1988-07-13

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in June of last year the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) pledged $1 million to the Endangered Species Recovery Fund, a joint project with the World Wildlife Fund to protect endangered species in Canada.
In May of this year the Minister told the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry that he thought the money could be found in this year's Estimates.
political rights of those who have policy responsibilities will remain restricted.
Bill C-273 has an appeal process for both the employer and employee, and maintains the principle of the impartiality of the Public Service. The process by which politically restricted employees will be distinguished from politically unrestricted employees is simple. Moreover, there is an all-Party agreement to encourage passage of the Bill at third reading.
Bill C-273 will harmonize the long-standing requests of public service staff associations with the requirements of our Charter of Rights. I would like to encourage this House to make the passage of Bill C-273 a priority. I would further ask that if any Members of this House have concerns about the Bill, they raise them with myself or the sponsor of the Bill, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), or their House Leader.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
In June of this year departmental officials told our committee that in fact the funds were not in this year's Estimates, but that Treasury Board was considering the request. Today, 13 months after the Minister announced the Endangered Species Recovery Fund, the money is still not available.
Monte Hummel, Canadian President of the World Wildlife Fund, says: "The stalling couldn't have come at a worse time. This year 26 more species were added by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada". The Minister of the Environment should do his duty and deliver now the funds he promised a year ago. This an an urgent matter.

[Stage Direction]
Mfr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-273, an Act respecting the political rights of public employees, was reported to the House on June 21, 1988, by the legislative committee which dealt with it. Bill C-273 is good legislation. It proposes a twofold classification whereby the political rights of most public employees will be greatly enhanced while the

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the appearance yesterday of the Committee for a Sovereign and Effective Naval Defence, as it calls itself, to promote the purchase by the Conservative Government of nuclear powered submarines is a recognition of decline in public support the purchase. This alliance of business leaders and defence experts wants to marshal support for a program that is strategically dubious, fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unsound, and politically misguided.
Patrolling under the ice of the Arctic Archipelago is not a defence priority. Canada's Ambassador to the United States recently assured Americans that these submarines will not assert Canada's sovereignty. It is surely a waste of taxpayers' money to put Canadian submarines into the U.S. Navy's forward maritime strategy. Canada can hardly maintain its peace loving reputation with nuclear powered submarines. The decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines also adds to our nuclear waste disposal problems.
The oddest aspect of this new committee is the presence of former Liberal Defence Minister, Jean-Jacques Blais. Surely, Mr. Blais, we can encourage shipbuilding in Canada without building nuclear powered submarines. It is time for the Conservative Government to forget about the purchase of

July 13, 1988
nuclear powered submarines. Our big boys don't need these big toys.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in the county of Vulcan in Alberta have been subjected to drought, frost, hail, grasshoppers, and so on. Now they face another attack. This time it is from the Say Stink Bug, a green colored sap feeding insect that feeds upon the developing kernels in the wheat head. The crops in 60 sections of good farm land have already been completely destroyed and it is estimated that there are billions of young bugs rapidly approaching adult stage when they will swarm and fly to other crops.
The farmers affected by this infestation have spent $100,000 in spraying their fields and they need help. No time can be lost or hundreds of other farms will be affected. I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to co-operate with the Government of Alberta to stop this infestation and to provide compensation to the farmers who have so far been fighting the battle alone.
The Say Stink Bug must be stopped.

O)


THE ELDERLY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we are a few weeks or perhaps a few days away from an election call and I hope it comes as quickly as possible so that we can get rid of this Conservative Government.
But as these 4 years draw to a close, it is important that we look at this Government's record on an issue of particular concern to me, the lot of senior citizens. We note that elderly people have been neglected and ignored by this Government and its Conservative Members. We remember that the Government turned its back on senior citizens of 60 to 64 years of age and chose to discriminate against them as far as spousal allowances were concerned. We remember the de-indexation of old age security pensions. We know that the government promised and continues to promise an early retirement program. That program does not exist.
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens and Mrs. Solange Denis remember that this Prime Minister deceived them during the previous electoral campaign. Not one single senior citizen in Canada will want to vote Conservative in the next election.


KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, at the 89th provincial Convention of the Knights of Columbus of Quebec, an eminent and respected Quebecer, Mr. Marcel Gignac, introduced the family of the year in Quebec, the Masseau family of Fort-Coulonge, to the thousands of persons who had gathered for the occasion.
The family's story is simple: Leonette and Sylvio Masseau are two Catholics who were joined in holy matrimony on August 4th, 1962 and had two children, Jacques and Angele. All four were involved in numerous activities in Fort-Cou-longe.
The couple had finished raising their two children and were at last free to travel as much as they liked when a dreadful catastrophe struck a young family from the same small area. A young couple returning from a business trip was involved in a terrible car crash. Neither spouse survived the tragedy. Their sudden and unexpected death orphaned five little girls from 8 months to 11 years of age.
When Leonette and Sylvio Masseau heard the sad news, they agreed that they both wanted to prevent the five aggrieved little sisters from being separated: Chantelle, Sharon, Leanne, Christine and Kimberly. They wanted to give them a home, love, and the headstart needed to make something of themselves.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the Knights of Columbus of Quebec and their families, I want to congratulate the Masseau family of Fort-Coulonge for this distinction.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dated July 6, signed by Iris Craig, the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service. In the letter she points out that bargaining for a new master agreement has been under way with the Treasury Board for 11 months without a single government salary offer. She also points out that meaningful discussions on job

July 13, 1988

classification, career development, and employment prospects are absent in discussions with Treasury Board officials. She also stated that the present Treasury Board Minister after many calls and written requests by the union has said she is either "too busy" or "too tired" to meet with the union.
The President of PIPS has been forced to ask the Prime Minister publicly to intervene because of what she calls complete frustration.
When the responsible Cabinet Minister is "too busy" or "too tired" to meet with the groups she has responsibility for in bargaining, I believe she is also too tired to hold her job in Cabinet.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario provincial Environment Minister advised that he would consider introducing emergency powers to deal with future pollution crises, including restricting the use of vehicles, because of the extremely high ozone pollution level last week in Toronto.
I raise this as a national concern because as Canadians from coast to coast visit their national showcase-our capital-the City of Ottawa should consider the example of the capital city of Turkey, Ankara, which, in an effort to reduce vehicle pollution, provides free bus transportation during the morning and evening rush hours. Ottawa appears to have reversed this approach by doubling its fares during the same period.
I believe that the capital city could show real leadership and concern for the health of Canadians by following the Turkish example.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all Members of Parliament on all sides of the House to pay tribute to Peggy Moxon, a 20-year veteran employee of the House of Commons, who retired several weeks ago. She was an employee in the Confederation Branch of the Library of Parliament.
As Members on all sides can attribute, she was unfailingly courteous, helpful, gave a great deal of advice, and did a great deal of research on behalf of all Members and served this House, and therefore through the House the people of Canada,
well. She has left the employment of the Parliament of Canada but I know that all Members would want to join me and indeed, Sir, join you, in congratulating her upon her retirement, wishing her the very best in the years ahead, and giving her our sincere thanks for a job well done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "each nuclear powered submarine can do the work of three destroyers or three conventionally propelled submarines ... They can be completed on time and within the Government's $8 billion budget."
This ringing endorsement of the Conservative Government's naval procurement policy comes from none other than the Hon. J. J. Blais, former Liberal Minister of National Defence.
It is refreshing to see that at least one Liberal is capable of seeing the obvious, and we wish him every success in his battle to see that common sense prevails over the mindless opposition of his former colleagues in the Liberal Party.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation of northern Ontario has expressed concern over the way in which its submissions to the Medical Services Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare for health programs are being treated. Its submission of this year of $875,000 has been approved only in the amount of $240,000. No new programs have been authorized, and all existing programs have been flat-lined.
However, when it comes to Medical Services Branch approving contracts from other health care providers it seems that a different regime prevails.
The Nishnawbe-Aski people state that they are incensed that there have been no consultations with the people who actually consume the health care services provided, that there has been no serious attempt to address the concerns and needs raised by this First Nation organization, and finally that large increases are going to other contractor organizations while submissions from the First Nations themselves are treated in this very stringent fashion.

July 13, 1988
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and welcome him back to the House from his trip down under.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I take it that we will not see him appearing in any beer ads in the near future as a result of his experience!
Yesterday the Acting Deputy Prime Minister, after two or three weeks of stonewalling by her colleagues concerning the serious problem of water exports to the United States, finally admitted that there is a serious and grave problem facing this country, and suggested that the Government may introduce legislation, but was totally vague on the specifics as to when, where, or how.
The problem with the answer of the Acting Prime Minister is that it missed the point. We are concerned about the major loophole created as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which no legislation can properly fill.
In making a commitment now to bring in legislation, will the Government be bringing in that legislation before final determination or judgment is made on the Canada-U.S. trade agreement in order that we can determine its effectiveness or its application to that agreement, and whether in fact it is able to close that loophole?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's kind remarks on my return from Australia and New Zealand. Quite a topic of discussion while I was down there was whatever happened to the Liberal Party-


Ms. Copps:: Issue the writ and you will find out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -that they find it so difficult in accepting a position on free trade. Whatever happened to that great Liberal Party that once supported free trade? I said that perhaps they would have to come up here and see for themselves and maybe they could talk some sense into them.
The Minister of Communications in her role as Acting Prime Minister yesterday admitted nothing of the sort. There is no loophole. The policy is clearly stated that the free trade agreement provides for no large-scale export of water or no diversion of water.
The policy of the Government with respect to water is very clearly stated as outlined in the November declaration. As a
matter of fact, if the Hon. Member took the time to read the document he would find at page 24 that legislation was in the process of being drafted to implement such policy, which is consistent with the way in which we have followed up on things such as transportation, tax reform, copyright, film and video, and all important issues that face Canadians.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE AMENDED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister responding to those thoughtful inquiries by Australians about the future of the Liberal Party told them that we will become the next Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I must have said something that interested members of the Government, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that we should read the agreement. I want to quote to him the comments made by the Deputy Minister of the Environment who last night agreed that natural water is included within the tariff classification as part of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. That was a senior official of the Department of the Environment. She went on to say that her own departmental officials had been advising trade officials on the possibility of having an exclusion written into the agreement.


Mr. McDermid:: She did not say that.


Lloyd Axworthy: When you have that kind of examination in the process by officials, a clear admission that it is part of the agreement, doesn't the Government realize that any unilateral action by the Government itself is not enough, it is too late- you have already signed an agreement-and the only way to get out of it is to amend the agreement to provide an exclusion to protect Canadian waters against the kind of vulnerability that the Minister's own negotiators and colleagues put us into?
Why will the Government not come down to the real solution to the problem, that is, to exclude water from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Hon. Member but his suggestion that the Liberals may form the next Government was certainly not a view shared optimistically by the people down under. They see it a little differently.
In so far as the Member's legitimate question is concerned, 1 can only rely on the evidence of Mr. Ritchie when he appeared before the committee which is currently studying the Bill. He
said:
that negotiators from both countries agreed that flowing water was not covered by the agreement, so there was no need to write in an exemption.
That has been very clear and has been clearly stated by all parties.
July 13, 1988

He also indicated:
-there is no precedent for flowing river or lake water to be considered as a
commodity covered by any international trade agreements.
He went on further to say that to suggest that flowing water is covered, through diversions or even large-scale pipelines, "took a Canadian exercise in creativity".
It is perfectly consistent with what has been said in the House by the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Communications. The policy clearly stands, and the suggestion that the free trade agreement provides for the large-scale export or diversion of water is simply not true.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just to complete the report on the Minister's trip to Australia, I would suggest to him that it is not important what the people down under think, it is what the Canadian people think, and all opinion polls show that they are prepared to have an election and elect Liberals. That is what they show.


Miss MacDonald:: They showed that in Lac-Saint-Jean too.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Deputy Prime Minister referred to Mr. Ritchie. Mr. Ritchie in a statement before the committee clearly acknowledged that the right of amending the Act is still there, contrary to the kind of assertions made by the Minister for International Trade. Mr. Ritchie said that we still have the right to amend the Bill.
What we are seeking is clearly a correction to a mistake made by the Minister's colleagues when they negotiated this agreement, signing an agreement that opens up Canadian water to access by the United States both by Clause 409 and by the tariff classification which clearly includes it and makes it part of tradeable goods and services.
I want to ask the Minister the question I think all Canadians are asking. Why is the Government stonewalling? Why has it refused to take the simple, proper, easy way out, and simply say that it wants to amend the legislation to make sure that Canadian water will not be sold at the expense of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course we have had evidence from the Canadian people as to what they think about us. Just look at the result of the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election to get a pretty good reading of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no mistake, there is no loophole. The statements that have been made by the Minister for International Trade and by the Minister of Communications are clear and categorical. The only legislative body in Canada that is proposing or is interested in the export of water is the
Oral Questions
Government of Ontario which brought in legislation on June 29 that would set up an approval process and a pricing mechanism for water transfers out of the province.
What is the Liberal policy? Do the Liberals have one policy in the Province of Ontario and another policy here? Do they have a different policy every day? Why doesn't someone stand up and clarify it? Or is it the policy that was enunciated by the now Leader of the Liberal Party in his book back in 1968?


DAY CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Minister's announcement this morning about day care is an insult to Canadian families that have problems with child care in Canada. It is a mirage and a smokescreen that the Government is putting forward to Canadian families.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lucie Pépin: In February, the Minister said that he would increase the number of day care spaces by only 15 per cent over the next seven years, when we know that there is now a shortage of 1.4 million spaces in Canada. That is a fact.
This morning, the Minister led parents to believe that they would have more day care spaces, but we know that this morning's announcement will not result in a single space more than what he said in February.
So how can the Minister justify such a falsehood and have parents believe that there will be more child care spaces, when not a single additional space will be created?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased, on behalf of the Government, to be able to announce today an additional $1 billion for
spaces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I was also pleased that, as part of that program, there was an inclusion for spaces for day care on reserves for Canada's native people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think it was also important that in our consultation with the provinces we always said we wanted quality day care spaces, and in our discussions we also looked

July 13, 1988
Oral Questions
at additional subsidies and increases that day care workers needed.
I take it from the Hon. Member's comments that the increase that is proposed in some provinces for child care workers, and Statistics Canada has recently said the wage averages $8,900 per year per worker, is something she does not support. It is those types of increases that will obviously be benefiting in the delivery of the 200,000 target, plus the increase in quality and salaries which were also needed, and which, under the proposal she puts forward, would not be achieved.


CHILD CARE STANDARDS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, will the Government of Canada ensure that all provinces meet reasonable objectives and standards so that comparable and equitable child care will be available to all families in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to her first question the Hon. Member said there was a need for 1.4 million daycare spaces. That is not correct. She keeps repeating those figures but she knows that the committee did not verify that.
I am saying to the Hon. Member and all Canadians that the federal Government made a commitment back in 1984 to give leadership on child care. It is a program of $6.4 billion over seven years, a boost of 200,000 spaces, and an opportunity to increase the quality of child care and the wages of those who work in the field, as well as helping native people. I am pleased we have shown that leadership. It is regrettable that the Opposition does not recognize it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, I see, has returned in his customary good humour from Australia.
Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister said in the strongest possible terms that there was a need for legislation to see to it that large quantities of fresh water were not diverted to the United States. Given that, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm it is the intention of his Government to bring forward such legislation on an urgent basis as quickly as possible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, there is a federal water policy which was developed by this Government and announced in
November. It naturally follows that the legislation and regulations required to implement that policy will be followed up. I am advised that the legislative process is in a well advanced stage. As is customary and consistent with what we have done on numerous issues in the past, be it transportation, child care, broadcasting, film and video, or tax reform, we have announced a policy and followed it up with legislation. Such is the same in this particular case.


TERMS OF TRADE AGREEMENT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, Section 8 of the trade Bill indicates that Bill will override any legislation, any Act of the Parliament of Canada.


Finlay MacDonald: You know better.


Steven W. Langdon: How does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to get around that fact and actually see to it that there is full and secure protection of the fresh water of Canadians for the future?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member was not in the House yesterday for Question Period because the Hon. Member for Davenport asked an identical question, and I am going to give an identical answer.
First, the preamble to the Hon. Member's question was wrong. Section 8 of the free trade agreement does not cover all legislation in Canada. It covers legislation pertaining to the free trade agreement. Because large-scale water exports are outside the free trade agreement, Section 8 does not pertain. So the Hon. Member is absolutely wrong.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell me why, if this trade deal has no connection with water, the trade negotiator's office formally initiated discussions with the Department of the Environment on precisely that subject, export of water to the U.S. and how to get an exemption? That was admitted last night in testimony in committee.
Why is the Government not prepared to face this country directly and admit there is a connection between the trade deal and water exports, and that there must be protection in the trade deal to prevent those exports from going forward?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as is his habit, the Hon. Member is being very selective in talking about the testimony given in committee. Unlike the Hon. Member, I have attended every minute of the sittings of the committee and heard exactly what has gone on there.
The Hon. Member knows full well that what he has related to the House is not factual. In fact, formal discussions did not go on between the trade negotiation office and the Ministry of the Environment There was discussion in the lower ranks of
July 13, 1988

the Ministry but it never reached the negotiating table. Both Clayton Yeutter, and Mr. Ritchie on our side, said it is outside the agreement. When both negotiators say that, why can the Hon. Member not accept it?


HIBERNIA OILFIELD DEVELOPMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the reports both in national newspapers and on national television regarding the proposed start-up of the Hibernia project. It has been reported there will be $2 billion in federal government financial support, and a shameful agreement by the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to forgo all royalties. Members of the Conservative Party may find it funny that Newfoundlanders would be required to give up royalties on Hibernia oil as a precondition to this project, but Newfoundlanders do not find it funny.


John Horton McDermid: Have you seen the agreement?


Brian Vincent Tobin: They find it very similar to what happened on Churchill Falls and they do not want it repeated.


Finlay MacDonald: That was a Liberal Government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Can the Deputy Prime Minister give Members of this House and, through them, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the assurance today that the Province of Newfoundland will not be required to forgo royalties on the production of Hibernia oil as a precondition to a start-up of that project?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that the Hon. Member would be condemning an agreement which he has not seen and which has not yet been ratified. I can tell him that the discussions have been going on between the federal Government and the Government of Newfoundland as well as members of the sponsoring consortium who are interested in advancing the Hibernia project. It is a major project, one that is important to Newfoundland and Canada. I hope the tone of his question would not signify his opposition to the development of this important resource for the people of Canada, and in particular the people of Newfoundland.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Lest there be any doubt about it let me tell the Deputy Prime
Oral Questions
Minister, and I am sure I speak for many Newfoundlanders when I say this, that if developing the project arises out of desperate measures employed by political Parties in desperate trouble in Newfoundland, that is forgoing royalties to the province in order to get this project going, then we do not want it.
This is an important project and can be beneficial. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again can he give this House and, through this House, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, an assurance that that province, the poorest in the country, will not be required to forgo royalties on Hibernia oil in any way, shape of form, as a precondition to the start-up of this project?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland are both interested in developing this very important resource, as I indicated earlier, for the security of energy supply and for the tremendous spin-off benefits that will accrue. The negotiations have been taking place in very close consultation with the Government of Newfoundland, and I say to the Hon. Member that any agreement that will be reached will be reached on the basis of complete concurrence with the Government of Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will they forgo royalties?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will they forgo royalties? Mr. Speaker, it was this Government which brought forth the Atlantic Accord which recognized that resources belong to the province. It will be fully consistent with that, something the former Liberal Government denied the province. That is an important element.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if he is in the House. I see him rapidly running to his seat. I must say I do not blame him for hiding behind the curtains.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Finlay MacDonald: That is totally uncalled for.


Mr. Boudria:: Were you having a cigarette behind the curtains?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.

July 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister's announcement today confirms our predictions and the predictions of many others that this policy to spend $2.3 billion on tax measures rather than using it for quality child care services was ill-conceived, ignored the real need for working parents in this country, and is a misuse of child care dollars.
Will the Minister now listen to child care experts? Will he go back to the drawing board and redraft an adequate plan which guarantees affordable access to child care for the many thousands, if not millions, of children across the country whose parents are working? They desperately need this.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the House already, it is an adequate plan. The Member's points must be analysed. She and her Party believe that stay-at-home parents, who make that choice, should get no benefit from a child care package. The Government believes that they should get some benefits from a child care package.
Additionally, the NDP is against parents who have decided not to access the formal child care system but have made the personal choice to access a system which they feel is valid for them. In order that they are able to have the same deductions for child care expenses, the $2.3 billion package has been put in place.
Obviously NDP Members are against it. They want everything driven by government and do not want parents to have a choice.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister has asked any mothers who are homemakers whether $200 a year is giving them a choice. I hardly think so.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has pretty well admitted that the additional $1 billion for child care only corrects the Government's miscalculations. This is a badly conceived plan altogether. It provides for only a very small percentage of the badly needed spaces.
Since the Minister has not yet tabled legislation will he agree to meet with provincial and territorial Ministers, take a new look at this plan, and draft a plan which meets the real child care needs of kids and working parents across the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the provinces as recently as this morning. This is a good plan. In terms of the extra $1 billion she should remember that when the provincial and federal Governments looked at the cost per space they saw a need to raise both the subsidies per space for families as well as the abominably low salaries of people working in day care, the average being, as I said, about $8,900.
Those were the kinds of calculations we made with regard to the $1 billion. I hope the Member will support at least that if nothing else.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have here an internal document from Canada Post which-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Did they deliver it?


Mr. Gagliano:: Don't laugh, it's a serious matter.


Mr. Gauthier:: The Tories are all laughing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want it noted that the Conservatives find what I am going to say very funny.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, we'll be the judge of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the document states that Canada Post is going to be closing the main post office in Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Don Boudria: Hardly a laughing matter.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: A post office which serves 22,000 people is going to be replaced by a privatized counter-type service. It is an outrage that the Government would act so arbitrarily and without any consultation with the community.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his authority to tell Canada Post to abandon all plans to close the Sydney post office?


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in 1981, it was the Liberal Government at the time that, with the consent of all three parties in this House, wanted to create a Crown corporation to avoid political interference.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the post office to which the Hon. Member is referring has not been closed. It has been transferred to the private sector, and service has been increased. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when residents are asked their

July 13, 1988

opinion in the months to come, they will express their complete satisfaction with the new service being offered by Canada Post.


CONSTRUCTION OF REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTRE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government said last month that it would not be closing these post offices.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Right off!


Don Boudria: We'll see how funny it is when you're turfed out of office for closing post offices.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not getting very much help from his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am referring to colleagues on both sides of the House. Would the Hon. Member please put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives find this so funny.
Public Works has confirmed that this post office has to be moved by February of 1989 and that a new distribution centre will be in place by then.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. If it is not that all the post offices in Cape Breton are going to be privatized, why would a distribution centre for the region be built?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, once again, I wonder why Opposition Members insist on having the Government intervene in housekeeping decisions by Canada Post.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure residents of The Sydneys and the Hon. Member's riding that contrary to what he just said, we are not closing the post office. That is just not true.
Canada Post has transferred the service to the private sector which will offer residents a better service and longer hours, and I repeat that residents will find everything to their complete satisfaction.
I hope that the Hon. Member, in the months to come, will come back to the House to revise his statement.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the trade deal. Most people in my new riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The wish is further to the thought. Would the Hon. Member please put his question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We Scots are optimistic, Mr. Speaker.
Most people in this suburban area near Vancouver drive their cars to work. Therefore, they need secure supplies of oil at reasonable prices. I want to direct a question on their behalf to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does this trade deal with the United States mean that never again can the federal Government enact a National Energy Program-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -that would mean lower than market prices for gasoline at the time of an energy crisis? In other words, could the federal Government enact legislation after this deal that would hold Canadian gasoline prices lower than American prices?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member was not at committee last night because the Deputy Minister of Energy gave a very fine explanation of the energy situation within the free trade agreement.
By the way, your riding does not come into being until tomorrow, so you are a day early.


An Hon. Member:: Do not give it to him yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could finish his answer.


John Horton McDermid: As the Deputy Minister explained last night, the short answer was yes, it was difficult, but yes it could be done.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this in direct contradiction to what the previous Minister for International Trade said, that there could be no more national energy programs.


John Horton McDermid: That was not the question.

July 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Finlay MacDonald: That was not the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will rephrase my question. Can there ever again be a National Energy Program which, while criticized, saved billions of dollars for Canadian motorists? Forget the oil company line. At the time of an energy crisis will the federal Government be able to enact a national energy program which would accomplish the same as the previous energy program, which was to have a different made-in-Canada price for Canadian consumers?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would hope not. I hope we never have to put up with a National Energy Program like that.
The Hon. Member stands up and talks about saving money for the drivers of this country. He does not talk about the unemployment insurance costs for all those people in the West who were put out of work by the National Energy Program, or the people who lost homes and businesses. He does not talk about that loss.


WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As recently as 1985 the Prime Minister of Canada stated in an interview with Fortune magazine, when asked about water exports from Canada: "Why not, if it is economically desirable?" Yesterday the Minister of Communications indicated outside the House that a piece of legislation on the federal water policy would be forthcoming. Today the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the legislation is in a well advanced stage. Given these facts, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate when this legislation will be introduced in the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly nothing new in what has been said today and what was said yesterday. It was contained in the water policy statement of November, 1987, at page 24. I would ask the Hon. Member to consider reading it.
The fact is that the legislative and regulatory measures that are required to implement the federal water policy are in an advanced stage. I will certainly check with the Minister of the Environment as soon as he returns to see what particular time it may be introduced. Work is proceeding, consistent with what we have done on many other important issues, be it child care, tax reform, broadcast policy, film and video, or transportation. All of these things have been done in the same consistent manner.


Mr. Caccia:: We may have to wait some time, judging from the record of attendance of the Minister of the Environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is a very experienced Member and has made a great contribution to this place. He knows that that is not an appropriate observation. Will the Hon. Member please put his question.


TIMING OF LEGISLATION'S INTRODUCTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the importance of the matter and considering that the preparation of the legislation is in a well advanced stage as he says, and considering the deadline of January, 1989, when will this legislation be introduced in the House? It is a very reasonable question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have always considered this water policy and the accompanying legislation as being very important. We have been working at it. It is amazing to me that just in the last week or so it has attracted the attention of the opposition Parties. It has always been a priority of this Government and will continue to be a priority.
I will take the Hon. Member's representation and make his views known, to see whether we can expedite the process. I give him that assurance.


AGRICULTURE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. The Say Stink Bug is threatening the crops of hundreds of farmers in Alberta and the bugs have already completely destroyed the wheat crops on some 60 sections of land. Millions of these green bugs will reach maturity within days and swarm to other areas.
Will the Minister co-operate with the Government of Alberta, take immediate steps to stop this infestation, and assist the farmers who have already spent about $100,000 trying to stop these bugs?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem for the farmers affected. The federal Department of Agriculture is aware of the problem and has been working through the research station at Lethbridge with the Province of Alberta. It is my understanding that some spraying has already been carried out.
We are prepared to spray again if there is a reinfestation. Fortunately, this is a rather rare occurrence. I am told that the last infestation goes back to the early 1950's. The bugs thrive on weeds, which have done particularly well this year.

July 13, 1988

We are aware of the problem and have been co-operating with the province in doing some spraying. We will certainly monitor the situation, and are prepared to spray again if the situation warrants it.


HOUSING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the decision of the Toronto City Council to approve a major housing plan which will provide thousands of new units, particularly very badly needed affordable housing units in Toronto. The Minister will know that co-operation from the federal Government is required for the land. Will the federal Government co-operate, particularly to ensure that the railway lands needed for this new housing project will be made available at reasonable, or, better still, at no cost, to help solve the Toronto housing crisis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Hon. Member. I am not fully briefed on this particular issue. However, I will certainly look into it and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I possibly can.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the principle that since the railway lands were either given or highly subsidized it would be very reasonable for a return to be given to the people by making them available at a very low, reasonable cost or, better still, simply give them back to the people, to help solve the Toronto housing crisis?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's statement as a representation, and when we consider the matter I will get back to her as soon as I can.


FISHERIES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I have given him notice of it. It concerns a proposal from the Saanich Tribal Fisheries Council of southeast Vancouver Island to harvest the excess Chum salmon returning to the
Oral Questions
Goldstream River system. As the Minister knows, this particular fish is not generally regarded as being a sports fish.
Last year the Department rejected that proposal and as a result the stock overspawned and the five Indian bands of the council lost about $2 million and 45 jobs.
The Department has judged the proposal to be technically feasible and sound. Is the Minister personally aware of the proposal? Has he taken an interest in it? And has a decision been made, or is it about to be made?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the courtesy he has shown by giving me notice of this question. I am certainly aware of the proposal which poses a very difficult policy question for the Department and for myself.
As the Hon. Member knows, wild stocks of salmon which are not the product of our hatchery but of natural runs, are known as a common property resource. We generally manage the quotas of the commercial Fishing fleet to ensure there is no surplus, or a very small surplus of this stock. We have for a long time adhered to the policy that wild stocks of salmon are a common property resource, not to be privatized or turned to the benefit of any group, native or non-native, for commercial gain.
The native communities, of course, have their traditional food fishing rights, and this proposal would violate this longstanding policy. I have it under consideration. The concept has been before my Pacific Area Regional Council for the last several months and I will be making a decision in the next few weeks on this proposal.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. The proposal will create jobs and provide economic development for the bands. It will prevent the wastage of fish which is now happening because of overspawning, and there is a treaty right involved.
Will the Minister carefully consider using the authority of his office and the Fisheries Act, especially Sections 4 and 7, and get behind this proposal from the Saanich Tribal Fisheries Council? And can he tell the House he will make every effort possible to render a favourable decision before the end of this month?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has pointed out, there may well be a treaty right and long established policy giving native bands and communities first access to returning stocks for food fish requirements, but there is also a long-standing principle that all user groups should have equal opportunity to harvest this common property resource, so that the jobs and economic gains about which the Hon. Member speaks, to the Saanich Tribal Fisheries Council, could well be at the expense of other sectors of the commercial fishery. Good management should

July 13, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
dictate that we give all sectors an opportunity to harvest this surplus resource.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Government has been saying that it is improving service and increasing the number of outlets with its franchising program at the Post Office. The confidential planning document we have indicates that what is happening in Sydney and Yorkton is quite the opposite. It indicates Canada Post is going to relocate a downsized corporate outlet in a secondary market area and establish a franchise in the business core, which is the area in which it gains the most money.
Will the Government now admit that what it is doing is gutting the Post Office, destroying the post offices which exist, in order to establish franchises, that it is in no way increasing service but is simply replacing one post office with another so it has contracts to hand out to its friends?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member realizes that the charge he is making is entirely frivolous and that he has not checked his facts. Once again, I can assure Hon. Members that the Canada Post Corporation, contrary to what is claimed by the New Democratic Party, ensures that service and access to service is enhanced. Today, most people work, and customer demand has changed, and Canada Post has adjusted to this change. I can assure the Hon. Member that Canada Post is taking good care of customer service.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplemental-very short.


PLANNING DOCUMENTS-REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, these post offices that are being closed are post offices which have revenues seven and ten times the salary costs of maintaining them. It should be possible to improve service at these post offices without closing them down in order to open a post office in a drugstore. Will the Minister make public the planning documents of Canada Post so that Canadians can make a decision about what the Government is doing about service at the Post Office?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians made a decision in 1981 when they decided unanimously in the House to transfer the service to a Crown Corporation.
Again, they are not closing the Post Office, they are expanding the service.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


AIDS-PROTECTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given the fact that thousands of federal government employees working in laboratories and health care facilities and elsewhere in the Government have understandable concerns about AIDS in the workplace, would the Minister advise the House if his Department is doing anything to inform employees of the federal Government how to protect themselves from AIDS while at work?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to federal employees and AIDS in the workplace, I remind the Hon. Member and the House that quite some time ago kits were provided, for example, for our employees who work abroad, especially plasma kits, for postings in countries where health facilities might not be up to the standards we expect in Canada.
Second, I should tell the Hon. Member and all Members of the House that a video has been completed with respect to protection in the workplace. It is directed to federal employees. I believe it is going to be aired tomorrow in both official languages. I can get the information to the House. I believe it is helpful and instructive to our federal employees so they can protect themselves and yet render the services the Hon. Member mentioned.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that I heard an important argument two days ago with respect to the use of motions of instruction relating to Bills. I undertook to Hon. Members to do everything I could to return as quickly as possible with a ruling. The ruling is now complete.
The Chair has considered the procedural arguments raised on the admissibility of the motion of instruction moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Since the
July 13, 1988

motion concerns the legislative committee on Bill C-130, which is, of course, the committee studying the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement and whose deliberations have already begun, I wanted to proceed expeditiously in rendering this decision. I just want to say to Hon. Members and to the public that this is a technical ruling, but it is of importance and I ask all Hon. Members to bear with me.
In his point of order, the Hon. Minister of State argued that this type of motion should not be moved under the rubric "Motions"-which is one of the items we go through each day under Routine Proceedings-but should rather be taken up as an item of Private Members' Business. In reply, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), presented arguments for allowing it to be moved under the heading of "Motions". After listening to the points made by all Parties, I wish to proceed as follows.
As most Hon. Members know, after second reading, a Bill is normally sent to a legislative committee for detailed consideration, as it was in this case. It is this stage when the Bill has been referred to committee that motions of instructions are to be moved. A motion of instruction is nothing more than a motion passed by this House sending a message to a committee that is already in place empowering it to do something and, in some cases, if one wants to go back through the history, perhaps to instruct it. I say for the record that this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor was a motion to empower the committee to travel both in Canada and abroad, if the committee so decided to do.
It is at this stage, when the Bill has been referred to committee, that motions of instruction are to be moved. The purpose of such an instruction is to empower a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do. In this case, the committee studying the trade agreement does not have on its own, nor does any other committee, the automatic right to travel. It would have to seek that right or else the House could, on the motion of the Hon. Member, or on the motion of the Government, or on the motion of any other Hon. Member for that matter, empower the committee to decide whether it wanted to travel or not-but at least empower it to do so.
What the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has done is he has tried to move under "Motions" during Routine Proceedings to have this House consider sending to the committee an instruction empowering it to travel if it so wishes. I think I see the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor nodding. I think I have put the situation as clearly as I can.
Practically all existing Canadian precedents dealing with motions of instruction relating to Bills took place in a period when the practices and procedures of the House were quite different from those used today. During this period Bills were referred to Committee of the Whole, that is to say a committee of the whole House. The Speaker goes out of the chair and the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Deputy Speaker takes the table. The entire House sits here in this Chamber as if it were in committee. That is what Committee of the Whole means.
As I said, during this period Bills were referred to Committee of the Whole following second reading after the adoption of a motion: "That the Speaker do now leave the chair". This procedure is no longer applicable. Consequently, our rules on motions of instruction to committees studying Bills need to be reviewed in a new context.
Citation 759(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads in part:
The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after the committal of
the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent motion. The Instruction should
not be given while the bill is still in the possession of the House, but rather
after it has come into the possession of the committee.
While the above citation is accurate, it leaves a considerable number of questions unanswered. An examination of precedents and citations in Beauchesne's Third Edition and Bourinot's Fourth Edition reveals that under previous practice a motion of instruction could be moved after second reading under one of three different conditions. The first is immediately after second reading, without notice or debate, but prior to the Speaker leaving the chair. The second is as an amendment to the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the chair". The third is at some point following second reading as an independent motion, after notice.
In the first situation the Speaker accepted the motion without notice immediately after second reading because it was a privileged motion intrinsic to the progress of the Bill to committee stage. If this approach is taken, and logically it can only be taken in instances where a referral has been made to Committee of the Whole, the motion is not debatable or amendable according to Standing Order 56(2). This is in keeping with precedents found on March 19, 1948, at page 269 of Journals, and on July 30, 1956, at page 942 of Journals.
In the present case, the opportunity to move a motion of instruction at that particular time has not been available since Bill C-130 has been referred to a legislative committee.
[ Translation]
The second approach, that of moving a motion of instruction as an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair no longer applies because Standing Order 78 now provides for the Speaker to leave the Chair without question put.

The third option, that of proposing an independent motion with notice, is in keeping with the authorities cited, and at least one known precedent which occurred on March 26, 1888, found at page 136 of Journals.

The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) argued that this particular motion should be moved more properly under Private Members' Business. The dilemma that the Chair faces

July 13, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
is that the precedents to which I have just referred date back to a period when the Notice Paper was much different from the one used today. In addition, new procedures have been introduced and this complicates the situation still further.
If Members wish to pursue this avenue and move a motion of instruction under Private Members' Business, this option is of course open to them.

The Chair would certainly have no objection to this approach. However, the Chair, and I suspect most Hon. Members, might share the practical concerns about this approach raised by the Hon. Members for Kamloops- Shuswap and Windsor West namely, that the likelihood of such a motion debated, let alone voted upon, is now quite remote, because of the new rules governing Private Members' Business.

The Chair, however, fails to see why the Hon. Member for Essex Windsor (Mr. Langdon) could not propose his motion under the rubric "Motions". The Hon. Member for Windson West (Mr. Gray), cited Standing Order 56(l)(p). This Standing Order lists as debatable items usually raised under Routine Proceedings "motions ... [concerning] the management of [House] business [and] the arrangement of its proceedings."

The rubric "Motions" usually encompasses matters related to the management of the business of the House and its committees, but it is not the exclusive purview of the Government, despite the Government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House. For example, an individual Member's motion for concurrence in a committee report is properly moved under this rubric. Similarly, the Chair judges that, if a Member wishes to give notice of a motion of instruction to a committee on a Bill, it can be filed under "Motions" on the Notice Paper. Once called, the motion is debatable and amendable pursuant to Standing Order 56(1) and, if the motion has not come to a vote by the end of the day, as in the analogous case of concurrence in a report, the motion is transferred to Government Orders where debate will resume only at the pleasure of the Government.
Before our rules pertaining to the referral of Bills to Committee of the Whole were changed, any Member could move a motion of instruction to a committee on a Bill. Were the Chair to rule today that this can now only be done under Private Members' Business, then this would in fact mean that only the Government, under Government Notices of Motion, could move instructions to committees studying legislation in a timely and effective manner.
Another important point in the discussion, and one on which the Chair sought clarification from Hon. Members, was whether the proposed motion of instruction is permissive or mandatory.
Generally speaking, a permissive instruction confers on a committee the authority to do something it otherwise would have no power to do. Citation 761 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition lists some examples, among them, the permission to travel, to consolidate Bills or to divide a Bill.
According to Citation 757 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, if such a motion is adopted, it is then left to the committee to decide whether or not it will exercise this power. As Citation 409 of Beauchesne's Third Edition explains:
An instruction which is generally made when a Bill is committed is not mandatory, and it is therefore customary to state explicity in the motion that the Committee "have power" to make the provision acquired. The intention is to give a Committee power to do a certain thing if they think proper, not to command them to do it. The committee is not bound to obey the instruction.
Precedents relating to Bills have been examined and all of these respected this permissive approach.
In the case before us, the Chair has closely examined the text of the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor and has concluded that it rests squarely within the definition of a permissive instruction.
Finally, at the risk of venturing into highly technical matters, the Chair would like to point out to Hon. Members, although no reference was made to it when the matter was argued, the last sentence of Citation 759(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states: "If the Bill has been partly considered in committee, it is not competent to propose an Instruction".
The Chair wishes to avoid possible confusion on this point and I would ask the House to bear with me as I briefly explain its intent to Hon. Members. In early House practice, as I discussed earlier, there were specific procedures for moving motions of instruction to a Committee of the Whole considering a Bill.
Citation 412 of Beauchesne's Third Edition states:
All instructions must be moved on the first occasion when the order for the Committee [of the Whole] on a Bill has been read. If the Bill has been partly considered in Committee at a previous sitting, it is not competent to propose an instruction when the order is read for the House "again in Committee," as the rules require that the Speaker leave the Chair (without putting the question) as soon as that order has been taken up.
The same explanation occurs on page 517 of Bourinot's Fourth Edition. Simply put, the passage means only that when the House entered Committee of the Whole for a second or subsequent time, it did so automatically without a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair. A motion of instruction without notice could not be put at that time because this was not immediately after second reading. Further, an amendment to the question "That the Speaker do now leave the chair" could not be put because the Speaker automatically left the chair without the question being put. The only viable option would be for a Member to propose an independent motion of instruction with notice to be taken up under "Motions". Although this is not expressly stated in Citation 412 of
July 13, 1988

Beauchesne's Third Edition, it is in keeping with Citations 409 to 411 of the same volume.
However, the idea that a motion of instruction could be moved with notice after a committee commenced its deliberations is not addressed in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition where, instead, the early practice appears to have been transmogrified into a categorical injunction against committees being given an instruction after they began their deliberations on a Bill. If Members think that this is difficult to follow, wait until the end.
The Chair raises this issue only as a cautionary measure to clarify the concept before the House.
In summary, the Chair, after carefully examining and analysing the relevant precedents and authorities, rules that the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is in order and may be moved under the rubric "Motions" and that until the House chooses to clarify its rules relating to instructions, the Chair will continue to accept such motions, after due notice, on condition that they are directed only at committees reviewing legislation. I hope that that is clearly understood. That does not go to standing committees.
The Chair again wishes to thank all Hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this discussion, and I thank all Hon. Members for patiently hearing me through a complex procedural matter which is made more complex because there have been changes throughout the history of our rules which make it somewhat difficult to completely understand what some of the citations mean. I have tried to meet that problem. I am sorry that I could not come into the House earlier, but with the help of the Table Officers I have brought this ruling back as soon as I could.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful commentary that preceded the ruling and it assisted us in understanding these particular points. I seek two points of clarification, Mr. Speaker. First, in relation to you commented that this would apply to motions that referred to legislation being studied by committees, and then you made the point that that usually refers to a legislative committee, but on occasion there has been a decision to send a piece of legislation to a standing committee if it requires a particular amount of expertise. Therefore, presumably under those conditions one would understand your ruling to include a standing committee if it is dealing with a piece of legislation.
Second, you indicated that there are two types of instructions, permissive instructions and mandatory instructions. Are we to assume that your ruling would refer to both permissive and mandatory motions giving permissive and mandatory instructions?


Mr. Speaker:: I can assist the Hon. Member. First, as Hon. Members know, under the new procedure most Bills now go to a legislative committee. This is in fact the situation that we have in front of us. However, there are a number of standing committees that cover various aspects of government activity,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sometimes a single Department, and sometimes several Departments. Those standing committees are empowered now to do many things on their own.
As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has pointed out, it is absolutely correct that sometimes rather than send a Bill to a legislative committee after second reading, in some instances it has been the practice to send the Bill to the standing committee. Before we changed the rules all Bills went to standing committees, unless a special committee was struck.
As is being used in this present instance, a motion cannot be used to send instructions to a standing committee unless that standing committee has received a Bill after second reading, and in that case it would be acting in the capacity of a legislative committee. I can assure the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that if a Bill was sent to a standing committee after second reading to be dealt with in the same way as it would be dealt with before a legislative committee, then what I have ruled in order today would be applicable. I hope that that is helpful.
The second question is on the distinction between mandatory motions and permissive motions. Without going into a lot of detail, if one goes back into history, the reality is that those motions have been for a long time permissive not mandatory. Until I receive some instruction from the House or until I can be persuaded that it would be appropriate to allow the effect of this ruling to include a mandatory motion, this ruling says that these motions must be permissive. That is in keeping with many years of practice. At least at the moment I can find no tradition or practice which contradicts that.
What I have ordered is that a motion as put by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor can be moved after notice on motions by any Member of the House, that that motion must be permissive in nature, and that it must of course go to a legislative committee that is studying the Bill in question after second reading. It could also go to a standing committee if that standing committee had received a Bill after second reading and is acting as a legislative committee.
I hope this has been helpful to the Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This has been extremely helpful to us all in terms of understanding what has become perhaps a new initiative as of late. I am certainly accepting your ruling, but would request that you consider Citation 756 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states:
An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which
it could not otherwise do ...
On that point, I think your ruling is perfectly clear and one that we all would agree with. However, it then goes on to say,
... or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings ...
And so on and so forth. While your decision obviously clarifies the point in terms of the permissive instruction in the case that is before us, it seems to me to leave a part of it still

July 13, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
somewhat unclear, in that Citation 736 indicates that an instruction per se can include the direction to do something which a committee might otherwise not do. I emphasize the term "to direct". That seems to me to move it beyond the permissive realm.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would be good enough to hear me on this point, because this was the one I was going to raise. Your ruling is very thoughtful and helpful as it is, and it will certainly do much to advance the growing importance of the committee system before our House of Commons. However, I would very respectfully suggest to you, since the motion by the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), which led to the point of order on which you have ruled, is clearly only a permissive motion and not a mandatory motion, that you would be willing to limit your ruling today within the four corners of the motion which has given rise to it, and leave open the opportunity for us to argue the course of action which the House can follow if a motion is presented to give a mandatory instruction to a committee. I make the suggestion with the utmost respect. Your comments on the entire question have been most helpful, but I do submit that the only issue before you is with respect to a permissive motion rather than a mandatory motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the point of both the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West Certainly, at the moment, my ruling applies to the motion of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. Since omniscience is seldom given to any of us here on earth and certainly not to Speakers, it might be that at some other occasion I might be persuaded by the procedural knowledge of Hon. Members, who I know would want to assist me, that another view might be taken of a mandatory motion. Naturally, what I am saying here today would not preclude an Hon. Member from rising and arguing that at some other point, at some other time.
At the moment, at least, it is my view that that argument would not prevail. It does not mean for one minute that I would not hear it. I am indicating pretty clearly, I think, at least at the moment, that until I can be persuaded otherwise- despite the citation in Beauchesne's that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has quoted-if that is put into context and into history, at least I feel today that the appropriate inference to be drawn is that the proper practice is permissive motions only. If Hon. Members wanted to raise that matter at another time, I would most certainly hear them.
If I could be persuaded that I have misinterpreted the tangled history of this particular matter, then of course I would act accordingly. The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis).


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair for its ruling and clarification of the instruction motion. I want to indicate on behalf of the Government that I think the ruling makes good sense in terms of
today's existing practices and Standing Orders. I am sure we can understand the opposition Members' interest in pursuing matters in this way, and I want to indicate that we will consider each case and each motion moved on its merits and act accordingly.


Lloyd Axworthy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I had to step out of the Chamber for a few short moments to attend to a piece of business, but I was wondering if the Speaker, in providing a ruling about the permissive nature of a motion, would indicate whether that still incorporates or encompasses a certain judgment from the House that is in effect advice to the committee.
Aside from just providing authorization, it also incorporates a certain will or set of advice to the committee to act upon, as a result of that motion being presented which, I think, in terms of the role of the committee vis-a-vis the entire Chamber, it is a very important distinction to make. It certainly has great relevance in this case, where there was major dispute in the committee about the advisability of travelling and whether in fact if there was a motion in the House, to express the will of the House in this case, it might affect the judgment or decision of the committee within the realm or parameters of that permission.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is very persuasive. However, I think it is important that this ruling be taken in the context in which it has been argued and given. It is not for the Chair to go beyond what is clearly the practice and the precedents. That is, it is quite clear in our practice that whatever effect a permissive motion given to a committee may have on the committee, it is for the committee to decide what it is to do with it.
As the Hon. Member will have noticed in listening to my reasons as I read them, I have made it very clear that the committee does not have to necessarily act. What went on in that committee is not for the Chair to speculate upon. I am trying as much as possible to meet the appropriate concerns of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and other Hon. Members who have raised this matter, to ensure that all Hon. Members, as can the Government, can move a permissive motion.
If the motion was, for example, passed on some occasion by the House and sent to the committee, what effect that might have on the committee is not for the Speaker to say. It certainly is open to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to perhaps approach individual members of the committee-as is of course the right of any Member-and say; "Look, in view of this, don't you think you should do something?" That is not something upon which the Chair can speculate. I know that the Hon. Member would understand that.
What moral weight may be given to a permissive motion is something for the committee itself, and other Hon. Members
July 13, 1988

who may be in conversation with committee members, to measure. It is not for the Chair to say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion. Again, I appreciate and accept the guidance that you have given us as a result of your decision. I am encouraged by the words you used, that you would at some appropriate time entertain further debate and discussion on this matter in terms of the difference between a permissive and a mandatory instruction.
I simply ask Members to cast their minds back to not long ago when another important committee was meeting on the Constitution in 1982. As a result of that special order, the House of Commons decided that televised hearings would be appropriate for such an important committee. We then passed such an order, and a very clear requirement was passed along for the committee to carry out.
If the day ever came when the House of Commons through a mandatory motion providing mandatory instruction to a committee were to decide in its wisdom for a particular course of action for the committee to take, it would be in our interests to pursue that so that the House of Commons could send a very clear and definitive instruction to the appropriate committee to follow a particular course of action.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to carry on this discussion if the event ever arose in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that I do not think it would ever be appropriate for a Speaker to say that he or she would not hear argument on a procedural matter. After all, because we have had arguments on procedural matters over centuries, that is why we have the body of procedural law that we do have.
I have to say to the Hon. Member also that I would have to deal with it when a case arose. I am also indicating to Hon. Members that at least for today I am of the view that the practice, the tradition and the history indicates that these matters are permissive. If I can be persuaded to the contrary, of course I would change my position. But that is for another day, not today.
In the meantime, I hope this has been helpful because as the Hon. Minister of State has said-and I am appreciative to the Hon. Minister for his generous reaction because I think it is important, we all think it is important- that private Members not be placed in a position where they are more limited in their ability to take part in the dealings of this House than they might otherwise be. What has happened as a consequence of this argument I think has clarified the matter.
The second question is still there, and I understand perfectly well why some Hon. Members may want to pursue it further at another time, and if they do, then of course I will hear them.
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to nine petitions numbered as follows: 332-4832, 3324834, 332-4840 to 332-4843 inclusive, 332-4845, 332-4860 and 332-4866.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the motion that I put on the Order Paper on July 6:
That the legislative committee on Bill C-130 be empowered to adjourn from
place to place in Canada and the United States for the purpose of hearing
witnesses on the proposed trade agreement with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that all Hon. Members and everybody else who is watching or listening understand where we are, this is the motion upon which there has been procedural debate and upon which I have just ruled.
This motion is now in order. I will put it to the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there is a stage at which issues confronting us as parliamentarians become something more than just the issues themselves. When we face, for instance, debate on questions of water exports to the United States, with respect to new trade tribunals or with respect to the trade Bill, Bill C-130, that is one level of debate, one level of concern.
There is a second level of concern which we in this House must at all times be conscious of and responsible to, namely, the responsibility which we have as Members of the House of Commons to respect, to reflect and to practise the commitments to democratic debate and democratic consideration, especially of major issues which confront our country and which would profoundly change our country. That is why I have moved this motion.

July 13, 1988
Motions
It a motion to set, as the Speaker himself put it, some moral weight on the committee which is considering this Bill and which has rejected the possibility of going across the country to hear Canadians from coast to coast; to hear Canadians in their small towns and in their small cities speak out in favour or against provisions in the trade Bill. The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), the Deputy House Leader, when he made a speech on Bill C-130 said that the Government spoke for big Canada. It spoke for the big Canada which is, as I see it, the Canada made up of national elites, of powerful corporations and of dominant groups which have run this country for years and years throughout our history. Now this group of dominant individuals, of dominant corporations, of dominant cities, wants to take us and weave us into the United States. That is what Bill C-130 is all about.
Despite the tremendous significance of that move, the betrayal of hundreds of years of settlement, of development, of building and of history which has gone into making this country, this Government wants, nevertheless, on behalf of big Canada to proceed.
It is possible for this Government with its massive majority, despite the fact it has no mandate from the people from the past election, to force that kind of project through the House, though we shall see how far it goes beyond that.
What is completely unacceptable because it is undemocratic, unresponsive, insensitive and because it does not listen to the people of Canada is to take this action on behalf of big Canada. It does not permit small Canada, the small towns, the small cities, the groups which have fought for social justice against those large corporations and dominant elites, to have the chance, through hearings across the country, to put their point of view forward with respect of this betrayal of hundreds of years of history.
In taking that decision, the committee which is looking at Bill C-130 has in fact betrayed our democratic traditions, and I regret this very deeply. I do not say this simply as a reflection of my own thinking on this. I reflect instead the hundreds of telegrams and letters which have poured into my office and into the committee indicating that right across Canada, a broad cross-section of people want a chance to speak. They want a chance to be heard and they want that chance through cross-country hearings on the part of the committee.
There have been telegrams from groups like the National Federation of Nurses, the National Council of Playwrights, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Saskatchewan Pro-Canada Network, the Little Mountain District Public Housing Tenants Association, the Toronto Workers Health and Safety Legal Clinic, the Diocese of Victoria of Social Justice Commission in Victoria, B.C., Oxfam Canada, the Association of Canadian Publishers, the United Church of Canada, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Executive
Secretary of the United Church in Winnipeg, the Jesuit Centre, the Health Coalition of Cape Breton-

The Quebec coalition opposed to free trade, groups that have said it is necessary for democracy and for the future of our country that there be hearings across the country so that the people of Canada can be heard.

There have been groups like the Catholic Family Services Bureau in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Conference Program staff of the United Church in Saskatchewan, the B.C. and Yukon Women's Centre Association, Co-op Atlantic, the Northwest Territories Federation of Labour-

.. . spokespersons for la Solidarity populaire du Quebec ... [English]
-the Archdiocese of Regina and its Social Action Committee, the Federation of Women Teachers Associations of Canada, the Toronto Theatre Alliance-

Groups like CIAFT from Montreal have said that throughout this country, where French and English are spoken, are groups that want to make presentations and that it is not possible unless the Committee decides to travel and visit cities in all provinces of this country.

There have been groups like Lawyers Against the Trade Agreement from Edmonton, Alberta, so I speak on behalf of these groups but not just on behalf of these groups. I speak on behalf of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians who do not accept this trade deal and believe by an overwhelming majority that it is essential that an election take place before this trade deal is put into effect.
This is a permissive motion but it is a permissive motion which I hope will take the moral weight of this democratic House of Commons to the committee which is looking at Bill C-130 by sending it a very simple message which says that the committee must listen to the people of Canada and it must cross this country so that the people of Canada can speak to it. It must see to it that there is fairness practised in the consideration of this Bill.
There is before this country a profound choice. It is a choice as to whether this country will continue independently as it has for the past 121 years, an event just recently celebrated here on Parliament Hill, or whether it will take steps which will weave it into a continental relationship dependent on the United States, a relationship which makes Canada no more than a colony of that country. That is the profound choice which is before us.
July 13, 1988

Some people in this House are on one side of that choice and other people are on the other. Some people in Canada wish that they had been born Americans and want to see this trade deal go forward in order to see that come into effect. Other people are proud of the fact that they are Canadians and want to see to it that Canada is preserved independent in the future.
Regardless of where we stand on this profound choice, regardless of which direction we would like to see our country take, we have a democratic responsibility as a House of Commons to see to it that across Canada, the small people, in their cities and in their towns, get the chance to speak out as powerfully and as passionately as they possibly can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I thought we were rising on debate but if there is a question or comment period, I would just ask the Hon. Member one simple question. Has the House pronounced itself with respect to support for the agreement? What does a vote at second reading represent?
What the Member seems to be saying is that we should revisit the issue of whether free trade is a good idea for Canada or not. The Hon. Member knows that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade travelled across the country. He knows that many millions of dollars were spent by a commission on the economy which studied this country for three years and recommended to the Canadian people and this chamber that we seek a free trade agreement with the U.S.
You may notice that the Hon. Member talked very little about the legislative process, about the need to hear witnesses. That is peculiar. People who are listening may want to examine the "blues" to see whether or not he talked about the need to travel the country for the purpose of examining the fine print of the legislation and having technical experts tell us whether the words in the legislation reflect the agreement. He forgot, or maybe he does not know, that most of those people with that kind of expertise live here in Ottawa. That is where most of the witnesses with respect to fine print and the law come from at the legislative stage of most Bills.
Is he talking about trying to take the House backwards in time to some day when the House was not committed to this agreement? Or, is he simply seeking to filibuster the House, frustrate the House, frustrate the democratic process, by suggesting that the issue is not resolved?
This House has spoken and spoken clearly. This House wants this free trade agreement, and the job of the committee is to examine the fine print and make sure it is this agreement in the fine print. That is its job. Travelling the country is not its job.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, frankly, I can hardly believe what I just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary. First,
Motions
unlike the Parliamentary Secretary, I was a member of that committee which crossed the country very rapidly. It heard a fair number of people speak with respect not to the trade deal itself but to a short, preliminary document which bore very little relationship to the details in the trade deal itself.
With respect to the Macdonald Commission, one of the major features of this trade deal is that it includes services for the first time in any significant trade deal in the world. Lest you think that services are a small part of our economy, they make up 72 per cent of the economic activity in Canada. The Macdonald Commission did not do any study whatsoever of the impact of a free trade arrangement with respect to services because it did not expect services would ever be part of a deal. Therefore, to refer to that document is also false.
With respect to the final comment of the Parliamentary Secretary, to say that all the expertise that needs to be consulted with respect to this Bill is in Ottawa is perhaps the most amazing statement which I have ever heard in this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Why don't you repeat the quote accurately instead of lying once again? You say "all". I never said "all". I said "most".


Steven W. Langdon: I think there is cause for withdrawal on the part of the Hon. Member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A little honesty in this debate would go a long way.


Steven W. Langdon: He has accused me-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know if it was audible to you but it seemed to be audible to the rest of the House, and I suspect even to the gallery, when the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary called the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) a liar. He said that he was lying. He called him a liar. As a respected and longstanding member of this House he ought to do the honourable thing and stand in his place and withdraw that unparliamentary remark.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I never hesitate, if I have offended the rules of the House, to withdraw any remark. What I am asking the Hon. Member to do is, if he is going to quote me, to quote me accurately and not present a distortion to the House and the nation about what I said. I never said, and the record will bear me out, that all the expertise is in Ottawa. I said most of the legal expertise around the fine print in legislation is to be found in Ottawa, and that is a fact.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps the Hon. Member did not understand the point I was making. He hurled the ultimate insult by saying my hon. colleague from Essex-Windsor was lying. I do not know how you would interpret that. I know the "blues" will certainly reflect that. It was audible here and I suspect audible to people in the gallery. It is what we have come to expect from the Hon. Member but it is strictly unparliamentary.

July 13, 1988
Motions


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair must admit to not having heard such words, otherwise the Chair would have intervened right away. On the other hand, when he rose the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary did say that if he said anything unparliamentary, he was withdrawing. That I did hear very well so I think that should settle the matter for the time being. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Until we see the "blues" at least.


Steven W. Langdon: Regardless of whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary said "most" or "all", and I certainly heard him say "all", I want to make a very important point. The Government used to say this was a country of small communities. Now it says this is a country where expertise, by and large, rests in Ottawa. I say precisely the opposite. The expertise with respect to the fish processing and what will happen to it as a consequence of this trade deal, and therefore the details of the legislation as it deals with fish processing, rests with people who are involved in that industry in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and the rest of Atlantic Canada.
The same is true when we talk about the agricultural parts of this deal. It is absolutely bizarre to hear the Conservative Party, which at one stage went off to Prince Albert because it felt that was where it should seek expertise with respect to agricultural concerns, now says no, it is not necessary.
This is a deal which will profoundly change the nature of agriculture in this country in the future. Yet, is the Conservative Government now prepared to go to Prince Albert? Is it prepared to go to Regina? Is it prepared to go to Calgary? Is it prepared to go to Winnipeg? No, the expertise is centred here in Ottawa. That is the Conservative view which indicates very clearly that after four years in power the arrogance of Ottawa has taken over what used to be at least some clear thinking in some parts of the Conservative Party.
It is regrettable that that last perspective should have been put forward, not by a back-bencher who somehow got caught up in the great enjoyments of the capital city, but by a Parliamentary Secretary, in fact one from the West, who is supposed to be able to reflect the Government's views.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for questions and comments has expired.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion that the committee be allowed to travel. The Member brings up the issue of democracy. We have witnessed for several months now continued attempts by the tyranny of the minority. The Member talks about visiting the country and representing constituents. Every
single Member sitting across the way comes from a riding in which the majority of the people say yes to free trade.


Nelson Andrew Riis: False, absolutely false.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The New Democratic Party represents union bosses from a few very strong unions in this country. They do not represent the people of this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's false, it's not true.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: When the election comes they will find out. We should have a going away party for the NDP Members in this Chamber because they are not coming back, and that is because they are not playing square with the Canadian people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Absolutely false.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They have lost their roots, those Prairie roots in which the movement began which was in touch with the small people of this nation. Now they represent the rich union bosses who drive Cadillacs. That is the view they express in this Chamber day after day.
They talk about dinosaurs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're one.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A lot of people in this caucus are proud to be dinosaurs. That is the emblem for the football team of the university where I come from. Dinosaurs are important to our history. Dinosaurs died on behalf of the oil industry a long time ago. Without the dinosaurs we would not have the oil and the energy potential we do have.
The New Democratic Party reminds me of another animal. It is spelled s-l-o-t-h. A sloth sleeps a lot and hangs upside down by its tail. It looks at the world from an upside down point of view. That is what the NDP is all about. It looks at the world upside down. The modern world is passing it by.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Have you checked the polls recently, Jim?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This House has approved, in two separate ways and on two separate occasions, the idea of the trade deal. After four years we need to explain it to them. The vote in favour on second reading is agreement in principle with the proposed legislation.


David Orlikow: Be honest for a change. Tell us how you closed up the House by ringing the bells for 16 days.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is behind us, Madam Speaker. This House and the elected people, of whom I am one, have approved the free trade agreement and approved this legislation in principle. The committee's job is to examine the fine print.


David Orlikow: Tell the truth.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Does the fine print accord with the agreement?
July 13, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're afraid of the people, Jim. Admit it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is the job of the committee. New Democratic Members want it to go visiting. It would be lovely for committee members to visit Victoria, it is beautiful in Victoria. Let's go to P.E.I. and eat lobster. Let's go to Newfoundland and take a tour on a boat.
We were sent here to do a job, not to fly around the country in airplanes spending taxpayers' dollars on fancy meals, but to sit here, eat our sandwiches at suppertime, and do the job. That is what we were sent here to do and this Party will make sure that we do it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Fifty million dollars on Conservative propaganda on the trade deal.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You can't have a vacation 365 days a year travelling around the world. You have to settle down and do some work from time to time.
The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) moved the motion that the committee travel on July 7, six days ago. Overwhelmingly the committee members said no.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of course, they're all Tories. Tories don't move.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If I spend eight hours flying to Calgary and back I cannot hear witnesses, pay attention to the fine print, and make the decisions which have to be made. If I fly off to Newfoundland it will take another day or two. The NDP wants to stop the Government from implementing the will of the Canadian people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You couldn't be further from the truth.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Canadians want jobs and better paying jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Prime Minister Mulroney campaigned against the trade deal.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We were elected four years ago on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. One and a quarter million jobs later they are telling us that everything we do is wrong.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You can't trust the Tories.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They have been saying it ever since the first Budget.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You can't trust the Prime Minister.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The people in the gallery should know that when they say we are wrong it is the best evidence that we are right. Every time they say we are wrong more jobs are created in the Canadian economy and more people have money to spend to put better food on the table and obtain better accommodation, better transportation, and a chance to take a vacation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're a joke, Jim.
Motions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Party stands for equality for all Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The people of Canada know you can't trust the Prime Minister. He was against the trade deal.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Party stands for equality for all Canadians. The government Members in this House are sick and tired of the filibuster tactics which is what the motion was today is. The legislation is in committee and members are working on it this very moment while this House is debating whether they should go on a jaunt to Victoria or maybe up to the Yukon. There is a lot of good fishing up in the Yukon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're a whiner.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Our Members say that we should do the job which Canadians sent us here to do, that we should get through the legislation on the Table. We want to get those kinds of things done on behalf of the Canadian people and then go to the Canadian people and seek a mandate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're scared to go to the people now, Jim. Admit it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, when the Opposition looks at the world upside down it comes to the conclusion that we are scared.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you stood upside down you'd look a lot better.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Their behaviour tells us that they are scared. Every moment of delay is because they are afraid of the voters' judgment.


David Orlikow: Call the election tomorrow.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They are afraid by how satisfied Canadian people are with the work of the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Have you not read a single poll in the last four years?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They know how much it has meant to the standard of living of Canadians. They would like to keep us here forever. They would like to filibuster forever.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it gives to me great pleasure to tell this House in the clearest terms possible that it is time to get on with the business of the nation. I ask for the support of all Members of this House and their approval of the following motion:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.
The filibuster has to end.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member was speaking in the same debate in which I was speaking, and it seemed unlikely at some stages, it seems

July 13, 1988
Air Canada
that the same requirement to answer questions at the end of his speech should exist, whether or not he moves a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. However, the Hon. Member for Calgary West has put a motion before the House. I must put the question to the House immediately, as it is not debatable. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Valcourt Van De Walk Vincent White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Witer-78
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Gauthier	McDonaldAxworthy	Hopkins	(Broadview-Benjamin	Isabelle	Greenwood)Boudria	Jewett	MitchellCaccia	Kaplan	OrlikowCopps	Keeper	Parryde Corneille	Killens	Prud'hommeEpp	Langdon	Riis(Thunder Bay-	Manly	SkellyNipigon)	Marchi	Waddell-28
Finestone
Frith


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed [DOT] (noo) will please say nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.	motion carried. Orders of the Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Robert de Cotret (for the President of the Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the third time and passed.
	Members	
Attewell	Forrestall	MooreBelsher	Fraleigh	NicholsonBertrand	Girard	(Niagara Falls)Binns	Gormley	NickersonBlackburn	Gottselig	Nowlan(Jonquiere)	Greenaway	OberleBlenkarn	Halliday	O'NeilBourgault	Harvey	OostromBrowes	Hawkes	PennockCardiff	Holtmann	PlourdeChampagne	Jacques	Price(Champlain)	Jardine	ReidClinch	Jepson	ReimerCooper	Joncas	St-JulienCorbett	Kempling	ScottCossitt	Ladouceur	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crofton	Landry	SiddonDarling	Layton	StewartDaubney	Lewis	Tardifde Cotret	Mailly	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Malone	TaylorEdwards	Marin	ThackerEllis	Mayer	TowersEpp	Mazankowski	Tupper(Provencher)	McDermid	TurnerFennell Fontaine	Mitges	(Ottawa-Carleton)


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the Government, in particular the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Hon. Member from Vegreville, Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is a subject close to his heart and I think it is a feather in his cap that we have come this far through the process. It is also the first time in my nine years in the Parliament of Canada that I have been the recipient of one of our Standing Order rules.


An Hon. Member:: Nine is too long.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That rule allows me unlimited time. The temptation is absolutely enormous. There are so many things that I would like to say, but I will attempt to keep my comments relatively brief, and hopefully the House will see its way clear to follow that example and move along-


An Hon. Member:: It won't. I guarantee that.
July 13, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is really impossible for the Chair to hear the Hon. Member. The Chair would appreciate it if the House were to quieten down. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you for the intervention, Madam Speaker. I could get louder, as Members know, but I would much prefer your solution of a quieter House so that we could have perhaps more of a reasonable debate.
Members will know that this Government has made a lot of changes in Canada in the last four years, and not the least of those was the passage of the new National Transportation Act which we passed in 1987 in this House. That Act eased the economic regulation of the industry and permitted greater reliance on market forces as the context in which airlines should operate.
It is true that that kind of increased opportunity system for the private sector is of great benefit to consumers. Those of us who fly back and forth to Ottawa from western points with some frequency can indeed attest to the reality that the service today is better and more frequent. We have more options, and prices indeed are competitive.

These changes lead to a restructuring of the air transportation industry, which consisted of a single national airline, a few regional carriers and several local carriers.
Hon. Members are well aware that today, our country enjoys the services of two national carriers, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. The two airlines operate on the same principle: they both have regional and local partners and alliance carriers that provide small communities with greater frequency of service.
In addition, Wardair, a company from Alberta, is becoming a strong competitor, both on the domestic market and on international routes.
As for those who maintained that regulatory reform and changes in ownership would bring about a drop in both quality and quantity of service, I would merely refer them to some very revealing statistics. Between 1984 and 1987, for example, weekly scheduled domestic departures across Canada rose from 6,200 to 9,300, an increase of 50 per cent.

In today's modern world-and earlier this day I spoke about the Opposition and their inability sometimes to comprehend a modern world-there are 17 major national carriers, and I say major national carriers in terms of their fleet size. I think we can proudly say that Air Canada is one of those 17 national carriers. In that group, only three of the major carriers in the world today are totally state-owned. What are the three? Before we pass this Bill, Air Canada is one of them. The second one is Aeroflot, the Russian state-owned airline. The third one is CAAC, the airline of the People's Republic of China.
Air Canada
It is time that we got out of the business, as other nations have done before us, of having a major airline carrier totally state-owned. It is time to join the modern world, as other nations such as Great Britain, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain and Australia have done or are in the process of doing. In the commitment to safety, which some suggest may have been compromised or may be compromised by this Bill, that kind of complaint simply does not hold water.
The Aeronautics Act, 1985, is another major achievement of this Government. It is further demonstrated that expenditures on air transportation infrastructure, including safety equipment and program expenditures have almost tripled over the last decade in response to initiatives of that kind.
Public participation in the ownership of Air Canada will have no effect-may I repeat that, Madam Speaker, no effect-on the framework of safety laws and regulations which apply with equal force to all air carriers operating in this country, whether we are talking about major air carriers or small air carriers.

Madam Speaker, since the last Liberal Government passed the Air Canada Act, 1977, under which Air Canada was to operate on a commercial basis, the Corporation has always been guided by this principle in purchasing equipment. In fact, from its early beginnings fifty-one years ago, Air Canada has always purchased the kind of aircraft that was best suited to the type of work it was asked to do.
Initially, Madam Speaker, privatization will give Air Canada the freedom it needs to respond quickly and effectively to market demand, without being subject to the constraints and formalities of the Financial Administration Act. Furthermore, the Corporation will have access to the same venture capital markets as its competitors.
Public participation means that Air Canada will be able to compete with other carriers on an equal footing. According to the Canadian Consumers Association, this can only enhance the quality of service offered to Canadian travellers.

Air Canada's employees have indicated their support for this initiative too. It will give them the opportunity to share in the ownership of their own company. The interest on their part is probably the best assurance Canadians have that the people who work for the company, who believe in the company, would like to participate in the ownership of it.
According to studies carried out both by Air Canada management and the Air Canada employee ownership committee, representative of a broad cross-section of employees all the way from the machine shop floor to the executive suite, employees support the opportunity to buy

July 13, 1988
Air Canada
shares in the company. It is not something that just executives are interested in-


David Orlikow: No membership, no list, no organization.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -it is something in which every employee of Air Canada at every level is interested. They would like to be part of the ownership element and therefore, through their votes, part of the management element of the company. Perhaps the greatest strength of privatization is that Canadians have a real chance to participate in the affairs of these companies which so dramatically affect their lives. It is not a time for politicians to tell them how to run their companies, it is a time for employees to participate in that way.
It is also important to reassure Canadians and this House that the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and some of the advances that we have made in worker safety and so on will continue to apply to the privatized company. Nothing in that area is changed. The collective agreements that have been negotiated historically remain in force. The safeguards under the strengthened Pension Benefit Standards Act will ensure that employees' interests in Air Canada's pension plans will not be jeopardized. The workplace that employees have enjoyed, their benefits and the future they are looking forward to is all ensured with the additional opportunity to buy shares and participate in that fashion.
Air Canada is committed to meeting its pension obligations under the Act and in relation to the contractual obligations it has with employees. The legislation also clearly specifies that Montreal's status as the headquarters of Air Canada is fully protected-we are not into a regional fight here-as are the operational and overhaul facilities in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg. Those facilities exist in those locations because it makes sense. The legislation is helpful in making sure that that situation remains. The President of Air Canada himself has said that the Winnipeg base, something dear to the heart of western Canadians, is very efficient, it is doing good work and it is doing it in a location where it needs to be done. It makes common sense to have that facility in that location, and it will continue there. It makes a profit. With worker participation at the ownership level, perhaps profits will go up.
The legislation offers the opportunity for all Canadians to participate directly in the future of the airline. It is every individual's right to make an individual investment decision, the right to buy and sell shares and the right to vote on decisions affecting Air Canada as long as shares are held. They have that right with Wardair and Canadian Airlines International. Now they will have that right with Air Canada, a desirable consequence.
We want as a Government to make sure that the shares are widely held, that they do not fall into the hands of a small group of people, and that they stay in Canadian hands. This legislation specifies restrictions on the ownership of shares, and I think that makes sense. No one can own more than 10 per
cent of the shares. Total non-resident ownership is being restricted to no more than 25 per cent of issued voting shares.
We talked earlier this day about the committee on free trade. Committees do good work in this Chamber. We have had many amendments to the language Bill, many amendments to the environmental protection Bill and many amendments to the refugee Bill. The committee on this Bill chose to amend Clause 6 for greater certainty to make that condition apply explicitly to each and every meeting of Air Canada's shareholders. In the future, non-residents will never be able to out-vote Canadian interests or Canadian shareholders. Their votes would be cast on a prorated basis and can never represent more than 25 per cent of votes cast. That is quite an achievement, and we thank the committee for that good work.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, public participation in the growth and development of Air Canada is in the interests of the Corporation, its employees, the air transportation industry and the entire country.
Madam Speaker and Hon. Members, I want to thank you for your attention.

It is time to pass the Bill and get it to the Senate. I hope Members will be brief.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to the comments just made by the Parliamentary Secretary with his mellifluous voice and following a prepared text he was trying-


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because the first speaker in the Opposition has unlimited time, and as I am the critic-although I do not want to forgo the time of my hon. friend., the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-I am sure that he would want me to have the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I am glad to defer to my colleague and follow him in debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for making life a lot easier for the Speaker. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I just want to reply to a couple of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He welcomed to the modern world the privatization of Air Canada. If that welcome to the modern world and that privatization put us in the position of other countries dealing with totally privatized and deregulated airline services, then that is not the modern world. That is a regressive world.
July 13, 1988

If welcome to the modern world of privatization and deregulation means seats closer together, planes not maintained to the standard to which we have been accustomed in Canada, flights cancelled at the last minute, flight delays, crew lay-offs, improperly trained crews, no services on the flights, if that is the modern world to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers, then I do not think Canadians would want that modern world. But that is the world that will be created in air transportation if this government Bill gets through.
We have in Canada an outstanding airline service. Why do we have such good service? It is because we have three major airlines, Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International and Wardair. Two of them are private companies. Only Air Canada is a public company. Because Air Canada is a public company, it is regulated by the Government of Canada. It is told to be fair to the travelling public of Canada, and it provides a good service.
It may cost a little more to provide this good service. It may cost a little more to make sure that the maintenance is at the level to which the Government feels Canadians are entitled. At least the former Liberal Government felt that that was the level of maintenance to which Canadians were entitled. It is obvious that this Government does not feel the same way.
If the regulations that are now imposed on Air Canada because it is a public company are taken away, then Air Canada will not only diminish its standards in maintenance, service, employment and training but the other airlines will do so as well. They will then all have a free ticket to reduce service. They will all give equally poor service and will be able to save money. That is what has happened in other countries.
We do not have to imagine what will happen, we need only look at what has happened in other countries to see what it is the Canadian public will have to bear in the years to come if we privatize Air Canada in a deregulated airline industry. The terrible two, privatization and deregulation, will scuttle the ideas, objectives and standards Canadians want to maintain and believe they are entitled to.
The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the committee doing good work. I have been a Member of Parliament for nine years and I have never been part of such a disgraceful exhibition on the part of the Government as was the case with the legislative committee which studied this particular Bill. We told the witnesses who wanted to be heard that they all had to appear on one day. The people of Canada were restricted to one day to voice their objections to this Bill.
Is this not a transportation Bill? Is it not a Bill dealing with Air Canada? Was Air Canada not brought into being 51 years ago because Canada is a wide, diverse country with people living thousands of miles apart? We thought that only a public airline could provide the level of transportation service to which we felt the Canadian public was entitled. Is this not why Air Canada was brought in? Yet the committee did not travel.
Air Canada
The people in the metropolitan corridors will certainly suffer, but it is the people from the smaller regions of Canada who will really suffer as a result of this privatization, yet the committee did not travel. It did not allow these people to testify before it.
We finished debating the Bill on a Thursday and the committee hearings started on Monday. The hearings were over within eight days and only one day was given for the people of Canada to testify before the committee. If a witness could not be there that one day, that witness could not testify.
This is fine for Members of Parliament. I suppose we were inconvenienced a great deal, but we had second and third reading stages for speeches and we had report stage for amendments. However, the people of Canada had no other opportunity to speak to this regressive legislation than in the legislative committee. The legislative committee provided their one opportunity to speak to Members of Parliament and to testify to how they disagree with this Bill. Yet the Government told the people of Canada from Sydney, from Vancouver Island, and from Cape Breton Island that one day is all they had if they wanted to testify.
Even if we had applications for a large number of witnesses, that did not matter. We pruned the list to the extent that if it had been a tree, all we would have had left was a stump. The leaves, the branches and everything would have gone. The people of Canada were denied their opportunity to speak.
I would like to give an example of the sentiment that exists on this particular issue. Transport 2000 said in a letter to the Chairman of the legislative committee the following:
I am gravely disappointed by the decision of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-129 to schedule only one day to receive and hear witnesses on a subject of national significance: the issue and sale of Air Canada shares. With its distinguished contribution to national development and prominent position in the transportation industry, Air Canada is clearly the most notable crown corporation in the current parliamentary session to be slated for privatization. By selecting witnesses from exclusive airline management, organized labor and academic circles, the Legislative Committee overlooked Air Canada's most important constituency-the travelling public.
Indeed, the legislative committee did overlook the most important source, the Canadian travelling public. Yet it was the Government's decision to hear witnesses on only one day. As a result, Canadians did not have the opportunity to make their presentation.
Why are we here? Why are we debating this Bill? Why do we want to mess around with our airline industry? What is the big need to privatize Air Canada? What will be achieved?
We are allowing some executives and others to increase their salaries, perhaps. We are allowing the private sector to invest in Air Canada. The Bill provides that 75 per cent of the shares to be purchased have to be purchased by Canadians since only 25 per cent of the shares can be held by non-residents. Is that what we are trying to achieve? No, it cannot possibly be because Canadians already own Air Canada. Canadians from coast to coast own Air Canada. We are not giving shares of Air Canada to the public because the public already owns it.

July 13, 1988
Air Canada
Why are we doing this? Is it because we want to reduce the number of Air Canada's domestic flights? Do we want to do that? Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to reduce the number of Air Canada's domestic flights and increase international flights? I am sure the pilots would certainly be interested in that. Air Canada has excellent pilots, but they can demand a higher salary if there are more international flights and fewer domestic flights. However, do members of the Canadian public want that? Why would anyone want flights cancelled?
What happens when flights are cancelled? One of two things happens. If Air Canada cancels a flight, it might not be replaced. Perhaps it will be replaced by one of the feeder airlines which fly Dash-8s, very nice planes which give a great frequency of service. Of course, however, they will not be run by Air Canada employees, and the employees who work for the feeder airlines will certainly not get the same kind of salaries as Air Canada employees. That is part of the plan: take away Air Canada service, put on feeder airline service, hire new employees and pay them less. That is the idea. Save money.
What about service to the public? If that is the idea, what about Halifax? There are no gates for the feeder airlines there. You have to walk downstairs and the planes are lined up like ducks on a pond. You do not know which plane is which because they all look alike, but someone gratuitously tells you which flight is yours. Then when you are going out the door, you are told to wait, a flight somewhere else is going to be leaving now and you cannot go. You have to go and sit down. However, the catch is that there are only four seats at that end of the terminal in Halifax. Four seats.
Atlantic Canada, as you probably know, has its health services centred mainly in the City of Halifax. Most of the major hospitals in Atlantic Canada are located there. Many people from my area of Cape Breton go to the Victoria General Hospital and others for whatever reason. When they are well enough to go home they book an airline flight. There they are, ready at the gate to take their flight, and what are they told? They have to go and sit down. Yet there are no seats. Someone may have been in the hospital for two weeks or a month, but they have to stand there for 15 or 20 minutes sometimes while the other plane taxis away and their plane starts to board. Is that why we do not want Air Canada's service? Is that why we want to privatize Air Canada?
To make it very simple and not belabour the point, there is no reason to privatize Air Canada. There may be a few people with vested interests who have reasons to privatize Air Canada, but the Canadian public does not have a reason. Once it is privatized, its standards will drop. Standards in other countries where privatization has taken place have dropped and once it happens to Air Canada, it will happen to other airlines. It will be the equivalent to sawing the legs off a table. Air Canada's standards drop, those of other airlines drop, and
gradually all the legs on the table are gone. That is what is going to happen.
Yet the Government tells us we must have privatization. Air Canada needs a mandate. This Party believes that Air Canada should remain a wholly government-owned airline. In 1977 the Liberal Government proposed and Parliament approved the Air Canada Act under which the corporation now operates. That was in response to the recommendations made by the Estey Commission of Inquiry. That special inquiry was set up to deal with this question. One of the most prominent jurists in the history of Canada headed the commission. The commission's recommendation was the Air Canada Act, not privatization.
In essence, the commission proposed that Air Canada be given the legal and corporate structure, the flexibility and financing to operate on a commercial basis and on the same footing as its competitors in Canada and abroad. That is perfectly reasonable. As a result, Air Canada was refinanced with a debt/equity ratio equivalent to other North American airlines. It was split off from Canadian National and given its own Act. The Government used the Canada Business Corporations Act as a model.
The new Act admonished directors and officers to conduct the business affairs of Air Canada with prudence, diligence and in the contemplation of profit. The Government would have us believe that the directors and officers are not operating the company in that way. We are told it has to be privatized and in a position where it can compete with other airlines. Yet in 1977 Air Canada was placed on a commercial footing with a clear arm's length relationship to the Government. We do not need privatization to obtain that situation because it exists at present.
Let me turn once again to something else that has transpired. In 1984 the Liberal Government brought forward Bill C-24. It was passed by Parliament and now forms Part XII of the Financial Administration Act. One of the changes made through that Bill was a requirement that any acquisition or divestiture of a Crown corporation had to be approved explicitly by Parliament. In reviewing the committee's testimony and the debates on this matter there is no question in my mind that this requirement was imposed not only to ensure that Parliament's approval for privatization was sought, but also for the method, structure and detail of the privatization.
That being the case, we find Bill C-129 lacking. It is a travesty. The information we need is just not there. This Bill is just a few pages long. To say that we should amend the Act is a very nice thought, but when we go to amend it, it is not the equivalent of putting your finger in the dike, it is the equivalent of trying to keep out the tide. That is how big the gaping hole is with respect to the information we should have.
We do not know how the privatization is going to take place. We do not know who is going to make the decisions. The Minister responsible told us in his press release that only 45
July 13, 1988

per cent of the shares of Air Canada were going to be sold. The Government was going to hold the other 55 per cent. Yet there is nothing in this Act that tells us that that will be the case. It is ludicrous for us to deal with a Bill which contains so little information on such a very important subject.
Now I go to some of the amendments that we want to put forward. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned an amendment to Clause 6 which this Party proposed and which was adopted in committee. I am very pleased about that. It takes the question of the ownership of Air Canada one step further. The Act did contain a provision that only 25 per cent of the shares of Air Canada could be owned by non-residents. This Party was concerned about what would happen if there was an annual or general meeting of the company and the 25 per cent non-residents formed over 50 per cent of the shareholders present. That would mean that non-residents would have a majority and their thinking would prevail.
This is not a precedent because the Government put this in Bill C-121, the Bill to provide for the eventual privatization of Eldorado Nuclear and its merger with the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. The provision is that of the non-resident shares voted, a maximum of 25 per cent could be applied to non-residents. That protects the residents of Canada at meetings of the corporation.
A couple of other amendments were proposed to Section 6 which are very important and which the Government should have brought forward but, unfortunately, did not. One had to do with competition. There are so many things about this Bill which concern me.
One of the things which concerns me the most is that if we privatize Air Canada we will have three private companies. We look to the situation in Great Britain where there was more than one national airline. Before the privatization of British Airways, it reduced its staff by 23,000. After British Airways was privatized, it purchased British Caledonia Airways. There is now in Britain one national airline, British Airways. In Canada we have three.
If we privatize Air Canada, we are protected, of course, by certain sections of the National Transportation Act, to a certain degree, because it contains a great deal of discretion. One of the competitors of Air Canada is Canadian Airlines International. Canadian Airlines International was formed because Pacific Western Airlines purchased Canadian Pacific. That was done because Canadian Pacific could not purchase Pacific Western Airlines due to the fact that Pacific Western Airlines was formed under the statutes of the Province of Alberta which require a certain share structure in Pacific Western Airlines. Therefore, Pacific Western Airlines was required to purchase Canadian Pacific. That is how Canadian Airlines International was formed.
Air Canada
What happens if that statute in Alberta is amended at the request of Canadian Airlines International? That is conceivable. Alberta is a separate jurisdiction and has the right to make whatever decisions its wants. It can change that statute at any time. In addition, there are no restrictions on Wardair.
Therefore, even with the protection which exists to some extent in the statutes of Alberta and under the National Transportation Act, there is still a strong possibility that through mergers and buy-outs we could end up with only one airline in this country. If that happens the service will be closer to standing in the aisle holding on to a strap than to the level of service we enjoy from our airlines at this time. This must be protected.
This Party presented only two amendments, but they zeroed in on this particular subject. We wanted changes in this, but the Government would not agree to the amendment. I leave it to the Canadian public and to the other place which will be debating this Bill to deal with this shortfall on this very important issue.
Second, Section 6 says that a maintenance base is to be maintained in Winnipeg and that the head office is to be maintained in Montreal. However, there is nothing which actually requires that. This is supposedly looked after by the Canada Business Corporations Act. I do not think it is. The Government states that it is satisfied that the protection continues to exist.
The Government has not only made a very drastic error in privatization but absolutely refuses to modify its mistakes, even upon suggestion. That indicates to me that this is a headlong desire by the Government to plunge the national airline into privatization for none other than political reasons and to meet the strange doctrine of the Progressive Conservative Party.
What other reasons have we heard for this? The Government tells us that Air Canada needs privatization in order to have the flexibility its competitors enjoy. What better flexibility for an airline than to be a Crown corporation, to have the Government looking after the airline and being concerned about the travelling public? It may not be better for some vested interests, but how could it be better for the Canadian public than to have the Government looking after the airline? Because of the competition in this country, which may not continue if the privatization goes through, the Canadian public knows when it flies that we have airline standards and service as good as any in the world. Yet the Government says that Air Canada needs more flexibility. What is needed, of course, is for the Government to have some flexibility and some consideration in looking at the problem it will be creating.
On the other hand, the Government says that if it retains Air Canada it will give an unfair advantage to Air Canada's competitors. That is incredible. Air Canada has been in operation for 51 years. It was the first major airline to operate in Canada. Its competitors came afterward. The competitors which entered the field in competition with Air Canada knew

July 13, 1988
Air Canada
what they were getting themselves into when they went into business. Air Canada was here first with the interests of the Canadian travelling public at heart.
The Government says that Air Canada will not be able to raise money on the open market if it is not privatized. Since 1973 Canada has only had a deficit in two years. It made $40 million last year while maintaining the standards of convenience and safety for the travelling public expected by the Government of Canada.
From the time the Government was elected in September of 1984 it intended to privatize Air Canada. It has not put one cent back into the airline. It has allowed Air Canada's fleet to deteriorate for four years hoping that the need for aircraft would convince the travelling public that the private sector should look after this cost. Much of the problem has been created because the Government was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public by not looking after the state of the airline during its four-year mandate.
I admit that for every year that goes by it becomes more necessary for Air Canada to acquire new planes. We agree with its statement that new planes are required and that it needs a downpayment of $300 million. Is it not strange that the sale price of the 45 per cent of the shares announced by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was just about $300 million? It is incredible to think that the reason the Government is selling Air Canada is to acquire the downpayment for new airplanes.
The Government is not listening to Canadians. It was not following the amendments of the Financial Administration Act, 1984. It is not following the recommendations of the Estey Commission, or reading the provisions of the Air Canada Act.
The Air Canada Act was brought into effect in 1977 to recapitalize Air Canada. Air Canada can certainly buy new planes with some government assistance, part of its equity and part of its borrowing capacity. If public utilities like Ontario Hydro and Quebec Hydro can raise money when they have a total debt of $50 billion, why can Air Canada not do the same? The Government would rather privatize Air Canada in order to raise the $300 million the company needs for a downpayment on airplanes.
Air Canada has made the industry as good as it is today because it set the standard. A reduction in those standards will be a great loss to this country.
This privatization does not make sense. Last year, the priorities and planning committee of Cabinet decided, after meeting in western Canada, that Air Canada would be privatized. Air Canada was prepared for the decree, but at the last minute Cabinet decided not to privatize. The market was
stronger last year than it is right now, yet Air Canada was not privatized. This year, when the market is lower, the Government decides to privatize Air Canada. We will not get the same amount for the shares. In whose interest is the Government operating?
According to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, the Government will sell 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada, while its 55 per cent majority shareholding will be voted in accordance with the majority of the 45 per cent. This means that rather than a majority in public shares, 23 per cent of the private shares of Air Canada will be the majority.
It is purely a question of the Government's following its own political ideology. That should not be its priority. Should not the priority of the Government be the interest of Canadians, the interest of the smaller areas in the vast regions of this country?
Once Air Canada cuts back its jet service to those communities, the level of competition will decrease so that other airlines will reduce their service as well. The over-all standard of service in this country will decline.
I have already talked about the maintenance base in Winnipeg. While it is protected, we do not know how many people will be working there after privatization.
However, there is no assurance that the financial base in Winnipeg will be maintained. Hundreds of jobs may be lost in the financial centre if it is left unprotected. A private company would not have to give any consideration to public opinion.
There are six centres in Canada where the crews are based. They are Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. Many of the crews have families in those centres and have lived there for much if not all of their working lives. We do not know whether those six bases will be maintained.
If one of those bases is closed, those crews will have to move to other centres. While it is true that other people have had to move from their jobs, this is an example of the callousness of the Government in its lack of consideration about these questions.
One of the most irritating aspects that Canadians will feel about this privatization is that there may be only one reservation centre in Canada. Air Canada has already consolidated its reservation centres on a provincial basis and has only one reservation centre in the United States. With the computer technology available today, it is possible for Air Canada to establish one reservation centre in Canada so that no matter where one lives, one would have to call Toronto to make a reservation. We would not be able to speak to someone in our own area who may understand the problems related to flying from that region.
July 13, 1988


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, July 12, consideration of Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative commitee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof.
Call in the Members.
The question is on Motion No. 11 in the name of Mr. Langdon:
That Bill C-110 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 43 to 49 at page 11 and 1 to 4 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) In determining the question of injury under subsection (1), the Tribunal shall consider
(a)	all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual or potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, production, employment, wages and volume of other imports; and
(b)	Canada's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, in the case of textiles and apparel, under the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to have been a slight error of judgment on my part. When you called for support on this motion we in this Party certainly meant to oppose the motion, and we are prepared to do so on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Bill is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.26 p.m., pursuant to Order made June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, July 14, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers