things really began to happen. Very major transfers are now under way. We have the issues for forestry, electrical power and energy with which we are dealing this afternoon, as well as the provincial-type health services, a very major transfer. If the previous Government was guilty of going too slow then what we are doing now is probably at a speed at which it is difficult for the territories themselves to keep up and to assimilate those things which we are prepared to devolve upon them. For myself, it is a nice position to be in.
The federal and the territorial Governments work together hand-in-glove and rapid and responsible progress is being made. Responsible government leading to provincial status is being achieved in the North. We have come a long way since the colonial days of 20 years ago. I compliment what I would call the Canadian political genius. It is something about which we do not hear very much. It is a genius that we have in this country for compromise, fair play and the orderly conduct of public affairs. All that has happened during this period has happened not only without one incident of violence, but without a single incident of an unlawful act being committed that I can think of. We have done that all through the political processes that we have in place in Canada. I think that that is something about which we can be proud. Canadians and Canadian politicians of all political stripes can be proud that we can make these changes in Canada and that we can do so in a peaceable and sensible manner.
I would just like to make a few remarks about the history of the forestry transfer. In the early 1970s, in the sixth Legislature of the Northwest Territories, at a time when it was not even a fully elected legislature, the forestry area was one which was identified as a provincial-type responsibility which ought to be taken over by the territorial Government. For many years there has been a continuing debate at the grass roots level, tinged with dissatisfaction that exists with the firefighting side of things rather than the forest management side. I refer to questions such as designated priority areas for firefighting, expenses involved and local involvement in the decisions with respect to forest fire-fighting. These are difficult problems to resolve. I do not think they can ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. But at least the decision ought to be made locally and not handed down from on high.
The Drury Report of 1979, published in 1980, the report of the special representative of Prime Minister's of the day on constitutional development in the North, recommended the two transfers with which we are dealing today. Mr. Drury did an excellent job. The actual start of negotiations for the transfer on forestry started in July of 1985. In September of that year an agreement in principle was arrived at. In December of 1986 a final transfer package was approved by the Government. Pretty good progress was made.

March 25, 1987
Territorial Lands Act
This month, this year, Treasury Board gave its final blessing, and of course Bill C-43 has been introduced into the House of Commons. The transfer involves about $25 million worth of assets in land, buildings, equipment, et cetera, and about $24 million in ongoing annual O&M expenses.
It is always difficult to forecast precisely how much one will have to spend on forest fire-fighting, since it depends on the weather and a number of other factors. Thus, for a three-year period, special arrangements are being put in place just in case there is an exceptionally bad fire season. After that, the territories will be on their own and will have to finance it out of the normal moneys that are made available under the financial formula.
There are 122 person-years involved in the transfer and about 200 actual living souls. Some of them are full-time and some of them are part-time. It is important that the interests of the employees be safeguarded. It is my understanding that all present federal employees have been offered positions with the territorial Government and that arrangements have been made for the portability of pension credits, et cetera. I have had the opportunity to attend at least one meeting which was designed to integrate federal employees into the territorial public service, and everything seemed to be going well.
I should like to make a few concluding remarks. I can assure the House that the legislation will be very popular and very well received in the Northwest Territories. The people there, by virtue of the Bill, will gain that which is justly theirs-the right to determine how their forests will be managed and how they will be protected. This is no longer to be done by an absentee landlord, however benevolent the landlord might have been.
My thanks go to the politicians involved at the local level, the territorial level, and the federal level. They have recognized the wisdom of the move and have given the necessary sense of direction reflecting the issues of the people they represent. Of course, special thanks should go to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).
Some of the unsung heroes of the move are the bureaucrats at all levels of government involved who undertook a very complex series of negotiations. They deserve some credit which they seldom receive.
My thanks also go to the employees of the Northwest Lands and Forest Service for their understanding and willingness to undertake this transfer, which of course will mean some change to their lives.
Finally, I note that today is a happy day in the constitutional history of both territories north of the 60th parallel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I well appreciate the importance which the Hon. Member for
Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) attaches to Bill C-43. For many years he was an active member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Along with many other members of that committee representing all three Parties, there was a constant demand before various Ministers that the devolutionary process for territorial Governments be speeded up. I appreciate my hon. friend's delight that we are taking one of those steps in the House today.
Bill C-43 is a simple but very important housekeeping amendment to the Territorial Lands Act. In essence, it will delete reference to the federal forest management role in the Northwest Territories and also incidentally in Yukon, but that will only come about at a later date fixed by regulation. With this Bill Parliament is transferring the forest and fire management programs to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The territorial Government, in what is a quasi-provincial manner at present, will administer legislation for the management of forest resources and the prevention and control of forest fires. I am convinced that resource management will be improved by integrating forestry with the current responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories for wildlife and local economic development.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic and I are on the same wavelength in terms of our satisfaction with the legislation. I guess the only place where we would part company would be on the history of the transfer. The Hon. Member left the impression that the previous Government had dragged its feet and had not moved quickly enough in the devolutionary process. My hon. friend was rather selective in his chronology, and 1 should like to fill in some of the gaps, if I may. I am sure this will be familiar history to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.
In 1979 and 1980 there were severe forest fires in the Northwest Territories. The Dene nation and the Metis association expressed serious dissatisfaction with the fire management policy of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. They insisted that fire management be transferred to local control.
In 1980 and 1981 some meetings were held among federal and territorial officials and the Dene and Metis. However, the meetings were put on hold at the request of the Government of the Northwest Territories, not the Government here in Ottawa. The Government of the Northwest Territories had been unable to reach an agreement with the Dene and Metis in terms which were satisfactory to them in respect of the transfer and involvement of the Dene and Metis in the fire management program after the transfer.
In April 1984, just before the last administration went out of office, the transfer issue was raised in the Legislative Assembly in Yellowknife. In July 1985, when the present Government was in power, the territorial Department of Renewable Resources officially requested the transfer of the forest resource program. That is a very important date. I do not think my hon. friend was suggesting that the transfer should have begun unilaterally with Ottawa. It was right and
March 25, 1987

proper, as the Government has done, to wait for the request from the Northwest Territories, and it came in July 1985.
In September, as my hon. friend mentioned, an agreement to transfer was signed between the Department of Northern Development and the territorial Department of Renewable Resources.
In September 1986-and this is crucial to the entire agreement and to the legislation today-the Dene nation and the Metis association announced their full support for the transfer. We came full circle. Therefore, the timing of the legislation is right and proper. I fail to see how it could have come much sooner without the concurrence of the territorial department, of the Dene nation, and of the Metis association.
I want to take a moment to relate briefly, for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with what is involved in forest management, what is involved. In the north, forest management involves, for example, issuing timber permits to authorize the cutting of timber on a small scale. It also involves the negotiation of timber management agreements with major operators and the implementation of inventory projects to develop knowledge of the location, the quality and the extent of harvestable timber, and the management of forest fire operations. Forest fire fighting to protect people, property, and resources is one of the major responsibilities which the Government of the Northwest Territories will now be assuming.
I, along with my hon. friend from Western Arctic, strongly favour an accelerated devolution of responsibility from the federal Government to the territorial Governments. Along with him I take satisfaction that all affected employees under the Department of Northern Development will be offered a job. If for one reason or other they do not wish to accept that job, they will be receiving benefits under the federal workforce adjustment policy. Along with the devolution, I also favour a rapid winding down of the northern development section of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. My hon. friend will know from many committee meetings on the subject that there is an excessive amount of overlap in what is done by the federal Department of Northern Development, the territorial Government, and the territorial public service. In these days when we have to be concerned about rising Government expenditures, the national debt and the continuing deficit which is mortgaging future generations, here is one area where an effective step could be taken by winding down that part of the department and transferring responsibilities to the territorial governments. I share as well with the Hon. Member that in time, and let it be the not too distant future, the Territories will achieve full provincial responsibility within our federal system.
The Hon. Member knows, as do all members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that before that can happen, as desirable as it is, there are some outstanding and unresolved issues. They include a
Territorial Lands Act
fair, equitable and satisfactory settlement of all the comprehensive aboriginal claims north of 60. I am pleased to note with respect to this legislation that the actual ownership of the forests will be transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories only after there is an enactment of a Dene-Metis land claims settlement, after we ratify such an agreement in this House. I am also delighted that in no way is this piece of legislation today in any way affecting native claims.
There is also the need to deal with the recognition of aboriginal self-government in the north, the conclusion of successful negotiations regarding jurisdiction, funding and resource revenue sharing. Those matters must also be dealt with before devolution can be hastened. Then, of course, we must know how aboriginal Governments will interrelate with those territorial authorities. None of those matters are beyond resolution. They require reasonable exchanges, leadership at the federal and territorial levels, and further improvement in our comprehensive claims policy, but in ail those areas we are moving in the right direction. Devolution also depends on resolving the matter of dividing the Northwest Territories into two separate Territories.
Since I and my Party are not in any way opposing this Bill- we want it to go through its various stages as quickly as possible-I simply conclude by urging the Government of Canada and the Yukon Territorial Government, which has now agreed in principle to a similar transfer, to get on, conclude this transfer for the Yukon as quickly as possible under the authority of this Act and to proclaim that transfer affecting forest and fire management at the earliest possible date on which it can be done. I say to the Minister, and again to the Member from the Western Arctic, that what we are doing today is a correct, progressive and welcome step for the great north of this country.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, like the two previous speakers, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act. It is a timely move on devolution of federally-held powers to NWT and very shortly down the road-I am sure the Minister and others would agree-to Yukon as well. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has pointed out, the Bill we are dealing with today is done without any prejudice whatever to the settlement of comprehensive claims in NWT. This is a legislative mechanism, as other Members have pointed out, for forest management and protection. It adds $24 annually to the NWT formula and transfers assets in terms of buildings and so on of $24.5 million. There is no prohibition on the use of funds provided today to the Northwest Territories. I think it is very appropriate that the decisions will now be made by northerners as they see northern forest issues.
One thing I want to flag though, Mr. Speaker, is the three-year period within which the NWT can come back to the federal Government for funds to fight forest fires. Over the last half a dozen years the costs for fighting fires has ranged dramatically from $3 million to $18 million, which averages out at about $8 million a year. As Members of this House

March 25, 1987
Territorial Lands Act
know, a huge amount of territory and forest land north of 60 has been burned by some of the massive fires that have swept through in recent years. I hope the federal Government might take a look, perhaps two or three years from now, to see whether or not some kind of ongoing adjustment can be made; perhaps in terms of a transfer of payment for fire fighting costs, as was done by the federal Government through the Supplementary Estimates instead of being a separate budgetary item. Until the Northwest Territories has a larger capacity for creating its own revenue, fighting fires can put the Territory in a very difficult position.
This Bill is supported by the territorial legislature, by the Dene and the Metis and for those reasons it has been declared acceptable to the Inuit, as has been pointed out. The Bill affects the transfer of 122 person-years, which is about 200 persons, almost all of which are PSAC members. There are some IBEW members and some members from the professional institute. As of April 1, as I understand it, all will become members of the Public Service Association of NWT, although somewhere down the road a short pace that situation may change as a result of the case now being tested before the territorial courts by the professional institute in relation to the Baffin Regional Health Services transfer which took place September, 1986. That court case is a challenge of the ordinance that Territorial employees must belong to the Public Service Association of NWT. As of now, should they wish to be transferred to positions in NWT and become members of the Public Service Association of NWT they can, but that situation may change not too far down the road.
I am advised there are no problems with transfers or employee benefits. I assume that the officials who provided me with that information in a briefing are correct and that the same process is now under way for Yukon in moving to transfer employees and forest management and protection to Yukon.
The amendment to Section 19(e), which is interesting, was done at the request of the NWT legislature. It was in relation to concerns about experimental plots and national forests, that there might at some point be unilateral actions possibly taken by Ottawa prior to the actual and final transfer of ownership of forests and the lands north of 60. The wording as members will see was deleted from Bill C-43.
This indirectly affects the 10 sawmills in NWT and about 50 workers will be affected indirectly by this transfer of legislative responsibility in new licensing and so on. As of April 1, and I am sure we will pass this Bill in a few minutes, there will be no residual forest responsibility left within DINAC which will take an enormous weight off the back of the hardworking Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). The Canadian Forest Service, however, will still have some residual responsibilities and those may be sustained for some time to come. Northerners and all Canadians would agree that it is appropriate to have a national body co-ordinating some of the work done by CFS in finding new
biological ways of dealing with disease, root rot and that kind of thing.
I am also advised by officials who were very helpful to me that there is a straight indemnification of all matters relating to this Bill as of this point. They still rest with DINAC. On April 1, they will become the responsibility of the NWT. The reason I raise it and will long continue to raise it is that I have a long memory for Bill C-44 which passed through this House a couple of years ago. We all have to reflect on the hatchet job done to John C. Turner as a result of the passage of Bill C-44. A few days ago, I wrote again to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking that he have one of his senior people and perhaps Dalton Camp meet with Mr. Turner to have a look at the effects of Bill C-44 on him.
I have been given the assurances that I now always seek from officials that there is no large-scale litigation and that there is not a need for a legal grandfathering clause in this Bill. There is a straight indemnification at this point in time and, as of April 1, it will be transferred to the NWT.
1 trust the Government will move promptly to complete the process of settling comprehensive claims north of 60, not only in the Northwest Territories but in Yukon, and that we will move forward diligently in the spirit of a Bill such as this with self-government and assist with the Territories' very obvious desire for devolution to provincial status. Perhaps there will be three new provinces before the end of the decade, the Western Arctic, Nunavut and Yukon. I welcome this small step which is clearly a step in the right direction. I think all Members would agree that the Minister is making a good move today.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I believe, with the unanimous agreement of the House, all Parties would be prepared to see this legislation move to Committee of the Whole and proceed through all stages this day.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quite correct. There have been discussions along these lines and my Party would be prepared to proceed to the next stage in the passage of this Bill.


James Ross Fulton: I think that would be most appropriate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. McKnight, seconded by Mr. de Cotret, moves that Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
March 25, 1987
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-45, an Act to authorize the disposal of certain assets in the Yukon Territory that are held or used by the Northern Canada Power Commission and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this time to say a few words on Bill C-45, a Bill to transfer the Northern Canada Power Commission's Yukon assets and dispose of them through an Act of Parliament. Before I do, I would like to say how much 1 appreciated both the co-operation of the Hon. Members who spoke on the previous Bill which transferred forestry to the Northwest Territories and their recognition of its importance. I share in the pleasure that was expressed and I was pleased to be able to hear my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), discuss the matter from a first-hand point of view, something which I would not be able to do.
Under the agreement we are discussing now, all Yukon assets of the Northern Canada Power Commission will be transferred from federal to territorial control. The assets being taken over by Yukon are substantial and include four hydro stations, five diesel generating stations with a total capacity of more than 106 megawatts as well as related transmission and distribution facilities. Yukoners will have full ownership and control of this very important utility.
This is a major step for Yukon and its citizens who are anxiously awaiting the agreement's completion. It is consistent with the philosophy and policy of the Government that government services should be provided as close as possible to those who are directly involved and affected. This policy struck a particularly responsive chord in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. A few moments ago, we spoke about forestry being transferred to the Northwest Territorial Government with provision for transfer to Yukon at a future date. The transfer of NCPC to Yukon is being made and we are now having discussions with the Northwest Territorial Government regarding the transfer of the utility to that Government.
In the past few years, there has been very remarkable progress made in the political development of both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. To a much greater degree, territorial Governments are ready and willing to take over more responsibility in areas such as resource management, utilities
Northern Canada Power Commission Yukon Assets Disposal Authorization Act
and other provincial-type powers. That is as it should be. The transfer of the powers and federal responsibilities to the territorial Governments is at the heart of the process of political development in the North.
The transfer of NCPC to Yukon is an important, positive and very concrete step in achieving not all but some aspirations of northerners. I would like to acknowledge particularly the role of my predecessor, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), the former Hon. Member for Yukon, Erik Nielsen, and representatives of the previous Government of Yukon who worked together to set in motion the negotiations which led to this agreement. I would like to pay tribute to officials both from the federal Government and the Yukon Territorial Government who spent many, many months negotiating to see this agreement completed.
The memorandum establishes certain basic principles which provide a common framework for negotiations on both sides. These principles are that the quality and integrity of the electrical service be maintained, that the legal and financial integrity and mandate of NCPC be maintained during the transition period, that the interests of northern consumers be protected, and that NCPC employees affected be given fair and equitable treatment. Throughout these negotiations, both parties sought to achieve an agreement that would be fair to the Canadian taxpayer, fair to Yukon and its people and fair to NCPC and its employees. We also sought an agreement that would ensure the viability of NCPC's operations under territorial control. We wanted to ensure that the utility would operate on a financially sound basis for the benefit of the people of Yukon in the years ahead.
The agreement was announced in Whitehorse last month and I had the privilege of being there along with the Leader of the Government of Yukon. The agreement meets the objectives I enunciated earlier. It is a good agreement, one that has been achieved through the application of much patience and much persistence. I believe it is one of the best kinds of agreements because it is good for both sides.
Briefly these are the main elements of the agreement. The financial value of NCPC's Yukon assets have been set at $95 million. The current debt on operations is an estimated $128 million. In effect, the federal Government is agreeing to the $95 million price and in doing so we are writing off some $33 million in debt. Yukon will assume $39 million in equity in the new utility called Yukon Power Corporation, half of which will represent a cash payment by Yukon and half will be an equity transfer by the federal Government to be provided through conversion of existing NCPC debt to equity. The remaining $56 million will consist of two bonds to be held by the federal Government, $16 million on commercial terms and $40 million on flexible terms, for which the interest cost will decrease or even be eliminated should there be a major decline in power consumption in any given year. This flexible bond was designed to protect Yukon consumers from the adverse effect

March 25, 1987

Northern Canada Power Commission Yukon Assets Disposal Authorization Act
of any possible industrial slow-down. All in all, the financial agreements agreed to are deemed to be fair and equitable, a fair price has been paid, and with the substantial debt write-off by the federal Government, Yukon should be able to have an operating, viable utility in both the short and long term.
Power rates under the agreement will be frozen at the present level for at least two years. This decision has been well received, to say the least, by Yukoners. This will also provide for a stable environment for the new ownership during transition. Care has been taken to ensure fair treatment for employees, and I am pleased to announce that as a result of the agreement all Yukon NCPC employees will be offered jobs with comparable salaries and benefits. We believe that is very important.
The Bill provides for the Minister to authorize NCPC to sell its Yukon assets to the Yukon Development Corporation, an agency of the Government of Yukon. It writes off the debt and authorizes the Minister to transfer to the Government of Yukon our contribution towards equity. It contains a number of related provisions such as the protection of pension rights for NCPC employees, and the transfer of water and land use rights for operating the utility. Yukon is now ready, willing and certainly able to take the responsibility for NCPC and provide to the consumers in Yukon its own utility at a reasonable rate. It is very important for the people of Yukon and to Members of this House. I feel confident in saying that with the support of all members and all Parties in the House, this transfer will go forward, to the benefit not just of Yukoners but of all Canadians.
I thank the House for its attention.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this Bill I would like to begin by relating a brief incident which took place in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development yesterday. We were considering presenting a report to Parliament regarding the amendment to the Constitution on aboriginal rights, specifically referring to the right of Indian self-government. Unfortunately, government Members decided there would be no report and used their majority to stop such a report from being tabled in the House of Commons today. I am not raising that as an issue at this moment. I simply want to point out that during the vigorous debate which took place in the committee one member said that the reports of parliamentary committees were no more than tokens. He asked why we should involve ourselves in tokenism.
My reason for mentioning this is that what we are doing today in this House is proof positive that timely committee reports can be effective.
It was on March 12, 1981, that the then Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development established a subcommittee, the terms of reference for which were to study all aspects of the operations of The Northern Canada Power Commission. That subcommittee reported to Parliament on April 7, 1982. Quite a number of members played a very key
and important role in that committee, and in passing I would like to make reference to them. One was the then Hon. Member for Abitibi, Mr. Rene Gingras. There was the then Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq, Mr. Peter Ittinuar. There was the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who introduced the forest transfer Bill today. The then Hon. Member for Edmonton East, Mr. Bill Yurko, was there, and also the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who is also a Member of this Parliament. I might just say it was my privilege to be the Chairman of that subcommittee, but without the help of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, who has an engineering background, and that of the then Hon. Member for Edmonton East, himself a chemical engineer, I do not think we could have successfully undertaken such a difficult task. It really required a huge amount of technical information to be absorbed and then appropriate recommendations had to be made. It was one of the more difficult assignments I have had as a Member of Parliament. Therefore, I would like to spend a little time on the recommendations of that report, and I will not be unduly long.
The subcommittee recommended that complete federal devolution to the territorial Crown corporations be accepted quickly, along with the forgiveness of federal debt and the commencement of a process of discussion by the territorial Government involving private utilities as well as the Northern Canada Power Commission. The recommendation reflected the findings of the subcommittee that the federal Government's decision-making and budgetary powers did not make the NCPC fully accountable to the people it serves. The territorial Governments have almost no legislative and regulatory jurisdiction over the NCPC. In our hearings in the North we detected a strong level of hostility against this arrangement.
The subcommittee's report also recommended that all electrical power utilities operating in the Yukon should be fully subject to regulation by the Yukon Utilities Board. Most Canadians would find it surprising if that were not the case, but in fact there was only an understanding that NCPC would appear before the Utilities Board. They had no genuine or real power over them. Devolution of the NCPC responsibility to territorial utilities would remove the existing obstacle to effective regulation, namely the fact that NCPC was not subject to the Yukon Utilities Board. The subcommittee also concluded that the power rates paid by Northerners were excessive. It specifically recommended that the existing debt of the NCPC to the Government of Canada should be written off in its entirety and that the flexible financing arrangements which we thought were possible should be established for loans to finance any hydro facilities.
Now, Sir, the agreement made between Canada and Yukon to transfer the NCPC, which is being done through this legislation, will mark the fulfilment of not all but many of that report's recommendations, certainly with respect to devolution of the NCPC, ownership and regulation. The specific financial
March 25, 1987

terms for this transfer also recognize other aspects of our recommendations, namely, the provision of the flexible bond arrangements to prevent consumer costs from escalating to unacceptable levels during those periods when local power loads are insufficient to permit economic use of major hydro facilities such as is sometimes the case at the Whitehorse No. 4 structure.
Through Bill C-45 we are ratifying an agreement between Canada and Yukon to transfer the Yukon portion of the Northern Canada Power Commission from the federal Government to territorial control and ownership. I want to say how pleased 1 am that in that agreement there is to be a freezing of power rates for the next two years. I take satisfaction as well from the fact that job security will be provided for all the Yukon-based employees of the Northern Canada Power Commission. That is a matter which came up subsequent to the report. I strongly urged those in the decision-making role in Yukon to ensure that employee interests be protected in a fair and equitable manner. I have every reason to believe that that is the case unless something develops of which we are not aware at the moment.
Members will note, as indicated in the Minister's speech, that not all of the existing debt has been written off but that the debt has been written down. There is a little confusion with regard to the figures. Perhaps in Committee of the Whole I might ask the Minister about this. The Minister's statement indicates that the current debt on operations is an estimated $128 million. My information is that the total debt amounts to $142 million. Perhaps there is something other than the operational side involved. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister on that later.
Nevertheless, whether it is a total debt of $128 million or $142 million, the fact is that it has been written down by the Government of Canada to $95 million, which reflects the true value of the NCPC assets in Yukon. The Yukon Government will put up $19.5 million in cash and the Government will turn the same amount of debt, $19.5 million, into equity. Of the $95 million we are left with $56 million. I have already referred to the flexible financing arrangements, the $60 million bond of the federal Government on commercial terms, and another $40 million on flexible terms and conditions.
1 had a meeting with Mr. Penikett, the Leader of the Government in Yukon, and he told me that he and the other members of his Government are pleased with the terms and conditions. If that is the case, far be it from me to say that they could have got a better deal. I accept their decision and view that this is a satisfactory arrangement with respect to price and financing.
I believe I am correct in asserting that the Northern Canada Power Commission was a target for privatization. I may be corrected, but I think it was on the list of the Minister of State for Privatization (Miss McDougall). I am pleased that the Government of Canada has agreed to Yukon retaining public
Northern Canada Power Commission Yukon Assets Disposal Authorization Act
ownership through the Yukon Development Corporation. A new public sector group is not being created in Yukon at this time to manage the assets that are being transferred from the Northern Canada Power Commission. Instead, and I think this will interest the House, a private sector contract management was selected. This approach effectively combines the benefit of public sector ownership on the one hand and efficient and effective management from the private sector on the other. That is suited to the present needs in Yukon.
Of course, the future may change all that. As Yukon continues to develop and in due course achieves provincial status, it may very well want to follow the pattern which is standard across the country except, I think, in the Province of Alberta where there are entirely publicly owned electrical utilities. At that time the Yukon Government may decide it wants its own electrical power commission, Yukon Hydro or whatever they want to call it. I want to stress that by way of this transfer agreement that option remains open even though for the present time the assets will be managed by the Yukon Electrical Company Limited which is a private sector company.
I will conclude by saying that this Bill represents an important step forward as the Minister indicated in his remarks. There remains now the problem of how to do something similar in the Northwest Territories. There are some different issues there. I think that in some ways the situation there is a little more complex, although I would yield to the opinion of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic on that point. There are some unresolved questions such as the matter of division of the Territories. The Minister and I have had private discussions from time to time about the very high-cost diesel generating units which are scattered throughout the Eastern Arctic and how they could be best managed and controlled by the Government of the NWT.
I believe this is a difficult and more complex challenge than that in Yukon. If we were dealing only with the Western Arctic I think we could quickly put the same plan into effect. However, when dealing with the entire Northwest Territories the Eastern Arctic poses additional difficulties. I hope that we will not back away from those challenges and will carry out the rest of the recommendations in the report of the special subcommittee to make a similar transfer there at the earliest possible time.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I, as well, am pleased to speak this afternoon on Bill C-45. I do not think it would be appropriate to speak on this Bill without paying tribute to the hard work done by the Minister in relation to all the negotiations on this Bill. I would like to pay tribute as well to Tony Penikett, the Government Leader in Yukon, and to my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who has just spoken. It is hard to pat oneself on the back, and I am glad to do it for him. I know how much work he and other members of that committee did in 1982, particularly in taking a long look at what could realistically be done for Yukon and also for the NWT.

March 25, 1987
Northern Canada Power Commission Yukon Assets Disposal Authorization Act
The disposal of the NCPC assets from Canada to Yukon symbolizes another small step in terms of devolution of powers from the federal sector to Yukon, in this case, and in the case of forestry, to NWT. As other Members including the Minister have said, I hope the day is not too far away when Yukon will provide for management and protection of forests and there will be a devolution of control over power production to all of NWT.
The Northern Canada Power Commission was set up in 1948 in the NWT and Yukon basically to provide power to the mines that were opening at that time. Eighty per cent of the power produced in the Yukon is hydro electric from four main hydro stations and 20 per cent is from diesel from five diesel generation stations. Some other power is provided by Yukon Electric, a privately owned Alberta power corporation. It mainly distributes power but also has control of the systems in Watson Lake and Old Crow.
The annual report deals with a number of things but other Members have touched upon it and 1 will not go into it in any detail. I want to deal with the recommendations from the 1982 standing committee which did the real groundwork to set this transfer in motion. The matter was picked up by the previous Minister responsible for northern development and very effectively continued by the present Minister, and with the new Government of Yukon, including the initialling of the original MOU by Piers McDonald.
The proposed writing off or writing down of the debt is the key to making this proposal operational. After its hearings in 1983-84, the National Energy Board recommended in 1985, principally for fiscal reasons, that NCPC remain as one unit. I believe a rather imaginative approach has been taken to deal with the matter of power. The mine at Faro uses about 45 per cent of the gigawatt hours produced in Yukon. The viability of the system hinges on the amount of power produced and the amount produced per kilowatt hour.
The interest payments in relation to the $40 million flexible bond is really the key in that entire area. Presently, 394 gigawatt hours are produced. When production goes below 310 gigawatt hours, an interest rate formula kicks in. Once it is down to 200 gigawatt hours of production, all interest payments are forgiven below that point and the principal is frozen. It is a very imaginative way of dealing with that part of the interest payments.
We all know and are too often saddened to see that the mines not only in Yukon and Northwest Territories but in my area of northwestern British Columbia tend to be cyclical in relation to world mineral markets. I think we are all waiting to see what happens with the Red Dog mine in Alaska and what may well happen in relation to Cyprus Anvil.
I addressed the question of liability in relation to Bill C-43. We are now dealing with Bill C-45 and have skipped Bill C-44, that great nightmare for Canada's Parliament. Again, I take
the opportunity to flag it for Ministers who are here and for the Government and Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in reminding them that the Turner matter must be dealt with.
I have pursued this with officials before coming to speak today. I am absolutely assured that there are no major suits pending or hidden and that the liabilities are presently carried until the proclamation of this Bill on April 1 by the federal Government. The liabilities then will be carried by the new owner on April 1, which is effectively the Government of Yukon.
Various exploratory studies have been conducted on ways of preserving power, improving conservation and so on. In Yukon, although the majority of power is produced through hydro turbines, the Yukon Government will now have an opportunity to study seriously such things as coal, wood waste, wind and particularly conservation. Governments and electrical companies, particularly north of 60, must carefully consider conservation in order to make the best use of that high cost power.
Now that this has been transferred to the Government of Yukon, I am sure no future Yukon Government would ever consider placing a dam on, at, near or around Atlin Lake, the largest lake in British Columbia, which happens to be in my constituency. For some time, the Northern Canada Power Commission has been looking at it as an opportunity for more power. I am sure the Minister, the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and I will mount a massive battle in Parliament to stop anyone with NCPC-


Dave Nickerson: So long as you don't go after Liard.


James Ross Fulton: My friend, the Lion. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), says as long as the Liard is not dammed. We are certainly on the same wavelength about damming some of these vital northern water systems.
The employees of the NCPC are principally members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The process has begun for them to become members of the Yukon Electric Employees Association. I am advised that PSAC certification ends on March 31, which is a coincidence, and that the certification will then move to Yukon Electric Employees Association on April 1. There has not been a great deal of concern about this.
Let me point out some of the benefits for Yukoners. The concept is good, in terms of devolution. Furthermore, there will be a power rate freeze for at least two years and there will be local control over rates, subsidies, equalization and services. There will be local control over decisions to proceed with capital projects and to use the territorial electrical system to stimulate greater economic development and diversification in Yukon.
There is job security for present employees of NCPC. Another benefit is the reduction of the leakage of funds from the territory for head office charges and so on. There is full equity financing of NCPC-based assets, and the establishment of the flexible debt terms, to which I referred in relation to the largest bond instrument in this proposal. There are reduced
March 25, 1987

interest rates on the debt from an average of 11 per cent presently being paid to an average of 7.6 per cent to be paid on the new utility.
We have already dealt with the transfer of employees from NCPC to YECL, which appears to be well in hand, with no major hurdles to overcome.
This transaction ensures that the utility is financially viable, that the electrical rates are frozen during the first two years of the process, and that Yukon consumers are protected from a major slowdown in economic activity through the flexible bond issue.
Canadian taxpayers will receive fair value for the transferred assets. The federal Government's role in decisions respecting the provision of electricity and subsidies in Yukon is terminated.
The new utility is accountable to Yukoners, which is really the key to the whole process.
The NCPC employees in Yukon are being offered jobs and receive comparable benefits and full credit for their past service and experience with NCPC. The pension rights of all NCPC transferred employees are protected in accordance with federal statutes and policy.
1 believe a tribute should be paid to some members who are in the House today. I know the Leader of the Government in Yukon is here and I know he is very pleased that this will pass and become law on April 1.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions and I believe if you seek agreement, there will be consent to proceed with all stages of this Bill at the present time.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the Minister said. There have been such discussions and this Party is ready to proceed.


James Ross Fulton: That is fine with me as well, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be beaten up by Tony Penikett later in the day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Crosbie, moves that Bill C-45, an Act to authorize the disposal of certain assets in the Yukon Territory that are held or used by the Northern Canada Power Commission and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Northern Canada Power Commission Yukon Assets Disposal Authorization Act
Marcel Danis: Order, House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-45, an Act to authorize the disposal of certain assets in the Yukon Territory that are held or used by the Northern Canada Power Commission and to provide for other matters in connection therewith.
On Clause 2:-Definitions.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, Clause 2 refers to the agreement that has been signed, sealed and delivered between the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada. For many weeks I have been trying to get a copy of that agreement. Now that we have a public Act of Parliament which refers within it to an agreement, I wonder if the Minister could give us the undertaking to table that agreement or at least to make it available to Hon. Members who would like a copy?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I do not know under what reason or rationale the agreement has not been made available. I will give a commitment to check and if those reasons are not substantial, I will make the agreement available.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a clarification from the Minister regarding the size of the write-down of the debt. I was led to understand that the current debt obligations of NCPC Yukon were approximately $142 million, in which case the write-down would amount to $47 million. The Minister in his statement says the current debt on operations is $128 million. That makes the write-down $33 million. I wonder if I could have an explanation from the Minister as to this discrepancy?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member is correct. The existing debt is $141,357,999, approximately. The difference between $128 million, which is the debt on operations, and the $141 million, is accrued interest on the operations which will accrue at the end of March, 1987, and it is some $13,321,000 plus. That is added in to arrive at the $141-$142 million mentioned by the Hon. Member.


Dave Nickerson: I had originally intended to wait until we got to Clause 6 which deals with the financial implications, but seeing as the matter has been brought up now, I would seek clarification on whether the $128 million debt includes the $19.5 million which will be transferred from debt into equity and then those shares given to the Government of the Yukon, or prior to the transference of that $19.5 million from debt into equity, was the total debt $128 million plus $19.5 million?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, Mr. Chairman, the total debt on the outstanding operations was $128 million. The $13 million to which I referred is the accrued interest which is also outstanding, which comes to a total of $141 million plus. The $19.5 million which the Government of Canada used was taken from debt and converted to equity and put in as equity.

March 25, 1987
Message from the Senate


Dave Nickerson: Before this transfer from debt into equity took place, the debt then stood at $128 million plus $19.5 million, is that correct?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The total debt was identified. Then there was a number selected which would be fair. That was $95 million. We started at $95 million, taking that from $128 million which gives us $33 million. Then there is $13.2 million which is the interest. That brings us back up to $46.2 million. There is then $19.5 million which brings us up to $65.7 million. Then the bonds of $16 million and $40 million amount to $56 million, plus the equity of $39 million amounts to $95 million.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 13.
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, when the Bill passes, as it undoubtedly will, the Board of the Northern Canada Power Commission will have to be rearranged pursuant to Clause 13. When this happens, how many vacancies will then exist which will have to be filled by residents of the Northwest Territories? And when does the Minister expect to make the new necessary appointments?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It is my understanding that the vacancies will be created with the total board on transfer date. I believe right now there are three members, if I am accurate, from Yukon. That will mean we will have three additional members which will be appointed to the Board of NCPC in due course.


B. Keith Penner: I would just inquire of the Minister regarding the facilities of the Northern Canada Power Commission in Edmonton. Is there now excess capacity in those facilities? Does the Minister have some plans to utilize the extra facilities in order to cover the cost of the overhead of that facility? What are the Minister's plans for the headquarters in Edmonton?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: I regretted that in my previous remarks I was not able to identify the Members from the other place who gave pre-study to this legislation and through their efforts allowed speedy passage and the date of April 1 to be met.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Minister's last comment, we are certainly prepared to let the legislation go forward. However, I object to the process of using the other place for pre-study.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-47, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987.

A message has also been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, the following bills: Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act, and Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That certainly is a reasonable question to ask. The headquarters in Edmonton will not be utilized to total capacity at this time. Until we have concluded discussions with the Northwest Territories, I am reluctant to make any changes or to ask that they be made. As the Hon. Member is fully aware, the Crown corporation, the Northern Canada Power Commission, is held by a shareholder of the Government but does recognize the ability of the Government to establish policy. Therefore, until the discussions have concluded with NWT, I would be reluctant to ask for a change in policy.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
* *
*

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
25 March 1987
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Judge Puisne of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of March, 1987, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program
March 25, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Brian Vincent Tobin: That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page
19 and substituting the following therefor:
"35. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation but not until an agreement incorporating an employee compensation program has been negotiated and accepted by the employer and the employees of the new corporation established pursuant to section 4 of this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Hon. Member who seconded the motion, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and members of the New Democratic Party will support this eminently sensible amendment to Bill C-38.
The entire process by which the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 had to undertake its work was flawed from the word go. For the first time in the history of the reform of Parliament we have seen in the work of a legislative committee an entirely new set of circumstances, circumstances which we have never encountered before. In studying a Bill in a legislative committee which gives legal authority to the privatization of a Crown corporation, Bill C-38, members of all Parties were disconcerted to discover that in contemplating amendments to it we were constantly and consistently told by officials of the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) that while they recognized the primacy of Parliament, the right and authority and responsibility of Parliament to study a Bill and, if it chooses, to make amendments to it, if we were to uncross any "t's" or undot any "i's" or if we were to make any changes to Bill C-38, the effect of those changes which we are entitled to make could be to abrogate the agreement signed between the Government of Canada and Memotec, the new owner of Teleglobe. In effect, Members of Parliament were subjected to a scenario that, in effect, affected our privileges as Members of Parliament. We were being told by the Government of Canada: "Here. Study the Bill. Examine it and improve it, that is your role. However, if you make any changes to it you will have abrogated a legally-binding sales agreement between the Government of Canada and a private company. If you do that, my friends, the Government could be liable to a court action and the Government would be obligated to rebid the entire process again because you might have changed the terms of the sale after the fact". That was the scenario that was consistently and shamefully laid out in a wanton manner by the Minister and her officials. Members of Parliament were
Teleglobe Canada
told, in effect, in a normal way, as opposed to a back-handed way, that the entire legislative committee process is a sham. We were being told: "You are entitled to investigate, you are entitled to make recommendations, but if you do you will have undone, you will have abrogated, the agreement that was entered into between the Government and a private company. That is the ramification of your doing exactly what you have been charged to do by the people of Canada in your legislative committee".
Let me say from the outset that that type of problem is one that I will not permit myself to tolerate ever again. I am saying to the Minister and to the Government that if they ever come again before a parliamentary committee with a Bill to privatize a Crown corporation, they had better be prepared to ensure that the privatization of another Crown corporation is pre-studied, pre-examined by way of a White Paper or whatever is necessary before it ever hits the legislative committee stage. If the Government is going to tell Members of Parliament, in particular this Member of Parliament, that the legislative committee process is a necessary sham, then I will not participate. When I say that I will not participate, what I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the matter will never get out of a legislative committee in the future.
Thus, every single amendment that was put at the legislative committee stage on this privatization Bill, the first one we have had in Parliament, was defeated by members of the government majority, not because they were necessarily exercising their best judgment with respect to the Bill but because they had held over their heads the threat that accepting an amendment could in fact indirectly abrogate a private agreement reached between the Government and a private owner. In fact, Parliament was hijacked.
Let the Government be warned that that type of process will never, ever, be tolerated again in the legislative committee process. Mr. Speaker, you will never see again a Bill come out of the legislative committee process if that is to take place. We will keep it there until Rip van Winkle wakes up and goes home if it is ever tried again. Any self-respecting Member of Parliament from any one of the three Parties will not tolerate it. I know that Conservative Members of Parliament, at least on the principle that Parliament not be shanghaied if not on specific amendments, were as concerned as I am concerned today in putting forward these comments.
The amendment I move today is an amendment that would have the effect of ensuring that Bill C-38 not come into force until such time as the Government, specifically the Treasury Board and Memotec, and the employees and representatives, particularly the ad hoc committee on pensions, have reached an understanding with respect to the acquired pension rights of employees.
There are 1,107 employees of Teleglobe Canada who today, as this Bill completes the legislative committee stage and awaits introduction at third reading stage, as it gets ready to rocket itself out of Parliament to become law, have not as yet reached a satisfactory conclusion with either the Government

March 25, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
of Canada, Treasury Board, or with Memotec, on what exactly is involved when the Government and Memotec say that employees who find themselves coming under new owners will have an identical pension plan. In fact, the Government has used a different set of actuarial assumptions in calculating the amount of money to be transferred from the Government of Canada to Memotec to cover the acquired pension rights which those employees have accumulated. It has used a different set of assumptions than it used in the case of the privatization of Canadian Arsenals. In that case the 1980 assumptions of the Chief Actuary were used. In the case of Teleglobe Canada a brand new set of assumptions were manufactured by Treasury Board to determine how much money should be transferred to cover the acquired pension rights of employees.
You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I would be concerned that a brand new set of assumptions have been used. It is because, based upon the new assumptions cooked up by the Government versus the old assumptions used very recently in the case of Canadian Arsenals, employees will see anywhere between $7 million and $10 million less being transferred to the new owner of Teleglobe in order to cover their acquired pension rights. As the Government of Canada waves goodbye to its former loyal employees, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) reaches out the doors with his long, sticky fingers to dip into their pockets and take out $10 million. That is what the Government of Canada is doing to its former loyal, productive, and efficient employees.
All the amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the completion of the sale and the proclamation of the Bill into law will not occur until the Government of Canada, like the tardy pickpocket, "fesses up" to the $7 million to $10 million taken in a shameful manner out of the pockets of employees and ensures a proper transfer of funds to cover the acquired pension rights and benefits of 1,107 employees who have been rudely awakened to the fact that they are suddenly working for a new employer. They have also awakened to the fact that the Government of Canada, in a shameful, callous, and repugnant manner in a $600 million privatization deal, has reached out to try to pick their pockets. That is all the amendment seeks to do.
All the Government must do to see the Bill proceed is to come to its senses. It must acknowledge this bit of dirty work, find whatever excuses for it that it must, and make right what is wrong in this attempt to ram the Bill through Parliament.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would just request that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) speak up when he is speaking in the House, because we always have a problem hearing him.
In the midst of all he had to say there was a point very well taken, that is, his suggestion of some kind of pre-study. One thing we have done through the privatization process, certainly
in connection with Teleglobe, is to make a considerable amount of information available. We have produced our Bill in an open and forthright way. In fact, I invited all Members of Parliament to a briefing the day after it was announced. I am sorry that no Members showed up for the briefing. However, we have done everything we could by providing an information package and so on for all Hon. Members, because we recognize that this is a complex and important issue and we want to ensure that all Members understand it.
Let me say that the Hon. Member's suggestion of some sort of pre-study is a good one. I am quite prepared to take it under advisement. I think that was the essence of the first part of his message.
Let me say on the amendment that as written it would have the effect of postponing in perpetuity the closing of the transaction. He suggested that we keep the Bill open until every "t" is crossed and "i" is dotted and every demand of every employee has been met. That could go on for some considerable length of time, long after the Hon. Member across the way has moved on to more interesting challenges in other parts of the country.
The other point about the amendment is that he takes it in a circle. Until such time as the Act is proclaimed, a new corporation cannot be established and the amendment preconditioned for proclaiming the Act cannot be satisfied.
Having laid to rest that there is any inherent merit in the amendment, let me turn to the issue of employee benefits, one of the concerns of the Government when it put together the arrangement for Teleglobe and its employees. The employees are actually better off than they were before. They asked for and received a public service plan equivalent. They were offered a mirror plan to the public service plan.
The employees have three options. They can opt for the normal pension options available under the PSSA, which include the return of contributions, immediate pension, deferred annuity, or annual allowance depending upon age and service. They can transfer their past service into the new PSSA equivalent plan, or they can retain their accrued pension benefits in the PSSA with future service, with the new employer counting toward establishing their eligibility for various PSSA benefits.
Memotec has also agreed to count prior service with the PSSA toward establishing eligibility for various benefits under Memotec's PSSA equivalent plan. The key concerns of employees, as they were presented to us by them, were the establishment of a mirror plan by Memotec, the adoption of a going concern basis for calculating amounts to be transferred, legislating a continuity of service option, and securing contractually the recognition of all PSSA service.
That is exactly what the employees have. In addition-and it is something they could never have in a Crown corporation-they have an employee share purchase plan which allows them interest-free loans with which to buy shares in their company. Hon. Members of the House should have so good a
March 25, 1987

plan. There is very little existing in the country of such a quality and calibre as this pension plan.
I am very proud of the package which we put together for the employees. I believe that with the mirror plan and with the employee share purchase plan we have been very accommodating around employee benefits, which I regard as my responsibility and take very seriously.
I should also like to point out that the future of the company under Memotec will be a very exciting one for the employees. The dynamics which we are seeing in these companies being merged will be very valuable for the employees. There will be future benefits through increased job opportunities and through increased markets for the company. All this works for the benefit of employees, as well as the fact that the company will remain in Montreal.
As far as our own amendments are concerned, the major amendment we are making, and I will address it later, was made to accommodate something for which the employees asked.
1 do not know what more we could have done to accommodate the needs and requirements of the employees and remain responsible to taxpayers. If we were doing what the Hon. Member asked and just took a big chunk of money out of the PSSA and moved it over to Teleglobe and Memotec, we would be increasing the unfunded liability for existing public servants who remain in the Public Service. We have a responsibility to them and to the taxpayers of the country. Considering the merits of the employees' plan, I would simply like to conclude by saying that what the Hon. Member has said is poppycock.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the legislative committee and as my Party's privatization critic, I should like to speak to the amendment. Let me start by picking up on the points made by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who said that the legislative process was flawed in two aspects. One aspect was flawed, and the Minister was wrong when she said that she was very accommodating and very open in the beginning. This may not have been entirely her fault. We were faced in committee with the demand to get the Bill through in one day. An incredible amount of witnesses were lined up, and that was it. To give the committee credit, and I see one of the Members here, I believe it is the Hon. Member for Sarnia- Lambton (Mr. James), it backtracked and presented an open process. It was not flawed that way. That is a tribute to the members of the committee who recognized it to be wrong. There was a problem at the beginning. The Minister has this kind of notion that she had to get this privatization-


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The timetable was established by the parliamentary committee and not by the Minister. The parliamentary committee when it had its organizational meeting could have benefited from this kind of analysis from Hon. Members opposite.
Teleglobe Canada


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. That was not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member is entirely correct.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order that is not a point of order, I assume you will extend to me the same courtesy. I would like to respond to what the Minister has said. There was an attempt to put this whole matter through the committee in one day. That is the kind of importance the Minister attached to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we resume debate? The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, maybe I am not speaking loudly enough. I was trying to say that it was not the Minister's fault. We will not blame anybody. The committee corrected it. There was a flaw in the original procedure. I detect that the Minister is a bit sensitive and also thinks the process of privatization can be through tomorrow. It cannot. There are some major issues being dealt with here when you privatize a $600 million corporation. This is the forerunner perhaps of Petro-Canada, Air Canada and some of those corporations where there will be some incredible fights in this House.
Let me say that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has a point when he says-and I hope the Minister was listening-that she cannot make deals with the private sector, then come back to a House of Commons committee and say, "You cannot change that because I have made a deal and it will change the whole thing". I hope we will hear from the Government in reply. I hope this is not the case, but it seemed to be the case. The Minister can tell the private sector that it is a condition inherent in any deal, that a deal can be changed by the House of Commons. I would think the private sector knows that. I tell the Minister not to give us the argument that we cannot change the terms of the sale because it is in the deal. Memotec, or whoever the buyer is, was never presented with that. This is a fundamental flaw and the Minister should listen to what the Member said.
Let us deal with the pension. The amendment covers the pension. The Minister, and I quote her, said she was "very accommodating", that Members of the House of Commons should have such a good plan. We have a great plan, much better than these employees will be getting out of this.


Barbara Jean McDougall: What about job security?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We do not have job security, I admit that, but we do have a heck of a good pension plan.
These employees are asking, and I think they are entitled to ask, that when a company is privatized they should be in no worse a position than they were before the company was privatized. The Minister gave us some words on the kind of actuarial set-up. I am not an expert in actuarial matters, neither of course is the Minister. I see here some union representatives representing 1,100 people who are unhappy.

March 25, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
They are reasonable people. They are not screaming for the sake of screaming, and the Minister had better deal with the issue if she wants to get this Bill through the House of Commons.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Management as well as union.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says management is not too happy with the situation either. I have dealt with the union people. They are here in the House. They tried to get a meeting the other day with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). 1 am told they were unable to have a meeting with him personally. The Minister should meet with these union people before the Bill goes through and maybe before this clause goes through because I suspect it will be debated for a little bit. The Minister should at least talk to them to see if she cannot work the matter out. The union people tell me that the Government is pocketing $10 million and that in committee it admitted as much. There is a problem here, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister wants to be accommodating, she should deal with the union people on the principle that workers should be no less better off after privatization them before. 1 think that is a principle the Minister should accept.
Before I sit down, let me say that, tied in with this, I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, is a matter that arose in the committee that worried me somewhat. Perhaps it is another reason that we should go slowly in passing the Bill at committee stage. I am speaking of the international aspect of Teleglobe. Teleglobe will be taking over some international obligations of the Government because Teleglobe was into international treaties. One involves Commonwealth countries,
1 think it is called the Commonwealth Communication Organization Financial Agreement. Canada went into that along with Britain, Australia and New Zealand. So much is paid per year. Teleglobe contributes $1.5 million a year to this group. If I might put it this way, it is really foreign aid in a different aspect. It helps Third World countries with the development of telecommunications matters. It is foreign aid by another name, if you like. Who will continue to keep that up after the agreement expires in 1989? The Government should have another look at that. I get the feeling that Memotec is just starting to realize some of what it is involved with. 1 call Memotec "Minnowtec". It is a minnow that swallowed a big whale called Teleglobe. The minnow is discovering that there are a lot of hidden obligations it must look into.
I hope the Minister will have another look at that in order to clarify the situation when she speaks on third reading of the Bill. I hope she will have another look at the pension matters as well. She has given an answer today, but I point out to her that through evidence in committee it appears that the Government will be making some money from this deal, or at least not forgoing as much money. The union people are terribly unhappy about that. I think they are reasonable people. Something smells here, as my friend from Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe said.

As my hon. friend from Newfoundland has said, there is a problem with the unions. We in the NPD say that this Government, and especially the Minister, should look again at the situation and treat the unions and the workers fairly. We say that the workers should find themselves in the same situation after taxes as before the company changed hands. This principle is fair and the Minister should look again at what will happen to the pensions of the workers.
I hope the Minister will take another look at it while we are debating this Bill and will work out an accommodation with the unions involved so the Bill can go on to third reading.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to speak in favour of the very thoughtful amendment presented to us by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). I hope the Minister will stick around because there are things to be discussed which are very important.
First, the Minister will recall that last year, the House dealt with Bill C-87, the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he recalls, and he should remember, that at that time we obtained benefits for the employees that are substantially better than those we are coming up with today.
I ask the Minister just as she is about to leave the House if she is aware of the report on the valuation of assets and liabilities of Teleglobe Canada prepared by Touche Ross. The Touche Ross report indicates that there were no restrictions on the scope of its assignment except that it was specifically requested not to address the question of pension rights of Teleglobe employees.


Sergio Marchi: Why?


Don Boudria: My colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), asks why. The answer is right here. The answer is that the Government did not want anyone to know what was in that report. The reason the Government did not want that was so that in the process of divesting, the piggy bank could be raided. In fact, according to estimates given to me by Mr. Carlos Saldanha, President of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union, his members will be losing $10 million as a result of this, and he claims to have an actuary's report to prove that.
In the case of Canadian Arsenals, I assume we used correctly a specific set of assumptions to arrive at the value of the pension fund. We used a 1980 chief actuary's report in its entirety in that particular case. It must have been right because we passed the Bill. This time we are using something that is totally different when employees of another Crown corporation are being privatized. Surely this cannot be right. Either the other case was wrong or this one is wrong.
March 25, 1987

1 ask Conservative Members across the way to respond to me. We are dealing with 1,100 employees who will lose $10 million collectively and this is no laughing matter. In the case of Canadian Arsenals, the Government backed down. In the beginning, the Government even forgot it had employees at Canadian Arsenals, but gradually it came around, recognized the mistake and amended the Bill. The Government changed the process completely after report stage and finally gave the employees what was theirs.
Let us be perfectly clear. We are not asking for any presents. We are simply asking that these employees be able to leave with what is in their own pension fund. They worked hard for it like everyone else. I suppose I will have to continue my remarks another time.