1988-07-08

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has divided Bill C-103 into two Bills as Bill C-103 Part 1, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, and Bill C-103 Part 2, an Act to establish the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts and ...

... and that it has passed Bill C-103, Part I, without amendments.

For the benefit of Hon. Members, copies of the two parts of Bill C-103 are available at the table.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to address a brief point of order to the Message from the Senate. I advise the House that the Government, and I think every Member in the House, should take exception to the proceedings in the other place which are reflected in the message you just read.
First, the message which you have just put before us contains not the Bill that this House voted to send to the Senate but two Bills by virtue of the fact that the Senate split the Bill. To me, that means that there are two Bills originating in the Senate rather than one Bill being sent to the Senate and a reply being sent back addressing the one Bill.
There are financial provisions in the Bill that was sent to the Senate. I suggest that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to send Bills to us which have financial implications.
1 suggest that the Royal recommendation which was contained in the original Bill sent to the Senate has been breached by the Senate majority. I also suggest that the
Senate amendment to split the Bill, by not having an accompanying recommendation which is a constitutional impossibility, breaches our Standing Order 87 which states that the Commons alone can grant aids and supplies, not the Senate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in your position as our Speaker, to indicate in a ruling, if you will, your position on this matter. It is no longer hypothetical, it is very real. If you would do so, the minute you do so, we will then be guided by your wisdom and will be in a position to take action in the House.
That is the procedural argument. I cannot let this go without saying that I feel that it is not beneficial to Atlantic Canada to have the Senate interfering in this way. The Western Diversification Agency deals with four provinces and it was passed by the Senate as one piece of legislation. This piece of legislation deals with the Atlantic Provinces and the Senate is excluding one particular area. For that reason, we are unable to go ahead with the legislation.
I think that what the Senate has done is an affront to Atlantic Canada. It is an affront to the House of Commons. I think it is an affront to every taxpayer in Canada. I ask you, Sir, to rule on this as soon as you can.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the affront to which the Deputy House Leader referred has been made by the Government, not by the Senate. This Government tried to attach to a Bill that was to be primarily for the financing of important regional development projects in Atlantic Canada a portion that had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Bill for the development of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is for the development of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and should not involve any other subject. Yet the Government put in a completely separate section to do away with the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That was completely separate from what it wanted to achieve with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
This is an affront to Atlantic Canadians. The Government chose to put a rider on the financing of the projects that Atlantic Canada deserves. It said that if Atlantic Canada wants this Bill, then it has to do away with the development division of the corporation. That is not fair. The people of Atlantic Canada cannot accept that rider because it is devastating to an area that needs assistance most of all.

July 8, 1988
Message from the Senate
The Government said that if the development division is done away with another agency will pick up the slack. That is not the case. Yet the Government maintains this Bill should not be separated. The Bill has to be separated because it is two separate subjects. It is not a question of new financing for the development division provisions at all. We are doing away with that division. The Government is not providing something new, it is doing away with it.


Mr. Boyer:: It has already been passed as a single Bill in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask the Hon. Member to complete his remarks in a moment, but I want to make it very clear to Hon. Members and the watching public what I have been asked to do here. A Bill has gone from this place to the Senate. The Senate, for whatever reason, and it is not my place to comment on that, certainly not at the moment anyway, has decided to split that Bill. That, I understand, is historically speaking unusual to say the least. What I need to know from Hon. Members is their argument as to whether it is procedurally appropriate for the Senate to do so. I have been asked by the Government to comment on whether or not it is procedurally appropriate to accept a split Bill back from the Senate, and I would like some argument directed to those two points.
I am not saying at the moment I have any particular opinion on it one way or another except to say this is certainly something unusual. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys could perhaps help the Speaker.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly acceptable for the Senate to split this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What the Senate is saying is that it wants the people of Atlantic Canada to have the benefit of the provisions governing ACOA.


Patrick Boyer: What is your procedural argument in support of your position?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have the nincompoops howling, I am not going to be able to make the point that you want made.


Mr. Speaker:: Without necessarily accepting the description of the Hon. Member, I will ask other Hon. Members to be quiet and hear the Hon. Member out.
It seems to me that because the Bill originated in this place, the question of whether it should be accepted back as split by some other place is the issue I have to face. The substantive arguments, which I know are very important to Hon. Members on both sides, are not helping the Chair very much.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think essentially the principal point here is that there is nothing in this Bill which
has come back to the House that was not in it when it was passed by the House initially. Nothing.


Patrick Boyer: Then why split it?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Senate wanted to send back the provisions relating to the title of the Bill. The benefit intended under the Bill has not been changed in any sense. All the Senate has done is delete the portions related to the Cape Breton Development Corporation which have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of ACOA. Nothing whatsoever. It was a complete red herring. It was an attempt by the Government to try and piggyback the destruction of the development division of the corporation onto this Bill, believing that Atlantic Canada wants regional development assistance so much that they would accept the devastation of the corporation as well. It was a catch-22 situation that the Government tried to perpetrate on the people of Atlantic Canada.
The Senate is saying that we should call it what it is, a Bill for the development of ACOA, nothing more. The provisions governing the spirit of the Bill have not been violated. All that has been taken away is the clandestine aspect of the Government's intention to devastate the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sentiment of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) with respect to what the Senate is trying to do and the concerns that the people of Cape Breton have over the Government's ill-conceived move. Having said that, 1 must state that we cannot accept any move by the Senate to fundamentally alter legislation in a procedural way which destroys the ability of this House of Commons to make decisions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Despite the applause from across the way I am going to continue.
If the Senate is allowed to do this, we could be stuck with legislation in the future where the Senate has decided to split it into 15 or 20 or 30 different pieces in a way that would completely hamstring the House of Commons and democracy. I suggest to the Speaker that the Government should just move back to its original Bill, have the motion come back to the House, and then send it back to the Senate again.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, 1 could not agree more with my hon. friend from Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I am absolutely amazed my hon. friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) whose geographical base has obviously blinded him to any sense of reason. The House of Commons makes the laws. We democratically decide to put things in Bills or remove things from Bills. We had Bills here yesterday which did not find favour with all Members. This is the House of Commons and these things are done here. We do not go to the place down the hall
July 8, 1988

and hide behind the skirts of the Senator from "Lake Anno", or whatever you call that lake up there in Cape Breton. I am just absolutely shocked as a Nova Scotian that this could happen. I was hoping that the ACOA legislation would be in place before the bureaucracy and administration has to close down and thus put in jeopardy many of the applications which will provide jobs in Atlantic Canada. That is what will happen if the Senate keeps playing tic-tac-toe with Bills from this House, especially this Bill.
I have the highest respect for my hon. friend from Cape Breton personally, but for him to stand here on a Friday morning and suggest that the Senate can do anything with the Bills that this democratically elected place sends it and then hide behind the skirts of the Leader of the Liberal majority, the Senator from "Lake Anno", was too much. I could not believe my ears.
Obviously the Hon. Member for Churchill is completely correct. We do not accept something back from the Senate in a half-baked way. Let MacEachen play his little games. His myopia over Devco has put in jeopardy the whole ACOA program for Atlantic Canada and even he should not be able to get away with it and we should not condone it for one more minute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to supporting the Hon. Senator from the other place up by the lake, but 1 certainly would not want to support the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who, as evidenced by his arguments, is up the creek.
The arguments of the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants go to the very foundation of the Parliament and the Constitution of this country. When the Constitution was first developed it called for two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate. The Senate was set up to look after the regions of this country. The seats in the Senate were allotted in accordance with the regions of the country.
There is no better example of the Senate acting in the interests of a region of this country than the Bill which we are presently discussing. To say that the Senate cannot split this Bill is to say that the Senate cannot act for the regions of the country and that the Senate and Senators from Atlantic Canada cannot act for Atlantic Canada. To say so would be in violation of the Constitution of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask the Hon. Member to assist the Chair further. Is the Hon. Member saying that having split the Bill, as the Senate has apparently done, this House must accept it in the split form? Is that the suggestion?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that this House does not necessarily have to accept the second portion.
Message from the Senate
However, I submit that the House should accept the portion which has been returned to the House because it is in complete agreement and complete fidelity with the intention of the Government in proposing this Bill initially.
The Government presented this Bill in order to set up the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That has not changed. The provisions relating to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have not changed one iota. All the provisions which the House passed have been returned intact by the Senate. The intention of Bill C-103 was to provide the vehicle for the operation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and that has not been changed.
What has been taken out of the Bill is the clandestine attempt by the Government to jeopardize and devastate the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which was not the original intention of the Bill. That is not a fundamental principle of this Bill.
Whether the House should accept the second portion, if there is a second portion returned to the House, remains to be seen. That depends upon the content of that second portion, upon whether that second portion relates to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. We will not know that until we see that second portion. However, this portion is in complete agreement with what the Government intended when it presented this Bill to the House of Commons and I think it should be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by reflecting on your own suggestion to Members of the House that this was a matter of process and procedure, that is to say, we have to be certain that the proper procedure was followed in the House and in the Senate in dealing with the Bill approved by the House of Commons. I will address that point and then indicate how it reflects on other points.
When the Bill was before the House of Commons Members of this House, including the Members in the Liberal Opposition, and especially the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), had the opportunity to seek the approval of the House for any amendment they wanted to make to the Bill. If Members of the Opposition in the House of Commons, or indeed government Members, thought the Bill dealt with two separate matters, thought the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ought to be separated, they could have taken the appropriate action. If they had taken such action it would have been voted upon. The answer would have been given in this House of Commons and the House of Commons would have spoken on the matter.
The House of Commons, having approved the Bill in that form, having decided that it dealt with one and the same matter and was in proper form, presented it to the Senate. What right do the people in the other place have to say to this House of Commons: "You have done the wrong thing, you

July 8, 1988
Message from the Senate
have not followed proper procedure, you have not followed the processes of Parliament"?
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, those in the other place do not have that right under any statute of which I am aware, including and especially the Constitution of Canada. They are exercising a political judgment which is not given to them to exercise by the Constitution of Canada. I am as shocked as is my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys would endorse that political action by the Senate of Canada.
He sought the vote of the people of Cape Breton. His colleague, the bard of Lake Ainslie, did not. He elected not to seek the vote of the people of Cape Breton to send him to the House of Commons. He opted to accept an appointment to the Senate of Canada. Yet, he still wants to govern and influence policies of this House of Commons from that place. It is time he was exposed.
You have to deal with processes and procedures and with the technicalities, Mr. Speaker, but you should know that behind this is the ill motive of people in the other place who seek to undo the work of this House of Commons. They seek to destroy the initiative of the Government in developing the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and a similar agency for industrial development on the Island of Cape Breton. They are jealous of that initiative and seek to destroy it. They are hiding behind technicalities which you, Mr. Speaker, must reject out of hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys for a final reply.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my friend from Halifax West, the Senate is not seeking to destroy anything. The Senate is taking the provisions of this Bill which relate to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and putting them in a Bill which relates to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and does not include other subjects. It is putting in a separate Bill the subjects which were inappropriately and wrongfully included in this Bill, those subjects relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
We have seen in the portion of the Bill that has been returned to the House that the sections relating to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have not been changed, amended, or in any way misconstrued. How can that possibly be construed as changing the Bill? It has merely put it in the form in which it should have been originally.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether, through you, I could pose a question to my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys who says that there has been no change, that they have just divided the Bill. The Member fully appreciates the state of this House and fully knows what happens to Bills when Houses are dissolved.
We have been thrown back from the Senate and Lake Ainslie a Bill which has split the two functions of one Bill
which we have democratically passed. That will cause delay in getting the Bill concluded, passed, and proclaimed in order that we will have a legislative framework to do what the bureaucrats are doing now and which is being put in greater jeopardy the longer it remains without a legislative framework. If we move on one part of the Bill and leave the other half alone and this House dissolves, does the Hon. Member not believe that could result in a fundamental legislation change?
If the Bill is divided to deal separately with Cape Breton Corporation and ACOA, and the House dissolves, the legislation will be fundamentally dead. My friend is trying to pretend that that is not a fundamental change to a Bill that was passed by a majority of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Ordinarily, the Chair probably would not extend this discussion any longer, even though a very experienced and much respected Member has asked to put a question to another Member through the Chair. However, this is a unique and very interesting point. I will exercise my discretion and hear the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, but very briefly.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your latitude in this matter. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has asked a very important question. The answer is straightforward.
The Government presented a Bill to set up and structure the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Senate studied this Bill and considered the intent of the Government to set up this agency. It took that portion of the Bill relating to the agency, dealt with it very quickly and returned it for consideration of this House as fast as I think could possibly be expected.
The Government wants to set up the agency. Presumably, it wants to help regional development in Atlantic Canada. It now has the portion of the Bill that will accomplish that. Nothing has been taken from the Bill that would frustrate the Government's wishes in that regard.
I think the Senate has acted responsibly. We will adjourn shortly for the summer and the Senate has given us that portion for passage. I think it has acted very responsibly.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I served on the committee that travelled throughout the East Coast of Canada. We went to St. John's, Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Halifax, Summerside and New Brunswick. Throughout all the meetings, one Liberal showed up in St. John's, Newfoundland, to hear from people of St. John's. We went to Cape Breton. One Liberal-


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for South West Nova may be relating events exactly as they occurred, but I think I am
July 8, 1988

anticipating the point of order of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys when I say that I must point out that that is going beyond the procedural matters I have to consider.
I will consider this matter very carefully. I believe there are several issues I have to consider. One is whether or not it is even for the Speaker of the House of Commons to rule on what takes place in the Senate. The second is to look carefully at the obligations of the Speaker in a case like this with respect to the integrity of legislation which is passed in this place and leaves here for the Senate. I will be considering carefully the implications of a situation in which it was acceptable for the Senate to split Bills that leave this place after the Government and this place have decided to deal with them in the form in which they were presented.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has put forth a vigorous argument on the substantive aspects of the situation. Those are arguments that no doubt took place here and may take place again if this place is considering the Bill further.
However, I have to consider the procedural implications of what the Senate is trying to do.
The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants raises a very interesting aspect. It is one thing for the Senate to split a Bill in half, but if it can split a Bill into pieces and this House has to deal with it in that form, the effect on the time that would be taken is, of course, clearly evident.
Those are matters that I shall consider. I will return as quickly as I can to try to give some guidance to the House. I thank all Members for their interventions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 7, consideration of 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, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee, and on the motions of Mr. Orlikow:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 27 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"those votes to not more than five".
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 18 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of the Corporation up to a maximum of forty-five per cent of voting shares".
Air Canada
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that we are debating Motions Nos. 2 and 7. I will recognize Members for debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 2 and 7. There is no doubt that Canadians want a national airline. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knew that before the last election when he said that Air Canada was not for sale. The drafters of this Bill also knew that is what Canadians wanted because the Bill only allows 55 per cent of the shares to be sold.
However, the Government is using smoke and mirrors and trying to play a shell game with Canadians. While the Government will keep 55 per cent of the shares, it will vote in accordance with the wishes of the 45 per cent private shareholders. Furthermore, 25 per cent of those private shares could be controlled by foreigners, leaving a real possibility that Air Canada could be controlled by foreigners.
Consequently, Motion No. 2 seeks to establish that foreign ownership of Air Canada shares be limited to 5 per cent rather than 25 per cent. The Government has only mentioned 45 per cent, and Motion No. 7 would require the Government to put that figure in the legislation so that we know what it means.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

July 8, 1988
Air Canada
The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Mlembers: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 14(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next two motions are numbers 3 and 5. They will be voted on separately. May I have consent that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) can move the motions for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (for Mr. Orlikow) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"sauga, which centres shall maintain their staffing levels equal to those attained in the 1987-88 financial year; and".
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 37 on page 33 the following:
"(0 provisions specified that the six bases for Air Canada flight attendants at Montreal, Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto be maintained with the staffing levels of each equal to those of the 1987-88 financial year as a minimum standard."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is possible by consent to add the word Vancouver in Motion No. 5 but there was a drafting error when this motion was submitted. I would like to at least register the fact that the amendment was intended to refer to the six bases for flight attendants at Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto that should be maintained. Only five were specified whereas the number six was used. It would be understood that the amendment was intended to include Vancouver as well.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 3 and 5 is to seek to be more concrete about guarantees with respect to employment and to the bases for flight attendants. We have been told the 55 per cent government shares will not be voted but will be passive, and, therefore, the decisions will be made by the new private owners. Under those circumstances even though there is a reference to the maintenance bases in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga being maintained, there is no guarantee that the employment at those bases will be maintained.
The airline is now anticipating the large purchase of new airliners. It is understood those may well be Airbus planes from Europe. If that is the case, not only do we not know whether there will be any Canadian production as a part of that or a condition of that would be the case with Air Canada being publicly owned, but there is a strong likelihood that the maintenance requirements will shift. It is quite open to Air Canada to keep five or six mechanics with a couple of wrenches working in Winnipeg and say that is the Winnipeg maintenance base, basically shut it down and concentrate the maintenance in Mississauga or in Montreal upon the purchase of these new airliners.
At the very least, reference to the maintenance bases is made in the Bill but with respect to the bases for flight attendants there are no provisions at all that those bases be maintained.
We know, for example, that Canadian Airlines International, formerly CP Air, has closed its flight attendants base in Montreal. Canadian Airlines International is shifting its base because of the view held in the airline industry that Montreal is not a good place to have attendants based. It may be more efficient just to have flight attendant bases in Vancouver and in Toronto, but it also means that the prospects of working for the national airline, if it is privatized, will be best for people living within 75 miles of Toronto or Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, this may particularly affect young men and women in Quebec who want to work for Canada's national airline, Air Canada, but who will find that they will be asked to move to Toronto or Vancouver. If we want Canada's national airline, Air Canada, to continue to reflect the variety and diversity of our population, including the fact that we are a bilingual and bicultural country, it will be much more difficult if Air Canada decides to shut down its flight attendant base for the men and women who work on its planes. That also concerns us.

It was suggested yesterday, and wrongly, that the unions are supporting the privatization of Air Canada. That is not so, Mr. Speaker, except for the pilots who have indicated some support and who belong to the smallest of the unions representing workers with Air Canada. It is also the case that certain employees have talked about the possibility of shares, but that is on the understanding that if Air Canada is to be privatized they would have as employees a chance to have some share
July 8, 1988

Air Canada
ownership. That does not mean that collectively they want Air Canada to be privatized.
I have the brief submitted from the Canadian Automobile Workers representing some 3,200 employees. They note that Air Canada has already been trying to replace $14 an hour Air Canada employees having 20 years service with brand new $6 an hour employees for its non-unionized regional carriers. Many of the CAW employees are ticket agents and most of them work at reservation offices in airports and communities across Canada. These people are good, efficient, and part of the very fine service that we have come to expect from Air Canada, 75 per cent of whom are women. The contract they have has no provisions for job security and there are no provisions for job security in this Bill. They are worried that Air Canada has plans for base closure but as long as Air Canada is a public airline, and in danger of public outcry, it would back off. If Air Canada is privatized, they suspect that many of these bases will have reduced levels of service. As well there is the prospect of unstable schedules and loss of income to the community.
The machinists union representing some 7,000 or 8,000 workers, 8,500 in maintenance, ground service and accounting are also categorically opposed to this move. They found it particularly repugnant that Air Canada's senior management has been running a million dollar campaign to convince its employees, the members of the union, of the dubious merits of privatizing Air Canada. For all the money and effort Air Canada is expending, all it can offer its workers are big promises and equivocal denials.
The third union is the Canadian Union of Public Employees. CUPE represents some 3,500 flight attendants at Air Canada. They will be affected if Air Canada decides to closes the flight attendant bases. They say that they stand opposed to Bill C-129 and its underlying philosophy and say that it is bad legislation and bad policy.
On behalf of those three unions, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how unequivocal or how much more definite they can get. For members of the Government to say the employees want that is simply not the case. With respect to job security, which is the issue addressed in one of the two amendments we are debating right now, CUPE points out that while some maintenance bases are guaranteed, there is no guarantee of the volume of work or the number of jobs at the maintenance centres. A private board of directors is in no way restrained by Bill C-129 if it decides to transfer large numbers of employees from its Montreal or Winnipeg bases to Toronto. This is inevitable as Air Canada decides to buy aircraft of a completely new generation from a different manufacturer.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is even possible that half of the Montreal maintenance base will be shut down and that the work will be transfered to the Mississauga base close to the Pearson Airport in Toronto.

For flight attendants, there are no guarantees in the legislation for any of our bases. As one New York based investment analyst has said, it is only a matter of time: "Eventually Air Canada will have to address the question: Does it need as many employees as it has?"
Just as has happened with British Airways, Air Canada employees who run a good, efficient airline, a profitable airline and a competitive airline are saying: "What is going to happen?" We will get American style airline management coming in, bottom-line management, cut, chop, slash maintenance bases stripped of everything except their name possibly in Winnipeg and in Toronto, flight attendant bases being shut down and the level of service being degraded overwhelmingly. The Americans, 10 years after doing it in the United States, are saying that their service is worse. People are fed up with the delays and the quality of service which is much less. The same thing is likely to happen here.
When the unions oppose this deal, when they seek guarantees on behalf of their employees they are trying to maintain a quality of service to which Canadians have become used. Anyone coming back from the United States knows what a pleasure it is to return here and what a pleasure it is to have the standards of quality and service that we have on Canada's airlines, both public and private. People know that is something worth valuing rather than something to be thrown away the way the Government is doing.
I very much hope that these amendments which are designed to preserve not just job security but quality of service for the passengers of Air Canada will attract the support of members of all Parties.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of these two motions. This is our chance in the Flouse of Commons and in the country to safeguard a great many of the employees of Air Canada who quite possibly will be losing their jobs in great numbers if privatization goes ahead. That point has been made with respect to the maintenance base in the city of Winnipeg. It is mentioned in the Bill that this base will be maintained. However, I think it has to be accentuated that this base not only has to be maintained but maintained in its present strength, and that there should not be just a corporal's guard of employees in the city of Winnipeg in this facility. That has to be made known to the Government. It has to be emphasized. As Canadians we must have the assurance that this will take place.
Also in the city of Winnipeg is a very valuable and very smooth operating financial centre which is not guaranteed in this Bill and which should be guaranteed in it. The people of Winnipeg and western Canada have the right to expect that that Financial centre will remain in the City of Winnipeg.

July 8, 1988
Air Canada
It has been the history of Air Canada to maintain six crew bases throughout the country in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. This is something which was done by Air Canada while a Crown corporation. The staff members and crew members on the airplanes have come to rely on Air Canada maintaining these six bases. If Air Canada decides to close these bases, which it very well might, then imagine the disruption this will cause to these people who have been living their working lives in the cities that will no longer function as bases for Air Canada. There is quite a prevalent rumour that Air Canada will close four of these six bases leaving only the bases in Toronto and Vancouver.
[ Translation]
It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, that Air Canada obtain the assurance of the Government of Canada and of the general population that it will stay in Montreal, which is a base for Air Canada employees, and that there will be no staff cuts so that that base can continue to function normally. Those are obligations that Air Canada must respect.

In all of the cities in Canada where these bases exist we are not only talking about the bases themselves but about the employees who work on them. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister is sincere in his determination that these bases will remain. I give him full credit for that. I commend him on his attitude because I know he feels as I do and as most Members of the House do that there are obligations to people.
My only concern is that this message be loud and clear and that the obligation be inviolate as far as Air Canada is concerned.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak for a few minutes on these two amendments and explain the importance of them. Especially in the city of Winnipeg the need to maintain a maintenance base is very important to the economy of that city. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the past there have been moves to take away a lot of business from Winnipeg by the previous Liberal Government with respect to the maintenance base. That had a devastating effect not only on the economy of the city but on many families who either lost employment or who were forced to move.
I would also like to explain how important these amendments are in light of what has happened in other situations in which the Government has maintained operations without closing them down. I will give a very dramatic example of the military base at the community of Churchill in my riding.
Before I was born there was a very strong military base at Churchill with thousands of people employed at that particular site. What happened over the years is the Government said: "No, we are not closing down the base." But the operational strength went down to 300 people. A few years later it went down to 200 people. Eventually, it went down to a situation in which there were only 12 people at the military base in
Churchill. The Government could say: "We did not close down the base at Churchill. " Obviously, it was keeping a skeleton crew there which was not able to do the regular maintenance.
The Government has said that it will keep operations in these various cities, whether it is with respect to flight attendants or the maintenance operations. However, there is no guarantee that these maintenance people will be doing anything more than cleaning up the seats and, perhaps, doing some very minor work.
If the Government is sincere in its commitment that these communities will maintain the maintenance and overhaul facilities and maintain the staff components for the flight attendants, then we want that written into the legislation. As we know, a promise was made in 1983 in which it was expressed that we would not even sell Air Canada. That became a different promise by 1985 when the Government said that it would sell only 45 per cent of Air Canada. Who knows what the Government's situation will be two years from now and how good a verbal promise is.
If the Government is sincere in its promises to the city of Winnipeg and to those other cities, then why not put it in the legislation? I hope that the government Members will stand up for the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and put their words into the legislation to secure the jobs of those people.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
July 8, 1988

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, on June 3, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced an action plan with a budget of $110 million to clean up the St. Lawrence. This plan covers four areas: conservation, protection, restoration and environmental technology. Today I would like to say a few words about the restoration aspect. To restore the St. Lawrence, our Government intends to clean up contaminated federal sites and rehabilitate certain wetlands. For this purpose, the Government has budgeted $21 million that would be spent more specifically on upgrading dredging technology in federal areas and rehabilitating certain wetlands along the St. Lawrence which are threatened by pollution.
Mr. Speaker, after years of neglect by the previous Government, the present Government is taking a dynamic approach to cleaning up the St. Lawrence River and making it the kind of river Quebecers and all Canadians want.



AIRPORTS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is a thread which links Pearson International Airport to garbage and the Commissioners Street incinerator in Metro Toronto. The incinerator was ordered closed by July 1 because of fears it was spreading deadly pollutants, including lead, mercury, and dioxins. But Metro's executive committee moved to keep the incinerator open to burn the 25 tonnes of garbage that incoming planes bring daily to Toronto. Citizens for a Safe Environment are asking why they should be exposed to toxic air pollution and want the old incinerator closed.
The airport management had known of the proposed closure of the incinerator for some time but failed to come up with a waste management plan which would sort out what can be burnt and what should not be burnt. More important, airlines must play a role in reducing their refuse. A considerable step would be to replace plastic with reusable serving dishes and related food equipment and supplies.
Pearson International Airport is the place to start a sensible waste management policy. Scarce landfill sites and the effect of incineration on human health are of paramount importance!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post has set up an interim committee to consult with Canada Post on rates and services. We can clearly see the direction that this new board will take. Although the Minister says that the board will be entirely independent, as chairperson he has chosen a man with Conservative ties, Mr. Alan Marchment.
It is clear that the principal interest of Mr. Marchment and his committee will not be in providing postal service. He has said that the committee will be "sensitive" to the public. However, we have already seen a good example of his sensitivity. Mr. Marchment is of the view that a good level of postal service is dependent upon where one lives.
In a recent statement he said that while urban Canadians want door-to-door service, rural citizens are happy if they do not have to travel more than 25 kilometres to get their mail, and up North people are happy if mail is delivered once a week.
I have news for the sensitive Mr. Marchment, Mr. Speaker, and for the Government. People in the country and up North

July 8, 1988
want to get their mail regularly and daily just like the rest of Canadians. Good, basic postal service is a right for all Canadians. But I do not think we should hold our breath waiting for it from this Government.



GOVERNMENT'S TRADE AND LANGUAGE POLICIES- OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH

Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my statement pertains to the momentous steps taken by our Government this week. A clear signal has been sent to Canadian people, particularly youth, regarding free trade and Bill C-72. The vote on the Free Trade Bill illustrated our Government's commitment to Canada's growth as a major world trader. Our businesses and workplaces are alive with innovation to meet Canada's new economic frontiers in the U.S.A. and the world.
Bill C-72 demonstrated, just as clearly, our Government's commitment to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. This is a powerful Bill which offers a great deal to Canadians and demonstrates a uniqueness of Canada to the rest of the world. The youth of today must be made aware of what their future will demand and the unique role language and trade will play in this future. Only then will the greatest good be achieved from the free trade Bill and Bill C-72.
In London-Middlesex I will work together with all Canadians to make sure that the policies and programs emanating from these Bills achieve their deserved lofty status as 21st century landmarks for Canada and its youth.
Polysporin Antibiotic Ointment, 131.2 per cent on Dristan, and 50 per cent on Maalox.
In summarizing these dramatic and inflated increases, Mrs. Newman suggests that these increases are "totally criminal". 1 believe most Canadians agree with her.
And as an opposition Party it is not satisfying to be proven correct because, as a result, average and low-income Canadians and senior citizens are now paying dearly for the Government's indifference and insensitivity. If the Government had any moral fibre, would roll back these unjustified increases.

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Thanks to the federal Government's Regional Development Program, a business in my riding can now offer consumers a new food product, in response to a new trend in eating habits in North America.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, by setting up a plant for the production of fresh pasta-the pasta is refrigerated, will keep for a long time, is of superior quality and is sold in individual portions- Letel Enterprises has created twenty-five new jobs and will eventually be able to compete on the biggest markets in the world.
With these programs the Conservative Government has shown it is consistent, since with government assistance, businesses like Letel will be able to enter the new era of free trade and free markets without fear.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the central reason why the Liberal Opposition fought the Conservatives' pharmaceutical legislation to the bitter end was to maintain drug prices at a reasonable and affordable level. In defence, the Government promised that drug prices would not increase. Yet, since the passage of the legislation, we have had nothing but evidence to the contrary.
Just today I received a letter from Mrs. Hollis Newman of Toronto, who listed the significant price increases that she and her family have had to absorb on a number of pharmaceutical products in the last few months: 43.9 per cent on Albalon-A Eye Drops, 50.9 per cent on Tinactin Athlete's Foot Cream, 31.6 per cent on Phisoderm Skincleanser, 68 per cent increase on Labello Medical Lip Care, 134 per cent increase on



HERITAGE

[Stage Direction]
PUBLICATION OF CANADIAN WOMEN: A HISTORY
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the history of our nation has been a history told by men, and all too often the achievements and contributions of women have been overlooked in the telling. It is important that we recognize these contributions, for women's experience of history may be very different from the experience of men.
An understanding of that experience deepens our understanding of the development of our nation. This month marks the publication of the first comprehensive study of the history of Canadian women. Entitled Canadian Women: a History, the book is a result of collaboration between six women teachers and researchers.
July 8, 1988

I rise both to applaud the collective efforts of these women and also to express my concerns for the future of this kind of historical textbook under the free trade agreement.
Under the Mulroney trade agreement we no longer will be able to promote and encourage our cultural industries through Canada Council grants and subsidies and Canadian content regulation. What a tragedy it is to find the history of Canadian women, only to lose it again under the trade deal.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago, on July 14, a train carrying hazardous material derailed in my constituency. Yesterday, one year later, I received the report of the Canadian Transport Commission investigation into that accident. The report indicated that at the time of the accident the train was travelling within the 65-mile an hour speed limit. It made no mention of the fact that just a short distance away the speed limit is only 25 miles per hour. It also made no mention of the fact that the train carried dangerous goods.
This one accident resulted in damages of almost $1.5 million. Surely it is time to reduce the speed limit for trains carrying dangerous goods through densely populated communities.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Reagan plan to absorb Canada economically through the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal is now revealed to include full military integration. Southam News yesterday revealed the recommendations of a high-level Canadian task force for Canada to join the U.S. with closer defence ties and a common defence economic market.
Two-way military trade reached a staggering $3 billion last year and the task force recommended 20 specific ways to accelerate and to increase integration and continental military orientation. The Conservatives recommend an increase in defence spending of $185 billion over the next 20 years.
In May of this year Angus Reid conducted a national poll for the Canadian Peace Alliance on whether Canadians would rather spend their tax dollars on military purposes or on improved social services. By a margin of two to one Canadians prefer improved social services.
[DOT] (mo)
On whether Canada should allow foreign warships that are nuclear armed to enter Canadian waters and dock at our ports, only 27 per cent approve and 67 per cent are opposed.
Seventy-one per cent of Canadians have a positive opinion toward candidates in the up-coming election who will emphasize the importance of peace issues.
The Conservative task force recommendation to "eliminate national boundaries" in the areas of defence is not supportable. The task force blames a "strong nationalistic, protectionist, domestic, and political orientation" for restructuring the free flow of guns-


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



TEXTILES


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the NPD cannot decide if it wants more or less protectionism.
Tariff barriers are now an outdated way to protect the domestic market. They restrict trade and protect our industries less and less. This policy is taken from Resolution B.2.1 of the 1961 Convention and it was reconfirmed in October 1986. Thus the NDP has contradictory commitments on textiles.
An NDP candidate speaking to textile workers can say, "We will impose restrictions on textile imports in order to protect our share of the Canadian market." This is Resolution A.2.11 of the 1983 Convention.
The next day, at a conference on the Third World, he can say, "We will abolish restrictions on textile imports in order to help developing countries. This is our policy that was adopted at a convention and published as Resolution B.2.4 in 1977."
In conclusion, it is clear that the NDP is somewhere between protectionism and expanding our markets abroad, between illusory socialism and false democracy.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, when he announced the policy on bank charges on June 30, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) spoke only of personal accounts and did not mention small business accounts.

July 8, 1988
Mr. Speaker, this very vital sector, which creates the most jobs, was completely excluded. At the present time, small business is penalized by the banks, which charge a penalty if their customers pay with a bad cheque. Why does the Government, which uses small business in its public relations announcements, always forget them when it comes to policies to help them? Why does it always leave them out?
How long do Canadians have to wait? How many times must Canadians suffer this discrimination from the Canadian Government?
I call on the Minister to act immediately to correct this situation.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Kootenay West join me in expressing our sorrow and deep regret to the next of kin of the two members of the Armed Forces who died yesterday in the tragic crash of their military helicopter during a military training exercise while en route to Nakusp, in the Upper Arrow Lakes district of my riding of Kootenay West.
I have spoken to the Minister of Defence (Mr. Beatty) who has assured me that a full investigation will be undertaken, and that the results of that inquiry will be made public.



NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, large corporations often use sponsorship of the arts to improve their corporate image. The National Gallery has shown courage by displaying Hans Haacke's work on the relationship between Alcan's support of the arts and its implicit support for apartheid by operating in south Africa.
How ironic therefor that the Gallery's first major show, a Degas retrospective, is sponsored by United Technologies Corporation, the second largest military corporation in the United States. Its subsidiary, Pratt & Whitney Canada, has been the number one recipient of government aid under Canada's Defence Industry Productivity Program and has received $460 million since 1969.
Pratt & Whitney engines have ended up in hundreds of military aircraft sold to repressive regimes around the world.
International military contractors deal in poverty, hunger, torture, and death, for the sake of corporate profits, and no amount of arts sponsorship can make them good corporate citizens. The National Gallery should show better judgment in its choice of sponsors.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, yet another train derailment has occurred in Abitibi! Last July 5th, at mile 26.8 of the Chapais subdivision, north of Senneterre, a car carrying chlorine derailed. The population was not warned. CN issued no press release. All of these derailments, be they major or minor, increase the anxiety of the population and of CN employees, and they are due to gaps in security caused by the most recent staff cuts in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, these derailments are continuing. CN will have to review its security policy immediately, to improve its security checks of railway cars before a catastrophe occurs.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ONTARIO GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRY

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian grape growers have been sold out in the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They have been totally sacrificed both in the Okanagan and in the Niagara escarpment area. We learn that the adjustment program that the Government is putting forward is only $70 million in Ontario, which is less than half of what is needed for an adequate adjustment program. That is based on Ontario putting up half of that money, approximately $35 million.
Since Ontario is not a party to the agreement and is opposed to the Mulroney trade deal, it means that the farmers will receive less than a quarter of an adequate adjustment program.
If the Government is going to continue with the trade deal, I call upon it to provide an adequate adjustment program for those farmers who are facing the loss of their farms.
July 8, 1988



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period on Wednesday the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) attacked my plan to take a Minister to court over discriminatory hiring and promotional policies.
The same Hon. Member voted for Bill C-72, not only on Wednesday but also on Thursday.
Clause 39 of Bill C-72 outlaws the kind of discriminatory practices that I find so abhorrent. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier cannot have it both ways. Either he supports non-discriminatory employment and advancement, as stated in Clause 39 of Bill C-72, or he supports preferential treatment. Which is it? That Member should make up his mind.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to either the Acting Minister of the Environment or the Acting Minister for External Affairs. I would like to point out that, on a day when most of the country is sweltering in above 30 degree weather, and from one end to the other most of the country is wracked with serious drought, the dramatic importance of water as an essential resource is uppermost in every Canadian's mind, yet the Government is contradictory and confusing in its responses and answers.
We would like to pose some questions to determine exactly what the position of the Government is on the very crucial issue of the proposed Great Lakes water diversion. Yesterday we heard from the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Government had made representations, yet External Affairs officials cannot tell us what those representations are.
I would like to direct the following question to whomever is in a position to answer. At the ministerial level, the level of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Prime Ministerial level, will the Government immediately contact the U.S. administration and clearly state that Canada will not give concurrence to any diversion whatsoever of water from the Great Lakes basin, and nip this whole proposal in the bud, and make it unilaterally clear on our side that there can be no diversions of Canadian water or water affecting Canadian rights as proposed under the Great Lakes water diversion?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member
Oral Questions
for that question. As was stated in the House yesterday, Canada's position is, by virtue of a number of treaties, that no diversion of water can take place from the Great Lakes system without our consent. That is categorical and straightforward.
With respect to the position taken by the Government, again it was pointed out yesterday that representations have been made to American officials in Washington on behalf of Canada, outlining our concerns in this regard. I am able to report to the Hon. Member that today our Ambassador to the United States is delivering to the State Department a specific reiteration of Canada's position in the most basic terms so that there can be no misunderstanding by any person on either side of the border with respect to our position.
We have been very cognizant of our responsibilities, and we will maintain Canada's position and make it quite clear with respect to any possibility, any plan, any tentative plan, or any project which might involve water diversion.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that the Government, by today at least, has taken the action requested yesterday in the House by having the Ambassador make representations.
Considering the precedent established in 1983 when the then Government filed a reference with the International Joint Commission stating that not only was Canada to be consulted but that there could be no unilateral decision, can the Minister tell us if the note being delivered by the Canadian Ambassador makes it very clear that Canadian rights that are essential in this project must be recognized and honoured, and that there should be no consideration of this project whatsoever by any American authority because Canadians are saying no right now?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is a proposal-I think it is fair to describe it in that term-with respect to diversion. I think the representations we have made today will indicate that we are very firmly of the view that nothing can happen without our consent and there is no consent forthcoming. It is as simple as that. There is no further bottom line required.
The Minister of the Environment yesterday made reference to his view of the proposal. I think we have given a categorical statement to the American authorities, and all Canadians join with the Government in our position that this is a very serious question, one about which the Government of Canada should give a very strong message to the United States.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC WATER EXEMPTION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister is in the mood to issue strong

July 8, 1988
Oral Questions
statements, let me pose this question to him. We are all aware of the conference that was held in Toronto last week which clearly outlined the emerging problems of climatic conditions that will cause droughts in large parts of North America. We also know that this proposed Lake Michigan diversion is only one of a whole series of efforts, attempts and initiatives by the United States, when it runs into water shortages, to export its problems to border states, whether it is Mexico or Canada.
Taking into account that we can be expecting more and more frequent attempts by the United States to solve its water shortage problems by having transport, export or diversion of water, would the Minister not now agree that it is time that he and his colleagues clearly recognized the problem? Because of the proposed agreement with the United States on trade which includes water as part of its terms, should we not ask specifically to have water exempted as a clause in that agreement so that there could be no ambiguity and no confusion in the minds of Americans that we control our water resources?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, let me say in the strongest terms of which I am capable that we control our resources. We will continue to control our resources. The question of our ability to control water policy in Canada transcends any agreement.
It has in fact been pointed out to the Hon. Member on a number of occasions that the agreement has no impact whatsoever with respect to the water resources of Canada. This is a matter which is so fundamental to our policy that we have given leadership that previous Governments have not given. I remind the Hon. Member that his Leader was the first one to raise the prospect of selling water to the United States. He should talk to his Leader, not lecture us.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the appropriate Minister and has to do with the statement made yesterday by the Minister of the Environment in Question Period. He said that a diversion from Lake Michigan has nothing to do with the diversion of Canadian water or inter-basin diversions. Everyone who knows about the water system of North America knows that Lake Michigan draws its water from the Great Lakes which in turn are boundary waters. Will the Minister admit that the Minister of the Environment was wrong in making such a statement yesterday in the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that the Minister referred to the project as-I am not sure of the word he used-insane. Does the Hon. Member understand the meaning of that word?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, he sure does, and that is why we think that the Minister was wrong in making the statement he made. This diversion has to do with the Great Lakes. The
Great Lakes are shared waters and therefore the Minister has either to retract his words or to admit that he was wrong.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OFTRADE AGREEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: In the meantime, Americans are claiming that water is on the table and is part of the free trade agreement. Will the Minister indicate to this House that the Government is coming to its senses and will amend the Bill before the House to include water as one of the items that is not part of the agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should not applaud that question because the basis of the question is simply false. Who are these people they are talking about, who are these Americans who imply that the free trade agreement in fact includes water resources? This is the kind of incorrect premise of a question which allows me to say that not only are Canadians opposed to this diversion but indeed a number of senior American governmental officials are opposed to it.
The Governors of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are very much opposed to this project. On both sides of the border there is a unity with respect to this proposal which says to any diversion project that this is unacceptable and not on the books.
This is a matter for which Canada's consent must be obtained by virtue of treaties that have been signed over the years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the free trade agreement, and the only reason the Hon. Member raises the question is because it is Friday and he cannot think of anything else.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 this House held an emergency debate on the British proposal to label furs which may have been caught in leg-hold traps. The House held a unanimous position in recognition of the devastating effects this could have on the 105,000 employees in the Canadian fur industry, having seen what happened to the seal industry.
Prior to the Economic Summit and the visit of the British Prime Minister, the British order was withdrawn. I learned last night that Canada was had. The British really gave us the old one-two.
Speaking last night to Canada's Ambassador to the European Parliament, I learned that that Parliament has already gone through the first stages, having secured over 260
July 8, 1988

signatures, the signatures required to petition the European Parliament to pass a similar regulation to label furs. This obviously has much more devastating consequences in that it involves 12 European countries.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. What has the Government done to inform Members of the European Parliament about the unanimous position of this Elouse regarding such fur labelling?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for her question. I can assure her and all Canadians, especially those people who are involved in that industry, that we will make as vigorous a representation to the European Community as we have to Britain. In no uncertain terms, the European Community will know our position here in Canada. This can be done in many ways, but as the Hon. Member knows, the European Community has a representative here in Ottawa and representations will be made to that representative initially, informing the representative of this Parliament's, not just this Government's, feeling on this particular situation. We will fight it in every avenue open to us.


DIPLOMATIC ACTION-POSITION OF U.S.A. AND U.S.S.R.
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, what is important to recognize is that this is a serious situation. When I talked to the Canadian Ambassador last night in Brussels, he confirmed that this is an extremely serious situation. This is an emergency situation which we cannot simply leave to discussions over a long period of time. We have to do something now.
What specific steps are we prepared to take? I understand that we will make our views known. We in the House have done so in the past. The Minister of Indian Affairs said that he would boycott some stores. I am sure that will terrify the Europeans, but we must have some plan for specific diplomatic measures with respect to the European Parliament.
Can whoever is responding to this question tell the House what we have done to combine our efforts with the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the other two major fur producers? Will the Government enter into discussions with those two countries so we can present a united front to the European Parliament?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member tries to make it sound like this Government does not take this matter seriously. We do not minimize the seriousness at all. It is a very important issue. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming, led the charge on this matter here in the House, together with the Hon. Member. We had a debate and Parliament unanimously supported our position.
Oral Questions
In my answer to the first question I referred to the action this Government is prepared to take at present. The NDP would like to blow the whole wad right off the bat. There are diplomatic ways to handle this initially. If they do not work, there are other measures we can examine. Let us go the proper route first and not just throw everything out at once.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CONTACT ALLIES ON ISSUE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency and we need a timetable for what the Government is going to do. The European Parliamentary Commission has the ability to make a decision about this regulation which will then become law in twelve countries.
Is the Government prepared at least to contact some of our allies, and why has it not done so already? Denmark, for example, is one of our allies in this matter. Is the Government prepared to say it will contact that country about this situation now?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the actions of this Government in the past on this matter show that we have been very successful in the measures we have taken. We will take all measures necessary to get our point across to the European Community about the importance of this issue. Our Prime Minister has probably established a better relationship with that Community than any other Prime Minister of this country. He has many colleagues and friends in that Community with whom he can confer. There are all kinds of avenues open to us.
I can guarantee to the Hon. Member and the people of Canada, especially those in this industry, that this Government will stand up for them in every way possible.


PROPOSAL HOUSE FORWARD RESOLUTION TO EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary on the same issue. Would he be prepared to work with the other two Parties in the House to come up with a resolution by this House directed to the European Parliament, in addition to the one passed in June, stating firmly this Parliament's commitment in support of the fur industry and the thousands of workers involved?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming led the charge on this issue in the House, together with other Hon. Members. I give full credit to everyone. I appreciate the question. I think it is an excellent idea. I am prepared to discuss the matter with my House Leader with that view in mind.

July 8, 1988
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


DROUGHT IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that southwestern Ontario is facing its worst drought in 50 years. The losses in corn and other crops are expected to amount to over $1 billion. Earlier this week the Ontario Minister of Agriculture sent an urgent letter to the federal Minister of Agriculture asking the federal Government to provide to those farmers in southwestern Ontario assistance similar to that provided farmers in western Canada a few weeks ago.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary respond on behalf of the Minister today and give a clear signal that such assistance will be provided to those Ontario farmers who are facing similar drought conditions?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we on this side of the House are very proud of our record of consultation and cooperation with and support for the farmers in western Canada who were stricken by drought. As you know, there was an initial announcement of some $12 million under PFRA with respect to the supply of water. There was a subsequent announcement of $100 million to assist cattle producers who have in some cases been devastated by these drought conditions. Of course, there was an additional $53 million with respect to the production of greenfeed. All this was a result of a process of consultation and co-operation with provincial Governments and farm organizations in western Canada.
We are quite prepared to enter into the same strategy with respect to farmers and farm organizations in the areas of Ontario stricken by drought. In fact, a meeting is scheduled for Guelph on July 28 with farm organizations. In addition, there will be a meeting with provincial Ministers of Agriculture in Toronto next Tuesday and Wednesday.
We are of course willing to co-operate with the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. I note what the Hon. Member has said but I also note that the Hon. Jack Riddell has said "it is still too early to talk about that", referring to the drought and what should be done. "We are still unsure what our losses will be so there is no point in developing a program if you do not know what is needed."


CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ENROLMENT DEADLINE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary outlined the assistance that was provided for the disaster in western Canada of $76 million. That was exactly half of the assistance provided in the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election when the Government was facing a political disaster. That shows exactly the kind of priority that the Prime
Minister puts on a natural disaster facing agriculture producers.
Yesterday the Minister said they were on top of this issue. Corn producers, whose losses are amounting to an additional $20 million a day, have asked that the crop insurance program be improved on the basis of the recommendations of the Canada-Ontario review committee last year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, give a commitment right now to extend the enrolment period until the end of August so that these farmers facing losses of hundreds of millions of dollars will have an opportunity to enrol in the crop insurance program for this year?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a certain political disaster which occurred in the Lac-Saint-Jean area in the recent by-election. I would have thought it was his Party, or perhaps even more the NDP, which suffered a political disaster in that by-election.


Mr. Grise:: That was an NDP drought.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A moral victory.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I would also note that the figures the Hon. Member used with reference to that byelection should have properly been attributed to the entire province of Quebec because that is where they were directed.
With respect to the question of crop insurance, I would remind Hon. Members of the meeting taking place on Tuesday and Wednesday in Toronto. I believe crop insurance is on the agenda for Tuesday morning and I am certain it will be dealt with at that time.


NATURAL DISASTERS-REQUEST FOR LONG-TERM EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and it refers to the annual meeting of Ministers of Agriculture in Toronto next week.
Western farmers have been devastated by drought, as have farmers in Ontario and Quebec.
Given these natural disasters and the promise by the Government three years ago to deal with them on a more permanent basis, will the Minister be recommending a proposal to his provincial counterparts which will establish a long-term emergency assistance program so that farmers will know where they stand with regard to government aid when they are hit by a natural disaster?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member with respect to the need to approach problems of this
July 8, 1988

nature on a long-term basis. Quite frankly, I think we have been making some significant steps in that direction.
I refer, for example, to a new forage program which was not in place when we came into power four years ago. While not as many farmers and ranchers are making use of it as I would wish, the merits of that program are becoming more readily apparent with the passage of time.
In addition, there have been attempts to approach crop insurance in different ways. Studies have been done with respect to amending crop insurance to make it more responsive. One of the ways in which we might do that-although it is not a view shared by the province it may be a view shared by the New Democratic Party-is to move more in the direction of genuine tripartite.
There is no reason why agriculture should not be supported by tripartite programs, because it is a joint responsibility between the federal Government and the provinces. Quite frankly, the federal Government has been carrying its share very well in the last four years. Unfortunately, not all of the provinces have been doing as well.


FORTHCOMING MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we need to get rid of the ad hoc approach which it has been necessary for the Government to use. With regard to the meeting of the Agricultural Ministers, will that item be on the agenda of that meeting?
In addition, is the Minister going to make a proposal to his counterparts regarding the promotion of grain ethanol as an industry in Canada?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to speak in a disparaging way of ad hoc programs. I would think that most farmers in Canada are extremely appreciative of the ad hoc programs. I think of a $1 billion program in 1986-87 and a $1.1 billion program in 1988. I refer, of course, to payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Many of these programs have kept the farmers operating on the land. If it had not been for them, they would not be there today.
In addition, with respect to long-term plans, there have indeed been some. I previously mentioned forage and will also mention the dairy program, a five-year program which the previous Government was not able to initiate.
With respect to crop insurance, if I recall the agenda correctly, the subject is on the agenda and will be addressed.
Oral Questions


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is presently in the process of selling two telecommunications companies, each worth over $200 million, one being Northwest Telecommunications and the other Terra Nova Communications in Newfoundland. Certain questions have been raised as to the procedures being used by the Government concerning the sale.
I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Will he explain to this House why every bidder had to sign an oath of secrecy saying that he will never disclose any of the contents of his bid? Not only that, bidders had to sign an oath that when they visited the sites they would not tell the employees what company they represented.
Why all the secrecy? Whose interests are being protected? It is certainly not the interests of the employees and the communities affected.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of interests which need to be protected. On such commercial bids it is commonly accepted that they have to be done with the secrecy to which my friend is referring. The first reason for that is to prevent lobbying because all bidders do not have the same ability to lobby. We consider that maintaining secrecy will not allow advantage to be given to any one bidder.
Many of these bidders are publicly traded and could be in violation of regulations. I think my friend will understand that. The arguments are relatively technical but they are for the protection of the commercial bids presented. For that reason we consider it to be for commercial use and it has to be done in the case of CN.


EXTENSION OF CLOSING DATE
George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not normal practice. That is unnecessarily covert. Some people would claim that the interests being protected here are the Progressive Conservative lobbyists who are representing some of the bidders for those very companies. Those are whose interests are being protected, not the employees and not the communities affected.
Can the Minister explain why the decision date of July 15 has been lifted? Who made the request to lift that date? Why is it being lifted? Is it because this House will perhaps not be sitting and the decision which has to be made by Cabinet cannot be examined publicly in this Chamber?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I consider the Member from Gander to be a man of common sense. I believe that he is very impressive at this level. I cannot make any guarantees at other levels, but at this level he could be considered to be a man of common sense. For that

July 8, 1988
Oral Questions
reason I know that he basically agrees with me that this secrecy is the best procedure.
The reason we extended the closing date was to give all bidders-of whom I am not aware, and 1 am sure my hon. friend is not aware either-the chance to make site visits and talk to the employees in order to have the best chance that their bid will be successful. That is the only reason. I am sure that this Member will agree that that is common sense.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Government House Leader. After the investigation by the House Committee into the allegations with regard to the election expenditures of the Member for Frontenac it became apparent that there is a very glaring loophole in our election law. At that time the Government asked us for any proposals we had with regard to election expenses, and a definition to that end.
Three months ago, on April 12, we sent the Government a letter with legal wording defining what election expenses are and what they are not. We have not received a reply to that letter and have not seen the introduction of any legislation on this very important issue. When is the Government going to act?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that we brought forward Bill C-79 which makes a number of very important changes to the Elections Act. We were negotiating two or three changes within that Act at the time to which my hon. friend refers.
It is my understanding that there was a letter sent to both Parties in reply to the letter about which my friend speaks. I will check into it and ensure that my friend gets a copy of it.


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON LEGISLATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe I have every letter that has been sent on this issue. Every letter from the Government has deliberately avoided referring to election expenses except to say that it was still studying the matter. It has made no attempt whatsoever to deal with this issue.
Can we get a commitment from the Government that before we leave we will have at least proposed legislation before either the standing committee or the House in order that this matter is not delayed until after the next election? We do not want a Dodge City, wide open election. We want honest rules by which all of us can live.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Minister, since my hon. friend mentions Dodge City, I should tell him that, at the same time as this suggestion came forward from the NDP, the Hon. Member for York East was quite concerned that taxpayers' money was being used by NDP candidates in municipal elections. That is also a very valid reason to open the Elections Act and correct it on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.


TEXTILES
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns the textile industry and Canada's disagreement with Brazil concerning the quotas that country wants to obtain for its exports of towels and sheets to Canada.
GATT's textile surveillance body published its decision this week, based on Article 3 of the multifiber Arrangement:
Firstly, Canada's complaint of a disturbance in the sheet fabric market is well-founded;
Secondly however, the organization concluded that Canada's towel market had not been disrupted;
Thirdly, the organization suggested that both countries sit down again to negotiate and try to agree.
Would the Minister care to reassure Canadian textile workers and resume negotiations with Brazil? Alternately, because of the 100 per cent increase in imported towel fabric in Canada since 1982, will the Minister ask the arbitration tribunal to review the case?


John Horton McDermid: I thank the Hon. Member for Drummond for his question.

This Government took decisive action in January in response to Canadian concerns over the surging imports from Brazil. At that time we invoked Article 3 of the multifibre arrangement, unilaterally limiting imports on pillow cases, sheets, and terry towels.
Since then we were vindicated by the GATT surveillance body because they supported our action on the sheets and pillow cases. However, they indicated that we did not have sufficient grounds with regard to terry towels and have urged us to withdraw these restrictions.
July 8, 1988

I can tell the Hon. Member that this matter is before the Minister. He is studying the situation and the request from the surveillance body.
Canada retains the right to monitor and take action to protect Canadian jobs in the future if imports threaten to disrupt the market in terry towels.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
When the policy on bank charges was announced on June 30, the Minister of State (Finance) only mentioned personal accounts, thus excluding the business accounts of small businesses which are as vulnerable as consumers in this respect.
Will the Minister of Finance issue new directives to the banks to warn them and to protect small businesses from any undue increase in charges by the banks? That is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses is asking.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the Hon. Member's question. I am sure he was asking about the unemployment rate this morning which was announced at 7.6 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

And also, Mr. Speaker, because of the drop in the unemployment rate in the province of Quebec. Today there is less than 9 per cent unemployment for the First time in the past seven years.

1 am sure the Hon. Member put that question to me. If he wants to put another question on unemployment, I can elaborate on it.
I heard the second part of his question about bank charges as they relate to small business. We have also been in touch with some members of the small business community, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has indicated that we are arranging a meeting between representatives of the small business community and the Canadian Bankers Association in the very near future to discuss this issue. I believe it is within the next couple of weeks.
Oral Questions


Alfonso Gagliano: Canadian small businesses do not need meetings, they need action. They have had all the meetings they can get.


TREATMENT OF SMALL BUSINESSES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister exclude small business accounts when he announced that NSF cheques deposited on personal accounts will not be charged twice? Why does the Minister discriminate against small business? Why do small businesses, that receive most of those cheques from their customers, have to be charged twice? Instead of using small business when you have to make a public relations announcement, put your money where your mouth is.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this Government has demonstrated a very clear ability to act on a number of issues. We do not need the blustering and posturing of the Hon. Member in that way.
The Hon. Member said that the small business community does not want to have meetings. The small business community has asked for meetings.


Alfonso Gagliano: They have had meetings for six months. Act.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have responded to their request for a meeting. We are arranging that meeting which, as I indicated in my first answer, will be held within the next couple of weeks.


RAILWAYS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Once again we had a derailment in Abitibi. Last Tuesday, a CN tanker car of chlorine went off the track at mile 26.8 north of Senneterre. A disaster was averted.
Safety has deteriorated since the last cutbacks in CN personnel at Senneterre.
Would the Minister guarantee the population that better safety precautions will be taken by CN on the Abitibi- Temiscamingue railway network and that a public inquiry will be held immediately on the last three derailments that occurred in north west Quebec during the past year?


Mr. Allmand:: Tell us how many jobs were created in Canada.

July 8, 1988
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: I am no
longer Minister of Employment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the issue of the lay-offs at CN has any direct connection with the disasters to which the Hon. Member is referring, at least in the reports we are receiving so far, since the lay-offs were made in the locomotive maintenance sector. So there is no direct link.
However, like the Hon. Member, i realize this was the third incident of its kind within a given period, and I have asked Canadian National to give us all the information so that we can see exactly what is going on, especially since incredible precautions are taken when transporting this kind of material.
I will let the Hon. Member know as soon as additional information is available.


NATIONAL PARKS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On May 14, 1987, the House unanimously endorsed a resolution to preserve South Moresby and compensate interests affected, and to involve the Haida Nation fully in matters affecting South Moresby.
Since Monday is the anniversary of the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding in Victoria by the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia, will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House as to what is holding up the signing of the final agreement? A state of chaos is being created on the Queen Charlotte Islands as visitors from around the world arrive to find public services inadequate to meet their needs.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I understand that the Province of British Columbia is looking at a proposal from their officials which is quite consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia.
I expect there will be an opportunity for us to make progress on this matter at a very early date. I am hopeful that will be the case.
In the meantime officials of Environment Canada and Parks Canada are in discussion with respect to a co-ordinated plan with other government agencies on this important area. We are making specific arrangements to make sure that the tourist
traffic will be adequately and properly dealt with and handled during the course of this tourist season.
Finally I want to say that we in the federal Government regard the arrival of an agreement with respect to South Moresby as a very significant matter. We look forward to the Province of British Columbia completing its consideration with respect to it at an early date.


INVOLVEMENT OF HAIDA NATION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. Since this House undertook unanimously to involve the Haida nation fully in all matters affecting South Moresby, and since for more than a year there has been no progress made in reaching a Canada-Haida agreement on South Moresby, will the Minister instruct officials to accelerate the progress and reach an agreement acceptable to the Haida Nation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am informed the Haida have been kept informed with respect to the progress of the federal-provincial agreement, and that Environment Canada is continuing its efforts to reach an understanding with the Haida on its role in the planning, management, and operation of the National Park Reserve.
We take the representation very seriously and appreciate the support of the Hon. Member. We want to be involved in a cooperative manner with the Haida Nation and are acting in a very pro-active way, if 1 can put it like that, with the Haida people to make sure that their interests are being fully considered and taken into account.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is bad enough that the Government is trying to sabotage the Cape Breton Development Corporation by doing away with the industrial development division, but on October 3 the Government fired the then president of Devco, that is over nine months ago, and the Government has not as yet replaced the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
As the Minister can appreciate, this is having a devastating effect on the operations of Devco. Why is it taking so long for the Government to appoint a president for the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, for somebody who expresses such a
July 8, 1988

great interest in Atlantic Canada, it is very hard for me to believe that he comes from the same Party that in the Senate is devastating our economic development efforts in Atlantic Canada.
We are trying to create jobs as we have been doing throughout the country. We have 7.6 per cent unemployment throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, remember that number. When I look at the regional distribution, it is still more heartening. You see a very real reduction in unemployment in all regions of the country. That is what we are trying to do through our efforts in economic development.
With respect to the second part of the Elon. Member's question concerning the Devco presidency, we are going through the normal procedure to replace a head of a corporation, otherwise we would be accused of pork barrelling or what have you. The Opposition would be there with great phrases to reduce the kind of activity being undertaken. Through the board of directors we went through a search committee. That committee went through the normal process of having an outside independent firm review the possible candidacies of a number of people. Recommendations were made to Government and we are in a position to act very swiftly in this matter.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister quotes unemployment figures. The unemployment in Cape Breton today is higher than when the Government took office.


Mr. Valcourt:: That is false!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is not false. It is true.


Some Hon. Members:: It is not true.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The miserable excuses which the Minister gives for not having appointed a president are just plain gall. The Government and this Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hour, I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Government has had time to interview everybody in Canada for the job. Why hasn't a president been appointed for the Cape Breton Development Corporation? The people in Cape Breton are not going to accept lame excuses any more.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, the introductory remarks to the Hon. Member's question are totally false.
I would like to state a few facts that might interest my colleague. Here are the jobs that have been created-in Newfoundland 18,000; P.E.I. 7,000; Nova Scotia 32,000; New
Oral Questions
Brunswick 37,000; Quebec 307,000; Ontario 588,000; Manitoba 33,000; Saskatchewan 13,000; Alberta 92,000, and B.C. 129,000.
That is good management. That is what we are doing with the economy. That is what we were doing with Devco. The Party of the Hon. Member is holding up the legislation that will help Atlantic Canada and Cape Breton get out of the situation which they had been in for years and years under the previous Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. This will be the last question in Question Period.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. Is the Government satisfied with the report of the Public Service Commission published last week, according to which women in the Public Service earned about $27,800 compared to $37,000 on average for male civil servants and the gap between male and female increased from $9,000 to $9,300 between 1986 and 1987, when the Conservatives were in power? Why did the Government break its election promises for greater equality for women in the Public Service? And what concrete steps will the Government take to give women equal treatment in future?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to point out to my friend that prior to our taking office there were employment equity programs. We took at look at things and started to set targets.
While there are some areas in which we are not meeting all the targets that we would like to, I can assure my friend that the targets for employment of women by occupational categories have been set and we are getting very close to meeting them in all areas of the public service.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Minister then saying that we are close to achieving targets but that, as a consequence, the wage gap between men and women will continue at around $9,000 a year and that that is tolerated as far as people working for the Government of Canada are concerned?
Is this Minister aware that federal law requires equal pay for work of equal value, and that that has been so for 10 years? When will that kind of equality be achieved in the Government of Canada under this Government?

July 8, 1988
Tabling of Documents


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is mixing programs. We are negotiating at the present time with most of the bargaining units which currently represent a large percentage of women. There will be increases within those negotiations which in time will reflect very favourably in terms of salary and wages paid to women.
I want to reiterate that you cannot do anything without targets and know where you are going. This Government knows where it is going on employment equity.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has a question of privilege?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do have a matter of privilege that 1 wanted to raise concerning statements made yesterday in the House by the Minister for the Environment (Mr. McMillan). I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister that the Minister is not available today but will be in the House on Tuesday. I will raise it at that time so the Minister can respond personally.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to 10 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4668, 3324748, 332-4751 to 332-4755 inclusive, 332-4760, 332-4761 and 332-4772.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TRANSPORT


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport, I can say that the safety of our transportation system is one of the Department's major concerns. For this reason, I am tabling today a Bill to establish an independent transportation accident investigation board that will cover all transportation modes in Canada.
A good investigation system is essential to transportation safety. The new board will improve the quality of investigations on railway, marine and aviation accidents. Creating an independent board will also guarantee that investigations are fair and objective. The result will be increased safety in our transportation system.
Of course, Canada already has an excellent transportation safety record. This is due to the constant vigilance and efforts of many parties, including the Government, employees and the private sector. However, we cannot afford to be complacent.
Our Government is committed to assisting in every way possible those who are involved in improving transportation safety. My Department is conducting research to make equipment safer, including studies of daytime "lights on" for cars, anti-smoke masks in aircraft and locomotive recorders.
We are upgrading our equipment to facilitate air and marine navigation. We conduct public awareness programs, such as Operation Lifesaver, to reduce accidents at level crossings, and various water safety programs are provided by the Coast Guard for fishermen and the public. We are providing funds for the provinces in connection with setting up a national safety code.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are constantly updating our safety regulations and improving our enforcement capability.
Beyond all this activity, the Government proposed, and Parliament adopted, in the National Transportation Act a national transportation policy which places safety at the top of our list of objectives. The Government takes this commitment seriously. We have brought forward better safety legislation for all the modes of transportation regulated by the federal Government.
In 1985, Parliament passed amendments to the Aeronautics Act which give us the most effective safety regime in the last 60 years. In 1987, safety amendments to the Canada Shipping Act were adopted. Most recently, the Railway Safety Act was passed by this House and is now before the Senate. Today, we have before us the final piece of transportation safety legislation-the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Bill, it too will improve safety.
Transportation accidents involving ships, trains and commodity pipelines will now be investigated by an independent body reporting to Parliament. This board, like the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, will be completely separate from the agencies responsible for safety and economic regulation of these modes of transport.
Those who make safety regulations and enforce them will be at arm's length from those who investigate possible shortcomings in regulation and enforcement. They will no longer have a potential conflict of interest.
July 8, 1988



The new Board will determine, entirely objectively, the causes of transportation accidents and will issue recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence of similar accidents.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Board will publish its conclusions and recommendations. However, public disclosure of problems is not enough.
The Bill goes a step further. It provides that the Minister of Transport or any other minister concerned shall respond to the Board's recommendations. We must publish our response within 90 days.
Hence, Ministers will have to be accountable for their actions, both to the public and to Parliament. The Bill provides that the Board's headquarters may be located in the National Capital Region or another location. It is a pleasure to inform you that the Board will be located in Hull, Quebec.
Its staff will consist of persons who currently conduct investigations on aviation, railway and marine transportation accidents. Their knowledge and expertise are a guarantee that the Board will be a success.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House can take pride in the transport safety legislation that has been passed in recent years. The public's safety has improved.

This final piece of safety legislation is equally important. Indeed, I hope that the subject matter of the Bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. I hope that it will receive the same all-Party support as the earlier Bills enjoyed.
I invite all Members of the House to consider it seriously and to support it for what it is-another key to improving transportation safety.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Clause 43 and Clause 52 of the piece of legislation which the Government is introducing today deal with the transition from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and the repealing of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act. This legislation, in other words, will replace the present investigative mechanisms in marine, air and, as the Minister said a moment ago, rail transportation.
There was an individual appointed by the former Minister of Transport about seven months ago to pass judgment on this Bill before the House. That individual is now a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. His name is John Sopinka. He said in his letter to the then Minister of Transport dated February 3: "My review consisted of an examination of the documentation referred to in the terms of reference". The terms of reference involved, as he said, "policy-related advice in respect of the proposed Act relating the Multi-modal Transportation Accident Investigation Board", which is the Bill that we have before us today.
Statements of Ministers
When one reads what Mr. Sopinka said to the Government of Canada in February of this year, and when one looks at what has happened to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board in its non-investigation of the tragic disaster in Gander, Newfoundland, one has to come to the conclusion that this is negligent legislation. It is in total contradiction to what Mr. John Sopinka said to the Government of Canada in his letter in February.
He was hired by the Government of Canada to pass judgment on this legislation. Furthermore, the legislation flies in the face of just plain common sense.
This board is not all powerful. It is subordinate. To whom? It is subordinate to the Department of National Defence. It is subordinate to the RCMP. It has even to co-ordinate its investigations with other government Departments if they are conducting an investigation.
What did the present Mr. Justice Sopinka say was wrong with the investigative procedures? He said in his letter that there was a very serious problem between the board members and the Chairman of the Board and the investigators. He said that the Board as such had felt as if it had no power. That is why the Board presented a minority report on the Gander crash. The board claimed that it was not fully consulted and that it had no power. The chairman and four board members got together and passed a preliminary report which in effect forms the basis of the final report. Mr. Sopinka stated that that has to be closed in this Bill. What did the Minister and the Government of Canada do in this Bill? The Canadian Aviation Safety Board had 10 members. Under this legislation the chairman still calls the meetings and decides on what investigations should take place, but this time it is five board members. The chairman is one of the five. What is a quorum under this Bill? The quorum is two, two out of five.
Under this legislation it is even doubtful whether the investigation into the Gander air disaster can continue. It states in the Bill that on any matter that is being investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and on which no final report has been made by the Board when section 43 comes into force, that it will continue the investigation will continue under this investigative board. However, if one goes back to the powers of the Board, it states that "the Board shall not investigate a transportation occurrence that involves a military conveyance or military transportation facility". What is a military conveyance? A military conveyance is an aircraft, ship, rolling stock, motor vehicle, or any other machine designed for movement from place to place that is operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or a visiting force.
As a former law clerk, I would have to conclude from that that one could argue that the safety board being appointed here today by the Government of Canada would not be allowed to investigate the crash that took place in Gander,

July 8, 1988
Committee Reports
Newfoundland. If the Minister can argue that other sections of the Bill give the authority, I can argue, and any lawyer could with equal force that that section of the Bill prevents it from happening. This is not the answer. As I said, it is negligent legislation. It is a contradiction of what Justice Sopinka wrote only six months ago, and it flies in the face of common sense.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I share some of the concerns of the previous speaker with regard to this impending legislation. Regardless of the type of investigation that has been conducted over a serious industrial or transportation accident, the situation in Canada is that the investigations take too long, and the reporting to the public is a very long process. The inquiry into the Gander tragedy took years to be conducted and for the report to be made public. In the meantime, the Americans published two complete reports in a much shorter period of time.
The inquiry into the Ocean Ranger incident and the drilling rig took years before the inquiry was complete and before the public was aware of the results. The publicity surrounding the original incident diminished and that diminished public interest in the issue. In addition, people who are flying or who are involved in marine or rail transport are subject to a long waiting period before there is any action by government. Certainly, some action is taken, and there is not a complete lack of action in the meanwhile. But there has not been a complete inquiry. Information has not been made public, and there has not been a public response by government.
I am concerned with our record of delays, long inquiries, and the length of time to make a report. How can a smaller commission, which not only investigates air safety but has now been given the responsibility for rail and marine, conduct all the inquiries necessary and be any faster than the dismally slow process we have at the present time?
I would like to see this legislation receive thorough study by the transportation committee. I would also like to see the Government express a willingness to expand the size of the Board. I would also like to see some legislative time limits in which these inquiries report. To do otherwise is to encourage the terrible process and delays that we have suffered.
It is not only in this particular area. In Canada we have seen Royal commissions have been set up with a purpose of producing quick reports, and we see that it takes two to three years, or four to five years for those reports to be made public. I do not see it in the legislation, and I do not see it in the statement of the Minister, but I hope that the Government will make a major commitment to fast, thorough inquiries, and ensure that the new Board has the ability to do so. Looking at the information that has been given so far, and the details that I know of the legislation, if anything there will be longer inquiries and a longer waiting period before the public knows what has happened. I question why the Minister has taken this route under those circumstances.
[ Translation]



CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF SIXTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS

Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Bill C-72 and pursuant to Standing Order 122, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 16th annual Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association meeting of delegations from the Canadian and European Parliaments, held in Naples from May 23 to 27, 1988.

Earlier in today's dealings in the House the issue of fur labelling was raised. I wish to assure all Hon. Members that this was a major issue in our annual meeting with the European parliamentarians. The authors of that action both from the European Parliament and the British Parliament were at the meeting. We dealt with this issue in great depth. Since it is of interest to all Members of the House, I would urge Members to look at what actions were recommended in our report. I hope it is of interest to all and helps in the solution of this problem for all Canadians.



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the thirty-fourth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages.
The 16th report deals with the tabling of the petition for private Bill S-17, an Act to authorize the Montreal Trust Company of Canada to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, pursuant to Standing Order 142.
July 8, 1988



If the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence in the sixteenth report later this day.


TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-142 an Act to establish a Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Patrick Boyer: for leave to introduce Bill C-306, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (by-elections).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave at this time to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the House of Commons Act, pertaining to by-elections. This has been certified consistent with Standing Order 108, and timely notice has been given. Briefly, the Bill would require an election writ to be issued within seven days of the vacancy occurring in the House of Commons, and the election to be completed within, at most, 80 days thereafter.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the bill is being introduced by the Member for Quebec-Est (Mr. Tremblay).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Business of the House CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

Patrick Boyer: for leave to introduce Bill C-307, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (withdrawal of a writ of election).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a second Bill, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, pertaining to withdrawal of a writ of election. This is consequential to the earlier Bill pertaining to the prompt holding of a by-election for any vacancy in this House. Let me state in conclusion that the principle here is that the constitutional right of citizens to representation here in the House of Commons must take precedence over considerations of Party advantage as to the timing of by-elections.
This Bill has been certified in conformity with Standing Order 108. Timely notice has been given, and this Bill is also seconded by the Hon. Member for Quebec-Est (Mr. Tremblay).


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


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, I move:
That the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two motions to put which have been discussed with the House Leaders of both opposition Parties. I think you will find it acceptable. Before I do that, I would like to revisit the Business of the House for Monday and

July 8, 1988
Motions
Tuesday of next week. We made considerable progress yesterday afternoon, last evening, and I anticipate we will make considerable progress today.
This should take us to the point on Monday where we do the following. First, we will call Motion No. 25 on the Order Paper for debate, on a procedural argument only, and adjourn the debate immediately after the procedural argument in order to give the Speaker an opportunity to consider the representations. We would then move in the following order: Bill C-77, the reply to the Senate to the emergencies Bill; Bill C-93, the multiculturalism Bill, report stage and third reading; Bill C-82, the lobbying report on third reading; Bill C-103, the reply to the Senate on the Atlantic Opportunities Bill. I would also say that that also is awaiting a decision by the Speaker. Therefore, that is movable somewhat. It will be done at the convenience of the opposition spokespersons.
We then move to Bill C-30, the national parks Bill, report stage and third reading. It is definite that we will vote the concurrence on the motions and a concurrence report to Bill C-121, the Bill to sell Eldorado, and possibly the amendments and concurrence on C-129, the Air Canada Bill, at six o'clock on Monday. Then, at a time convenient to opposition Parties, we will deal with third reading stage.
All of the comments I make with respect to report and third reading stage are conditional upon it being acceptable to the House to move immediately to third reading from report stage.
On Tuesday, we anticipate doing Bill C-84, the reply to the Senate on the Immigration Act; Bill C-110, the Trade Tribunal Act, at report and third reading stage; Bill S-17, which is a Bill from the other place dealing with Montreal Trust. I would point out to the opposition Parties that they have asked that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) be in the House to answer questions at that time, and we will make those arrangements.
We then complete the day with Bill C-126, the Bretton Woods Bill, at report and third reading stage. I want to clarify that when I suggested that we would not be sitting Tuesday night it was only intended to convey that we would not sit Tuesday night of next week but we will be sitting for the balance of the week; Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I did not want to leave any misconception in the minds of other Members of the House or other Parties.
read second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think it would be acceptable to us in our corner that the House go to the agriculture committee rather than to the legislative committee.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Likewise, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second motion, if I may. I would move:
That, the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, standing on the Order Paper, be changed to read second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two motions. I move:
That, the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, standing on the Order Paper, be changed to


PETITIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, on behalf of approximately 3,000
July 8, 1988

petitioners, to present 235 petitions which deal with the irradiation of food. The petitioners say that irradiation in food processing causes certain products which may be toxic or carcinogenic in food and they say that it should not be consumed. There are certain bacteria which are not killed, and therefore people may eat food thinking it is safe. The Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs made a recommendation on the irradiation of food, and these petitioners want the appointment of a commission of inquiry to conduct an in-depth study into the safety of food irradiation.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, it is a duty and a pleasure for me to rise today to table a petition on behalf of over 1,800 constituents of the City of London in my riding of London-Middlesex who are protesting the establishment of an open-custody facility for young offenders in a totally residential area. The petitioners take no issue with the availability of open-custody facilities under the Young Offenders Act. They deplore, however, the arbitrary manner in which the Peterson Government in Ontario has imposed the centre on a residential neighbourhood without adequate consultation.
Notwithstanding several attempts by the residents to approach the Ontario Government to discuss this issue, it remains unresponsive to the concerns of London residents. The petitioners are asking the federal Government to give direction to the provincial Government so that the Young Offenders Act may be implemented in a way that is fair and equitable to both young offenders and other citizens.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a duly certified petition calling on Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development with the exception of the situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of a mother.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present to the House a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Scarborough, North York, Oshawa, Willowdale and Bowmanville concerning the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough. It is a very unique and precious natural area. Endangered wildlife and wilderness areas should be preserved in the national interest. The petitioners join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in expressing a great interest in and support for having the valley made a park. We are calling upon Parliament to work with the provincial Government which owns
Order Paper Questions
about 90 per cent of this area to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or as a provincial park.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos 350, 355 and 356.


Mr. Henderson: In (a) 1984, (A) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987 did the Government (t) allocate
funds, (ii) award research contracts, (Hi) make any other grants or contributions to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
and, if so, through which departments and, in each case, in what amounts?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Energy, Mines and Resources and Environment as follows:
In so far as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned:
(j) Listed below are the funds allocated to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia by the Department.
(a) 1984-1985 $44.7 million; (b) 1985-1986 $41.0 million; (c) 1986-1987 $38.9 million; (d) 1987-1988. As a result of the Department's reorganization, funds are no longer allocated to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO), but to the Scotia Fundy Region of which BIO is a part.
(ii)	Nil.
(iii)	Nil.
Note: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans maintains the complex. The Departments of Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources have offices housed in the complex.
In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned:
(a to d) (i) No. (ii) No. (iii) No.
EM&R's Atlantic Geoscience Centre is part of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. The Centre carries out geological, geophysical and geochemical studies in Atlantic and Arctic offshore areas and obtains data used in the search for hydrocarbon resources, in resource evaluations, in marine environment protection, and in improving the safety of coastal and offshore engineering structures.

July 8, 1988
Order Paper Questions
EM&R's operating expenditures including salaries for the Atlantic Geoscience Centre are as follows:
1984-1985 $12.3 million; 1985-1986 $16.4 million; 19861987 $13.8 million; 1987-1988 $14.6 million.
In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned:
(a to d) (i) No. (ii) No. (iii) No.
The Conservation and Protection Services of Environment Canada occupies laboratory space in the Bedford Institute of Oceanography at no charge.
Environment Canada's operating expenditures including salaries for the Conservation and Protection Services are as follows:
1984-1985 $636,000; 1985-1986 $598,900; 1986-1987 $664,200; 1987-1988 $719,500.


Ms. Jewett: Has the Government commissioned environmental impact studies concerning the proposed purchase of a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and, if so on what dates and, in each case (a) from what individuals or groups (b) at what cost (c) what were the findings?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a) and (c) The submarine project will follow Environment Canada's Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) with respect to environmental impact assessments. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be contracted to commence the initial environmental screening in mid-1988. Consultations will take place with military base experts, members of the civilian environmental, scientific and technical communities, and local elected officials.
(b) The total costs are yet to be determined, but are expected to fall in the range $300,000 to $400,000.


Ms. Jewett: Is the cost of the following expenditures associated with the purchase of nuclear powered submarines and, if so, has the Government calculated it and, if so, what is the amount in the case of (a) the purchase of initial spare parts (b) the purchase of initial weapons load of torpedoes and missiles (c) the construction of shore support infrastructure on the east and west coasts, including dockyard facilities and supply and quality assurance systems (d) the construction of nuclear fuel (/) transport (ii) storage (iii) handling (iv) disposal facilities (e) the (i) purchase of fuel abroad (ii) construction of nuclear fuel production facilities in Canada (f) the security for nuclear fuel transport and storage (g) the cost of upgrading submarines to Arctic operational standards (i) in general (ii) by the addition of hardpoints to the hull to enable surfacing through ice (iii) by the purchase of navigation aids and ice sensors (h) the training of two crews for each submarine, including (i) training abroad for some skilled personnel (ii) hiring of foreign instructors (iii) construction of training facilities (i) the training of dockyard personnel in servicing the submarines and reactors (j) the training of shore personnel in nuclear fuel (i) transport (ii) handling (iii) storage (iv) disposal (k) the (i)
construction of infrastructure for manufacturing hull and internal equipment components in Canada (ii) training for builders (iii) purchase of Canadian-made components (iv) possible changes to the submarine design to accommodate Canadian components.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Department of National Defence's
submarine project cost estimates include all items, with the exception of (e) (ii). An appropriate allowance for cost risk is also included in the estimates for each item. The estimates will differ somewhat depending on whether they apply to the French or the British submarine design. The estimates will be refined during project definition so as to support a subsequent government decision on whether or not to proceed with project implementation. The actual cost estimates cannot be divulged at this time so as to protect British and French proprietary information and not to prejudice the selection of submarine design country of origin.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 317 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions listed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 317 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Parry: Since September 4, 1984, have any government departments or agencies spent money in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (a) in what amounts (b) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Richard Grisé: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 8, 1988