1988-05-24

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House, further to the call on a question of privilege by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), that I have received two letters. One is from the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the other is from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). They are with respect to the same matter, that is, the proposed Government House order with respect to the abortion issue.
I want to advise both Hon. Members and the House that I view these as points of order, although there may be a tangential argument on privilege. At the moment, I view them as points of order.
I also want to indicate to both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Oshawa that I have given this matter a good deal of consideration over the weekend with respect to the question of whether procedurally this is the time for the Chair to make a ruling. I want to advise both Hon. Members and other Members of the House that it is the opinion of the Chair that this is not the time to make a definitive ruling on the important matter that is raised here. However, it is to say that this morning I would appreciate it if both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Oshawa would address the Chair giving the parameters of their point, but to do so briefly.
None of what takes place this morning will in any way take away from the full right of all Hon. Members to a full argument on this issue at a later time. I have to point out at the moment that the matter which is complained of may of course never come in front of the House in the form in which it is, or for that matter in any other form. That is why it is premature at the moment.
Rather than take up the time of the House this morning in a full argument, and I do not think as yet I am procedurally in a position in which I should make a decision, I would ask, first, the Hon. Member for Windsor West to address the Chair. As I
say, I hope with the co-operation of the Hon. Member he will do so not too extensively. The same applies to the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I will pay great heed to what you have just said. I hope that in considering what I say in the context of a point of order Your Honour also will allow me to deal with the matter somewhat more broadly. I respectfully submit we are dealing here not only with a point of order as such but something that deals with the very privileges of this House and of its Members.
Late Friday afternoon of last week the Government tabled a motion with the Clerk. The motion, as I read it, is intended to allow the Government to suspend the ordinary rules of the House, the Standing Orders, and the usual practices of the House so that it can force the House and its Members to deal with a motion on the issue of abortion in the manner the Government desires. This motion was tabled without any prior consultation on it with the opposition Parties. It certainly does not have their consent.
[DOT] (mo)
In part the motion states:
That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders and the usual practices of the House, the motion and the two amendments listed here under in relation to abortion (designated as Amendment A and Amendment B), shall be transferred and listed under Government Business under Government Orders on the Order Paper and Notices and shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded and shall be ordered for debate at the next sitting of the House as a single Government Order; and
That, in the debate on the said Government Order, each Member may speak only once, but may speak to the motion and both amendments, for a maximum of twenty minutes, followed by ten minutes of questions and comments, with such time limits to apply to the Minister of the Crown speaking first in the debate; and that no amendment to the motion or Amendment A or Amendment B be receivable following the adoption of this Order ...
In short, the motion takes the unprecedented step of limiting the number of times a Member can speak on the question of abortion, even before the debate begins on that question, and before there is any indication of how long the debate is likely to go on. It also takes the unprecedented step of taking away the rights of Members to propose amendments to the Government's own motion.
This motion that the Government wants to put forward has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of a so-called free vote. There is no reference anywhere in the Government's motion to the idea of a free vote. The words appear nowhere in that motion. I also wish to point out that the Standing Orders do not refer to the concept of a free vote. Instead, in the

May 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
traditions and practices of the House, a free vote is something decided upon by each Party and its Leader with respect to how they as a group will deal with the question. It is not something to be decided upon by the order of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), or by a vote in the House. It is a matter of the individual decision of each Party and its Leader.
I submit that, by tabling the motion that I have quoted in part, the Government is not only breaching the rules and the practices of this House, but it is also breaching the fundamental privileges of the House as an institution, and the privileges of all its Members.
It is a result of the far-reaching implications of this matter that I gave notice that I intended to raise it at the first opportunity today rather than at some later point. We are dealing here with the type of matter that is so important that it is dealt with first at the very beginning of our rules in Standing Order 1, which states:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to say a word about the definition of privilege. As we know, Erskine May's classic definition is:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
Let me also quote Redlich who asserts:
The particular privileges of the Commons having been defined as: "The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords".
In presenting its Notice of Motion, the Government is not merely attempting to put before the House a motion that is not procedurally acceptable, it is also insinuating a process that is completely foreign to and obnoxious to the practices, usages, and privileges of the House as built up and defined over centuries in both Canada and other parliamentary democracies. In light of Standing Order 1, I say that what the Government is doing is both contrary to the privileges of the House and to the Standing Orders themselves. In its Notice of Motion and in its partisan zeal and arrogance, the Government is attempting to use its overwhelming majority to limit the debating rights of Members of the House, while at the same time proposing to lessen the role of the House by asking it to pass upon unclear propositions which the Government itself defines and insists be the only ones to be voted on by this House.
Another Parliamentary authority cites an old parliamentary maxim which I submit is appropriate to this case, and I quote:
That nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of Administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, these rules-That the forms of proceedings, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of Ministers; and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.
It is bad enough that in its motion the Government attempts to limit the opportunities of Members to take part in this debate before the debate even begins, and before there is any indication that the debate would go on in a manner that Members may decide is undue or excessively lengthy. What is most repugnant about what the Government is attempting to do is that it is attempting, in an uncalled for and unprecedented manner, to limit the right of Members to offer amendments. Erskine May clearly defines the purpose of amendments as follows:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.
In contrast to every known parliamentary practice, the Government seeks to limit Members from placing before the House any other alternatives for consideration than the ones put forward in the Government's own motion or, even more contrary to parliamentary practice, to prevent Members from offering amendments that would seek to clarify what, in the minds of some Members and perhaps even many people in the general public, are the rather vague motion and amendments that the Government is claiming defines all the options on this issue of abortion.
It is true that, in recent years, the House of Commons has found it necessary from time to time to temporarily modify its procedures to accommodate certain debates and to provide for the orderly consideration of alternatives. The debate that has just begun on the amendments to the Constitution are a good example. The special order governing that debate was first adopted by unanimous consent of all the Members. Second, and most important, it specifically safeguarded the rights of all Members to offer what they considered to be appropriate amendments.
In this case, that is not what the Government proposed to do. It now proposes to use its majority to force upon the House a procedure that completely prohibits other Members from offering any amendments that they consider appropriate, and thereby inhibits the House from exercising its right and responsibility to attempt to pronounce itself clearly on an important public issue.
As we can see from the government's motion, on this issue the Government is seeking to force upon the House three options which many may consider to be limited and ill-defined, and to claim that somehow this will result in a free and constructive decision by Members. In the process it attempts to stifle free debate and to eliminate the kinds of choices that Members had in the past in this House been called upon to make and have been willing to make. It seeks, unilaterally, to limit free speech while claiming to do the opposite.
May 24, 1988

The notice of motion which the Government has put forward is clearly contrary to the usages and practices of the House and, therefore, contrary to the Standing Orders as well as to the privileges of the House. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the words of Standing Order 1. You, Sir, have the power and, indeed, the duty to refuse to put the Government's motion to the House. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 120 reads:
Foremost among his many responsibilities, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to Bills which are out of order. He rules on points order submitted to him by Members on questions as they arise. Many powers have been vested in the Speaker by virtue of the Standing Orders.
Citation 424(3) reads:
It is the Speaker's duty to call the attention of the mover and of the House to the irregularity of the motion; whereupon the motion is usually withdrawn or so modified as to be no longer objectionable. If the motion is of such a nature that objection cannot be removed, the Speaker may refuse to put the motion to the House. He treats it as a nullity.
These citations clearly impose upon the Speaker the responsibility for refusing to permit the Government to proceed with its motion. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the mere submission of the notice of this motion would appear to be both a breach of the rules, a breach of the privileges of the House, and contempt for its rights and immunities.
We are dealing here with a situation where the Government is attempting to override a basic concept of our parliamentary democracy, that is, the House belongs to all its Members. It does not belong simply to those Members who happen to be, for the time being, Ministers. It does not belong only to those Members who, for the time being, are supporting the Government. It belongs to all of its Members. The Members who are in the minority in this House who are in the Opposition have rights which, under the concept of parliamentary democracy, fall upon you, Sir, particularly, to defend and to protect. The Government's concept of democracy is foreign, as it is expressed in this motion, to the rules, to the traditions of this House and of parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Mayer:: How can you be against a free vote?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the Government succeeds with this motion, it will rip out the heart and the guts of our parliamentary traditions and democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair fully appreciates the importance with which Hon. Members deal with this matter. As I say, I have asked spokespersons for both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party to give me briefly the parameters of the issue as they see it. I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West has done that most explicitly, and I would ask him to conclude his remarks.
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that you have a special role to protect the traditions and privileges of this House. You have a special role to protect minorities in this House. You have a special role to make sure that our parliamentary democracy, its spirit and its traditions remain. The Government may be claiming to be operating on a basis of democracy, but what it is doing is following a course of action which, I submit, will leave an outward shell and nothing else. The Government takes great credit for supporting parliamentary reform.
What it is saying and showing through this motion is that the Government really does not believe in parliamentary reform. I do not think the Government really believes in the concept of parliamentary democracy because if it did, it would not attempt, in advance, to limit the Members' rights to speak and the Members' rights to offer amendments.
By way of conclusion-


Mr. Speaker:: By way of conclusion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: By way of conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that what the Government wants to do is clearly contrary to the Standing Orders of this House, particularly Standing Order 1. The traditions and precedents which Standing Order 1 covers are valid, binding and relevant in the operations of this House.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which the Government would like this House to be dealing with, if it should be proceeded with in this House, and I stress that, and debated in a serious way as the Government wants, would be a denial of the most fundamental rights of parliamentary democracy rather than a triumph of parliamentary democracy.
The reality is that this Government is now trying, by using a procedure that has not been used in 105 years, to get away with what it clearly understands is unacceptable in terms of the current rules of the House of Commons.

Last week, the Government made a suggestion to the Opposition Parties regarding the resolution on abortion. The resolution was contradictory, and that is why the Opposition Parties did not agree with this approach. Even Government Members are aware that a resolution must be consistent and coherent to be debated in the House of Commons.

Instead of doing what it ought to have done, Mr. Speaker, going back to the drawing-board of the Cabinet room and presenting an internally consistent and coherent resolution that would be acceptable within the rules of Parliament, and instead of using its majority to demonstrate leadership in dealing with a tough issue and presenting it to the House of Commons, the Government is trying to use its majority to trample over the rights of the Opposition in the House of Commons, and that is totally unacceptable.

May 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
In my brief comments I would like to say first what is not at issue here. As has already been mentioned, nowhere in this smorgasbord of the resolution which the Government is trying to force Parliament to deal with is there any reference to the words "a free vote". That is not the issue. If the Government had wanted to act courageously in a parliamentary democracy, it could have presented a coherent, logical resolution which would be procedurally acceptable and then make a request, if it so desired, for a free vote. It did this in the case of capital punishment, a motion that we opposed but at least the Government proceeded in a responsible fashion to address a concern that was of some real importance to the people of Canada and to its elected Members here in the House of Commons. The Government could have followed that procedure but it chose not to.
This issue is not about whether there is or there is not a free vote on the question of abortion. Nor is it a question of being able to change the Standing Orders. There has been ample precedent for changing the Standing Orders. We did it in my lifetime as a Member of Parliament back in 1969 when there was heated debate, discussion and a vote. But the point is there were all of those elements. A change in Standing Orders, yes; after a debate, discussion and vote, yes. Again we did it last year, which I think is coming to be the acceptable process in our Parliament in the evolution of parliamentary democracy where all the Members on both sides agreed unanimously to change the Standing Orders. Whether the route of 1969 was chosen or the route of last year when attempting to change the Standing Orders, there are procedures for doing it. However, that is not the issue. What is at issue here is fundamental to the evolution of parliamentary democracy from the 18th century to the present.
I am astounded that this is a Government that calls itself Conservative. It ought to be hypersensitive to the protection of minority rights and the evolution of Parliamentary democracy, both in Great Britain and in other Commonwealth countries like Canada.
We are seeing an attempt to do something by the Government, not simply by individual Members who constitute a majority on the other side of the House, but by the Cabinet. It is attempting not to persuade its Members to have a vote using its majority to change rules after long debate, but we are seeing the executive branch of Government unilaterally suspending the rules of Parliament. Anyone who believes in democracy and who understands our traditions has to understand that that is totally unacceptable in a Parliamentary democracy.
It is not, in my judgment, accidental that the last time this was done was 105 years ago. Surely we have learned a lot from the evolution of democracy in Canada as well as elsewhere about keeping a constant check on the rights of the majority, symbolized by the Cabinet of the day which has its responsibility to that majority of its own caucus but also a responsibility
to preserve the rights of minority in opposition. However, this Government has done something, for whatever reason I know not.
Very often, one gets arrogant in the use of power, simply by not thinking about what is going on. One's will is frustrated by using the rules and one simply wants to achieve an end, so one works to get around the rules. We on this side of the House say that the democratic rules as they have evolved in our system have to be respected, not trampled on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It has already been indicated to you that the first rule in our book, Your Honour, deals with calling upon the Speaker to reach a decision about the acceptability of a proposed resolution, any other rule or any other procedure. This rule indicates that the Speaker's decision shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions so far as they may be applicable to the House.
With the exception of the one precedent 105 years ago, all the other traditions, rights and privileges that have evolved in this Parliament, including the democratic tradition of electing the Speaker of Parliament and the rules that were developed unanimously a year ago, have entailed as a basic presupposition not simply the right of the majority ultimately to make decisions but that the majority has to work within preestablished rules and that those rules have to inherently respect the rights of the Opposition. That is the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to conclude by making two points. I want to cite for the benefit of Government Members words spoken by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, a man who did understand Parliament and its traditions, if any Canadian ever did understand Parliament and its traditions. Mr. Diefenbaker had this to say:
In order to maintain Parliament as an instrument of freedom, a fearless and determined opposition whose rights are respected is of the essence. To that end rules have to be interpreted fairly, for when the interpretation of the laws of parliament is altered or changed in order to meet the demand of the majority or has the appearance of being so altered, then the rights of Parliament are violated and tyranny is substituted for justice.
I think Mr. Diefenbaker was right when he spoke those words, and I ask you, Your Honour, as I know you will, to give a lot of serious thought, in reaching your final decision, to whether or not this motion has to be taken off the Order Paper. I think that that ought to be the final decision. The Government ought to withdraw it from the Order Paper. We cannot proceed with this kind of motion.
What the Government is attempting to do procedurally today on the question of abortion, if it is permitted today, will allow it tomorrow to do the same thing on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade legislation. Another day it may do so with pension legislation or with any other matter. I urge Members on the
May 24, 1988

opposite side, Members who are part of that large majority, to think of the implications of the executive branch of Government being able to get away with this. If it is able to get away with this on the question of abortion, we may see the same Government applying the same principle on any other important matter of concern in the future.
Therefore, I urge you, Your Elonour, as the officer of this House, one of the highest officers of the land whose obligation is to preserve parliamentary democracy and everything it stands for, to think about the consequences of the Government being able to get away with this. I am convinced that you will say that the majority must have its rights, yes, but in a parliamentary democracy, fundamental to our notion of democracy is minority rights. If the Government proceeds with this, those rights will be trampled, and that, Sir, is not acceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, reserve my right to reply in detail to the very capable arguments of my opponents at the appropriate time. I am glad that you pointed out that there is an appropriate time for this to be dealt with.
We are very comfortable with our position, both procedurally and according to democratic principles. During my preparation for that, I will take counsel from the words of my hon. friend from Windsor West, not in this particular debate, but perhaps when he spoke in 1969 when the rules were changed by closure by the previous Liberal administration. I am sure there will be great comfort in the speeches of that time.
I want to point out two things and two things only.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Where was parliamentary democracy at that time?


John Edward Broadbent: And what did you say in 1969?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What did you say?


Mr. Nystrom:: We were here for weeks at that time.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: We listened to you guys, let democracy rule.


Mr. Gauthier:: We will bring the experts in, Nielsen and-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to exercise the appropriate courtesies. For the most part, the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party were given a careful and quiet hearing. I would ask that that be remembered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two points. I want to point out to the House that there were ample consultations, and I thought reasonable consultations at the time, with the House Leaders of both Opposition Parties. Second, I want to point out that on the one hand, my hon. friend from Windsor West
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
says that there is no reference to a free vote in the motion and on the other hand, he says that the Government cannot dictate that there be a free vote on the motion. We are not. We are simply saying that in the vote on this motion, as a matter of Government policy, every Member on the Government benches will be free to vote according to his or her own conscience or according to the dictates of his or her own constituents.
I want to point out to the House that we have no difficulty, on a sensitive, moral issue such as abortion, with having a free vote. We have no difficulty with that whatsoever. We do not intend to politicize this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cassidy:: Don't be absurd.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If the Opposition Parties feel that they must have a Party Whip on the vote, let them do so, but I say once again that there will be no Government Whip on this very sensitive issue. If the Opposition Parties wish one, that is their alternative. If the opposition Parties want to do that, that is their prerogative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome a procedural and political debate on this issue at the appropriate time and reserve my rights.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope Hon. Members will co-operate with the Chair in that at the very beginning I said this is not the appropriate time for the Chair to rule. I took that position this morning after a very great deal of concentration on that particular point over the weekend. I ask Hon. Members to cooperate.
I thank first the Hon. Member for Windsor West for his helpful intervention, as well as the Hon. Member for Oshawa I also thank both opposition Members for co-operating with the Chair and keeping their remarks reasonably brief. I thank the Hon. Minister for doing the same. As I said, there may well be another time when this will be debated more extensively.
In the interests of all Hon. Members and the watching public, I want to recite just exactly what has been going on this morning. First, the motion complained of deals with the various options with respect to the abortion issue. It is not for the Chair to get into the substance of the motion in any way and I most clearly am not going to do so. However, speaking procedurally, notice was given of the motion last Friday. Under the rules of this House, after 48 hours have passed the motion is automatically transferred to what is called Government Orders. If one looks at today's proceedings, one will note that that motion is now Government Order No. 25 dated May 20, 1988. It will also be found on page 37 as well as one other

May 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
place in today's Order Paper under the rubric "Government Business".
The important thing that both Hon. Members and the public understand is because it happens to be under Government Business means only that at some later date, if the Government wishes, it can call it as Orders of the day. When that is done the matter is then before the House. It is not automatically assumed procedurally that something that happens to be under Government Business will automatically be called. Many times these matters are not called. Sometimes they are called many weeks or indeed months later.
So that there is no misunderstanding, because I heard at least one Hon. Member saying "What is the appropriate time for the Chair to rule?", the appropriate time for that is of course if the Government takes the next step and moves to bring the motion in front of the House. I hope that is clearly understood by all Hon. Members. I say it is not appropriate to be dealt with now because it has not been called as Orders of the day. Just because it is on the Order Paper does not necessarily mean it will ever be called. That is a procedural matter, but I am bound to proceed according to the procedural rules as they are laid out.
I might well be asked why the Chair listened to some opening remarks at this time. The answer is because it is obviously a very important matter to both the opposition Parties and it is helpful to the Chair to at least have heard some opening remarks with respect to the parameters of debate. That is why I have taken what may seem to be an unusual but I hope useful step in hearing both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Oshawa, as well as the Minister, of course.
I thank all Hon. Members for their courtesy and the interventions, which have been helpful to me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in some press reports over the weekend it was suggested that the Government House Leader had consulted with the Table and that this procedure had been tested and proven to be correct. I just want to make sure that is not the truth, the report is wrong, and the Government is not using the Chair as an argument in support of its motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I strongly object to the Government using the Table or the Chair to back up a lousy argument.


Charles James Mayer: Get serious.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is an excellent parliamentarian and when he raises a point the Chair is very much inclined to listen. Let me just dissuade all Hon. Members from one thing to begin with. So far as the Chair is concerned, it is not the place of the Speaker of the House to be saying to the Government, yes, this or that procedure is necessarily right or wrong. With respect to the Table Officers, at least since I have
been Speaker, it has been made very clear to them that I want them advising all Hon. Members in this House as to the procedural appropriateness of anything they wish to propose. That includes both research offices of the opposition Parties, and no doubt from time to time the Government as well. The whole purpose of the Table, and I am sure the Hon. Member and others will understand, is to give as much possible procedural information on these matters as we possibly can.
While it may very well be that as your Speaker I have perhaps pushed harder to make sure the Table is available for consultation, I think, and I hope others will support me, that this has been helpful to the House rather than detrimental. Certainly whatever efforts have been made by the Table from time to time for all Members in explaining the procedural rules, so far as I know there has been nothing untoward said or done that would not fit with past practice or indeed be in the general interests of the place. I just want to make that abundantly clear.
I would hope that on that there would be no necessity for debate. If any Hon. Member on either side of the House has any complaint with the Table, then I would ask that the Chair be given some notice of it in advance and perhaps it can be dealt with in that way.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could make clear to the House and those watching us that where advice is sought by a Member from the Table on procedure, that advice is not in the nature of an advance ruling, making the step intended to be taken by the Hon. Member, including a government Minister, any more acceptable than if the advice had not been sought.
The reason the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised the point is that the press reported that the Deputy Government House Leader had attempted to justify to the public the validity of the step he was taking with respect to the motion we have been discussing on the basis that he had checked it with the Table. It should be made clear that while, as you say, Sir, the Table is there to provide advice and be helpful to all Members, having sought and received that advice the Hon. Member acting on it does not have anything in the nature of an advance ruling. If a point of order or question of privilege is raised about that step, you, Sir, are the sole and final arbiter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may well have helped to clarify the position of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The Hon. Member is of course absolutely correct. It would be quite improper for the Chair to indicate to one of the three Party Leaders in advance what kind of ruling it might make on anything. It is certainly sometimes helpful for the Chair to give an indication to all three Party Leaders or to all three Whips at any given time what the Chair's sense of something is. I, of course, have done that occasionally when I thought it was helpful to all three Parties.
May 24, 1988

However, the Hon. Member for Windsor West makes an excellent point. I am grateful to him for clarifying it and am grateful because I now see more clearly the point that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was making.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's what I was trying to say, you interrupted me.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if I might I would like to go back to the explanation of the Chair concerning the point of privilege raised by my colleague from Windsor West. I believe it did contain some elements of ambiguity which, in the context of this issue, could very much affect public debate.
As I understand the Speaker's ruling, he is suggesting that he is not prepared to entertain full argument on this point until such time as, through government business, the House brings the order forward.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is saying that certainly at the moment I do not see it as a point of privilege. However, when this matter comes back before the House, if indeed it does, I will, of course, hear full and complete argument on the matter. If I can then be persuaded that there is, in addition to what I think is very clearly a point order, some additional matter to be argued on a point of privilege, I will hear that argument at that time. At the present time I take this matter more as a point of order than as a point of privilege.
However, in arguing a point of order it may very well be that part of the argument is to refer, in general terms, to the privileges of Hon. Members. As I understand the argument that has been put to the Chair this morning by both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Oshawa it is that the House has agreed to a set of orders. The Government is proposing that those orders be changed with respect to a specific matter.
There is the argument, as I understood it, that not only ought this not be procedurally acceptable to the Chair but that it is not acceptable to Hon. Members and it may well get into a question of privilege. At the moment I am not prepared to say that it is but, as I have made clear, I will hear full argument if it is appropriate, under the circumstances, to come back and listen to this again. However, that, as I said, is premature at the moment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment very briefly on your use of language one minute ago. You indicated that there was objection from our side of the House relating to privileges of Members on the grounds that the Government was proposing to change the rules. I rise to be quite precise about what I said. My objection was that the Government is proposing to suspend the rules. Whatever one might say about the legitimacy of using the majority after debate to change the rules in the House, the point at hand is, in my judgment, fundamentally different. They are invoking a procedure which
Tabling of Documents
was last used 105 years ago to suspend the rules of Parliament. That, Your Honour, is the point that I see is involved in the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West, but perhaps I could respond to that. I will, of course, consider very carefully the words which the Hon. Member used. In trying to summarize a longer and very explicit argument, I do not want to take away in any way the import of those words. I would like to close off this part of this morning's business. I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West for a moment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that the argument I presented to you earlier this morning was with respect to the Government's effort to suspend the rules arbitrarily with respect to one matter before the House rather than an effort by the Government to make an over-all change in the rules after proper debate and, if necessary, a vote.
I am dealing specifically and particularly with the Government's motion which is very clearly for the purpose of suspending the rules and the usual practices of the House when it comes to the one matter that it wants the House to deal with in a way which is not within the ordinary Standing Orders, that is, the question of abortion. My remarks were not aimed in any way at what is appropriate or what is not appropriate with respect to an over-all, permanent change in the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have understood both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Oshawa clearly. While there is a complaint about the Government's Notice of Motion, it is not a complaint that says, in effect, that the Government is trying to change all the rules of this place. As I understand it, whether we say "suspend" or "change" or "suspend and change", depending on the context in which it is used, it is referring specifically to this single motion. That is my understanding and that is the basis upon which I will proceed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the section of our Standing Orders which refers to Tabling of Documents. I want to raise again the point of order which I raised on Friday. It has now been possible to look at the actual detailed comments within Hansard with respect to the document with which the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) dealt. If I recall that discussion correctly, the question was whether we were dealing with referring to a document, citing a document, or quoting a document.

May 24, 1988
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is, of course, relating the issue correctly. I have to say to him with apologies that I have been occupied with some other matters and I am not ready, as of the moment, to respond to the matter that he has raised, but I will try to do so as quickly as possible.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, just to put the point, we now have the language in front of us and the language indicates clearly that the Minister for International Trade actually described-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will, I know, want to cooperate with the Chair. The Chair will carefully read the language. If the Chair feels that there is any necessity to come back and hear further argument from the Hon. Member, I most certainly will do so, but perhaps at a more appropriate time. I know the Hon. Member would want to assist the Chair in that.


AN ACT TO IMPLEMENT THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved: that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America be now read the first time and be printed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a very important point of order. The Official Opposition knows and
everybody in the House knows that when a Bill is introduced leave to introduce a Bill is usually put to the House and then that being given, first reading follows. In this case, the television cameras were telling us that we were called in to vote on the first reading of this Bill. I inquired of my people why we were not voting on leave to introduce the Bill and I was told by experts in the field that the procedure of leave had not been put to the House because this Bill was based on a Ways and Means motion to which the House gave concurrence last Friday. I am sure everybody recalls that.
My argument is that the Government needs leave to introduce a Bill to spend money. We are not talking about a Ways and Means motion. I could read it to you, Mr. Speaker, but for the sake of brevity, I will not read the Ways and Means motion. It goes to the heart of the Government's authority to impose customs duties, to authorize the imposition of temporary duties and to authorize the imposition of duties for emergency action.
This Bill before us today has a Royal recommendation attached to it. It is entitled "An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America". The recommendation reads:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America".
Standing Order 84(11) is very clear on that matter. It talks about the effect of a motion being adopted, namely, a Ways and Means motion. It reads:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
I submit that the Bill before us is not a Bill which meets the requirements of the Ways and Means motion. It is a new Bill, completely different from a Bill that would be based on the Ways and Means motion and, therefore, the House should not pronounce itself at this time on this question without seeking leave to introduce a Bill, a Bill for which the Government has a right to ask and to seek leave but that leave must be put before we proceed with a Bill. I have no argument against the Ways and Means motion procedure, but I argue strongly that for the Government to spend money it must ask authority from the people of Canada represented here in this House.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the previous speaker that leave to introduce this Bill is now the motion which should be put before the House, critical aspect being that this requires Royal recommendation and must receive Royal recommendation. Consequently, having looked at the precedents, I am hard pressed to find a precedent to permit us to proceed with the step that we are now about to initiate. Before we begin, would it not be appropriate to ask you to identify the precedent we are using today allowing us to proceed along this particular avenue.
May 24, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the points being made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I have some serious doubt as to whether the position advanced by either Hon. Member is procedurally correct. In the interests of this place and in the interests of moving with some good grace upon these matters I am, for the moment, going to accept the position that both Hon. Members have taken. We will proceed to a vote on exactly that, the introduction of the Bill. We shall proceed with it immediately.
I wish to say that I will consider the matter with care, which I do not have full time to do at the moment, and will give some reasoned comment on this. I just ask everyone not to take this as necessarily a precedent. However, in the interests of moving ahead with the business of the House and in the interests of satisfying at least for the moment the objection raised by the Opposition, we will proceed with the first motion and we shall proceed with the vote on it at this time. That means that if called for, there will be a second vote.


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce a Bill entitled An Act to Implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall proceed with the vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair, of course, is prepared to dispense with the bell, but that will take consent. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.

May 24, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall this Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House! The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an important point of order in relation to the consideration of this particular stage of this trade Bill. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that it has become customary over the years for the Speaker, at this point, to put the following question to the House: "When shall the Bill be read a second time?" The Speaker then answers this question with: "The next sitting of the House".
Almost invariably the House agrees, and that is the end of the matter. However, in rising on this point of order, I wish to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion, there is another course of action that this House may decide to take.
It ought to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that what you are really doing here in procedural terms is substituting this pro forma question: "When shall the Bill be read a second time", for a motion by the Minister himself. The motion which, over the years, has fallen into disuse is: "That the Bill be read a second time at the next sitting of the House". It is not uncommon, Mr. Speaker, for this motion-


Mr. Speaker:: I am only interrupting the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap to indicate first, that I have his point of order; second, I will hear him fully on this after the close of Question Period this afternoon. I will hear the Hon. Member further at three o'clock.
It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.32 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Members
Allmand	Grondin	MurphyAlthouse	Guilbault	NunziataAngus	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromAxworthy	Heap	OrlikowBlaikie	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Hopkins	ParryCaccia	Hovdebo	PennerCassidy	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Corneille	Kaplan	RobichaudDingwall	Keeper	RobinsonFinestone	Langdon	RodriguezFoster	MacLellan	RompkeyFulton	Manly	Young-46Garneau	McCurdy	Gauthier	McDonald	Gray	(Broadview-	(Windsor West)	Greenwood)


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to urge the Government of Canada to proceed with a plan for older workers' adjustment. Members will recall that some time ago the Government terminated a plan of the previous administration which provided financial assistance to older workers.
The Government promised, in financial statements by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and in others, that the

May 24, 1988

Government would reintroduce a new plan in order to assist older workers. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has not materialized. What we have had were discussions between the Government of Canada and the provinces with no clear resolution of this particular problem.
In my own province the Cape Breton Building and Trades Council has submitted a proposal to the Government of Canada as well as to the Government of Nova Scotia but to date it has not received a favourable response from either level of government.
I would urge on behalf of its members and, indeed, all older workers in this country, that the Government of Canada announce clearly and forthrightly the terms and conditions of its older workers' adjustment program so that various provinces can take advantage of those schemes in order to put in place suitable incomes for older workers who are in need of financial assistance at this time.



ABORTION


[Stage Direction]
Mir. John Oostrom (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, fetal tissue is fast becoming a prominent material in surgery for there is evidence that fetal tissue implants in the brain and in other organs will allow cell regeneration in the recipients. This process poses very seriously implications to human life. Fetuses will be harvested like common commodities. A black market will undoubtedly develop where women will become pregnant with the sole purpose of aborting.
It has been shown that fetuses in the 16 to 24-week stage are the best in providing usable tissue. The 16 to 24-week stage is a fully developed baby.
Life must be respected and held sacred above all other rights. If our society is to continue to be civilized, Parliament must ensure that life is protected from conception and that the exploitation of innocent life for any situation is severely punished.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 Canadians have responded with compassion and generosity to famine victims in Ethiopia. Until now Canada has had good co-operation with the Ethiopian Government. Now, under pressure from the military struggle
in Eritrea and Trigre, the Ethiopian Government appears to have abandoned this co-operative approach.
Early this spring it barred foreign relief workers except for United Nations staff, from working in these northern provinces. But Canada continued to provide assistance and only last week provided for two Hercules transports to fly food into the area under dispute.
Now the Ethiopian Government has given the International Red Cross only 50 days to remove its food and medical supplies. Diplomats see this as a preliminary to seizure of these stocks by Ethiopian authorities. Canadians still want to help, but more and more they ask how effective their help can be when the Ethiopian Government seems intent on placing shortterm military objectives ahead of international co-operation designed to keep Ethiopian people from starving.



THE LATE LAZARUS SITTICHINLI

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, during early 1932 the attention of North America was riveted on the manhunt for one Albert Johnson, the notorious Mad Trapper of Rat River, who had murdered several persons, including an RCMP officer. This was one of the first occasions that aircraft and wireless had been extensively used for police work.
Albert Johnson was killed at the shoot-out at Eagle River on February 17, 1932, and is buried in a graveyard at Aklavik, Northwest Territories.
Last Friday former Special Constable Lazarus Sittichinli, who had played an important part in the manhunt and who, after a lifetime of service to the RCMP, the Anglican Church, and his community, died in his ninety-eighth year, was buried in Aklavik just a few feet from the man whom he had brought to justice over half a century ago.



SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: May 24, 1988
China all have nuclear submarines capable of using our frozen High Arctic waters 12 months of the year.
There is a lesson here. Let's start to use it before we lose it.



NEW CANADIAN IDENTITY

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to make a statement today, but considering what was said by the previous speaker, I feel I should. He said that just about everybody is running around Canada's North except Canadians, and he is right, but I hardly think the young people visiting us today would be thrilled to know how many billions of dollars this will cost, and as for Hon. Members who have trouble with the Official Languages Bill, I think they should take a leaf from the book of the young people visiting us today, who at the age of 12 are perfectly fluent in French, English and the language of their grandparents, which happens to be Greek. They speak all three languages very well, and I am referring to pupils of the Socrates Schools in Montreal. I therefore want to take the opportunity I was given by the previous speaker to draw the attention of the House to their presence and to their feeling for the new "Canadianism" that is developing in Canada.



RADIO-CANADA DEMANDS OF COALITION FOR DEFENCE OF RADIO-CANADA FRENCH SERVICES

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Coalition pour la defense des services front;ais de Radio-Canada demands the following from the Government and Canadian parliamentarians:
1.	That the Broadcasting Act recognize the distinct identity and special needs of the CBC's French network, Radio-Canada.
2.	That the votes in the Main Estimates allocated for French-language radio and television broadcasting be debated and voted on separately from those allocated for English-language radio and television public broadcasting.
3.	That the budget for the CBC's French network be administered, managed and controlled separately from the CBC's English network.
4.	That annual public financing of Radio-Canada be significantly increased so as to guarantee Canada's Francophones the same quality of programming, broadcasts and
services available to Anglophones through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada must not forget its Frenchspeaking audience in remote and outlying areas.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, late May and early June rains can save the grain crops of western Canada. However, livestock producers are suffering from the double impact of no grass and, even more important, dry water holes.
Some provincial and federal Government pastures will be unable to take cattle as they normally do at this time of year because they have absolutely no water. There is ample time to formulate and develop a contingency plan for grain producers, but for livestock producers we are now at the eleventh hour.
This Government has, in the past, created programs to deal with specific problems, and will once again provide assistance to livestock producers who are facing water and feed shortages, in order to maintain this essential part of western agriculture. Farmers can count on a federal government program with financial assistance as they have in the past.



CHALLENGE '88 SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's cut-backs to the Challenge '88 Summer Student Employment Program are hurting many small organizations, particularly in the non-profit and social service sectors.
The 20 per cent cut-back in the allocation to Ontario combined with an increase in numbers of applications, and the Government's continued emphasis on increasing allocations to the private sector, have led in many cases to non-profit organizations having their summer programs halved or even eliminated. This has happened despite increasing need in some areas, and despite the fact that many non-profit and voluntary organizations need paid summer employees to meet seasonal increased demands for service.
Challenge '88 must be redirected to ensure that its primary clients, Canadian students, are better served in terms of both quantity and quality of work opportunity. It must not become a mere disbursement fund for private sector employers.
May 24, 1988



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive examples of incredible actions by banks. Allow me to quote from a bank's letter dated December 2, 1987:
We hope you have not forgotten your blue chip account-with a balance of $438.81 which has not been used for some time. As your banker we value your business-unfortunately, in the event that we do not hear from you within 4 weeks from the date of this letter and as a last resort, your account will be closed and the funds retained by the bank in payment of service charges. Of course we would prefer to have you bank with us.
While the letter was dated December 2, one of the four weeks was used before it was even posted by the bank. In any case, surely any suggestion of retaining $438.81 in payment of service charges is absurd.
These types of high-handed, insensitive actions by banks need to be curtailed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I rose in this House to register my objections to the fact that CN was considering shutting down its reclamation plant in Transcona and consolidating those activities in London, Ontario. That has now happened because CN announced it last Friday.
I would like to register again my strong objection to this move by the railway and the effect it will have not only on the people who work at the reclamation centre but on many other economic activities in Manitoba related to the reclamation of scrap metal by CN.
In the same vein, Manitobans continue to be irritated, frustrated, and angered at the way in which Manitoba is being under-funded by the Western Diversification Program. There was new evidence last week to the effect that most of the money is going to the other western provinces and Manitoba continues to be penalized by the Progressive Conservative Government for some reason which is more and more mysterious every day.
It seems even Gary Filmon, the new Premier of Manitoba, has finally caught on to what his federal cousins have been doing to our province for the last few years. We will continue to raise it in this House until Manitoba finally gets a fair deal.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the people of Guysborough County since my election. For more than 20 years the people have pushed for park development. I was honoured to have been the one to respond.
Friday, May 20, was a happy day for the people of Guysborough County. As one who was raised there, it was also a happy day for me. On that day the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) joined with me to announce approval of construction of the Grassy Island National Historic Park at Canso. This development has historical as well as economic significance. I want to thank the Minister for his help, and congratulate my constituents upon this important achievement.
In addition, $3.5 million is being spent on upgrading Highway 16 to Canso. It all helps. We look forward to achieving even more in Guysborough County. Friday, May 20, was an important beginning.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we heard announcement of the closure of a rural post office in the Maritimes, the Dominion Post Office. This makes public what we have been bringing to the attention of this House for some time now, that the Conservative Government has a deliberate policy of closing rural post offices all across Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Nonsense.


Cyril Keeper: The Government has been saying things like I heard just now, "nonsense", but the facts are clear. The closure of the post offices has started.
It is time for the Government to stop attacking the messenger, start hearing the message, revise its policy, and pay some attention to rural Canada instead of attacking it and pulling out one of the services which is essential to good rural life in our country.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- VANCOUVER STUDENTS' STUDY

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day. Introduction of the legislation to implement the

May 24, 1988
Oral Questions
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement also introduces a new era of opportunity for Canada's young people.
Young people like the Grade 11 students at Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver, British Columbia, recognizing the importance of the agreement to their future, have just completed a six-month study of its impact and implications. Their research included meetings with spokespersons on all sides, attending parliamentary hearings and meetings and forums, and surveying 1,300 households. Finally, they produced a report of their findings which they proudly presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during his recent visit to Vancouver.
These students are a fine example of the seriousness with which all Canadians, young and old, should consider the merits of this agreement and prepare to take advantage of the opportunities it provides to ensure a more prosperous future for all Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I would like to put a question or two to the Deputy Prime Minister.

In that case, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated he was against free trade when he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. He never mentioned this issue during the last election campaign. He kept Canadians in the dark for two years while negotiations were under way, and now he is trying to avoid a general election before the agreement is ratified.
The Minister for International Trade stated yesterday that public hearings were held on the trade agreement across this country, and that consequently, it was unnecessary to hold further hearings. This is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: When were Canadians given a chance to express their views on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on the basis of the text of the agreement to which the Minister referred yesterday? The Minister alluded to last fall's hearings, but the committee did not have the text. How do we explain this failure to give Canadians across the country a chance to express their views on the basis of the actual text of the agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree that the extent of consultation with regard to this initiative has been unprecedented. There have been more than 10 First Ministers' meetings respecting this very important initiative. There have been a number of bilateral meetings between the Ministers of Trade of the provinces and the Government of Canada. Private sector groups have been set up to deal with this issue. There have been a number of debates in Parliament. There have been committee hearings.
This proposal is put before the House in response to the protectionist tendencies in the United States and will serve to enhance trade, secure trade, and enshrine it in law in such a manner that Canadians and Canadian industry can plan with some degree of certainty and can build for the future.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this initiative is good for all the provinces, all the regions, and all Canadians, and it is good for Canada.


TEXT OF AGREEMENT-COST OF PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has still not explained to the country why a deal of this importance has not been available to Canadians, professional groups, business groups, and labour unions right across the country to deal with the text.
Despite a few cosy meetings with the premiers, some of whom have told me that those meetings have not been fulsome at all, there has been no opportunity for the people of Canada to comment on the actual text of this agreement.
So far, $30 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on the trade negotiator's office. More than an additional $12 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on a propaganda campaign to sell this deal. We now learn that the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have set up yet another propaganda team under John Laschinger, the former organizer for the Minister of Trade during his quest for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the existence of this new propaganda team? Will he describe what its role is to be? Will he give us an estimate of what its cost is going to be? Will he tell us whether the taxpayers of the country or the Conservative Party will be paying for this propaganda?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, was elected to lead and it has led. We campaigned during the last election on the importance of enhancing international trade, securing trade with our best trading partner to the south, and expanding trade opportunities in all parts of the world. We have kept that promise, we have responded.
May 24, 1988

If the Hon. Member continues to fight the issue, that is probably the best campaign in favour of the free trade issue in Canada. For a gentleman who wants to promote growth, jobs, and opportunity, to suggest that he has no alternative but to tear the deal up is, I think, really copping out.


EFFECT ON INVESTMENT IN ENERGY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not believe that it is a trade deal at all. We believe that it is the "Sale of Canada Act". That is why we are fighting the deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: One of the aspects of the deal on which we never received a satisfactory answer in the House is the extent of the sell-out of energy. The deal has now been introduced by way of first reading. According to page 246 of the so-called free trade agreement, the Prime Minister and the President have agreed to exchange letters between them explaining what the limits will be on the extent of investment in energy across the border. According to the wording of the deal itself, those very important letters were to be exchanged before either country began to implement the deal, the process of which began this morning by the introduction of the omnibus Bill at first reading.
Since the Minister has now introduced legislation, will the Deputy Prime Minister be good enough to produce the letters between the President of the United States and our Prime Minister relating to how the purchase of energy and the transfer of energy investment are to be regulated under this deal?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the chapter "Energy" in the free trade agreement is a chapter that is favourable to Canadians and Canadian producers, because it assures them of a market in the United States.
I also think the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party ought to remember that nothing in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement obliges a Canadian to sell Canada's energy if he is not satisfied with the competitive pricing under free trade.
The agreement provides for an organized market. What it does not do is what the previous Liberal Government did when its National Energy Policy brought the West to its knees and undermined the credibility of Canadians on the energy market.


WATER RESOURCES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime
Oral Questions
Minister and all those who were in the House last Wednesday heard the Minister for International Trade inform the House, as reported at page 15577 of Hansard:
Water is not even the subject of a provision of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement.
Yet item 22.01 on page 86 of the Tariff Schedule of Canada refers explicitly and clearly to water under the trade deal. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why, in the view of the Minister for International Trade, water is not part of the trade deal?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is because it is not part of the trade deal. That was explained by the Minister in the House very clearly last week, and by the Minister of the Environment very clearly in his statement last November, I believe.
The only exception to that, which the Hon. Minister mentioned last week, I believe, was non tariffs on bottled water such as Perrier and the like being sold across the border, which is a product that is produced here in Canada and sold. However, the large scale diversion of water in this country is a no-no.


REFERENCE TO WATER IN TARIFF SCHEDULE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, water is referred to in the Tariff Schedule attached to the trade deal. If the Parliamentary Secretary can read it, he will see waters are referred to very clearly and very specifically.
If the Government found it necessary and desirable to exclude beer, unprocessed fish, and logs, why did the Government not exclude water in order to avoid any misinterpretation? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realize that a clear reference to water makes a mockery of the federal water policy which promises a legislative ban on water resources and water exports?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, that statement has been made very clear by the Minister of the Environment and by the Minister for International Trade. The mention of tariffs within the bottled water section is explained very clearly.
I want to say that if the Liberal Party's policy is not to allow the industries that have developed in Quebec, especially in terms of bottling water, to export bottled water, to the United States, then members of the Party should stand up and say so right now.


REQUEST THAT ELECTION BE HELD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister on this proposed legislation.

May 24, 1988
Oral Questions
In 1983 the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is presently a member of Cabinet, opposed this type of deal. The Minister of Finance, who was here just a moment ago, opposed this deal, and the former Secretary of State, who is not with us, opposed this deal. The Prime Minister himself said in 1983 that he would have nothing to do with such a proposal because the sovereignty of Canada would be affected.
My question is very straightforward. Instead of proceeding before the election with an Act that goes against everything these Ministers said in 1983, will the Government not do the right thing and resign now and have an election on this important issue?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there were better alternatives than the one that has been proposed-and we certainly do not hear them from either of the opposition Parties-then we would certainly consider those alternatives. The fact of the matter is that we know what they are against, but we do not know what they are for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not know what other people are for because it gave up listening to Canadians a long time ago, whether in the House or anywhere else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE-REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Province of Quebec, the Association des consommateurs quebecois is against the agreement, the Union des producteurs agricoles is against the agreement, Quebec's workers are all against the agreement. Why not call an election right away on this very important issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the Government has stopped listening to Canadians. The Hon. Leader of the NDP is not even prepared to listen to the free vote of his own Members of Parliament. He is standing up here in the House today condemning the Government for bringing in a proposition that would allow all Members to express themselves freely. Why the hypocrisy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as is usual, when the Government gets a question it does not like on
one subject it changes the subject instead of answering the question. That is typical.
The day that this Government will deal in a straightforward way with the question of abortion as it did with capital punishment, then it will get the response of my Party. But instead of abiding by the rules of Parliament this Government wants to break the rules. That is what the Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The focus of the question seems to have shifted. Perhaps the Hon. Minister would respond.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the principles remain the same even though the subject matter may differ. All I am asking the Leader of the New Democratic Party is to apply the same principle to one issue as he does to another.
As a matter of fact he said we should do the same thing we did with capital punishment. We had a free vote on capital punishment, and we will have a free vote on abortion.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On January 25 in the House the Minister said:
-in Canada all senior citizens are covered by drug plans. In Canada, no one
goes without drugs for lack of money. Everyone on welfare receives drugs.
I have a letter here from a lady in Cochrane, Ontario, who states:
I am a fifty-five year old woman with angina ... I'm not supposed to work;
but had to take a part-time job to pay for my pills. When I started to take
"Cardizem", the price was a little over $44.00; now the price is $93.89-
soon ... I won't be able to pay for them with what I make.
Who, Mr. Minister, will pay for this lady's life-saving drugs?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I was of the opinion that the Government of Ontario did have medical health support programs for its citizens. I would presume that the Liberal Government of Ontario would try and ensure that none of its citizens went without life-saving drugs.
Since the Hon. Member mentions Cardizem, it should be pointed out that the medicinal value of that drug is saving the lives of approximately 5,000 Canadians a year, is a result of research conducted in Montreal by Canadian researchers.
May 24, 1988

Bill C-22 is designed to ensure that we have more of that research, in order that there are more of those life-saving drugs available to citizens of Canada.


PRICE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. A typical response from the Minister is to abdicate his responsibility and to point the finger at other individuals.
This Minister will know that he has given an undertaking to the House on no less than eight occasions that the prices for prescription drugs would not rise beyond the inflation rate. He has also stated in the House that they would not rise by one cent.
Would the Minister explain that rationale to those Canadians and senior citizens TO whom I referred earlier who are having to pay two and a half times the price for prescription drugs?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have said before, and the Hon. Member will know when he has an opportunity to face up to it honestly, that there is nothing in Bill C-22 that caused the price of a drug to rise. The Hon. Member knows that is true.
The Hon. Member also knows that the price of drugs is determined in the Province of Ontario. It is established by formulary, usually every six months. That formulary is established by the Government of Ontario.
If the Hon. Member has a complaint about the price of drugs in Ontario he should talk to his friends at Queen's Park.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION AMENDING 27 STATUTES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all remember the spectacle in the House back in 1982 when the present Deputy Prime Minister became apoplectic in the Chamber in opposition to the national energy policy that was being introduced because, he said, it contained amendments to 15 different statutes. As a result of that opposition the House of Commons was hijacked for two weeks.
At that time the Deputy Prime Minister said that that incredible abuse of Parliament had to be conducted because the legislation was amending 15 different statutes.
The legislation that was tabled a few hours ago contains amendments to 27 different statutes.
I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister could explain why he was so concerned about the abuse of Parliament and the introduction of an omnibus Bill that changed 15 statutes, and
Oral Questions
why the Government has changed its mind now when it amends 27 different statutes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is a different situation altogether.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The federal Government has the responsibility to negotiate treaties with other countries, and in order to make them effective they have to be legislated. All that is happening here is the legislation simply legislates a free trade agreement with the United States.
There have been other agreements in previous times such as the Auto Pact, and Canada's entry into the GATT, which were done in the same manner, I presume. I find it strange that the Hon. Member is attempting to compare apples and oranges.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the point I am attempting to make is that the Deputy Prime Minister in opposition said that it was totally unacceptable for Parliament to consider amending 17 different statutes in a single omnibus Bill, and consequently hijacked Parliament for two weeks. I am saying if the Government had that attitude-


Harvie Andre: Order!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Quiet, Harvie!
If the Government had that attitude then, why has it now taken on this rather hypocritical position saying that it is all right to amend 27 statutes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly a free trade initiative is quite different from an energy security Bill.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON GRAPE GROWERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Over the weekend, press reports stated that the free trade disease is devastating grape growers. There are approximately 850 in the Niagara region, approximately 16,000 jobs, and a comparable large number in British Columbia. Property values are reported to have dropped by 50 per cent. Many farmers cannot obtain the line of credit that they normally receive for operating their vineyards.
Alvin Danyluck, a grapegrower in Niagara who has been in the business for 19 years, has always been able to obtain an operating loan. This year he cannot because of the free trade deal. Can the Minister of Agriculture advise what Mr. Danyluck and other grape growers who are being refused operating loans should do in the face of this challenge to their

May 24, 1988
Oral Questions
livelihood, their farming operations, and the continued viability of their farming operations?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will realize that this is not the first time that similar questions have been raised by members of the Opposition. The Hon. Member should also realize that we recognize that there will be some difficulties in the grape and wine industries, not only as a result of the bilateral trade arrangement but more particularly as a result of the GATT ruling.
The Hon. Member knows that the grape industry is having difficulties today as a direct result of provincial pricing markups and provincial trade barriers. He should also know that, in the interest of assisting from a federal Government's point of view, we convened a first meeting of a cross-section of the industry and the provinces as early as December 4. Those task forces have worked very diligently since that period of time. They have presented a proposal to us. We are going through the process of consultation with the industry and other Departments.
Very shortly we will be in a position to make an announcement with respect to that particular problem which comes about as a direct result of GATT.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the former Minister for International Trade indicated that the GATT ruling would be phased-in over 10 or 12 years. In fact, last year she promised the grape growers she would do that. Now they lose half their price differential in the first year.
We are talking about a real situation now where property values have dropped in Niagara and in British Columbia, where loans cannot be obtained, and where farmers are being forced into bankruptcy. What assistance will the Minister give, and when will it be made available? The Ontario Government has quoted as high as $30 million a year for many years.
When will the Minister make this financial assistance available to those farmers who are being forced off their lands, or who are being threatened with pulling out their entire vineyards this fall? When will the assistance be provided?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that we have worked diligently on this particular project. He knows that it takes time when one is breaking new ground with an adjustment package of this nature. We will take the time to ensure that we get the package correct. As I indicated before, we should be in position very shortly.
There are some provincial responsibilities here as well. We would expect that the provincial governments would be prepared to provide a fair degree of assistance. The Hon. Member mentions the provinces' interest here. The message that I have been receiving from the provinces is the fact that
they are not even prepared to enter into a surplus purchase program. We indicated our willingness to enter into that project this year as early as December 4.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last Friday, Statistics Canada released figures which showed that the price of prescription drugs went up three times the rate of inflation; 12.4 per cent was the increase in prescription prices as compared to 4 per cent for inflation.
Can the Minister stand up in this House and tell Canadians what he intends to do in exercising his responsibility as Minister of Consumer Affairs specifically with respect to protecting Canadian consumers from the rip-offs by the multinational drug companies?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 contains in it provisions for a patented medicine prices review board and the powers for that board to ensure that prices of drugs do not rise above the rate of inflation except in extraordinary circumstances which must be justified to the board.
That organization would have been in operation last January and would have been able to prevent the price increases indicated had not the Opposition delayed the Bill's passage for so many months.
Appointments have been made to the board. Regulations are being drafted and very soon the board will be in operation. I expect the Board will perform as Parliament has instructed it. Why the board has not done so retroactively-the fault rests with the Opposition for having delayed passage of the Bill.


POWER OF DRUG PRICES REVIEW BOARD
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On November 18, 1986, the Minister said:
The price of drugs will not increase by one cent, not those on the market, not
those coming on the market, no drugs are going to go up.
In light of the fact the Minister has also in Bill C-22 given the multinational drug companies retroactive protection on their patents, is he prepared to make sure that he writes into the Act that the Drug Prices Review Board will have retroactive power to reduce prices, prices for which Canadians have been ripped off over the last year?
May 24, 1988


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member quotes me I wish he would quote me completely and accurately. I stated then, and I state again, and the Hon. Member would have to admit if he were being honest, there is nothing in Bill C-22 which would cause the price of an existing drug to go up by a penny. His Leader admitted that in the House on one occasion.


An Hon. Member:: That wasn't the question.


Harvie Andre: That was the accusation. Bill C-22 did not cause the price of a drug to increase by a penny. The question is can we now go back and reopen Bill C-22 and bring forward amendments-


An Hon. Member:: No.


Harvie Andre: -to put in place some retroactive-


John R. Rodriguez: Retroactive power.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is shouting from his seat that I should take unto myself powers not granted by Parliament. Would he extend that to other areas of responsibility as well?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the extraordinary interference by the Minister in the independence of the refugee determination system in the case of Mr. Santokh Singh. Following a unanimous ruling in favour of refugee status by the three distinguished members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, the Minister wrote two secret letters to the then Minister of Immigration and asked for and received an immediate reversal of this decision.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform this House why he intervened with the then Minister of Immigration and asked that the decision, which was independent and unanimous based on refugee advice from refugee experts, be overturned? What were the reasons that motivated the Minister's actions?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as is unfortunately too often the case with the Hon. Member, the facts that he has put upon the record of the House of Commons are not correct. They are not the facts.
What I was doing in that case was conveying to my colleague, as it is my duty, information that might have been relevant to the decision of that colleague. It may be that in the
Oral Questions
Liberal Government a Minister, who had information relevant to a decision another Minister was taking, would not pass on that information. That is not the way we act in this Government.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the trouble with the Minister is that he is offering no facts at all. That is simply not good enough for this House nor for Canadians, nor for the integrity and the independence of the system.


POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in one of the
Minister's two letters to the then Minister of Immigration he said and wrote:
Indian authorities have made strong and repeated representations for his
return to India.
Given that both the Foreign Affairs Minister for India and the Indian High Commissioner to Canada have said that they have never put pressure on Canada, that they never sought extradition and never suggested refusing him status, and said, "As of now, there is no case", can the Minister explain again to this House this glaring and very serious contradiction? If the Government received a clearance from both CSIS and the RCMP in terms of security, what were the motivating reasons underlying such an unprecedented interference by the Minister in the running of refugee matters by the Minister of Immigration?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first, I may have done an injustice to the Liberal Party and I certainly would not want to do that.
The practice that I followed in this case of communicating information to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, when that information came to my attention as Secretary of State for External Affairs, is the same practice that was followed by the Hon. Jean Chretien when he held this portfolio, in correspondence with the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, and followed by the Opposition House Leader in the other place when he held this portfolio in terms of cases that were then before our colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, in his capacity as Minister of Employment and Immigration. That has just been confirmed from his place by the Hon. Member for York Centre.


John Napier Turner: What was the reason for the intervention?


Charles Joseph Clark: The practice has been in place for some time, Mr. Speaker. I followed that practice. When information becomes available that is relevant to a decision being taken by a Minister, information that comes to me in my official capacity, information by its nature that should be conveyed secretly, then I convey that information.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE

May 24, 1988


DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA-MEETING OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week in the House the Prime Minister indicated to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, that the Minister of Agriculture would be meeting on an urgent basis with his western counterparts regarding the drought.
Has the Minister personally been in contact with any or all of the western agricultural Ministers to discuss special federal drought assistance? If so, can he tell the House when he will be meeting with them and when we can expect the details of a relief program?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that we are in constant contact with our provincial counterparts as well as at the Deputy Minister level. If the meeting date is suitable to all provincial counterparts we have arranged a meeting a week from today hopefully in Calgary.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, not knowing if or when support will be available causes the greatest stress to farmers and cattlemen. Can the Minister give us some assurance that funds will be available, and that the conservation funds which are totally inadequate will not be the basis of any help or relief program?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think that if one wants to be fair one should examine the record of this Government with respect to initiatives taken on behalf of the agricultural industry. This should be done not only on a day-to-day basis. For example, our budget increased by 400 per cent. That speaks for itself. There were some 585 initiatives delivering over $9 billion, which I think speaks for itself. That is on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately we have had some experience with adverse weather conditions. We responded in 1984. We responded in 1985. There is no question about-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry

Prescott- Russell.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HIRING OF JOHN LASCHINGER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It also concerns the John Laschinger sweetheart deal.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that no less than $12.7 million was spent on free trade brochures, pamphlets and so on, much of which ended up as toilet paper.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify hiring Mr. John Laschinger, a Conservative Party organizer, cheered in this House by Tory Members of Parliament? Can he tell us how many other Tory hacks, flacks and bagmen will benefit from the Government's sweetheart deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question hardly deserves the dignity of an answer, but I will take it as notice and ask the Hon. Minister for International Trade to respond when he is in the House.


FORTHCOMING ELECTION CAMPAIGN-REQUEST THAT JOHN LASCHINGER NOT SERVE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government which has launched a free trade campaign directed by John Laschinger, former campaign manager for the Minister responsible for International Trade. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that Mr. Laschinger will not be working for the Conservative Party during the next election campaign, because Canadians want to have the assurance that taxpayers' money will not be used for the Conservative Party? Could he give us that assurance right away?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the same question in the other official language and the same answer applies.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Further to my question of November 30 in this House and to several meetings held by Canada's negotiators with the Waswanipi Cree of Abitibi under the James Bay Agreement, about the urgent need to build a school, could the Minister confirm today whether the Government of Canada will share, with the Government of Quebec, the cost of building a school for Cree children in Waswanipi?
May 24, 1988


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that, because of his representations, his repeated representations, and again on the recommendations of the mediator on the James Bay Agreement, the Government of Canada will be pleased to contribute $3.8 million to the Waswanipi school. I want to say that that will bring to $20 million the contributions to school facilities for the James Bay Cree in the last five years.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the CN workshops at Point St. Charles in Montreal and VIA Rail's $85 million contract for refitting its railway cars. Will the Minister admit that the jobs of 485 employees, one-third of the work force at the shops, will be threatened if the VIA Rail contract is not awarded to the shops, and that the economy of southwest Montreal will be dealt another severe blow?
Does the Government intend to maintain the shops at Point St. Charles which has the infrastructure and the human resources? If so, what does the government intend to do to ensure VIA Rail awards this very important contract to the CN shops?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question is much longer than its content warrants. VIA Rail has called for bids on a contract for refitting some of the company's equipment. Bids have been called. As is usual for Crown corporations, Via Rail will evaluate the bids it receives and will award the contract to the company that meets its requirements. I don't think it is necessary to start some kind of big debate on the situation of CN in Point-St. Charles. We will simply wait and see what VIA Rail decides to do, and I imagine it will follow the standard procedure.


IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING WORKSHOPS OPEN IN MONTREAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Minister aware of the fact that one-third of the work force at the shops in Point St. Charles will be affected, depending on whether or not the contract is awarded to the CN shops? And does he also realize that employees are very upset about the Government's decision to let CN close its shops in Moncton? Could the Government give the House the assurance that it intends to maintain the shops at Point St. Charles or does the Government intend to let the shops in Montreal be closed down as they were in Moncton?
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that bids have been made by companies with workers in Quebec and in Ontario. I also understand it is typical of the New Democrats to say just about anything off the top off their heads. In fact, the matter is very straightforward. The company will award the contract to a business that has employees in Canada, in Quebec or Ontario. I suppose that if they decide to award the contract to CN workers in Point St. Charles, two days from now the Hon. Member will rise in the House to ask why the contract wasn't awarded to the workers at Bombardier, in Saint-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere. I don't think this makes an impression anymore.


BANKS AND BANKING
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to thank the Minister for agreeing that his officials would not prohibit banks from agreeing to minimum consumer service and disclosure standards. However, David Makin, head of the financial markets at the Competition Bureau, alleged last week that by agreeing to offer certain basic banking services for free, banks could be charged with price fixing.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that if all banks agree to charge nothing for a basic banking service, the bankers could be fined or jailed for price fixing?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The Competition Act is there to help consumers, and I was objecting last week to what appeared to me to be the bankers' association hiding behind the Competition Act or using it as an excuse not to act in the consumer's benefit.
There are provisions under the Act whereby the banks could get an advance ruling from the head of the Competition Bureau if they have a plan in mind and if they have questions about whether it is allowable under the Act. Further, if in fact through some technicality, they might be precluded from acting, I would certainly be more than willing to recommend that my colleague change the Bank Act or to bring forward changes to the Competition Act to make sure that could happen. I would like to see those service charges reduced, and I do not think there are obstacles in the law to the banks acting to reduce them now.

May 24, 1988
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-LOBSTER EXPORTS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Last Friday in his response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the amendment proposed by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that would ban the import of any Atlantic lobsters that did not meet the American minimum size, the Minister said, as reported at page 15667 of Hansard'.
An industry-government meeting was held in Charlottetown on this subject on May 15 with respect to the impact of these regulations on the Canadian lobster fishery. Governments were represented, as were industry and the fishermen. All provincial government representatives, with the exception of the Quebec representative, supported a carapace size increase.
I have checked very carefully with industry representatives from the Province of Prince Edward Island, and they categorically deny ever supporting such an increase or ever being asked to support such an increase.
I ask the Minister today if he still stands by the statement he made in this House on Friday last.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the Hon. Member say that he had consulted industry representatives and they stated that they never supported such an increase. I never said that industry representatives had.
My information is, and a report about the meeting states, that all provincial government representatives, I am advised, with the exception of the Quebec representative who could not attend, supported a carapace size increase. If that is incorrect, then any Government that did not support it, of course, only has to say so. However, that is the information that I was given.


EXPORT OF LOBSTER PARTS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I checked with the Government officials in Prince Edward Island who attended the meeting, and that was also confirmed, incidentally, to me, by the Department of Fisheries personnel who were at that meeting. I am not talking just about industry, I am talking about the Government of P.E.I. I am glad that the Minister cleared that up.
My second question is with regard to his answer to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on Friday when he said:
I might further point out that the P.E.I. industry is largely a canner fishery which is not affected by the U.S. regulations.
The proposed amendment would prohibit entry into U.S. Customs territory of any whole lobster or parts of such a
lobster. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that canned lobsters, as he stated in the House on Friday, would not be affected, or lobsters in brine, or lobsters under the 3 and 7/32 carapace measurement, packed in brine, or indeed lobster tails, frozen, or lobster claws, frozen, because the amendment refers to any parts thereof? Can he confirm that his response on Friday was correct and these parts of lobsters will not come under this new amendment?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm is that in our firm opinion the U.S., if it amends the legislation as proposed by the Senate Finance Committee, would be in violation of the free trade agreement. We have brought this to their attention and I am hoping and expecting that the final legislation will not contain such a clause. We have protested against it, and no matter what part of the lobster is affected, we are still protesting against it and believe any such action would be a violation of the FTA. In any event, it would be a non-tariff barrier which, in my view, would be contrary to GATT as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Single question, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will he confirm that an airline employee travelling from Ottawa to New York City was allowed to send her luggage through to New York even though she did not possess a valid ticket to that destination? If he does, will he indicate what action he is taking with all Canadian airlines to make sure that his Government's regulations are enforced?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the company, CAIL, was advised that under the new regulations effective May 1, 1988, it should not stamp any luggage which was carried by one company and transferred to another airline if the employee concerned was not a member of that company. In other words, it could not be done as of May 1 and the company he is referring to was so advised. It was not only advised, a fine was imposed because it did not respect the rule of the new legislation.
Once again, that just started May 1 and we believe perhaps that is the reason why the company was not aware of it.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period. The Hon. Member for York East.
May 24, 1988


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As a Member of Parliament from Toronto he is aware of the serious housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto. He is also aware of the fact that even a family earning an income of $60,000 a year can no longer afford to buy a home in Metropolitan Toronto.
Will the Minister not agree that the rationale used when the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan was dropped from the Income Tax Act, that it caused people to postpone their decisions to buy homes, no longer applies since no one can afford to buy a home? Therefore, will he now undertake to the House that he will give serious consideration to reinstating the provisions of that plan in the Income Tax Act?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has put a very precise focus on a problem in Metropolitan Toronto and suggests that we put in place a proposal which would apply on a nation-wide basis. I think that type of solution is not appropriate. There are problems with housing in Toronto that must be dealt with in a focused way.
My colleague is fully aware of the approach we have followed in tax reform, which is to allow us to get tax rates down on a broad basis by removing some of the tax preferences which have been in place, so that everybody benefits by the lower tax rates rather than a limited number of people on specific tax preferences. That is the philosophy we have followed and I believe that is the direction we should continue to go.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned for lunch you had put the question which normally occurs at that time in the consideration of a Bill. In this case it was the trade Bill. You said: "When shall the Bill be read a second time?" The Speaker normally answers this question with: "The next sitting of the House." Almost invariably the House agrees and that is the end of the matter. However, in rising on this point of order I want to indicate that in my opinion there is another course of action that the House may decide to take at that point.
It must be remembered that what you are really doing in procedural terms is substituting this pro forma question, "When shall the Bill be read a second time?" for a motion by a Minister, in this case the Minister for International Trade
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
(Mr. Crosbie). The motion, which over the years has fallen into disuse, is "That the Bill be read a second time at the next sitting of the House." It was not uncommon for this motion to have been put to the House in the past and for the House to have divided on it.
I can find no ruling, no precedent or any other evidence to suggest that the ability of Members to force a division at this stage of the Bill has, over time, been extinguished. In fact, after consulting a number of procedural authorities, it is my contention that not only is it proper form for Members to demand a division at this point, it is also possible to amend the motion so that a precise day can be affixed for consideration of the Bill at second reading.
Let me begin by drawing to your attention Citation 722 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
When the House has agreed to the first reading of a bill, the Speaker at once proceeds to ask: "When shall the bill be read a second time?" The answer is generally: "At the next sitting of the House." The bill is placed on the Order Paper, in its proper place, for a second reading at a future time.
Beauchesne's does not say that the answer is always "At the next sitting of the House", but merely generally, therefore implying that this need not always be the case. There is little question that to request a division on this question is rarely used. In fact, in my reading I can find no instance of such a division in modern times, not even during the infamous Pipeline Debate of 1956. However, if we refer to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, we are provided with clear guidance on this point. At page 508 Bourinot states:
When the house has agreed to the first reading of a bill the speaker at once proceeds to propose the next motion. He asks "When shall the bill be read a second time?" The answer is generally "At the next sitting of the house"; and the bill is thereupon placed upon the order paper in its proper place for a second reading at a future time.
That is almost word for word what is contained in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and is undoubtedly the source for Citation 722. However, Bourinot goes on to state at page 508:
This motion passes almost invariably-as it is a purely formal motion, proposed with the object of placing the bill on the orders for a second reading, when all discussion can most regularly and conveniently take place; but though it is unusual to raise a debate on the merits of the bill on such a motion, yet it is perfectly in order to divide the house on the question as at any other stage of the measure.
I think that is the relevant comment, that it is in fact in order to divide on this question as we do at other stages.
Here, then, we have an explicit assertion from Bourinot, a long-standing and well-respected procedural reference, that although perhaps uncommon, it is perfectly in order to force a division at this point. In fact, there are several precedents to corroborate this position.
On March 21, 1877, we Find the following entry in Journals, page 160:


Mr. Ross (Middlesex) moved: , seconded by Mr. Smith (Peel), and the question being put, that the Bill from the Senate, intitled, "An Act for the Relief of Mary Jane Bates" be read a second time tomorrow; the House divided; and it was resolved in the affirmative.

May 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
Similarly, if you check Hansard for April 21, 1879, at page 1375 one can see that there was a division on this similar point with regard to the Supreme and Exchequer Court Acts Amendment Bill. I suspect that you will have almost memorized that Bill by now, Mr. Speaker.
On April 3, 1876, Journals, page 245, records another such division on a Bill to amend the Insolvent Act of 1875.
There might be those who argue that, because the precedents cited are from a period when the question that was put to the Elouse reflected a specific date for second reading, these precedents are not valid today. This question was changed, as you know Mr. Speaker, to alleviate the problem of having to go through the Orders each day standing under Government Business and passing motion, to have each put over for another day so that they would not be dropped.
The motion that is moved today, as was noted in Brunette's is "When shall the Bill be read a second time?" which is then answered "At the next sitting of the Elouse". This simply allows Bills to stand over under Government Orders from one day to the next without the risk of being dropped.
However, the questions are exactly the same in that their intent or purpose is to place the Bill on the Order Paper for future consideration. This is why Bourinot asserts that even after the original motion moved by the Minister, that the Bill be read a second time at some future date, fell into disuse, it was still possible to force a division on this question because the question was whether or not the House should, at that particular moment, assign the Bill a place on the Order Paper for future consideration.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the precedents I have cited, in conjuction with the clear and unequivocal quotation from Bourinot's, indicate that it is proper form to force a division at this stage in the Bill.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, relates to my contention that the motion to affix a date for second reading is also debatable and amendable. During the course of my argument I will cite several precedents to support this position.
I would first like to return to the passage from Bourinot's, Fourth Edition, page 508, which I cited earlier. It states:
This motion passes almost invariably-as it is a purely formal motion-but though it is unusual to raise a debate on the merits of the bill-yet it is perfectly in order to divide the house on the question ...
Note, Mr. Speaker, that Bourinot does not rule out a debate at this stage but simply says that it would be unusual. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we do many things in this House which are procedurally unusual. Forcing a division at this stage is surely unusual but it is not, I hope I have shown, out of order.
The last phrase in this excerpt, which reads, "... it is perfectly in order to divide the house on the question as at any other stage of the measure" is also important in that Bourinot
implicitly recognizes that the putting of the motion to assign the Bill an order for consideration is a distinct stage or separate step through which the Bill must traverse on its passage through the House.
This, of course, is clearly at variance with Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 713 which reads:
The first reading of a bill, the order for printing and the appointment of a day for second reading are taken together as one formal stage.
Yet, there is no precedent or ruling cited upon which to base this assertion. It is simply an editorial comment with no procedural foundation, or at least none is given in Beauchesne's.
I also draw your attention to Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, page 527, in which it states:
The various stages through which a bill progresses-are intended by the practice of Parliament to provide so many opportunities not only for consideration, but also for reconsideration... Though the stages are thus treated as inter-connected portions of a single process of consideration, each stage is regarded as having its own peculiar function and to a certain extent its own more or less limited range of debate.
Erskine May also states, on the same page:
Upon this principle, it is laid down by Hatseil, and is constantly exemplified, "that in every stage of a bill, every part of the bill is open to amendment, either for insertion or omission ..."
Let us consider again the purpose of the motion in question. It is unquestionably to assign an order for consideration of a Bill at some future date. Cannot we understand this process as arranging the proceedings of the House?
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 56 which lists all those motions which are debatable. Standing Order 56(l)(p) specifically includes:
-such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
There are those who might argue that, with the revision of the Standing Orders in 1913 and the reclassification and limitation in scope of debatable motions, the opportunity to debate and amend the motion affixing a day for second reading was actually lost. However, it is my contention that this was not lost. It is my interpretation of Standing Order 56(1 )(p) that such a debate is indeed in order and that in fact the motion is debatable and amendable.
Historically this has been done on many occasions. I mentioned the division on the motion to set the date for second reading of the Supreme and Exchequer Court Acts Amendment Bill on April 21, 1879. Actually there were two divisions. The first division, as shown at page 1375 of Hansard for that day, was on an amendment to postpone the commencement of the second reading debate for three months.
Again, on April 3, 1876, the motion to affix a date for the second reading of the Insolvent Act of 1875 was amended and Journals, at page 245, indicates that a debate on the motion
May 24, 1988

and the amendment ensued. The amendment was later withdrawn but clearly the opportunity to make the amendment and engage in debate existed. I guess that becomes selfevident.
This House of Commons is a forum for debate and a forum for decision. There may be those who would wish to restrict our freedom as Members to debate and decide on questions that come before this House, but surely the burden of proof is on them to show that in circumstances such as the one with which we are faced now this freedom simply does not exist.
I believe that I have shown, both in the procedural references that I have quoted and the precedents which I have cited, that the House may divide on the motion to affix a day for second reading and that in fact this motion is also debatable and amendable.
I believe that I have raised this point of order at the appropriate time. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 237 states:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the
question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that before we can proceed any further on the Bill presently before the House it is incumbent upon you to rule on my point of order as to whether or not you are convinced that the House can force a division at this time and, second, whether I have convinced you that the motion is debatable.
Perhaps you may wish to reserve a decision, Mr. Speaker, until you have reflected upon this question and had consultations with the Table. In the interim, I would suggest that we should perhaps proceed with the next item of business until the question before us is resolved.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Members of the House for your patience in hearing this rather lengthy point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer some comments on this point of order, although I will do my best to keep my remarks down to a reasonable compass. In saying that I am not suggesting that my hon. friend did not keep his remarks down to a reasonable compass, but I just want to assure you that on my own part I will attempt to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I can say to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that I will expect assistance from him, naturally. I would also point out that that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has made a very succinct argument and came very well prepared for it. I did not feel that he was speaking off the top of his head. I have been listening very carefully. If the Hon. Member for Windsor West has anything of assistance, I will certainly hear it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do want to confirm that Bourinot's Fourth Edition does make it clear that a division is entirely in order when it comes to a motion as to when a matter is to be next looked at after first reading has been approved by the House. There are a number of examples
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
which my hon. friend from Kamloops-Shuswap has put on the record. I do not intend to repeat them.
It is interesting that Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which was produced some 40 years after Bourinot's Fourth Edition, asserts that the matter is purely formal and done without any vote, but offers no annotation. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition merely lists the citation from the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne's. There is, therefore, no indication whether the House ever made a conscious decision to prevent a vote at this stage, certainly in modern times.
I do want to confirm that my own inquiry into this matter confirms that there are precedents for divisions being held on a motion of the kind we are discussing, but certainly without any support for the position taken in the two most recent editions of Beauchesne's which assert that the matter is merely formal. I repeat that this is not supported by Bourinot, who gives specific citations showing how such votes have been taken.
Having said that, I know you will want to reflect on this important point. If you do want to rule that a vote can be taken on such a motion, I hope I can reserve my right to make further comments as to whether such a motion is debatable and, if debatable, whether it is or is not amendable.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the comments made by my hon. friend, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I am somewhat amused that earlier this day his Leader argued that the only precedent for a motion which we intend to put forward on the issue of abortion was 105 years old when they are now trotting out precedents that are 120 years old. I suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I think it is self evident that there are precedents which help us to ease the business of the House, which, after all, is the purpose of the rules. In my experience, there has been no time when the House has divided on this question as to when the business shall be called again. I submit that the comment made by the Speaker is more of a rhetorical question. It is not a motion.
Normally, the Speaker puts questions to the House which are moved and seconded by individuals. This particular question has not been moved and seconded. I suggest that this whole issue must be dealt with in the context of the Standing Orders of the House today. It is possible to quote precedents from earlier days, but those precedents must be examined in terms of what were the Standing Orders of the House in those earlier days. Therefore, if it was standard procedure in those earlier days to fix a day for the second reading of a Bill, that is fine. However, if there is provision, as in Standing Order 111 to which I will refer in a minute, for when something shall be read another time, I think we must follow what the Standing Orders and the precedents say today.

May 24, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
Last week, in the interest of democracy there was a vote on concurrence on the Ways and Means Motion. While I appreciate that the Chair has reserved on this matter, there were two earlier votes on the question of whether or not leave was required or whether concurrence made it a direction to the House to consider it. We also had a vote on the key question as to whether or not the Bill should be read a first time and printed. The essence of the question to us on that day was whether or not it was printed. I suggest to you that that has been done. However, Citation 378 of Beauchesne, Fourth Edition, states that the words are:
... purely formal and proposed with the object of placing the Bill on the
agenda ...
According to the precedents, it is seen as a mere formality.
In conclusion, it is the business of the Government to call the business of the House. Standing Order 111(1) states:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously
to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice
or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
I suggest that the comment: "When shall the Bill be read a second time?" is a question to the House as to whether or not there has been consent to proceed to second reading today. If that consent exists then the Speaker is, in effect, asking if there is that consent or willingness to proceed today. If not, it seems to me that according to Standing Order 111 it must automatically be the next day or the day thereafter.
I suggest that in the context of today's Standing Orders and the way this House runs, when you ask the question: "When shall the Bill be read a second time?", it is really a question as to whether or not there is consent to proceed to second reading that day. Failing that consent, according to Standing Order 111, it shall not be today but a second date.
It is a very interesting argument and I appreciate that my hon. friend is trying to find every way he can to delay debate on this very important issue. I appreciate that it is part of his role as Opposition House Leader, but I suggest the Standing Orders are clear. You have asked whether there is consent in the House to proceed today. Failing that consent being given, we then fall back to Standing Order 111 and it shall be tomorrow or a succeeding day in the Business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to make it clear to Hon. Members exactly what has occurred here. The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has pointed out that there was a vote on concurrence on the matter of the trade Bill and today there were two further votes, one for the introduction of the Bill and a second for first reading.
It is also quite accurate that in the first vote the Chair gave what I could refer to as the benefit of the doubt to the Opposition in the interest of order in this place and in the interest of effective procedures. However, I think I pointed out that that was not necessarily a precedent.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has raised a matter that I must say had not gone unnoticed by the
Chair some days ago. Therefore, I have had a chance to consider it with care. Let me say, however, and with some degree of admiration, that the argument put forward by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was thorough and rooted deep in history. It was succinct and a credit to the Hon. Member, and of assistance to other Hon. Members who wish to respond to it.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has added somewhat to that argument and I am indebted to him for his remarks. Of course, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Minister of State.
I was able to scribble a few notes during the noon break, I believe in anticipation of most of the argument of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I shall refer partly to these notes in the interest of clarity.
First, I might say that the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap has raised a matter which one could say has rarely been raised in many, many years. I should point out to the Hon. Member that while I have looked carefully at the passage in Bourinot, the cases upon which that passage is based go back well over 100 years. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap has made that very clear.
When I say that it has rarely been raised in many, many years, it is because I have not been able to find any instance of it being raised, save one single instance a few years ago. I bring that to Hon. Members' attention.
This occurred on January 19, 1984, when Speaker Francis was in the chair. He was responding to a matter raised by the then Hon. Member for Yukon. He commented on some argument that had been put forward. He then went on to say, with respect to Citation 722 of Beauchesne's, which, as Hon. Members will remember, takes a different position from the Bourinot citation of many years before:
The Chair has, however, relied on Citation 722 of Beauchesne's, which reads-
I am now quoting what was read by Speaker Francis:
Appointment for Second Reading
When the House has agreed to the first reading of a bill, the Speaker at once proceeds to ask: "When shall the bill be read a second time?" The answer is generally: "At the next sitting of the House." The bill is placed on the Order Paper, in its proper place, for a second reading at a future time. It is purely formal and is proposed with the object of placing the bill on the agenda for a second reading at which time all discussion can more regularly and conveniently take place.
I quote that not to say that it is an observation with extensive reasoning to it. It is not. However, it is the only citation that I have been able to find which indicates in contemporary times what any Speaker of this place has thought with respect to the distinction between Bourinot and Beauchesne. There at least is some guidance. Clearly, Speaker Francis at that point is making the point that the procedure is purely a formal one.
May 24, 1988

The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) made several observations in the course, as I said, of his excellent argument in which he said that just because this practice as enunciated by Bourinot has not been followed for many decades is no particular reason that it ought not to be followed today.
I am reminded of Dean Swift when he said that lawyers are a race of men among us who believe that anything that has been done before may legally be done again. I think it is always important not to get caught up in that adage too closely.
However, certainly the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap starts off on sound ground because he cites precedents. I have not been able to go back to look at those precedents in the context. What I think is common ground here is that whatever the practice may have been then, and I think that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap acknowledged this, as he said, it has fallen into disuse. He also said that there is no precedent that extinguishes the right of a Member to force a division or, indeed, to go on to proceed during a debate and then to amendment.
It would seem, at least at the moment, that what the Hon. Member says is so. However, the difficulty of the Chair in a case such as this is that if a practice has so fallen into disuse that it is not in the minds and in the contemplation of Members on either side of the House when the particular form- and that is of course what Beauchesne says it is-is followed, then the question is whether it is a better course of wisdom for the Speaker to reach back too far to pick something out of the mists of time to say that suddenly, without any particular expectation, it applies. I must say that that is a practice that I would not want to take part in unless I had some very clear direction from all sides of the House that, indeed, some ancient practice ought to be reinstituted and ought to be part of the consideration of the House at all times.
I have to say to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that to proceed to take the Bourinot quote and apply it, to leap-frog it, if I can put it that way, chronologically, ahead of and in a position of greater importance than the Beauchesne quote, especially when we have at least a nod toward Beauchesne on the part of a recent Speaker of this House, would not be in the interests of procedural wisdom in this place.
However, it is one of those arguments which is of great interest. It may well be that Hon. Members may wish to discuss it further. It may well be that Hon. Members might want to agree together that some change may be made. In the absence of a very clear direction from this House I do not think it would be appropriate today under these circumstances to apply what may well be a ruling that was appropriate over 100 years ago to the matter that is in front of us today.
I thank very much the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap and those who may have assisted him in his argument. I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and I thank the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis).
Air Canada



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I enter this debate, and I remind Hon. Members that on April 12,1 advised the House of the Government's intention to introduce legislation to permit all Canadians, and particularly Air Canada employees, to participate directly in the ownership of Air Canada.
Bill C-129 was introduced last Thursday. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to commence second reading debate here this afternoon.
The overwhelming support and reaction to this April 12 announcement by Canadians in general and by Air Canada employees in particular was not unexpected. Air Canada wants and has earned the chance to fly independently after 51 years in the public sector. The 22,000 people on the Air Canada team and the millions of Canadians who were served by the airline are all well aware of the benefits which public participation will bring, and all want to participate in that broad-based ownership.
Without being repetitive, let me briefly review the rationale behind the Government's initiative. I referred to this briefly in the House when I made my April 12 statement. The Canadian airline industry has come a long way since Trans-Canada Air Lines started operations in 1937. The industry has matured. It has come of age. What we are doing here today is a natural evolution of that process.
In 1984 Hon. Members will recall the Government began a process of economic regulatory reform, Freedom to Move, which culminated in a new National Transportation Act which was proclaimed on January 1, 1988. I am pleased to say and to acknowledge that this was a lengthy process, a consultative process, wherein the industry, the users of the transportation system but, more particularly, all Members of Parliament had an opportunity to participate, both in the hearing process before the legislation was brought in and during the legislative process itself. I think it was an excellent example of the consultative process working, of democracy in action. It clearly reflects parliamentary reform which has been the hallmark of this Parliament.
The airline industry responded to this new open environment. In so doing it shifted its focus from that of satisfying a regulatory agency to responding to the needs of the public, in this case the travelling public.

May 24, 1988
Air Canada
Competition and innovation have produced in a relatively short time two major national air carriers: Air Canada and the Canadian Airlines International, with national, regional and local services provided by themselves and/or their partners. In addition, Wardair is rapidly emerging as a third national carrier to offer additional choice to the travelling public both at home and abroad.
All airlines, including Air Canada, continue to serve important public services. But state ownership is not necessary to carry this out. Indeed, the airline industry's record in Canada since economic regulatory reform was initiated clearly shows that competition and the freedom to move has provided better, safer and more competitive services through market forces than it did under government edict.
For example, since 1984, weekly scheduled domestic departures across Canada increased by almost 50 per cent by the end of 1987. The figure rose from roughly 6,200 departures per week to 9,300 departures per week. This means that more communities in Canada are getting a greater frequency of service. Therefore, the public is obviously being served better than was the case before.
For its part, Air Canada has grown with the industry and has expanded services. Here, too, the figures are very interesting. For example, departures have increased by 90 per cent since 1984 with the integration of the alliance carriers from 2,369 departures per week in 1984 to 4,489 in 1987. Therefore, there is a situation where Air Canada, with its integrated alliance partners, is providing more services to more communities integrated, and it is certainly all being carried out under the flagship of Air Canada.
As it prepares to enter the 1990s, Air Canada has an aging fleet, and the airlines management must be able to maintain its leadership position and make its own decisions on equipment, financing, and operations with the same options and opportunities as its Canadian and international competitors. The legislation before the House, Bill C-129, will provide Air Canada the freedom it needs to respond quickly and effectively to the demands of its customers, unfettered by the administrative controls and procedures which must apply to Crown corporations.
I would now like to turn to some of the provisions of the legislation itself, and hopefully in the course of doing so demonstrate to the House how closely it follows the commitments that I made in the April 12 statement.
First, within the legislation there are strong provisions to ensure that no more than 25 per cent of issued shares are owned by non-residents of Canada. In this respect, the same restrictions are placed on all transportation agencies under the provisions of the National Transportation Act. Furthermore, no more than 10 per cent of issued shares can ever be owned or controlled by one individual or associated interests.
In other words, the fears raised by some that Canadian carriers such as Air Canada will soon be owned by a United States or foreign airline are simply unfounded. It cannot happen. To remind some Members of the House who seem to have forgotten, the free trade agreement does not affect the Government's right to impose these restrictions in any way.
In addition, the legislation puts the force of law into the Government's commitment to maintain the airline's operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga. While the legislation guarantees that these operations will be maintained, the same sound business reasons that they were established there in the first place will be the best guarantee that they will not only remain, but grow and expand with the airline and the country.
[ Translation]
Third, the Bill provides that Air Canada's headquarters will remain in Montreal. Air Canada has played a major role in providing services to Canadians in this country's two official languages. This provision guarantees that the Official Languages Act will continue to apply to Air Canada.

As for the other provisions that I announced on April 12 which serve as conditions for this initiative, Government will continue to work with Air Canada's board and management. I want to assure the House that no shares will be sold to the public by the airline, or by the Government, until we are satisfied that the following conditions are met.
We want to be assured that as many Canadians as possible will have the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the airline through an innovative and broadly based distribution plan. We also want to be assured that an attractive employee share purchase plan, financed by Air Canada, is in place to give Air Canada's 22,000 men and women the chance to become part of their great company. We also want assurances that Air Canada's employment policies will be continued.
Once these and other financial regulatory conditions are met, the Government will permit Air Canada to issue to the public up to 45 per cent of the shares in the corporation. The Government will retain the additional 55 per cent of the shares for a period which will depend upon market conditions and the orderly transition of Air Canada from a state-owned entity to a publicly-held Canadian business.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's not what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure the hon. gentleman wishes to speak in this debate, Madam Speaker, and I will certainly give him the courtesy of listening to him. I would expect that he would extend the same courtesy to me.
I suspect that the demand for shares from Canadians and Air Canada's employees will be so positive that the Government will be under pressure to allow more people to participate sooner rather than later.
May 24, 1988

I have been rewarded time and again since April 12 with kind words and support from ticket agents, flight attendants, baggage handlers, receptionists, and ramp workers as I have travelled across the country on Air Canada. One such comment stands out in my mind. It came from an employee who, only days after the announcement, came up to me as I was boarding an Air Canada flight in Toronto. He happened to be a ramp attendant and when I asked him, "How are you doing?" He replied, "Great. But we will be even better when we will be working for ourselves. Thanks!"
To a large extent that comment reflects how the rank and file feel about the privatization initiative. That comment, and many like it that I have received since April 12, are the reasons for Bill C-129. Those people have pride in their jobs, pride in their company, and hope and confidence in their future. They want to be able to challenge that future on their own as direct participants in the success of their own efforts.
This is an important day for Air Canada, and I am pleased to lead off the debate on Bill C-129. I do so on behalf of Air Canada's management and its employees. I am talking about the ramp attendants, the pilots, the flight attendants, the ticket agents, the supervisors, and all those loyal employees who have served the airline so well. Just as important, I do so on behalf of all Canadians who would like the opportunity to participate directly in the ownership of a great company that they know and respect.
Accordingly, I urge all Members of the House to consider the importance of this initiative, and the importance in moving this legislation ahead in order that Air Canada can build for the future, a future based upon a solid 50 year history, eager to meet the challenges of the next 50 years.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty with this Bill, not only because I and my Party oppose the privatization of Air Canada, but because the Bill that has been presented to this House is severely deficient. It is not complete. There are a great many things that the Government said it was going to do that are not in the Bill. I would be remiss if I did not mention to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), that we expected a great deal more, even if we had been in favour of the Bill, than is actually in the Bill. I would like to talk about that and mention some of the shortcomings of the Bill and some of the reasons for my Party's position with respect to Bill C-129.
It is clear to me and my colleagues in the Official Opposition that the Government has not thought this Bill through. There is so much that the Government has left unsaid. There are so many bases that the Government has not covered. It is this hell-bent-for-leather approach and this determination to sell this corporation at any cost that is forcing the Government to move so quickly, really too quickly. Air Canada deserves much better. The Canadian public deserves much better. I think the airline industry deserves much better. I think the employees deserve much better. I trust the Government will
Air Canada
take into consideration some of the points that I hope to make here this afternoon.
As I mentioned, we are opposed to the privatization of Air Canada and believe there are better ways than privatization to resolve the financial issues facing the corporation. We believe that Air Canada should remain wholly owned by the Government of Canada.
In 1977, the then Liberal Government proposed and Parliament approved the Air Canada Act under which the corporation now operates. That Act was in response to the observations and recommendations of the Estey Commission of Inquiry. The commission, in essence, proposed that Air Canada be given the legal and corporate structure, the flexibility and financing to operate on a commercial basis and on the same footing as its competitors in Canada and abroad. Air Canada was refinanced in 1977 with a debt equity ratio equivalent to other major North American airlines.
Following that, it was split off from Canadian National, as stipulated in the Act, and given its own Act that used the Canada Business Corporations Act as a model and a reference. This new Act admonished directors and officers to conduct the business affairs of Air Canada with prudence, diligence and "in the contemplation of profit". In other words, Madam Speaker, in 1977 Air Canada was placed on a commercial footing with a clear arm's length relationship with the Government. As you see, we do not need privatization. What the Government says it wants has already been achieved in 1977 with the Air Canada Act if the Government will only allow it to happen.
The Liberal Party does not dispute the fact that Air Canada requires financing to modernize its fleet. Air Canada finds itself in an extremely difficult position needing billions of dollars to finance new aircraft, probably needing in the immediate short term approximately S300 million to get this purchasing of aircraft started. The reason for the haste is the Government, which has been in power for almost four years, has done absolutely nothing. It has postponed the decision to assist Air Canada in purchasing new aircraft. That is the reason the Government is up against the wall right now saying the decision must be made immediately and that we do not have any time to waste on this important question.
Why has the Government panicked and allowed itself to be held hostage by Air Canada's financing requirements? Is the Government being stampeded into privatization? Is this privatization treating the symptoms of the problem rather than the disease itself?
In 1977, presented with a similar situation, the then Liberal Government made the necessary management changes, or saw to it that changes were made, and recapitalized the corporation. We contend that the same should be done in this instance. We believe Air Canada has played and continues to play an important public policy role in ensuring air service to all

May 24, 1988
Air Canada
regions of Canada. That public policy role could be jeopardized by privatization when, according to the Minister's own words, Air Canada will be "market driven". This Government's deregulation initiative in air transportation has led to significant corporate concentration through the mergers of acquisitions by national and regional carriers. With Air Canada we now have three principal carriers in Canada and many regional airlines which are affiliated primarily with two of the three major carriers.
In the United Kingdom there were two major carriers, British Airways and Royal Caledonian Airlines. Now there is but one. This leads to the first concern that we have with privatization, namely, that there is no stipulation that Air Canada is either not going to be purchased by one of the major carriers or will not subsequently purchase one or the other major carriers, thereby further concentrating the airline industry in Canada. At a result, competition deteriorates very quickly, as was the case in the U.K. This is something we do not need, Madam Speaker. If we are going to have a healthy airline industry in Canada, we have to maintain competition, not follow the lead of the U.K. and reduce our air services to one major carrier.
A government-owned Air Canada would act as a bulwark against such increased corporate concentration in air transportation and ensure at least a level of competition. Let us be very clear about the Government's motives behind this privatization. The Government is not motivated by ideology nor is it motivated by some grand scheme or strategy to enhance efficiency in the air transportation sector. The Government's motivation is money, purely and simply. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government have decided that the Government cannot or will not provide the financing necessary for Air Canada to modernize its fleet. The Government will shift that burden to the Canadian public. This amounts to Canadians being asked to pay for the shares of a company they already own.
In January, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated:
There may be some persuasive arguments in the case of Air Canada that
some people can make in regard to the disposition of equity. I'll take a look at
it. But Canada needs a national airline.
Well said, Mr. Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Now we have three.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Let us not forget that the "persuasive argument" that swung the Prime Minister's support behind this privatization was money. There was the Government's resistance to providing Air Canada with the money it needed. Knowing this, the Government, by its own inaction, and the management of Air Canada, with some deliberate but adroit manoeuvring, forced the issue with the Government and, as a result, we have Bill C-129 for the privatization of Air Canada.
Let me turn to the Bill before us today. In 1984 the Liberal Government brought forward Bill C-24. It was passed by
Parliament and now forms Part XII of the Financial Administration Act. One of the changes made through Bill C-24 was a requirement that any acquisition or divestiture of a Crown corporation had to be approved explicitly by Parliament. In reviewing committee testimony and debates on this matter there is no question in my mind that this requirement was imposed, not only to ensure that Parliament's approval was sought for privatization, but also that Parliament's approval was sought for the method, structure and details of the privatization.
The record also shows that the Conservative Opposition at that time strongly supported this section. I contend that Bill C-129 violates at least the spirit of this requirement in the Financial Administration Act. Bill C-129, if passed in its current form, gives the Minister a virtual carte blanche for how and when the Government will privatize Air Canada. In effect, Bill C-129 is asking Parliament to buy a pig in a poke. We all know how the Conservatives would react if the shoe were on the other foot and we were asking them to accept this at face value.
I find it remarkable that the Government has said more in its press releases and in public statements about Air Canada's privatization than it has said in this Bill. I contend that if the Government says it intends to sell only 45 per cent of the shares at this time, it should say so in the legislation. It should tell us about the timing for the future share issues.
It is also significant that we do not see protection for the employees in the legislation. I understand there is a surplus of millions of dollars in the employees' pension funds. What happens to this surplus after privatization? The Government has said that employees will participate in this share offering and that policies governing salaries, pensions, benefits, relationships with unionized workers and employment equity will be continued.
The Government has made a great deal of employment guarantees in its public statements. If these guarantees are so important, and we on this side agree that they are tremendously important to Air Canada's 22,000 employees, why not put the guarantees in the legislation?
To establish an arm's length relationship which we contend already exists and has existed since 1977, the Minister has said that he will instruct the Air Canada board to act "in accordance with the majority of the public shareholders". Surely that is important enough to put in the legislation. If, as the Minister says, he is interested in getting good participation from the private sector in the 45 per cent share offering that his Government intends to place on the market, it would be important to state in the Bill just exactly how this will take place and who will vote these shares. However, it is not there.
I could go on to mention other points, but I think I have made my point in that regard. With a Crown corporation of
May 24, 1988

this size, with the importance of Air Canada and the sensitivity and national prestige of Air Canada, for it is truly a corporation of tremendous national importance, I think that parliamentarians, the employees of Air Canada and the people of Canada have a right to review in detail all the commitments the Government has made and to ensure that the Government is in fact committed to putting them into legislation.
We should not be asked by this Minister and by the Government for a blank cheque to deal with Air Canada as, when, and however the Government sees fit. It is important that these criteria and stipulations be placed in the legislation itself. Only then can we have assurances that the statements of the Government will be followed through at a particular time as set forward in the legislation.
Let me turn to major mistakes the Government is making in this privatization, mistakes with which subsequent Governments, Air Canada employees, management and shareholders and the Canadian public will have to live. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, Canadian Governments began to experiment with what we called mixed enterprises. They were supposed to herald a new day of government-business partnership and co-operation. At least that was the theory, and we know what happened. Those mixed partnerships really did not last too long. They were a combination of the private sector and the public sector, and of course they are now either all private sector or all public sector.
This form of mixed corporation, a combination of public and private involvement, has never really been successful in attracting private investment. Why is this? What is wrong with it? The answer is very simple.
The private sector investor looks, quite legitimately, to the maximization of profit and will buy or sell shares if he can get a better return somewhere else. The Government as shareholder has a number of public policy objectives in mind, including promoting employment, generating research and development, serving outlying areas in the case of transportation, promoting bilingualism and, in many cases, the promotion of regional economic expansion. In short, a lot of the Government's objectives are non-commercial.
In such a situation, management is caught in the middle, trying to mediate between the private sector's aim to maximize investment and the Government's attempt to develop its public policy objectives. I think Government should have public policy objectives, and that is why, of course, 51 years ago, Trans- Canada Air Lines, the forerunner of Air Canada, came into being.
Air Canada will not work as a mixed corporation. It should not even be attempted. Air Canada should remain a purely publicly owned corporation.
Under the Government's stated plans, Air Canada will be at least for a time, and I think quite a time, a mixed enterprise. Bill C-129 manifests the inherent conflict to which I have referred. It says that government shares will be voted in
Air Canada
accordance with the wishes of the majority shareholders, though that is not stated very clearly in the Bill. Then again, very little is stated clearly in the Bill, because the Bill was rushed in. The Bill was not properly thought out. It does not contain all the information we would like to see.
The Bill provides, for instance, for a restriction on foreign ownership, yet it does not go to the extent to which Bill C-121 regarding Eldorado Nuclear and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation went. It does not ensure that in any vote of the company, there will be only a certain percentage of foreign interest voted at a particular annual or other major meeting of shareholders of the company.
As I have said before, this Bill was rushed in, and it was not properly developed. We in the House have to deal at this time with a Bill that was not only built around the wrong premise of privatizing a Crown corporation that should not be privatized but one that does not deal fully with what the Government intends to do.
In its single-minded haste to privatize this national asset, the Government is willing to abrogate its responsibility to the people of Canada as a major shareholder in Air Canada. The Government has said how it will vote its 55 per cent, if that is actually what will happen. The Bill certainly is not clear on that but the Government has stated in its press releases that that is what will happen, so let us assume that the Government will retain 55 per cent of the shares of Air Canada, and it will vote that 55 per cent in accordance with the majority of the 45 per cent that will be sold to the private sector.
Let us just picture future question periods. The Government will be asked why Air Canada has laid off, say, 250 employees, and of course, we will get the answer from the Minister that the Government could not do anything about it because 23 per cent of the private shareholders thought that it was the right thing to do for commercial reasons. Or, what if Air Canada were to invest in a shoe factory in Argentina? You would get the same answer: "We couldn't do anything about it because 23 per cent of the private shareholders thought it was the right thing to do for commercial reasons". What if Air Canada were to invest in South Africa, contrary to explicit government policy? The same answer. "We cannot do anything about it because 23 per cent of the private shareholders thought it was the right thing to do for commercial reasons."
This is not the fate Canadians want for a corporation which has served this country well and been a part of our heritage for 51 years. If the Government feels so callously about the future of Air Canada and the interests of this country, if it feels so callously about its transportation policy, why is it holding on to any shares at all? Does it realize what it is doing or going to be doing? Does it have any conception at all of how it wishes to proceed? It is certainly not the private sector that is asking the Government to hold on to 55 per cent of the shares.

May 24, 1988
Adjournment Motion
Given the current state of equity markets, the level at which airline company stock is trading, taking into consideration the coming election and the likelihood of a change in Government, Air Canada could be stuck in the position of being a mixed enterprise for some time to come. That would be a tragedy because it would be left out there in limbo. It would be a continuation of the uncertainty which has beset Air Canada since the Government took office in 1984 with its on-again off-again privatization policy. All this when Air Canada is trying to recoup market share in response to the stronger competition and the forces of deregulation. Given that, the Government has placed Air Canada in the weakest possible position.
I am also concerned that the anticipated major offering of Air Canada shares will act as an overhang in the equity markets and this will not help other airline companies. It may actually hurt them because of competitive share issues with which they may not be able to deal, at least in the short run. They will of course need financing for their own capital acquisitions and to meet the competition under deregulation.
There have been strikes at Air Canada, but I would agree most whole-heartedly with the Deputy Prime Minister in that Air Canada has an excellent workforce. Some are in favour of privatization, others are opposed. However, I think it is unfair for the Minister to use the figures he has used in this respect because, frankly, the 22,000 Air Canada workers should not be used as pawns in this privatization action. If the Government is planning to privatize Air Canada, then it should be able to stand up in the House and do so without using the employees of this very important and renowned company as a crutch. The Government will, after all, have to take full responsibility for this privatization if it goes through. If Air Canada suffers, it is going to be the Government that will bear the brunt of the public denunciation and humiliation.
As I said earlier, it is a question of money. The Government wants money to buy planes for Air Canada. It will need as much as $2.5 billion and that is a lot of money. The Government feels it needs approximately $300 million in the short term for the first payment on these planes. It is worth noting that the Government expects to obtain somewhere between $300 million and $500 million for the sale of the first 45 per cent, enough for the down payment on those planes. What is the Government going to do for the rest of the money? Certainly the receipts from the sale of all the shares of Air Canada are not going to be enough to pay for the planes. It could very well be that we will have a position where the market is not going to be responsive to this share issue, either the first 45 per cent or the second 55 per cent. The shares will then not be sold for what the Government hopes. Of course, there is, as I mentioned earlier, the cost of the balance of the airplanes. The Canadian public is still not going to be able to pay for the planes and the Government is going to leave everyone in a short-fall situation.
Of course, if the equity infusion is insufficient even after selling off all the shares, Air Canada will be no better off than
it is today. The privatization will have achieved nothing but will have cost Canadians a great deal.
The privatization of Air Canada is hasty, ill-conceived, and is being mounted for no good reason. The Government has no mandate, no right and no need to privatize Air Canada. The company has been in business for 51 years, it is operated well and profitably, and has been a credit to this country. The Government is not treating it as though it were the proud and important corporation it is. It is treating it more like a booth at a county fair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Tax Reform-Ways and Means Motion-Prime	Minister's Statement/Prime Minister's
Statement; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Presence of Convicted Terrorist in Canada/Request for Explanation of Procedure Chosen by Government; the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-Canada Pension Plan-Eligibility for Disability Benefits.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has not been brought forward because there is a pressing desire for privatization of Air Canada, or a need either by the people of Canada or the company itself. Air Canada is just one example of the many publicly owned corporations established by Governments in Canada since we became a country. These publicly owned Crown corporations have been established not by Governments opposed to free enterprise. Very few of the Crown corporations we know at the federal or provincial level were established either by CCF or NDP Governments. Rather, they were established by Governments and Parties which
May 24, 1988

believed in the free enterprise system. They believed in competition. Those Governments were headed by Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit or the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
Let me just give you a few illustrations of Crown corporations established over the years. Let me begin with the first important corporation established with the help of a Canadian Government, a Conservative Government which was headed by Sir John A. Macdonald. I am talking of course about the CPR. It is not quite correct to call it a Crown corporation because what the then Conservative Government did was to give to the leaders of private business of that day grants and loans and the right to ownership of millions of acres of land worth at that time hundreds of millions of dollars. At today's rates that would be the equivalent of billions of dollars.
Why did the then Conservative Government follow that procedure? It did so because it realized that without a railway stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific there would be no Canada. It was obvious to them, and should be obvious to us today, that the economic lines on this continent run north and south rather than east and west. If the Government of that day had not pushed for the quick establishment of a railway, this country would not have survived and would now exist. It is largely because of the building of the CPR that we have a Canada today.
Let us look at another example. Ontario Hydro was established by a Conservative Government led by Sir Adam Beck. Ontario Hydro, as a publicly owned corporation, has provided industry and consumers in cities and on farms with electric power at as cheap a rate as possible. It has permitted the growth and expansion of Ontario and has enabled Ontario to compete with industries south of the border which were and are, to a large extent, almost exclusively served by private power.
In my own Province of Manitoba we have a publicly owned telephone system established by a Conservative Government which has consistently given the consumer, the homeowner, the farmer, and the businesses of Manitoba cheaper rates for telephone services than have the privately owned systems such as Bell Telephone.
The Canadian Wheat Board was established by a Conservative Government headed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett. We have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation established as a publicly owned system by the Conservatives under Mr. Bennett. They did this because they realized that if Canada was to exist, to prosper, and to have its own identity, a publicly owned radio system was a necessity.
Air Canada, the change of which we are debating today, was established by a Liberal Government under the direction of the then Minister of Industry, Mr. C. D. Howe. He realized that with an airline we could move the mail and passengers from one end of Canada to the other in a way in which the railways, the trucking system, and the bus system could not.
Air Canada
We have publicly owned hydro systems. In Quebec it was established by the Parti Quebecois Government. In British Columbia it was established by a Social Credit Government. These Governments did not proceed to establish these publicly owned corporations because they were opposed to the free enterprise system or because they did not have confidence in the initiative and determination of private investors, but because they realized there was a need for each of these corporations to provide a service as there was for the hundreds of other Crown corporations, federal and provincial, which had been established over the years.
They did this because they knew that at the time these were established as publicly owned corporations the private sector was not interested, it could not see at the time that profits could be made. That is not a criticism of the private sector. The main reason private investors establish businesses is to make a profit. If they cannot see that a profit can be made at the time, they are not going to establish a business, they are not going to meet the needs of the public. That is why Air Canada, like other Crown corporations, was established.
Why are we proceeding with this change in Air Canada? Is there a need for it? Has Air Canada not done a job? Has it not met the needs of the people? Has it not been efficient? No, there is no evidence of anything like that. In fact, not very long ago the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) opposed the sale of Air Canada. In The Globe and Mail of January 15, 1985, he is quoted as saying: "Some people want to buy the CBC. The CBC is not for sale. Air Canada is not for sale".
What has changed since January of 1985? Do the people of Canada want Air Canada privatized? There is no evidence of that. In fact, the evidence is the exact opposite. In March of this year two polls were conducted. People were asked whether they wanted Air Canada privatized. According to the Environ-ics poll, as reported in The Globe and Mail, 51 per cent of people opposed the sale and only 31 per cent supported it. Similarly, in March, 1988, The Toronto Star reported on an Angus-Reid poll which asked the same question. He reported that 53 per cent of Canadians opposed the sale of Air Canada and only 35 per cent of the people supported it.
Why do we have this Bill, why this flip-flop on the part of the Government? We have this Bill, not because it is needed, not because the people of Canada want it, but because the Government is committed to a philosophy of private ownership. The Government believes that the private sector can do anything better than the public sector. The Government is, therefore, committed to the sale of Crown corporations whether or not they serve a need and whether or not they have been operated efficiently. We oppose the basic and fundamental principle which the Government seems to have adopted.
We do not believe that everything should be publicly operated and publicly owned. We know that for the foreseeable future we are going to live, as we have for many years until now, in a mixed economy, an economy which will be partly operated by private ownership, partly by public

May 24, 1988
Air Canada
ownership, and partly by co-operative ownership. We believe that the needs and requirements of the people should be met in the best and most efficient way.
The Government wants to privatize Air Canada because it wants the company to make money rather, we say, than to meet the needs of the country. Privatization obviously necessitates competition. When we talk about transportation, particularly air transportation, competition inevitably means hiving off marginal routes. That means concentrating on traffic between the major centres in Canada which will inevitably lead to poorer service for the smaller cities and towns of this country and for the relatively isolated areas of Canada, such as the North.
This Bill not only satisfies Conservative doctrine, it satisfies the incorrect claim of competing airlines that Air Canada has been subsidized until now.
Why do we in the NDP and so many people in Canada support public enterprise? It is because public enterprise can provide a range of service to the community. The private sector either cannot provide to a fair and universal standard of service or will not provide it because it is not profitable to do so.
Public enterprise can promote and protect our national interest in a way that companies seeking profit cannot do.
One just needs to look at what this determination to show a profit is doing in the field of postal service to rural areas of this country. Rural post offices are being closed one after another as quickly as the Government can do so without antagonizing everyone. Look at the cut-backs in service to the new suburban areas in our cities, where, instead of door-to-door service which has been provided in our cities for generations, they are having foisted upon them these supposed community supermailboxes which they reject completely. The publicly owned corporation can help promote regional equality and provide models for good labour relations and equal employment practices.
The private sector, by its very nature, pursues profit, not the needs of the people. Pursuit of profit is not bad and has a rightful place in our economy, as I have already said, but if Canadians want a compassionate society that provides full employment, a high and rising standard of living, equitable distribution of income and wealth, equal access to vital services, then public enterprise is an essential method to achieve it. Air Canada has helped do all these things.
The Economic Council of Canada did a study of Air Canada. We disagree very strongly with that study which suggested that Crown corporations are not efficient. We say that Crown corporations have often provided services to the public at cost or less because the service, such as health care, highway maintenance, air and sea rescue services are provided on a universal basis. They are important. Private industry's
preoccupation with competition and profits means that socially useful objectives like these are not priorities.
One need only look at what competition in the airlines will do in the drive to get customers. Rates for travel between major cities will be cut in an attempt to get an increased percentage of the business. The loss of revenue by providing that cheap service will be made up by poorer service to less fortunate areas with smaller population or by increased rates for them.
It is argued that private enterprise is intrinsically more efficient. Every day we hear of bankruptcies in the private sector and companies in financial difficulties. In many cases Governments, federal and provincial, have ended up bailing out these companies because the service or jobs they provided were believed to be essential to the communities in which they operated.
Efficiency in the private sector is often achieved at the expense of social or economic factors. The ability to provide goods or service at a lower cost may have less to do with efficiency than the fact that the private sector can avoid a unionized workforce or may be willing to sacrifice some quality in the pursuit of profit.
One only has to look at the reports which are coming out weekly, if not daily, on the kind of difficulties we see in the airlines in the United States. This was brought on to a large extent by their need to compete with one another. They were brought on to a large extent by deregulation.
Privatization has social as well as economic implications. It means decisions on investment and jobs are made on the basis of profitability. It removes the decision-making from a public-accessible forum to company boardrooms where decisions are private and hidden. Decisions about Canadian jobs and Canadian national resources may well be made outside of Canada.
We believe privatization means that economic decisions are made behind closed doors, inaccessible to public scrutiny. In the long run, the public will have less input in economic decision-making which directly affects their lives.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), in introducing this Bill, quoted some employees of Air Canada whom he met and told him how happy they were about this proposal of the Government to privatize Air Canada. The fact is that unions representing 85 per cent or more of the employees of Air Canada have made it very clear publicly on numerous occasions that they oppose the privatization of Air Canada. They do it for very good reasons. They have worked for Air Canada and know its history. They know its experience.
Let me spend a few moments putting on the record that experience. Air Canada commenced operations in 1937 as Trans-Canada Air Lines. It was set up by a Liberal government at the suggestion of the then Minister, Mr. Howe. Its purpose was to develop an east-west air transportation
May 24, 1988

infrastructure. Its first function was to move the mail. Then, as time went by, it evolved as a passenger air travel service, moving people from Atlantic to Pacific.
It is now suggested that this is no longer a valid role for Air Canada. We disagree and the employees represented by the unions disagree. In fact, they argue that the case for a public carrier is stronger in a deregulated environment into which we have been pushed, first as a proposal of the formal Liberal Government and now by the Conservative Government. We say that public ownership is more necessary than ever in a deregulated environment where certain services are vulnerable.
We believe Air Canada should have the responsibility of providing equality of service, not just between Montreal and Toronto, or Toronto and Winnipeg, or Vancouver and Halifax. We believe cities such as Sault Set. Marie and London, Ontario, are entitled to high quality service. We believe that Whitehorse and Yellowknife are entitled to high quality service. With competition will come diminution of the quality of service for these smaller cities and towns.
It is suggested that we need to privatize Air Canada because Air Canada needs larger amounts of money to buy new aircraft, and that if we do not privatize Air Canada then the purchase of new aircraft by Air Canada, publicly owned, will add to the national debt. The fact is that that would not happen.
In 1986 Air Canada reported a profit of over $40 million. Its rate of return on equity was a respectable 9.1 per cent. That figure ranked it among the best of Canada's top corporations.
Over the long term Canada has performed very well. In the past 10 years it has reported profits in all but two years. Over this period pre-tax profit exceeded losses by $379 million. Its cumulative net income was $243 million.
Air Canada has not received a direct infusion of government subsidies in 25 years. In fact, it has not received any new equity since 1978 when Air Canada was finally separated from Canadian National. Air Canada has been more profitable than competitors such as CP Air, Eastern Provincial and Nordair. It has done so while continuing to meet its public policy responsibility.
It has been suggested that Air Canada needs to be privatized in order to compete. Proponents of this theory point to the imminent passage of transportation deregulation legislation to support their view. There is no evidence that any Government interfered in the day-to-day operations of Air Canada. We know that the existing DC-9 aircraft need to be replaced, but there are many ways to raise investment capital. Issuing shares is only one. There are many options which have been used in the past and which could be used to a greater extent.
The traditional way for closely-held airlines to finance their fleets is by issuing long-term bonds. CP Air, as a unit of
Air Canada
Canadian Pacific Limited, took this approach in 1985. CP Air had a debt to equity ratio higher than Air Canada's current ratio of debt to equity. Or, there are leasing arrangements. An innovative way to arrange fleet expansion to avoid high capital costs is third party leasing arrangements. Here, a consortium of banks and other financial intermediaries own the aircraft and lease them to the carrier for a fixed term.
PWA pioneered this approach with its 1986 resale and leasing of its 737 fleet. Air Canada has experimented with lease-back arrangements on some of its DC-9 fleet recently.
Or, there is financing by manufacturers. As the world market for commercial aircraft becomes more competitive the manufacturers have turned to financial packages as a way to make sales. For example, several years ago Mcdonnell Douglas offered favourable financing to sell its new MD-80 aircraft to both American Airlines and Trans World Airlines. Given the competition between Mcdonnell Douglas, Boeing and now Airbus, the European consortium, there is no question that leasing arrangements and financing by the companies that build aircraft could be arranged.
Or, if further equity is required, the Government should issue it. Air Canada, we say, has proven to be a good public investment. A case could be made for the first equity issue in 10 years.
It has been argued by some that Air Canada should be privatized because it would be more efficient. We say that there is no proof that Air Canada has not been operated efficiently as a Crown corporation.
Let us look at some of the examples of Air Canada efficiency. In terms of broad measures of efficiency that is,passenger load factor, revenue passenger miles per employee, and revenue tonne miles per employee, Air Canada was in the late seventies just above the median of a profile of the North American airline industry. Fuel expenditures for Air Canada at the end of the 1970s was 20 per cent of operating expenditures compared to CP Air's 25 per cent. With respect to revenue yield per revenue passenger and safety record, Air Canada's yields over the past two decades have been consistently better than the record of CP Air. These facts were brought forward in a study done by Mr. Langford and apply to the 1960s and the 1970s.
With respect to air safety, in a study covering the years 1960 to 1975 it was shown that Air Canada tied for first place with seven other airlines as the "safest among 40 international carriers".
As I have indicated, the unions representing the vast majority of Air Canada employees have expressed their opposition to this privatization. They have explained their reasons. They believe that the national airline, publicly owned, continues to serve an important public policy role. This policy basically needs to be strengthened and not diminished. Air Canada continues, they say, to meet this objective within the constraints since 1978 of operating a commercially profitable

May 24, 1988
Air Canada
business. It faces a challenge to rejuvenate its fleet. However, as I have indicated, there are ways of doing that without privatization.
What the employees are worried about is that with privatization we will see the cut-back of existing jet air links which we have had. Deregulation may increase the number of short haul turboprop flights, but there is no substitute for direct or non-stop jet service. The latter offers numerous advantages including speed, reliability and performance in less than ideal weather conditions.
Jets also offer superior cargo capabilities, better access for persons with disabilities, and other important services like air ambulance. We have had an example of what doing away with jet service means in my own province. The people of Brandon are to say the least, angered by the fact that they no longer have jet service. They do not have jet service because of the decision of the Government, first considered by the former Liberal Government, that what we need in the air industry is competition.
Today there are several non-stop jet services which are marginal and which the private carriers have either ignored or served inadequately. Among these, the unions point out, are Victoria, Saskatoon, Sudbury, Sept-Iles, and Sydney, Nova Scotia.
What we will see with the privatization of Air Canada is that following the merger of CP Air with PWA we now have only two integrated national airlines: Air Canada and the new Canadian Airlines International. Wardair does offer limited scheduled services between major cities but has nowhere near the fleet service or destinations of the two major carriers. We can see from what has happened in the United States what deregulation has done-that in a country which has 10 times the population that Canada has.
A publicly owned Air Canada would guarantee that service would be continued, particularly service to remote areas. Marginally economic flights would be given a second chance. Pricing practices can be monitored. Above all, a Crown corporation such as Air Canada is at the present time accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian public. This public policy window on the industry, we believe, is as important to Canadians as Petro-Canada is in the energy sector.
The public policy window on the industry will serve more than competitive objectives. It provides a way to monitor adherence to safety standards. It can assist in tracking airline standards in less tangible areas such as inflight service, and bilingual and multilingual capabilities. It can ensure access to airline services for persons with disabilities, those in need of emergency medical treatment, and cargo services.
Finally, a publicly owned airline can be an integral part of a national aerospace industry policy. Through procurement and
off-set policies we could shape the future direction of this key industry in ways that would benefit all of Canada.
We are told by the Minister that what this privatization will do is to permit partial employee ownership as a preferred alternative to the full or partial sale of Air Canada. There is a small group of Air Canada employees who really want to see improvements in the management of Air Canada. They think that privatization is a way to do it. No one should be deluded into believing that this will give the employees control or even a say in how the company is run. Typically, companies use share purchase plans to put a block of shares in friendly hands in case of a hostile take-over attempt or a stock market run. Listening to the concerns of these employees does not rate high on the list of priorities which we should be considering.
In this Bill is a proposal for a partial privatization. Partial privatization is a prelude to full privatization, which we believe is the real objective of the Government, and which this legislation will provide for. Even if the Government continues to own its shares, the Government has made it clear that it will be the private shareholders who will call the tune on the basis of what they consider to be their own commercial interest. The statement that Air Canada facilities will be maintained in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or anywhere else is a sham. The private shareholders can and will likely decide to cut back on Air Canada facilities in Winnipeg or any other place, if it suits their needs.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is in the Bill, David. How do you
change it?


David Orlikow: My friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), states that it is in the Bill. Yes, it is in the Bill. But the fact is that the industry and the private investors have made it very clear that partial privatization will not work, is not in their interests, and is not acceptable. Therefore, partial privatization will only lead, in the not too distant future, to complete private ownership.
In The Globe and Mail business section on Saturday, May 21, there is a fairly lengthy article by Cecil Foster which deals with this question. The heading of the article is "Industry Cool on Air Canada sale". The article states:
The behind-the-scenes presence of the federal Government will likely scare investors away from a partly privatized Air Canada, leaving the airline no better off than it when it was totally Government owned, industry observers
say.
Also, the imposition of conditions of service on the airline could eventually saddle it with extra costs and remove its flexibility for long-term planning, the industry watchers said.
What are they talking about? They are talking about those provisions in the Bill which will require Air Canada, when it is partially privatized, to maintain its facilities in Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or in other cities.
The article further states:
This means the Government will probably have to sell Air Canada's shares at low prices to avoid the political embarrassment if they do not sell quickly.
May 24, 1988

Air Canada, in that case, would not raise enough money to alleviate its debts. And because of its mixed public and private ownership, it could also have difficulty raising additional money from lenders confused about who is really in charge.
Air Canada says it needs new planes to remain competitive. It has been estimated that that will cost somewhere between $3 and $6 billion. The Government proposes that the sale of shares would bring in somewhere between $300 or $400 million. That is certainly not enough to meet the needs of Air Canada.
The article goes on to state:
Critics think that because of its heavy demands for capital, it is unlikely Air Canada will pay shareholders any dividends for a long time.
If shareholders do not see dividends from their investments, why will they invest? As this article states, that is why the shares will have to be offered at a relatively low price.
There is a requirement in this Bill that Air Canada maintain its facilities. The article points out that none of the private sector competitors face these conditions which the Government is imposing on the company, because the Government knows if it does not do that it will incur the wrath of the employees and the people in the cities in which Air Canada has those facilities. What are these conditions? In the article it states:
The conditions include: Keeping free maintenance bases in Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal; keeping the company's head office in Montreal; and maintaining its bilingual status. In addition, Ottawa wants the shares to be broadly held, with no one owning more than 10 per cent.
The article further states:
Steve Garmaise, analyst with First Marathon Inc. of Toronto, said Air Canada's problems will be compounded by the fact that, in the current market, "you can't convince anyone to buy airline stock".
While meeting the conditions would provide no immediate difficulty to Air Canada's management, they would remind investors they were risking money in a company that was neither fully Government owned nor fully in the private sector.
The article quotes William Stanbury, a Professor of Regulation and Competitive Policy at the University of British Columbia who stated: "This would be a factor in the investors' minds no matter what the Government says about not exercising any control over the airline." He went on to say: "Politicians can do strange things when they get into heat for votes".
The article further states:
The critics would have preferred that Ottawa sold the airline in one go, a move similar to those by the British and Singapore Governments when privatizing their national airlines.
Why did the Government not do that, Madam Speaker? It did not do it because it was not prepared to take the political flak and the political opposition which it knows it would face if it had proposed a total privatization of Air Canada.
The article goes on to state:
"You have to start from the position of whether there is a public policy role for the airline," said an adviser to the Government on the privatization.
Heritage Railway Stations
"If there is no public policy role, then you get out, not go half way", said the adviser, who asked not to be identified.
He faulted Ottawa for not privatizing all of the airline and for not having the political courage to sell the shares last summer when stockmarkets were booming.
I have indicated why we oppose this Bill, and why we oppose the partial privatization of Air Canada. This Bill has been criticized by the employees. It has been criticized by many public-interest groups. It has been criticized as a poor business deal by precisely those people the Government hopes to get involved in purchasing part of Air Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time allotted to him has now expired.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   HERITAGE RAILWAY STATION PROTECTION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: that Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations. I hope eventually this Bill will be referred to a standing committee in order to proceed to completion.
This Bill was actually presented first on November 26, 1984. The Bill had originally been written by the then Hon. Member for High Park in Toronto. He was not re-elected in 1984.1 was preparing a Bill at the same time and consequently when the Member was not re-elected I stopped my preparation and adopted his Bill. Second reading of the Bill took place on April 29, 1985 and it was referred to a committee. Unfortunately, the Bill never came out of committee. The committee was probably swamped with work or otherwise. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, a very strange committee for this particular Bill to be sent to. I hope the next committee the Bill is sent to will not be the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans because that committee has no connection with the Bill whatever.
Bill C-205 is primarily to protect heritage railway stations. A great number of stations were built in the early days of the railroad right across Canada. Many were representative of that particular era. A great number of these have already been destroyed. Consequently it is necessary, I believe, to have legislation protecting those that still remain.'! cannot give the

May 24, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
particular number but it is not large. Undoubtedly there are heritage railway stations in every province of Canada that should be preserved for all time. This Bill simply sets up the mechanism for doing that. I want to go through it now so Hon. Members will know exactly what the Bill does.
The Bill if passed means that no railway company or any other company shall remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station. You will notice, Madam Speaker, that the Bill says "heritage railway station", not any old unused station. Clause 3 reads:
No company shall remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station owned by it or otherwise under its control unless otherwise authorized by an order of the Governor in Council.
In other words the Cabinet. It continues:
Any company that acts in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $1 million.
Another clause of the Bill provides that if a company plans to remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station owned or controlled by it it must file an application for authorization. Again this is required if it is a heritage railway station. It must file this application with the Minister in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council.
The Minister of course is named by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as any other Minister is. After having given public notice of its intention, the company files notice with the Minister. Concurrently with the said filing, the company shall submit to the Minister a profit and loss statement of its estimated annual losses for preserving the said station and of any other expenses the company would likely incur in future years as a result of the application being refused. We put that particular protection in the Bill so there will not be a frivolous attempt on the part of an intervener to force the company to go through this procedure when the station is not really a heritage station at all.
Any person who objects to an application for authorization shall, within the stipulated time in the Bill, serve notice on the Minister setting out the reason for the objection and any relevant facts. This way the general public has an opportunity to say why a station should not be destroyed, sold, et cetera. Upon the expiration of the stipulated time in the Bill, the Minister refers the matter to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for a hearing and report which is set up for this very purpose. Consequently, it is simply making use of a Board already there. The Board then holds a hearing as soon as possible after publishing notice in at least one newspaper in each official language in general circulation in the municipality in which the station is located. This occurs if there is an objection registered by any individual or group across the country. The board must grant all interested persons a reasonable chance to appear before it to make representations. After the representations have been heard, the board must, within 30 days, submit a report, not only to the Minister in charge of the particular Bill but also to the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Bouchard) setting out its findings and recommendations together with the reasons for them.
You will notice, Madam Speaker, that there is a second Minister brought in to make sure that the railway will not be mistreated or put to extra expense and to make sure the station is really a heritage station. This occurs only if the Historic Sites and Monuments Board is of the opinion that the station is a heritage one. That is an excellent point because it brings a second Minister in to review the whole thing. The report will not rest with the one Minister but the Minister of Transport will be brought in as the picture unfolds.
Within 30 days after receipt of the report, the two Ministers shall transmit to Cabinet or the Governor in Council their recommendations along with a copy of the said report, the application for authorization, the estimated annual costs and notice of objection. The two Ministers must reach a decision and take that decision to Cabinet. Again, there is protection to make sure nothing will be frivolous. The two Ministers must make a recommendation to Cabinet. If they say the station is not historic, they can simply give the decision to the railway to dispose of it, burn it down, move it or whatever. The Cabinet may authorize the company to alter the station owned by it. After Cabinet receives the report, if it is unfavourable, Cabinet can authorize the company to do whatever it wants with the station, or the company may be authorized to remove it, destroy it, sell, assign, or otherwise dispose of it. In other words if Cabinet does not accept the recommendation of the Ministers, the railway station can do what it wanted to do in the first place. The authorization required by the company is in addition to and not in substitution for any other authorization or legislation. There will be nothing slipshod about it. It will be thoroughly reviewed.
This is the gist of the Bill which I thought I should outline to Hon. Members of the House. The Bill will actually provide efficient mechanisms which allow concerned citizens to make timely objections to the destruction, removal or sale of stations of historic or cultural value to ensure their conservation in the public interest.
The reason I am interested in this Bill, and why I decided to write such a Bill in the first place, is that of something happened in my home town. There was a station built in the early days of the railway by the CNR in what is now the City of Drumheller, then a coal mining town. When the railway going through that area was abandoned, almost overnight the station was destroyed. The town council was not advised, no one was advised. That historic building that could have been used for many, many years, an excellent building which was well constructed and represented another era, was simply destroyed overnight. Thousands of people felt very badly about this.
On the other hand, some stations have not been destroyed. For instance, in the Town of High River, the CPR in this
May 24, 1988

particular case contacted the town council and the council and the town wanted to make use of that station, not to tear it down. Today that station sits there as a relic of the history of the railway and is used as a museum. Hundreds of people go through it and enjoy that station and will enjoy it for many, many years.
In the Village of Beiseker, again the railway contacted the council and gave it an opportunity to see what it wanted to do with the station. The council wanted that building. It did not want it destroyed, so the council agreed to take over the building. It was completely turned around because it was facing the railway and the council wanted it facing the main street. It was made into the town office, and not only the town office but the town library as well as a little place where they sell heritage items made by the people of that area. Again, this station will sit there for many, many years as a relic of an era that has passed by.
I could mention one other instance of this, and that is in the Town of Okotoks. The railway gave the town the opportunity to use the station. The railway is not using it, but the people of Okotoks, along with their town council, have made it into an arts centre. Now the artists and those who want to study drama have a place to go. Even public meetings are held there. I have held public meetings there personally. It is always a pleasure to go into that building and see the art that is being presented and made by the people of that area. Again, the station is being used to good advantage.
I have mentioned a few examples, but a great many stations have simply been torn down, destroyed or burned because the railway had no further use for them. It is a crying shame that we should lose those buildings.
I am not asking for a lot of expenditure on the part of the railways. That is why this Bill is not all inclusive. It does not say that the railways have to do any of the renovating, moving or decorating. That will be looked after by the people who want to preserve the stations and conserve them for future use. That is why the Bill is not all-encompassing.
A station may have to be moved, as the station in Beiseker was, completely put up on jacks and turned around, or it may have to be moved to another location. That will not be an expense borne by the railways or the Government. That will be an expense borne by the people who want to preserve the station, if there is such an expense involved. Consequently, the cost of this will not be on the shoulders of the taxpayers of Canada or the shoulders of the railways themselves.
There is another railway station sitting there waiting for something to happen to this Bill, and that is the one in the Town of Claresholm. The people want to use that station. The railway is through with it and it has been good enough to leave it there at the request of the town council which wants to use it as a heritage station and a museum. The townspeople are fixing up the grounds around it, and again, it will be used by the people for many, many years, as a representative of that era.
Heritage Railway Stations
The Bill also provides that the Governor in Council will make regulations. This Bill sets out the skeleton and the regulations will be the meat on that skeleton, the meat that will enable any community with a heritage station to make sure that consideration is given to its preservation before anything happens to it. The railway companies will be obliged, when it comes to stations built in the early years, to notify the historic site boards that they plan to destroy or remove any stations.
The railways will also estimate the costs involved, so that the Minister and the Minister of Transport will be able to ascertain if it is fair to the railways to have these stations made into historic sites. That is almost the same as what is done with almost any building in any city that people want to preserve for future generations. They have to go through a certain mechanism, and the historic sites Board is well aware of those conditions and look after them.
I think this Bill is one for which many people are waiting. One other point I would like to mention is that when this Bill was before the House previously, I contacted various provincial Governments and I found that there is tremendous interest in this particular Bill provincially. As a matter of fact, one or two Ministers wrote to say that they had been waiting for a Bill like this for a long time because they want to preserve the railway stations in their particular provinces.
I cannot say how many railway stations will be affected, whether it would be many or few, but they are virtually limited to the railway stations that still exist and were built in another era, a time that has long since gone by, a time that will never come again. If we destroy these heritage stations now, they will be destroyed forever. If we preserve them now, they will be there as a monument to the past and as a useful instrument for many purposes in the future. I urge Hon. Members to support this Bill.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-205 regarding heritage railway stations. I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) brought this Bill forward, and I want to indicate my support for it in principle and my hope that today we can refer it to committee where it can be looked at in some detail.
As a member of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, I noted the comment that the previous Bill had been referred to that committee. I agree with the Hon. Member that perhaps the Fisheries and Oceans Committee is not the appropriate forum in which to debate this issue.
The Bill provides a mechanism by which private citizens or indeed community interest groups could object to railway company plans to sell, move, destroy or alter railway stations. It gives citizens or community groups the opportunity to have those plans referred to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to determine whether or not the station should be declared a heritage railway station or if any feature of it

May 24, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
should be declared a heritage feature, in which case the company would only be able to proceed with its plans after an Order in Council made by the Government.
We all recognize, I think, the importance of railway stations in Canadian history and in the history of Canadian communities. Often the railway stations were the first buildings seen and experienced by new arrivals to communities, sometimes the places where they would be met by friends or relatives. It was a time when they were welcomed to a new community. Sometimes the railway station was the place where they realized for the first time that they were literally on their own, strangers in a strange land.
I was impressed by a picture in a book on the experience of prairie women. Probably other Members have seen this as well. It was called A Harvest Yet to Reap. It has a series of pictures of some of the women who came to our Prairies, and there is one picture that speaks more eloquently than any of us will speak today about the immigrant experience. It is a picture of an immigrant woman surrounded by a group of children sitting on a railway platform with their few worldly goods in trunks and suitcases beside them. All around them stretches the bald prairie which has not yet been inhabited by colonists. It speaks of the desolation these people experienced. Its focus, of course, was the railway station.
Railway stations are the place from which young people go off to college or a job in another part of the country. They are the places from which our young men and women went off to serve in the Army, and the places to which they returned to be received by their families. When we talk about these heritage stations, and I am sure the Hon. Member would agree with me, we are not simply talking about architectural heritage. Some stations do have a certain quality like that which needs to be protected, but others are simply good buildings, soundly constructed, with a real central place in the community's heart and soul.
In that regard they are something like community post offices. I simply want to emphasize again the sorrow of many Canadians and many small communities that Canada Post, following the orders of the Conservative Government, seems intent upon a policy of closing down many of those small community post offices across Canada. For some people in the Government, as well as in Canada Post, all that matters is the bottom line, and Canada Post has been ordered to follow policies that will lead to that bottom line, never mind the impact upon local communities.
I know the Hon. Member for Bow River has a concern for small communities. That was obvious in what he was saying this afternoon and what he has said before. He is speaking up on behalf of heritage railway stations for local communities, and I hope he does the same with respect to community post offices. They are an important part of our community heritage, too. We are not just talking about relics of the past, we are
talking about enabling the community to exist as a place where people can meet and act and work together.
When we talk about preserving historical and heritage railway stations we need to remember that some of them need to be preserved in decent working condition as railway stations. Some will be converted to other use, but some have to be maintained as working stations. On Vancouver Island a few years ago we had a disgraceful situation where VIA and the E & N Railway had kind of decided that neither one of them had any real responsibility for maintaining the quality of our railway stations. The stations had become completely disgusting, dirty, uncared for, cold, and often inaccessible because they were locked up. That situation has improved somewhat, but let us remember that railway stations are supposed to be places where people can meet and wait for the train where there are still trains running. That should go without saying but, unfortunately, as I pointed out, that is not the case.
When all or part of these buildings are no longer needed as railway stations, then I think there are many innovative and imaginative things that community organizations can do to preserve them as an integral part of the community. In my constituency a number of small towns have taken action like this. There are two communities, Duncan and Lake Cowichan, where the railway station has become a museum. They have other uses as well, but the central parts are to be museums. The Ladysmith Railway Historical Society is interested in the railway station there because it hopes to operate a historical railway so people can come and see the way railroading used to be. Of course, the station is an integral part of that. Or, we can just go a few blocks from here in Ottawa where the former railway station is now the Conference Centre. It has maintained many of the architectural features that made it interesting. The other railway station in Ottawa, I understand, is part of the market downtown.
Finally, I simply want to make the point that we need to remember that railway stations did not exist by themselves. They existed as part of a transportation network, as part of the link between different communities. The Hon. Member referred to the fact that when branch lines are closed down the companies often wish to tear these railway stations down as well. We have to emphasize that many of these communities not only look to the railway station as part of their heritage, they look to the railway itself as a living part of their heritage. It was left to them from the past and is something for which their forefathers paid a great price. The abandonment of rail lines is something we have to be very concerned about. Again, in my constituency we see actual rail line abandonment approved by the Railway Transport Committee between Youbou and Cowichan Bay. A lifeline to a community is being eliminated.
In conclusion, I support the intent of the Hon. Member's motion. I hope it will be accepted by the House this afternoon and that it will be referred to committee where the details can be examined and any wrinkles can be ironed out.
May 24, 1988


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured and delighted to be able to say a few words with respect to my good friend's and colleague's Bill C-205. I would like to thank him for presenting this Bill, an Act to protect heritage railway stations.
The object of the Bill, preservation of these heritage railway stations, is praiseworthy. I know the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is anxious to have the views of all Members of the Elouse on this Bill because it contains many good points. In general, though, it will take co-operation and goodwill to save our heritage railway stations. At present the mandate for doing so is divided and uncertain. The Bill does us a great service in bringing this to our attention. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of the Environment have an interest in this issue, as well as CP Rail, CNR and VIA Rail. There are many heritage organizations with an interest as well.
My friend from Bow River referred to the number of heritage railway stations. I think it is something like 23 or 24 which have actually been designated as such. I note his Bill restricts itself to those stations which have already been declared heritage railway stations. There are many thousands of other railway stations across the country which have not been so designated, and a good many of them have been preserved by virtue of public interest, usually a local group, individual, or organizations such as Kiwanis, Lions Club or Rotary Club. This has often resulted in agreement between the local municipality and the provincial Government or federal granting agencies. Some 23 stations have been declared to be of national significance by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board.
To arrive at the goal of preserving these heritage railway stations the Bill would forbid a railway company from destroying or in any other way disposing of a heritage railway station owned by it or under its control unless authorized by an order of the Governor in Council to Cabinet.
A company would have to apply for a permit for such a demolition, and the decision for granting such a permit would be made by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which reports to the Minister of the Environment through the Canadian Parks service. I note that the fines would be not less than $50,000 and not more than $1 million. Therefore, the Bill has some real bite, as I am sure the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) intended.
The Bill under consideration would add to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada's already substantial responsibilities the further task of actually preserving Canada's heritage railway stations. While I fervently agree that the stations are worthy of preservation and that action needs to be taken to protect them, there is a legitimate question raised by the Historic Sites and Monuments board as
Heritage Railway Stations
to whether the best way to attain this goal is to give responsibility to an already heavily burdened Historic Sites and Monuments Board.
There is no doubt that the Board has a strong interest in preserving heritage railway stations and, indeed, in the preservation of all redundant railway properties having heritage value. The board is well aware of the heritage value of some of the early railway stations and has considered many submissions concerning railway stations. Some 23 or 24 have already been declared to be of national historic or architectural significance.
Historically the board's role has been a purely advisory one ever since it was set up in 1919. The board's mission, which it has fulfilled in an excellent and exemplary fashion for almost 70 years, has always been to identify persons, places, and events of national historical significance and to advise the federal Government on appropriate ways to commemorate them.
The Bill would require that the board hold hearings and prepare reports on the future of all heritage railway stations- be they of local, regional, or provincial interest-that are in any way threatened or scheduled for renovation, restoration, or repair.
The main concern which has been raised with the Minister by the officials and the members of the board is whether or not it should be turned into a form of an administrative body rather than a purely advisory body. As a result of this Bill, some real thought is being given to that now within the Department of the finvironment.
It is true that heritage railways stations are close to the hearts of many of us. Certainly Members of Parliament can all recount several stories from our ridings. I know that the railway station in the City of Lethbridge is of historic significance. Many of our pioneers got their first introduction to the Lethbridge area at the railway station.
I hear many poignant stories of war brides coming over after World War II. Their first introduction to Lethbridge was the railway station where they met their husbands. They sent them off from Britain wearing very nice and fancy uniforms, and they were met by the same gentlemen at the Lethbridge railway station in bib overalls and straw hats. They wondered whether they were at all the same men who had kissed them goodbye in Britain. Nonetheless, they picked up their lives and marriages and made enormous contributions to Lethbridge and southern Alberta. I could give many other examples of how the local people believe that the railway stations are important to the historic continuity of our community.
My friend from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands drew an analogy to the Post Office. He was trying to make the political point that the Government is somehow damnable because it is permitting post offices to close. The truth, at least in my riding, is that the Post Office is almost the last building to disappear from the smaller towns. This was a government

May 24, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
service provided at enormous cost to taxpayers. Rather than operating it as a Post Office paid for by the taxpayers in general, the Government is now trying to move it into the local grocery store or the little hardware store, which is sometimes the very last building in these little towns.
The reason these little towns are closing down is that the people themselves are speaking with their cars and their feet, so to speak. They are driving off to larger centres which are usually 30 or 40 miles apart now, rather than eight or nine miles, which was the configuration when we had railways and very poor highways. Now we have super paved highways and people want to use them. They simply drive to the larger centres to buy their groceries and clothes. Because of that the businesses are closing down, including the post offices.
In many ways that is the same with the railway. The early steam engines required stations every eight or nine miles primarily to get water. That is no longer the case. Diesel engines could go much greater distances. With the great superhighways farmers could haul their grain into larger centres and a lot of these railway stations were no longer needed.
Over the weekend my wife and I had the privilege of travelling to Stratford. We went up through Goderich and down through Great Bend and a number of small towns in Ontario. Since the history of Ontario dates back 150 years there is no doubt that there are some magnificent railway stations which deserve to be kept. In the West there is a fewer number of railway stations which are of tremendous historic significance in the sense that they can be structurally preserved for all time. Some of them will disappear, and quite properly so. However, there are a certain number which are architecturally and historically significant enough to be preserved. I think my friend's Bill will go a long way toward leading us in that direction.
I am anxious to hear what other Members have to say. I can assure the Member from Bow River that the Minister is monitoring this debate carefully. I am sure the House will make the proper decision at the proper time.


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), is to be commended for his abiding interest in protecting heritage railway stations. I would also like to comment briefly on the subject matter of this Bill.
Stations have been disappearing at a steady pace for many years. They are first closed down, and then, if no one buys them, they are often destroyed.
Madam Speaker, I think all Members will agree this is most unfortunate. In addition to being a reflection of our past, our old railway stations are often representative of an architectural style that is typical of North America. They bear testimony to
the expansion of our country and are a heritage that cannot be replaced.
Why are heritage railway stations disappearing?
As far as the railways are concerned, many stations have fallen into disuse because of major changes in the infrastructure of transportation services during the last 20 or 30 years. The increasing popularity of highway and air transportation caused a decline in the number of passengers. At this point, CN and CP started to concentrate on freight transport which, over time, became their main source of revenue. Later on VIA Rail was added to the network, many lines were abandoned, and intermodal transport systems appeared.
Because of these developments, the stations lost their raison d'etre and were gradually forgotten by the railway companies which were not interested in keeping them operational.
Madam Speaker, we realize that the railway companies had other priorities, including keeping pace with the development of this country, and we can hardly blame them for the fact that these stations have been all but forgotten.
However, when we hear that despite the joint efforts of municipalities and members of the community, some stations were destroyed, that is a sure sign something must be done to protect them.
In 1976, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board recommended declaring some 20 stations as being of national historic significance. The minister at the time accepted the Board's recommendation, and in some cases commemorative plaques were put in place. In Quebec, for instance, commemorative plaques were installed at the stations in Levis, Isletville, Saint-Jean-d'Iberville, Acton Vale, Berthier and at Windsor Station in Montreal. However, this measure was far from adequate, considering the desired goal.
In fact, when the Historic Sites and Monuments Board submits recommendations for having certain buildings declared of historical value, this does not put any obligations or constraints on private or public owners.
The growing public awareness of our heritage in recent years is a sign of the good will of all concerned.
There are a number of examples, including the situation in Acton Vale, Quebec. The station in Acton Vale, no longer in use, could thus be preserved and become a source of pride for the entire community.
There are hundreds of railway stations in Canada that could still be preserved. Their historical role should not be forgotten, and in fact, they are very much a part of the memories of many Canadians. At a time when railway tracks are disappearing, they are the last vestige of the conquest and settlement of this country. They represent important milestones in the building of our railways. They are part of our national dream.
May 24, 1988

They were the focal point for the departure and arrival of thousands of families on their travels across this vast country they had come to settle. These stations have always brought back memories for those who go back to the places they came from. I imagine many of us in this House have felt the same way.
The Hon. Member for Bow River had a chance to introduce this Bill, and he was right to do so. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent any changes that would diminish the value of these stations. It provides that a station may not be altered without obtaining the authorization of the Governor in Council, an assessment by the Historical Sites and Monuments Board and a joint recommendation by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport.
This Bill seems to fill a vacuum. It would oblige railway companies to apply for specific authorization before destroying or altering a station. The Governor in Council would in each case be responsible for issuing an appropriate order, on the joint recommendation of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport, after public hearings by the Historical Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
Implementation of the legislation would be largely incumbent on the Board, which, however, does not have the basic skills required to carry out such a specialized task. Furthermore, because of its main mandate, the Board might have a conflict of interest, since it would be asked to chose between the operational imperatives of a railway company and those of preserving our cultural and historical heritage.
The same argument is used in reverse by the National Transportation Agency, which would prefer not to see evaluating our railway heritage added to its main mandate. The crux of the problem is the conflict of interest that exists between policies and regulations governing the transport function and those governing the heritage and historical dimension. The federal Government must find a way to reconcile the divergent requirements of these two spheres of activity.
I earnestly hope that this discussion will be instrumental in finding a lasting solution to this problem. I know the Minister of the Environment (Mr. MacMillan) is now looking at other options for protecting our heritage railway stations.
Once again, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his interest in this subject. I am sure that all Members share my view and will do everything they can to find a way to preserve our stations.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-205. This Bill is designed to provide efficient mechanisms to allow concerned citizens to make timely objections to the alteration, removal or demolition of railway stations that are of
Heritage Railway Stations
historical or cultural value, and to ensure that their conservation is in the public interest.
First, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who introduced this Bill to the House. As his constituents and Members of the House will know, the Hon. Member has a long history of support for this and other heritage issues.
This is a worth-while goal because the railway has played an important part in Canada's history. It has linked the regions of this country and has carried new citizens of Canada to their ultimate destination.
The railway system opened the West and formed a critical part of our economy. While its importance has declined somewhat, it still remains an integeral part of the Canadian way of life and the Canadian economy.
In my riding there are two railway stations that are strongly supported by community groups. In the most recent case, the Orangedale station has begun a process of rehabilitation. The Government of Canada is participating through the Canada Jobs Strategy job development component by providing the community group with funds to assist in the rehabilitation of this facility. As well, VIA Rail has contributed $20,000 to assist in the process.
It is an example of a tremendous corporate and community effort by the people from Orangedale who have come together to bring to fruition a process which has gone on for a couple of years. While there is a lot more to be done on the Orangedale station, we expect to accomplish the work in the next year or two.
I take personal pleasure from this project because my mother worked at the Orangedale station as a despatcher during the war. Although it was not traditional for women to work for the railroad as despatchers, as a result of the war there were not a lot of men to do this kind of work and women were asked to participate. It is of personal significance to me, therefore, and of great significance to the community that this project is going on. It is a fine example of how the community and corporate sector can work together to preserve part of our history not only for us but for future generations.
Also in my riding we have a station in Antigonish. Just last week I met with the historical society which is interested in working with VIA Rail to ensure that the station remains intact in order to utilize part of the station as a museum. I have sent letters to VIA Rail supporting the request of the historical society. I am hopeful that we will have the same success with the Antigonish railway station as we had with the railway station at Orangedale.
We sometimes drive by these stations and do not fully appreciate their significance. With the passage of time they fall into the ground and are removed. That is not the case with these two stations. I know that there are other facilities which

May 24, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
communities are keenly interested in preserving for future generations.
I wish to be brief because I know there are other of my colleagues who would like to speak in support of this measure, particularly the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James). He has some views about just how important this Bill is.
In closing I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Bow River for this very worth-while initiative. I can tell him that this week I will be communicating to my constituents that his Bill is moving through the House. I will be providing copies of it to them. I know that they will be simply delighted to read this Bill and to see that this important initiative is being considered by the House. I hope that all Members will see fit to support it.


Mr. Ken  Janies@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for introducing Bill C-205, an Act which is designed to protect heritage railway stations. These stations are very important to the lives and memories of Canadians and represent an important part of Canada's history. The Hon. Member for Bow River is doing us all a great service by reminding us of how important these heritage railway stations really are, and by reminding us that measures are needed to protect such stations, many of which are in serious jeopardy.
Indeed, as most of us are aware, far too many heritage railway stations have already collapsed under the wrecker's ball, or have crumbled before bulldozers. Often, too, heritage stations have been demolished with no warning at all, or, just as bad, after so little warning that organizing to save a station has been next to impossible. It seems to compound the tragedy when we lose a heritage building that might have been saved simply because of a lack of time to organize a community preservation effort.
Canadians have already lost too many of their heritage railway stations. These may have been built with public funds or with railway funds. However, it is indisputable that they have become part of our common heritage, and in a very real sense they belong to all Canadians. Thus, when a heritage station is lost in west Toronto, or in Ottawa Valley towns such as Pembroke and Arnprior, all of which have lost their cherished stations, often with little or no notice, the loss is felt by all Canadians with a sense of history.
However, despite the sad litany of irreplaceable stations that are gone forever, there is cause for optimism with respect to built heritage preservation, generally. We are already beginning to see concrete results as stronger measures to preserve the totality of Canada's built heritage are put in place. Now, under the present Government, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has set up a national cost-sharing program to assist in the restoration of nationally significant examples of our built heritage. Under this program the
Minister of the Environment may contribute up to 50 per cent of the approved preservation project costs for each eligible site or structure, to a maximum of $1 million.
This cost-sharing program was only recently announced. However, five cost-sharing agreements have already been signed, among them a project to restore the historic George Brown House in Toronto, and another to preserve the cherished and celebrated Saint John City Market in Saint John, New Brunswick. All together some 15 additional national historic sites from British Columbia to Nova Scotia are now under consideration for preservation or restoration costsharing.
I wish to talk for a moment about how maintaining these older railway stations is important to communities. For example, the railway station in Sarnia, Ontario, is a historical building. After submissions were made to VIA it undertook a major restoration job on this historic railway station. Rather than tearing it down and building a new one it was restored. Substantial amounts of money have been invested in it. It probably cost more to restore it than it would have cost to build a new station.
The original building was brought back to life, just as the original brick was brought back to life by removing from it all the ugly paint and so on that had been put on it through the years. The superstructure of the building was restored in order to make it safe. VIA spent the total estimated cost of restoring the whole railway station just to restore the structure of the building. It is of pride to our community. The area about it is now being landscaped and proper parking is being made and so on. It is an attraction to our American neighbours who drive across the border to take the train to other places in Ontario and the rest of Canada.
I was remiss not to mention the railway station in Sarnia earlier. I know that my colleague from Bow River will be very interested in it. I hope that he will be able to come to Sarnia some time in order to visit it. Perhaps he could take the train from Ottawa in order to have a good look at it. He could even take an overnight train and have a sleep on the way down. He could visit me when he comes to Sarnia and we could tour the facility together.
The cost-sharing program to which I referred under the auspices of the Minister of the Environment is being administered by the National Historic Parks and Sites Directorate of Environment Canada. It is the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada that recommends candidate sites for possible cost-sharing.
There are further encouraging signs in the specified field of preserving heritage railway stations. Some 24 of these have already been officially designated as national historic sites on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Doubtless, more will be so recognized in the future. Such a designation, while not placing owners under any but a moral obligation to preserve their buildings, do bring
May 24, 1988

home to us how important such structures are to all Canadians.
Beyond that the railways, and CN specifically, have become very conscious of the high public profile that protecting heritage railway stations has received. CN has signed preservation agreements with the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
It would seem that this is the direction that offers the best opportunity for the effective preservation of our heritage railway stations. Given the heavy weight of public opinion it seems quite possible that such agreements as these might become more and more feasible, in the same way that total community efforts to save heritage buildings are becoming more and more common.
All Canadians are stakeholders in the effort to preserve our common heritage but this effort would be worthless if it were not a shared responsibility. To quote the slogan of last year's Environment Week, "It's up to all of us". Co-operation and consultation are hallmarks of the present Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.