1988-07-07

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government response to Petitions Nos. 332-4693 to 3324695 inclusive, 332-4702, 332-4704, 332-4709, 332-4717, 3324721 and 332-4724 to 332-4745 inclusive, and I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to preface my remarks on this important occasion by recalling to the House what was said here at another time:
This Bill is placed before the House to strengthen rather than weaken Canadian unity. It is put forward for the purpose of making Canadians, whether they speak English or French, feel at home in this country to the extent that this is practical, and making federal government services available in the two languages.
Those are the words of the Hon. Robert Stanfield in the debate on the first official languages Bill to be considered by this House. It was exactly 19 years ago this week, on July 7, 1969, that the Official Languages Act was read a third time
and passed by all Parties in this House. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, made the following points in his statement:
The purpose of this Bill is not to compel English-speaking Canadians to learn French, and vice versa. This Bill is aimed at providing French-speaking or English-speaking minorities with all federal government services in the language of their choice, as far as it is practical. If the purpose of this Bill were to impose bilingualism, I would oppose it, as I believe virtually every Member of this House would.
He went on further to say:
If this Bill is not administered fairly and sensibly it can very easily create more disunity than unity ... The emphasis ought to be placed on the bilingual nature of the service rather than on the bilingual nature of the servant to the fullest extent possible and also to the extent that it is fully consistent with French and English Canadians being able to pursue careers in the Public Service... If we are to create a feeling of greater unity we have to think in terms of enlarging rights and opportunities, and not of restricting rights and opportunities.
That is the basis of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. That is the essence of this Bill. That is the statement of this Party over the years which has been carried out, developed and evolved by this Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the legislation that we are now considering on third reading.
I want to quote some of the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, during the debate on the House of Commons resolution on French-language rights in Manitoba on October 6, 1983. He said:
Years ago, this House approved the principle of official bilingualism for Canada ... It is a noble principle, one which is capable of enriching the life of this nation. By our stand today, we reaffirm our commitment and that of our Party given earlier in this same House of Commons by outstanding and distinguished Canadians such as the Hon. Robert Stanfield and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
Bilingualism is a valued principle and an indispensable dimension of our national life. The program, however, must be implemented with fairness and with equity. It is diminished if it comes to be perceived by large numbers of Canadians as an instrument of division or an instrument of unfairness ... We must seek to understand these differences between Canadians and consider them not as obstacles but as guides to the elaboration of sensible and realistic policies which will enhance rather than lessen the attractiveness of such programs in the minds of all Canadians. Sensitivity to people and the presumption of good faith should be the hallmarks of implementation. They will ensure for bilingualism a more durable character and more pervasive acceptance...
The consistency of the position of this Party, of this Government, is evident from the comments I have just read.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act

We have approached the matter of official languages in this same spirit of fairness and equity from the very beginning. When we took office in the autumn of 1984, we stated clearly that one of the Government's aims would be to broaden and strengthen the national consensus on language policy. In the Throne Speech delivered on November 5, 1984, this commitment was expressed in these solemn words: "National unity also demands that the two levels of government co-operate in supporting official language minorities and in fostering the rich multicultural character of Canada. My Government is committed to ensuring that the equality of the two official languages-so vital to our national character and identity-is respected in fact as it is in law. My Ministers acknowledge the need for ongoing improvements and for vigilance in this indispensable area of our national life."

In 1985, the Prime Minister took note of the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages in his annual report as well as the recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages in its second report. He asked three Ministers primarily responsible for language matters, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State, to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the Government's over-all policy in this field and to seek ways of improving it. Ministers were seconded in their efforts by a special senior committee of Deputy Ministers which was designated by the Prime Minister to co-ordinate the renewal.
The Official Languages Act was already under study by the Department of Justice in the context of Charter conformity review. That study was broadened to ensure that, as the Prime Minister stated, that vital piece of legislation was strengthened, enhanced and adapted to new conditions and requirements.
The Throne Speech of October 1986 further underlined this commitment in the following terms:
Official bilingualism is an indispensable feature of our national character.
Seventeen years after its enactment, Canada's Official Languages Act now
needs to be revised. Appropriate legislation will be introduced in this Session to
ensure, as well, that this Act conforms with the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Shortly after I accepted the responsibilities of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in 1986, I stated to the Canadian Bar Association that the re-enactment of the Official Languages Act to ensure conformity with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the implementation of the rights of accused persons to be tried in their own official language under the Criminal Code would be matters of particular importance to me as Minister of Justice, and important elements in the advancement of the Government's policies of social justice and national reconciliation.
It took much of the next year for my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board, the Secretary of State and I to complete the review and develop renewed policies and programs respecting the use of official languages not only within federal institutions but also within the larger Canadian
society. This endeavour required us to review, study and consult in order to ensure that the reforms the Government would be proposing would be balanced ones, reforms which would move official languages policy forward but which would be fair and just for all Canadians and which could be implemented in a reasonable, effective and practical manner.
This painstaking process of consultation and consensusbuilding did not end with the introduction of Bill C-72 in June of 1987. Despite the very positive reaction the Bill received from the opposition Parties, representatives of the official language minority communities, the Commissioner of Official Languages and major media across the nation, there were further consultations with the Commissioner, minority language organizations and Members of Parliament to pursue any further concerns that may have come up during the general reaction following the introduction of the Bill.
Information sessions were held with various bodies such as the Canadian Judicial Council and the Conference of Canadian Court Administrators. Much correspondence took place with members of the public and with officials of some provincial Governments as well as with a number of provincial Attorneys General.
Such consultations led to the coming into force of the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code in Saskatchewan and with regard to summary conviction offences in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Discussions with the two territorial Governments continued and this resulted in the signing of the recent Canada-Yukon language agreement.
As I had stated before in this House, ours is a Government that believes in communication, consultation and co-operation. These virtues, I believe, are essential to foster understanding, acceptance and development of official languages policy in Canada.
Obviously we do have a complex Bill before us, but concerns and questions arise in any legislative initiative, and it has been our duty as legislators to address these and to resolve them. The principles of the Bill were approved by this House on second reading and it has been the firm resolve of the Government not to deviate from these principles. However, as I remarked on March 22 of this year during the opening statement to the legislative committee studying Bill C-72, we remained as a Government ready and willing to consider appropriate proposals for clarification and improvement.
During the next two months, a wide range of witnesses were heard and views were expressed and we heard the comments and questions of committee members. On May 25, having followed the committee's proceedings very closely, I indicated the type of amendments which commended themselves to the Government. The amendment proposals I presented to the legislative committee on behalf of the Government were, I believe, a fair and balanced package that maintained our clear commitment to the underlying philosophy and principles of this legislation.
July 7, 1988

Several further amendments and adjustments put forward by committee members and the Commissioner of Official Languages were also accepted by the Government as part of our continued willingness to consider reasonable suggestions to clarify specific points without in any way deviating from the true character of this Bill.
Through the useful work of the legislative committee the consensus of understanding and support for this important measure has been broadened. As amended and reported by the committee, Bill C-72 has been improved and enhanced in a number of major respects, and I commend members of the committee for their hard work and patience. It was a very effective co-operative effort and a great credit to Members on both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At this point I would like to briefly review the major provisions of this important initiative. The Bill commences with a preamble that recalls the fundamental constitutional and policy principles which have guided development of this legislation.
The Bill begins by recognizing that the Constitution of Canada provides for equality of status and equal rights and privileges for the two official languages as to their use in all federal institutions, a principle which is entrenched in our Constitution in Section 16 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This includes their use as languages of work in those institutions.
The Constitution also provides, in Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Charter and in Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, for full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws and to the courts of Canada as established by Parliament, in English and in French. Section 20 of the Charter guarantees the right of members of the public to communicate with and to receive available services from federal institutions.
The Charter contains other constitutional provisions of importance to this legislation: protection of the educational rights of the English and French linguistic minorities; advancement of the status and use of both official languages, recognition of the rights associated with the preservation and enhancement of other languages. "I would suggest that it might be possible to devise a preamble to the Bill which would have that effect". That was a statement made by the Hon. Robert Stanfield in 1969. All of these principles and more are recognized by the preamble.
Moreover, the new legislation contains a purpose clause which states that the aim of the Act is to ensure respect for the equality of status enjoyed by the two languages in all federal institutions; to support the development of the English and French linguistic minority communities, which the preamble recognizes as being "an integral part" of our two official language communities, and advance both languages generally
Official Languages Act
in Canadian society, and to set out the roles and responsibilities of federal institutions in official languages matters.
Parts 1 to 111 of the Bill flow from Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These parts deal with proceedings in Parliament, legislative and other government documents, and the administration of justice in federal tribunals. They are inspired by the principle that all Canadians must have full and equal access in both our official languages to Parliament, in its legislative and other proceedings, and to the federal courts, in the administration of justice.

If there is one part of the Bill that most clearly reflects the Government's desire to make substantive, effective improvements in the existing mechanisms, it is the part that concerns the administration of justice. Sections 14 to 20 guarantee unrestricted use of French and English in Canada's courts.
This means that any Canadian will have the right to speak his own language in any federal court of law or administrative tribunal. Is it too much to ask that, for the sake of equity, these federal institutions render justice to Canadians in their own language? To ask the question is to answer it. I do not think it is too much to ask of them, especially since we have ascertained that it is feasible right now. We will not have to interfere in any way with the internal management of the courts to have them implement this policy.
Under the new Act, federal courts composed of unilingual anglophone and francophone judges and bilingual judges will have no trouble administering their affairs. We have taken care to ensure due respect for a democratic value we consider paramount-the independence of the justice system.
As Minister responsible for Bill C-72, I am proud to put such measures before the Canadian people on behalf of the Government, and it is my personal conviction that no one will ever criticize us for having worked for greater equity in the administration of justice in Canada.

Part IV deals with the constitutional right of any member of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in either official language. As under the 1969 Act, the new legislation creates duties on federal institutions to ensure that the right is respected at the head or central offices of those institutions, and at their offices in the National Capital Region. The 1969 Act further provided for the creation of federal bilingual districts where the minority numbered 10 per cent of the population. It stipulated that outside the proposed bilingual districts, services to the public would also be provided in both languages, to the extent feasible, in other locations where there was a significant demand. Bilingual districts were never proclaimed because the concept proved unworkable. For example, certain regional offices would serve minority language populations where located outside the bilingual districts themselves.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
With the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bilingual districts notion was dropped. We believe that such a geographical constraint on the language rights of Canadians is constitutionally suspect. Such a fixed criterion is inherently arbitrary and incompatible with the administrative flexibility that is necessary to make the constitutional language rights a practical, workable and living reality in the relationships between Canadians and the federal institutions that exist to serve them. Amendments to the Bill that would restore this geographical and numerical flexibility are equally dubious, as a matter of constitutional conformity.
Indeed, Section 20 of the Charter guarantees the right of members of the public to services in either language from federal offices where there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language, or where due to the nature of that office itself, it is reasonable that communications and services from that office be available in both English and French. These criteria epitomize the need for flexibility, and I would like to review them in somewhat more detail to lay to rest misconceptions and misrepresentations about this part of the Bill.
The "demand" test of Section 20 of the Charter is first and foremost a quantitative one, while the "nature of the office" component is essentially a qualitative one, going to the intrinsic qualities of the office, irrespective of demand. However, this is not to say that there can be no qualitative aspects to the significance of the demand, or that the quantitative aspect is strictly numerical. If the drafters of the Charter wanted to cast the demand criterion of Section 20 exclusively in numerical terms, they could have easily done so in the language of Section 23, which provides for minority language education "where numbers warrant".
Indeed, the original October 1980 version of Section 20 provided for services in both languages from federal offices located in areas in which it would be determined that a substantial number of persons within the population used that language, but this formulation was criticized at the time and replaced by the notion of "significant demand".
In any event, even a "where numbers warrant" test cannot be met, the courts have told us, by the strict imposition of an immutable or geographical limitation in legislation. There must be some flexibility of application. To fix, without any justification, an arbitrary figure would, as I have indicated, demonstrably risk violating the provisions of the Charter.
In Bill C-72 we have outlined a variety of quantitative factors, including numerical ones, that the Governor in Council may have regard to in prescribing by regulation circumstances in which there is significant demand. I want to bring these to the attention of the House. They include the number of persons in the English or French linguistic minority population in the area served by the office, the proportion of
the minority population to the total population of the areas served by the office, and the volume of communications or services between the office and members of the public using each language.
We have also insured that the Governor in Council will have the flexibility to take into account any other factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate as well as the particular characteristics of the linguistic minority population.
This latter qualitative factor implies that in some cases the special needs and conditions of a minority language community may result in the demand being considered significant enough to justify the provision of bilingual services even where a purely numerical criteria might suggest otherwise. This is consonant with our commitment to supporting the development of vital minority communities expressed elsewhere in this legislation, and with our commitment to Canada's linguistic duality in the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.
I would like to turn now to the important area of language of work. Section 16 of the Charter guarantees that the official languages have "equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada". These constitutional rights are stated very broadly. There is no doubt, in my view, that they include equal status, rights, and privileges in respect of the use of these languages in the work environments of federal institutions. The entitlements flowing from Section 16 are not qualified by Section 20's tests of "significant demand" at federal offices or the nature of the office.
It was thus incumbent on the Government to develop a legislative scheme which would respect the principle of equality of status of the two languages in federal institutions in a way that would reflect the reality of the country and which would be implemented without enormous administrative difficulty.
The guarantees of the Charter are subject, by virtue of Section 1, only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If the language-of-work entitlement were expressed exclusively as an individual right, major problems in implementation would have resulted. Consequently, the right is shaped and conditioned in a reasonable, workable and, above all, fair manner by the corresponding duties which are imposed on federal institutions by Part V of the Bill.
Part V recognizes, in Clause 34, that "English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees ... have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part". Clause 35 then provides that in the National Capital Region and other prescribed regions work environments of federal institutions are to be "conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees".
July 7, 1988

Clause 35 goes on to provide that in those regions of Canada which are not so prescribed the treatment of both languages in the work environments of the institutions in regions where one official language predominates is reasonably comparable to the treatment of both languages in regions where the other official language predominates.
The prescribed language-of-work regions are those which have been recognized for the purposes by Treasury Board policy since 1977. In these regions federal institutions must ensure that personnel and central services and regularly and widely used work instruments and, after 1991, newly acquired data processing systems, are available to employees in both languages; that where it is appropriate or necessary in order to create a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages supervisors are able to communicate with their employees in both official languages; and that corporate management groups have a functionally bilingual capacity.
These are institutional duties, not individual obligations. It is not, I emphasize, an individual requirement imposed on each supervisory position in the Public Service of Canada, as has been erroneously suggested by some.
Outside the prescribed language-of-work regions the right to use either official language will be more limited because the obligations on federal institutions are less onerous, but this does not mean that there will be no opportunities to use the other language or that there will be no services to government employees or work instruments, for example, that will be made available through the system in both languages. The Governor in Council may make regulations in this regard and may prescribe the manner in which any of the duties of this Part are carried out.
If fairness and flexibility in the application of the language-of-work and services to the public duties are to be maintained, regulations will be necessary. However, the Government has been sensitive and responsive to the concerns of Members of this House by ensuring that the Bill provides appropriate mechanisms for parliamentary oversight and review. One defect in the 1969 official languages legislation raised by the Hon. Robert Stanfield was that it provides inadequate opportunities for Parliament to examine and criticize the manner in which the Bill is administered and the practices adopted under it.
Up until now Treasury Board has had responsibility for the development and administration of government policy in this area with very little direct accountability to Parliament. Henceforth, under the new legislation, Treasury Board's powers and responsibilities are clearly set out. The President of the Treasury Board will make an annual report to Parliament on the programs relating to official languages in respect of which it has responsibility.
The Commissioner of Official Languages may initiate a review of any regulations or directives on official languages and make a report to Parliament. Consultations with minorities and the members of the public will be held on proposed regulations, and all regulations made under the Bill will now be made by the Governor in Council and not by Treasury Board.
Official Languages Act
A draft of proposed regulations must be tabled in the House at least 30 sitting days before prepublication. Regulations shall be prepublished in the Canada Gazette at least 30 days before coming into force, and a reasonable opportunity will be given to interested persons to make representations to the President of the Treasury Board.
Where a regulation is proposed that would add to or delete from the list of prescribed language-of-work regions, it must be laid before each House of Parliament and a motion to disapprove the proposed regulation may be put forward by Members of Parliament.
Finally, the administration of the Act, any regulations or directives made thereunder, and the reports of the Commissioner, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Secretary of State shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by the parliamentary committee.
These measures are consistent with the reform of the regulatory process undertaken by this Government and our philosophy of openness, accessibility and accountability. This was the result of the work of the committee. It was this accountability to Members of Parliament and the co-operation demonstrated through the committee that allowed us to make these amendments to enhance, strengthen and make more open the whole process, which I think is a distinct improvement to the legislation. Again, I commend members of the committee for their help.

The Bill restates a goal that has long been part of the Government's official languages policy: full participation in federal institutions by all Canadians, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, regardless of mother tongue or ethnic origin. It is a goal, not an executory duty.
We made a commitment that federal institutions would be staffed with anglophones and francophones in the same proportions as the national population, with due regard for the nature of each institution.
Far from making irrational commitments, we opted for a policy that was acceptable in that it provided equal employment opportunities for all Canadians, without discriminating against English-speaking Canadians or in favour of Frenchspeaking Canadians, that is, in a completely equitable manner. [English]
If we consider that 88 per cent of all bilingual federal Public Service positions are held within the National Capital area and the Province of Quebec and that 96 per cent of all unilingual French positions are held in Quebec, Hon. Members will quickly realize that there is no basis to the rumours that Francophones are somehow taking over the federal Public Service. In the Province of British Columbia, for example, 99 per cent of the positions are unilingual English, in Alberta it is 98 per cent, in Saskatchewan 97 per cent, in Manitoba 94 per cent and in Ontario 92 per cent. There is no reason to believe that these figures would change unless the make-up of the population in these regions changed substantially.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
These statistics clearly demonstrate how realistic this policy is. Never has the Government supported the imposition of quotas which negatively impact on either Francophones or Anglophones. We have never supported the implementation of language programs which discriminate. The reality is quite the contrary. The official languages policy outlined in this Bill has always promoted and defended the concept of merit. This is a concept that will continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Charter provides that anyone whose linguistic rights have been infringed may apply to a court to obtain such remedy as the court considers just in the circumstances. For the Official Languages Act to be effective, we had to give it executory force. That does not mean that every language dispute will henceforth be referred automatically to a court. Rather, the new Act provides a mediation mechanism with which the Commissioner of Official Languages will be associated by virtue of this role as an ombudsman and the expertise he has acquired over the years.
For that reason, the bill requires that persons intending to file a complaint approach the Commissioner first. Fie will be responsible for investigating complaints.
It is only as a last resort that the person goes to court. We have thus rectified the shortcomings of the 1969 Act for cases where Canadians have a legitimate grievance. The Commissioner of Official Languages will shift out the frivolous suits from the serious ones. His participation will be the pledge that suits will be based on the principles of law. Of course, the Commissioner will have to act in accordance with the Law, and if he exceeds his competence and finds himself outside the limits of his jurisdiction, he could be the subject of the usual administrative proceedings, on the grounds that he had infringed the rules of fundamental justice.

In closing, let me say a few words about Part VII of the Bill on the advancement of English and French. I am pleased that my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is here. I hope he will be in a position to participate in the debate and expand on this matter.
The Supreme Court has stated that this constitutional principle of progress in language matters is particularly suited to advancement through the legislative process. Surely all Canadians can see the wisdom of supporting, through encouragement and co-operation, not coersion, the development of our official language minority communities and the recognition and use of both official languages in Canadian society as a whole. Surely all Canadians want their federal Government to encourage and support the learning of English and French, and to foster the acceptance and appreciation of our two official languages within the Canadian public. The recent language
agreements between the federal Government and the Governments of Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Prince Edward Island are witness to this consensus.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court put it eloquently in the Societe des Acadiens case, repeated most recently by a majority of the court in the seminal Mercure decision. He stated:
Linguistic duality has been a longstanding concern in our nation. Canada is a country with both French and English solidly embedded in its history. The constitutional language protections reflect continued and renewed efforts in the direction of bilingualism. In my view, we must take special care to be faithful to the spirit and purpose of the guarantee of language rights enshrined in the Charter.
On this occasion the Government is coming forward with legislation that is fair, equitable and which guarantees fairness to all parts of our country and all members of Canadian society. It is legislation that recognizes that equity and fairness are the cornerstone of this Government's approach to official languages. With the leadership of the Prime Minister on this very sensitive and important issue, Canada will develop as the progressive nation for which it is totally capable. We look forward to this legislation taking us into the next century. I urge the support of all Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister took the high road today. Indeed, it is an historic day and, for many of us, an important day because after several years of hard work and great experiences, we are coming to a moment when the House of Commons of this country is to approve a new law concerning official languages. It is a new law of this land designed to achieve national unity and unite Canada on the basis of the constitutional goal we set for ourselves, and to have a country where duality is respected and seen as a unifying objective rather than a divisive one.
I am particularly happy that we are dealing with this legislation at this time because I do not believe we have a linguistic crisis in Canada at this time.
Mr. Speaker, when my leader, the Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), spoke during the debate in this House last February 9 on Bill C-72-and he was the only Party Leader who spoke in that debate, and I thank him for it-he said, and 1 quote,
One of the reasons why this Bill is acceptable to us and to a substantial majority of Canadians is that it is in our Party's tradition, which includes the 1969 Act, the experience we acquired from 1969 to 1984, the Parliamentary Resolution of 1973, the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Official Languages.
July 7, 1988

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this Bill is the fruit of the labours of many Canadians, under both this Government and previous Governments: civil servants, Commissioners of Official Languages, members of the language communities in this country, who almost always inspire us, give us ideas, and sometimes even push the politicians to act.

The coexistence of our two linguistic communities symbolizes our Canadian distinctiveness, this society of freedom and tolerance, justice and compassion that we all seek to build. The majority of Canadians accept our nation's duality and this brings greater respect for the rights of all other minorities. Two official languages, therefore, far from being divisive, are a guarantee of tolerance and understanding, because an open mind on language cannot but nurture generosity of understanding and support for other cultural and linguistic groups.
We have had here for several years-at least since I have been here, since 1972- a policy of multiculturalism. I have said it before, if people cannot accept two official languages in this country, they can hardly understand and accept the multicultural nature of Canada and the important policies that have been adopted to support and strengthen and promote our cultural diversity.
Here again we are faced with our large geographic expanse, a large territory, and our regional differences and, admittedly, our differing perspectives. I am confident that we in this country, are beginning to see the importance of looking beyond our local and regional boundaries, to look for the differences; not to criticize them, not to destroy them, not to eliminate them, but to support them, to promote them and thus enrich each other and make this a better country for all of us.
It is the Liberal Party's position that this is a good Bill. It is the Liberal Party's position that we will support and defend across this country the principles of this Bill. We pray for understanding across the country and for the Bill's implementation in a generous, open and, hopefully, quick way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I say that because the regulations that will flow from this Bill will be subject to parliamentary review, in the committee on regulatory review, and it is very important that the Bill be applied in a generous, open manner.

We must not be mean about this, we must not be petty, the regulations and the whole application must be generous. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it will be a beautiful Charter but it will have neither teeth nor impact.
The problem is quite simple: how do we ensure equality between anglophones and francophones despite their unequal distribution on Canadian territory? That is a question our predecessors in government and our forebears have alerady tried to answer, beginning with the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. Since then every generation has had to adopt, modernize, modify and let us say reinforce where necessary the laws and regulations regarding official languages, in order to
Official Languages Act
adapt them to a sociological reality that itself is constantly changing.
In this search for legislative perfection, perhaps impossible to achieve but still a valid goal, there are two dimensions: the national dimension-Canada as a whole; and the regional dimension-our cities and towns, our communities, our regions and provinces. At the national level, legislation and regulations must be brought in that ensure members of the two main language communities equivalent rights, neither more nor less, so that they can feel at home in their country, at least at the institutional level. That is the role that the federal government must try to play, that is the goal of Bill C-72: to create an atmosphere of generosity toward all Canadians who need to deal with federal institutions for service and communication in the language of their choice and not in the language of the institution, which as we know can vary from region to region.
At the regional and local level, what is at stake is not quite the same. Naturally, that equality of rights and privileges that have been granted remains constant no matter what the region. But a new dimension must be added, that of minorities, individuals situated in a cultural and social environment dominated by the other group. Whether it is the anglophones in Quebec among the francophone majority, or the francophones outside Quebec who live among or in surrondings that are largely anglophone, they experience situations that are, if not the same, at least comparable. The result is that at the national level we have to pay particular attention to the unique situations in our cities and towns and in the provinces. We have always done so in the past, and we will continue to do so. It is one of the characteristic things about Canada, and I for one am proud of it.
It was in fact partly because of our geography, and the distribution of our population over so vast a territory, that we opted for a federal system in the first place. It follows that we must endow ourselves with the necessary constitutional provisions that will unite all the different pieces into one mosaic.
That is the origin of the interplay of the national and regional dimensions to which I referred earlier. The broad goals are set at the national level. But each province has specific responsibilities through which the national goals are achieved-health services, education, social services, domestic trade, the administration of justice, the obligation to make rules for the professions and for municipal and regional governments. All those sectors are, according to the Constitution, matters for provincial jurisdiction. In all those sectors, the federal government has no jurisdiction, and in none of them will Bill C-72 have any direct effect. And yet, the provinces have an important role. It is the provinces that will have to establish within their borders the language regime best suited both to national objectives and to the particular needs of their provincial populations. That is why Canada's linguistic mosaic is so diverse.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
Quebec has its own language legislation, which reflects its unique linguistic and cultural situation. Alberta and Saskatchewan have also adopted language legislation, more or less forceful, more or less acceptable, but which reflects their realities; so have Ontario, my own province, and New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, a status enshrined in the Constitution. In each case, Mr. Speaker, we see different solutions, all possible answers to the question I asked at the start of my speech. What is Canada?
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are preparing to give Canada a new bench-mark, a new milestone in the area of language legislation. This afternoon the House of Commons is going to adopt Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. It is a proud day for me. I worked on this Bill, with the Hon. Member from Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), and I hail it. I am perhaps not 100 per cent satisfied with it, neither is my colleague, but I think it represents an enhancement, if I can put it like that. We tried to keep as much as possible the heart of the Bill, and I think that in general... 1 will return, later on in my remarks, to the improvements I would like to see in this legislation, which will probably be the subject of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of official languages is not new. It is as old as Canada. It goes back to the British North America Act, notably section 133. That section stipulates that either English or French may be used before the courts of Canada and Quebec but that both languages shall be used in the "respective Records and Journals" of the Houses of Parliament. There was something that responded to a requirement of the time. So linguistic duality goes back to the birth of this country. And even if they were not recognized as "official" languages, both English and French could rightfully be used in Parliament and before the federal courts, from the very beginning.
The protection, or regulation, of the status of French and English was ensured by a series of Acts and administrative measures both federally and provincially. This continued right up to 1963, when the federal Government created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, with a view, as the Commission's mandate put it so well, and I quote: "To recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada."
Mr. Speaker, I don't need to tell you that Andre Lauren-deau and Davidson Dunton were two very brave men in their day and generation. They toured the country with their team to hear Canadians' complaints, comments and recommendations, and in a preliminary report from the B and B Commission appears this sentence of Mr. Laurendeau's about the Commissioners, and I quote: "[They have been forced to conclude that] Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history." That
was in 1963. Something had to be done. And Mr. Pearson, the Liberal Prime Minister of the day, did it. It was a turning point for official languages, which was to lead us to the proclamation of the Official Languages Act in 1969, then to the constitutional recognition of official languages in the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that went with it, and finally to the Meech-Langevin Accord, which recognized our linguistic duality as one of Canada's fundamental characteristics. So we have a process, a series of important and historic events.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that the impetus given to the cause of official languages in 1962-63 and after, right up to 1984, was given by Canadians, Liberals, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau, and I take off my hat to them, because they did what had to be done at the time with courage and with great personal satisfaction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Moreover it was the Pearson government, Mr Speaker, in 1964, that authorized the Civil Service Commission, as it was known then, to set up a language bureau and to offer, for the first time, language training; and it was Mr Pearson himself who called for the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, and saw that this generous and open new approach to official languages was implemented. In response to the B and B Commission's recommendations in 1969, the federal Government, with all-Party support, passed the Official Languages Act, which gave English and French equal rights and privileges as languages of Parliament and languages of Canada. The culmination came in 1982, when the official status of English and French was made part of the Constitution, and language rights enshrined in sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights, as we all know. There is also section 23, the right to minority-language education, which is also a very important provision but which is not what we are looking at today.
Starting from the moment when sections 16 to 20 were added to the Constitution, language rights were protected by laws and regulations passed by both the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and it could then be said that Canada had a true language charter.
Mr. Speaker, if I have begun with a look back at our history, it is because I think it is essential to have a historical perspective on the problems relating to official languages if we really want to understand what is at stake. As we have just seen, the Constitution takes priority over ordinary laws and the 1982 Charter represents an invaluable asset, because it puts language rights out of the reach of the political arm. That was one of the things that brought me into politics. I wanted language rights to be in the Constitution, to be safe from the interference of politicians, who change from time to time-a merciful dispensation of Providence, perhaps-and who ought to be bound, by an important document called a Constitution, to respect the will of the people.
July 7, 1988

The question of official languages needs more than political will, as history shows us. It also requires that dynamic administrative measures be put in place to ensure that the political will is translated into action. Nevertheless, a strong political will is essential, because it must be there to generate the dynamism, to inspire the renewal. It was in that spirit that in 1979 a political will created the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages.
Since 1979, the Joint Committee has met many times to consider both the Act and the regulations, and to oversee the implementation of the Act and report on it to Parliament at regular intervals. That is what we have done.
The Committee has tabled a number of reports, and they have been taken seriously by this assembly and by the various governments. I am happy to say that I have been a member of the Committee since it was created, and I even chaired it for several years with Senator Lowell Murray, whom everyone knows, and who is, I should add, a Minister in the present Government. We worked hard and I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all those who collaborated and worked with us, not only the MPs and Senators but also the research staff and the Clerks in particular.
Mr. Speaker, it was political will to change and revitalize that also led to the creation in 1982 of a Special Committee of Deputy Ministers and experts. The Prime Minister at that time, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau, after reading the Joint Committee's reports and realizing that the Official Languages Act had to be updated and made to reflect the new Charter of Rights passed by Parliament in 1982, decided to create a Special Committee of Deputy Ministers and experts in this field, who toiled away under the aegis of the Privy Council on the task of renewing, strengthening and updating the Act. They studied the issue for some years, and when the present Government came to power in 1984, they had a thoroughly well-documented file that only needed to be recast as a piece of legislation. This the Government has done, and I congratulate it.
So there we had the political will, and by a joint effort of various committees and other people who took a hand, Bill C-72 was born. Bill C-72 thus follows up the Accord, the constitutional commitment, and acknowledges the formal commitments of the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. It goes a little further than the Accord, because we were able to get the word "promotion" into the text, the wording of the Bill, which as you know we were, alas, not able to do in the case of the Accord.
Bill C-72 is thus in the same vein as the constitutional commitments. It defines federal objectives within the framework of a revitalized and modernized Act. It seems to us-to us Liberals, at any rate-that it was imperative to give the Bill (which was tabled in the House on June 25, 1987) prompt and serious consideration.
Official Languages Act
We had been waiting for the Bill for a long time, since it had been announced in two Throne Speeches, but the Government dawdled, the Bill didn't appear. I was obliged to raise the matter in the House on 27 separate occasions, in an attempt to encourage, to stir up interest-I may have overdone it a little, sometimes, but my goal was always to get the Government to take action, to keep its promises and bring a Bill before the House.
Finally, as I said, the Bill saw the light of day. It took nine months, and in February of this year, after a very long delay, we got to second reading. We drew the media's attention to the Bill and then things began to get interesting, because then people began to realize that this Bill was a significant Bill, which went much further than the 1969 Act.
Bill C-72 was supported by three Ministers, the Minister for the Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice, and the former Secretary of State, who gave a press conference where no words got minced. It was a fantastic moment, June 25, to see the government so enthusiastic. But it didn't last long. We had to keep up the pressure and encourage a hesitant government. We wondered why. And then we found out: there was a war going on. There was a war going on between certain Conservative Members. There was a group of about 30 of them, the dinosaur club I called them, which some people didn't like, but I thought it was an appropriate name.
They were carrying on an internal guerilla war against the Bill, in an effort to make people believe there was a crisis in the country. Well, there wasn't any crisis. Not a hint of one. And when my Leader, the Right Honorable John Turner, spoke on February 8, 1988, he said,
"The time is right, the subject is right, the content is right. In other words, why do we have to wait for a crisis, Mr. Speaker, let us act now".

And he was right. There was no crisis. There were some people trying to create one. The Government had to be encouraged to resist the preposterous pressure being put on it by some of its own MPs.
In committee, finally, after three days of debate in the House, there was a succesion of MPs playing at musical chairs. That went on for three months. They replaced one another almost like clockwork, the Tories, one saying his little piece and then the next day another one. We bore with them. One even suggested we hear from 130 witnesses, and 130 witnesses, Mr. Chairman, would have meant the Committee would have had to sit for the whole year, probably, and into next year. We said no. It was time for action. And at the end of three months-and I must say it took patience, you have to be patient in the game of politics-


An Hon. Member:: Always!

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: . . . and we came out with a report that was tabled in the Elouse. At that point, we realized that the Government was beginning to show a little courage. Suggestions had to be made to the Government, of course, but that can happen. Last Thursday, my colleague from St-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) rose in the House and proposed that since certain people wanted to create a crisis where there was none, the Government should use Standing Order 115 and move forward. We did not tell the Government to make it one day, one short day, and two hours; we simply told the Government we would support it if it decided to use Standing Order 115 to limit debate. The Government subsequently decided to put a very tight rein on the debate, but that was not our decision. We merely tried to get the Government to act.
Yesterday evening, Mr. Speaker, this House approved the Committee report as tabled in the House. It contained 136 amendements, but even though I personally might have been willing to spend all night here, some of my colleagues did not relish the prospect, and we voted. We decided not only to act responsibly but also to consider all the staff of the House who had to wait. It was chiefly for their sake that I suggested to my House leader that we could apply the result of one vote to the other votes and dispense with the recorded votes. It took time, but it was worth it, Mr. Speaker. After 20 years of waiting, getting concurrence in the report stage of a new Act was important, at least for me. However, for some Conservative Members who, as I say, still had doubts about the principle of linguistic duality it may not have been a very pleasant experience. For us, it was the fruit of years of unremitting hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go on at length about the amendments considered yesterday. They might receive more recognition than they deserve. Happily, I think we have passed that difficult stage, and we can put them aside. Nevertheless, we have seldom seen a Government forced to gag its own Members . . .


An Hon. Member:: No, I think it is the first time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... on one of its own bills. It is a historic event.
On the one hand, the Government refuses to disavow the dishonorable actions of its language reactionaries. On the other hand, it limits debate to prevent them from speaking. That is a form of disapproval. Mr. Speaker telling us, as the Government did, to wait for the vote today to find out whether they would disavow the "dinosaurs" is, to me, unacceptable. As I said yesterday, it is like telling us a thief is only guilty if caught: it is like telling us a liar is guilty only if caught. It makes no logical sense. At the end of the day, though, we will see whether these reactionaries will be called to account for their decision.
Mr. Speaker, if one does not agree with another's statements, one must say so. Why wait! And if Conservative Members make unacceptable statements, they should be told as much. And they must accept their responsibilities. In any
case, the main thing is that the Bill is now at third reading stage and will be passed. Even though the Government is not unanimously for it, the official Opposition at least will be. That is not how we Liberals work. We work as a team, and we make progress as a team.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-72 is appreciably different from the 1969 Act. I would like to make a few comments on the Bill. The new Act contains a 10-point preamble that clearly establishes the link between what is enshrined in the Constitution and the spirit of generosity and reform on which interpretation of the Act must be based. Under the Interpretation Act, the preamble is a part of the Act intended to assist in explaining its purport and object. The preamble to Bill C-72 mentions sections 16 to 20 of the Charter and the federal Government's commitment to protect and promote bilingualism and official language minorities. In this respect, the Act goes further than the Constitutional Accord of 1987, which recognizes only the federal Government's duty to preserve the linguistic duality.
It is stated that Canadians have the right of access, under the Constitution, to the institution of Parliament and the Government. Bill C-72 contains the necessary provisions to ensure that this constitutional right is respected. It is stated that the Government will support the development of minority groups, enhance the bilingual character of the National Capital, encourage the business community to promote the official languages. All of this is repeated in Bill C-72, and I know, Mr. Speaker, because we will be watching very closely, it will help strengthen the linguistic situation.
With regard to other legislation, I should point out that the Bill contains some important legal rights. In particular, Section 82 provides for the primacy of the Act. As you will recall, that was the subject of a number of recommendations by the Joint Commitee on Official Languages, since it had been recognized as a weakness of the 1969 Act. I myself introduced a number of Bills between 1979 and 1986 in an attempt to give the Act primacy over all other legislation.
Clearly then, this is not a new idea, and this Government did not invent it. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize what has been accomplished, and since the primacy of the Act is assured, I have achieved my goal and I am satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, Part II of the Bill deals with legislative and other instruments such as federal-provincial agreements. The Government decided to take up one of my amendments to this Part and incorporate it into the Bill. It is a new section, specifically section 8, which deals with the tabling of documents in the House. It will force the Government to table its documents in the House in both official languages, which it did not have to do before today.
With regard to federal statutes, there is nothing new. For many years, they have been enacted by Parliament in both official languages and both versions have equal weight and force of law.
July 7, 1988

Mr. Speaker, while we approve of this Part as a whole, we have a few concerns. Under Section 10, it is theoretically possible for the Government to avoid signing its federal-provincial agreements in both official languages. I understand the arguments the Minister made before the Committee-that some agreements concern only one individual and that small amounts of money are involved. That is true in the case of grants awarded to university researchers, for example. It is therefore difficult to oblige the Government to sign all federal-provincial agreements in both official languages because it is not always necessary. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, five or six amendments that I introduced in committee and that were defeated concerned some very important issues. I cannot go into detail on those issues today, but as I said earlier, there will certainly be Private Members' Bills in the future on those issues, which include the Supreme Court of Canada and such important matters as the tabling of federal-provincial agreements in both official languages.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I remain somewhat concerned, as there will be a need for vigilance to ensure that agreements that may be important to minorities are actually signed in both official languages, whether the language of the province is French or English. It is a simple precaution I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, but in my experience both as a parliamentarian and as a member of a minority in my province, it is an important one. Without it, minorities will again have to fight and beg to have their rights respected.
I want to pay special tribute to three Canadians who have occupied the position of the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking of Mr. Keith Spicer, Mr. Maxwell Yalden and Mr. D'Iberville Fortier. Their work and dedication, their professional advice to the Parliament of Canada in their annual reports and in their appearances before the committee speak highly of their excellent stewardship of this important national policy.
I would like to pay tribute also to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who has travelled with me on the road to language equality from our respective provinces and from our different perspectives with regard to official language minorities. I want to thank all my colleagues on this side of the House who have helped and supported me and who have many times come to the committee to assist me in the work of doing the best we can to improve the language obligation.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Liberal Members who often attend Committee meetings to reinforce the Liberal presence and help to take stock . . .

The importance of language rights to many of us is grounded in our belief that Canada is a better and stronger nation if we care about each other's aspirations in dignity and respect. Languages can bridge the gap between communities and
Official Languages Act
regions in this country, as I said at the beginning of my remarks.

The official language minorities throughout Canada are the cement of national unity. Canada is strengthened and enriched by them.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I say to the Government: Thank you, well done, Minister; we have found in you someone who, I think, understands the official languages problem! I encourage you to stay on the right path. I encourage you to ensure that all your colleagues support you in your proposals and I hope we can continue to work together to improve Canada and make it a respectful, generous country and, above all, the Canada that must be ours, a Canada that will be respectful and generous to all Canadians.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to speak in third reading debate on Bill C-72, the official languages Bill.
The day is a happy and an historic one. It is a day that I sometimes wondered about our achieving, given the lengthy committee hearings and the many witnesses who came before us. There was as well extended consideration of amendments to the Bill that were put forward in committee. It was very important for that process to have been worked through carefully to ensure that Bill C-72 is a good measure for this Parliament to pass.
I want to say immediately that Bill C-72 impressed many people at the outset in June, 1987 as being well drawn over-all. There were individual points of concern. I felt one or two of those at the time and expressed them, but the approbation which the Bill received at the outset from persons concerned about the policy of official bilingualism which was reflected by members of all three Parties and people concerned with the policy of official bilingualism is something worth saying at the outset. This was well expressed at second reading debate when the Bill was given approval in principle. No voices were raised against it. It appeared that the Bill had unanimous support in this House at the time, but more recently it has become clear that was not the full reality of the situation. There is across the country still some opposition to the policy of official bilingualism.
I am constrained in the time that I have to speak and envy my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for the time he had to address the matter. I would like to speak particularly to some of the concerns that exist across Canada about the process, the Bill and the policy in order to try to set at rest those minds which still feel concern about the policy of official bilingualism dating back to 1969 and the first Official Languages Act. For those who are concerned about the implications of this Bill for Canada, it is worth looking at some of those concerns.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
1 think I would be justified in saying that if some Members felt it took courage yesterday to be opposed to various clauses of the Bill and to bring amendments forward, I was equally impressed as far as courage is concerned and far more impressed in terms of vision by those Members of all three Parties who supported the Bill. One is tempted to looked at individuals in terms of the areas from which they come. I of course speak as someone who grew up in Manitoba, who taught for the better part of a decade in the Province of British Columbia and who now lives in northwestern Ontario. I think I have some sense of the feeling in western Canada on the matter of official bilingualism. I became particularly aware of it as a professor in the history department teaching Canadian history. I could single out persons and say to myself, here was courage, here was a vision of the country being expressed, when Hon. Members of opposition Parties and almost all Hon. Members of the Conservative Party gave their support to the Bill.
1 think it is worth recognizing that amendments that come forward in the House at report stage are not likely to get very serious consideration by the House. I say that with a good deal of regret and rue as a member of the Opposition. Of course, we may well put amendments forward for political purposes, but the fact is that the job has been largely done in the legislative committee and it is expected that it will be so done there.
The Government appointed as its members of the legislative committee persons almost entirely from an official language majority. Even my good friend, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), is in a provincial sense a member of the majority community. In fact, the only exception to this in any kind of ongoing way would be the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) who could speak for the English speaking minority of Quebec. The French speaking minority in the rest of the country was never represented in committee, certainly not as far as I recall.
A large opportunity was given to representatives of the English-speaking majority in Canada. As we watched them in operation, we knew that there were skeptics if not critics and outright opponents of the legislation present with opportunity to put their views forward. To his credit, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) was dogged in his persistence in some of these concerns. At times, this frustrated some of us who were watching him, but I suppose it played its part in leading the Government to put forward those provisions on regulations that represent an interesting addition to the Bill from the view of Government over-all. Perhaps it represented a very significant development for the Government of Canada. Those provisions for publicity to be given to regulations before they are finally declared so that Members of Parliament have an opportunity to comment on them were the result of the process in the legislative committee.
I can say quite advisedly, I think, as a member of the New Democratic opposition, that when amendments are put forward in the House at report stage, they are generally put forward in order to make certain important points. They are put forward to try to make changes in the Bill but also to make certain points, and from that perspective, in addressing the feelings across Canada and the opposition that I know exists among some people, I want to consider two of the amendments that were put forward. These amendments are very revealing of the kinds of attitudes that exist.
Motion No. 2B put by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), for example, applied to Clause 2 of the Bill and specifically to subclause (b) which declares the Act to be in support of the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine wanted to strike out the words relating to equality of status. He was prepared to allow this Bill, when finally passed and proclaimed, to support the use of English and French but equality of status stuck in his craw.
Amendment No. 28A put by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was put forward quite late in the process at report stage. It was even more revealing because it dealt with the very important matter of when the Government of Canada might respond to the existence of minority official language communities, whether the English-speaking minority in Quebec or the French-speaking minority in other parts of Canada. The proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Bow River was that an area in which there is significant demand may be established if the number of persons in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least 51 per cent of the total number of persons residing in the area. That has to be about the most incredible amendment that could be put forward. The Government would respond, under this proposal, only if the official language minority happens to be the majority in the area. I do not know from where this idea came, but it is a splendid example of the kind of proposal which might have come forward at the legislative committee, been given short shrift and then set aside.
I am not meaning to ridicule a particular proposal or the Member who put it forward so much as I mean to indicate that in these two motions, we see the kind of feeling that exists in some parts of the country among persons who have not yet accepted the necessity of the policy of official bilingualism to which all three Parties, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have been committed since 1969. What I find particularly distressing about the failure to accept that is the way in which those who oppose the policy make demands on ordinary Canadians because they do not want to see the Government of Canada establish expectations for itself and for the persons who work in the Public Service.
July 7, 1988

If the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has been reported correctly in the press, and this was of course one of those leaks from the Conservative caucus, as it happens, he recognized as a result of a drive through rural Quebec in which he needed help and discovered people who did not speak English, that there are persons who do not know the language which prevails in an area and surely the Government of Canada has an obligation to serve those persons in the language that they do know.
It seems to me ultimately outrageous that we will not use the facilities of the Government, we might not on the view of these persons make language training available or hire persons who are not fluent in both languages in order to serve these people but we will instead-and I speak now for the Englishspeaking majority who take this particular view-demand that all of those persons become bilingual themselves through whatever means possible at whatever difficulty, if they are to deal with the Government of Canada. That seems to me so monstrously unfair that I cannot believe that any Canadian with whatever view of this country could really persist in a rejection of the policy and say that the Government of Canada should not make that effort, take that extra step to ensure that the official language minority in an area is able to obtain services in its own language.
The reality, of course, is that the Government of Canada has since 1969 been committed to the policy and has generally acted on it. I want to suggest, however, that in ensuring that the Public Service is capable of serving the minority, there are some very real concerns, and one of them deserves to be stated here this afternoon. While committed to the policy, and the Bill we have been considering represents a significant renewal of the policy of official bilingualism, there are still some very grave shortcomings in the teaching of the language to members of the Public Service and in the provision of interpretation services.
The government's commitment has not really been reflected in practice. There has been a reduction in the number of interpreters and an increase in their workload. There has been privatization of a substantial part of the translation service in order to reduce costs, in spite of concern about the effect this will have on the quality of translations.
Language teachers in the public service have been forced to work for almost two years without a new collective agreement. Faced with demands for an increase in the amount of teaching that they do every week, they will of course have to reduce their preparation time. An increase from 20 to 25 hours a week represents a very significant change in the working conditions of these teachers.
I think this is a matter of considerable concern because speaking for, if you will, the English speaking majority of the country who are concerned about what will happen in the public service, they want the assurance that they will be able to
Official Languages Act
obtain the kind of language instruction that they need in order to provide the kind of service to the French speaking minorities of the country that our policy envisions. If they are not able to obtain the kind of instruction that hones their skills and targets well the kind of service they are required to provide, then the policy to which we are committed in principle is not being fully achieved in practice. Although that may in a sense be in parenthesis in our general consideration of the Bill, it is a concern that I want to underscore for the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), who is in the House this afternoon, and for others concerned, the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) and so on.
As I have already indicated, in the years since 1969 we have seen an acceptance of the policy of official bilingualism. It is tempting to review how that happened, to refer to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Act of 1969, and recognize, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) did, the policy of multiculturalism stated in 1971 in this chamber and its acceptance by all Parties, and to recognize the movement toward recognition of aboriginal self-government. All of those are aspects of the building of a new Canada on which we have been embarked since the 1960s. It is that voyage that is of such crucial importance to this policy and this Bill.
The fact that there are still some Members in this House who speak for another view and wear the dinosaur button proudly is an indication that they speak for a dying view, I suppose I am not sure there were dinosaurs around when the sheep and mice wanted to enjoy the earth, but without elaborating on that, I think there is a growing number of people in this country who accept the policy and want it to flourish. I want to say to them and to all of us here that it is imperative that this Bill receive passage here and in the other place and be proclaimed. It is necessary in order to renew official bilingualism and establish the policy across the country. It is necessary for various reasons. It is necessary in order to have a footing on which to stand if one wants to express concern, as someone said yesterday, about the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the impact of Bill 101.
It is surely to be profoundly regretted that the Conservative Government of Bill Davis in Ontario never took the step of making the province officially bilingual back in the 1970s. Who knows, it might have changed the history of Quebec in additional creative ways. It is surely to be regretted that the Conservative opposition in Manitoba fought the attempt of the Manitoba NDP Government to implement what eventually became the declaration of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is surely to be regretted that Conservative Governments in Saskatchewan and Alberta have finally recognized that there is an official bilingual reality in their provinces, only to then largely do away with it.

July 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
Those realities across the country we can do very little about. However, as Members of Parliament we can ensure that Bill C-72 becomes the law of the land. We can ensure that the policy is renewed and strengthened and extended, whatever happens to Clause 2 of the Bill. As we strengthen official bilingualism and reassure the majority in Quebec, perhaps we will see a day, sooner rather than later, when restrictions on English in the Province of Quebec will seem less necessary to the majority; when French flourishes there and in so many other parts of Canada far beyond the National Capital Region in a community in which we are truly committed.
Let me say in conclusion, with respect to the concern about employment and the public service expressed by so many of those who are still opposed to the policy and the Bill, that this is surely addressed under a very simple rubric. We now have in the marginal note not the fact of law but the reality that the Government practices a commitment to equitable participation When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) seeks to have a quarter of his staff be francophone, that reflects proportions. The reality of employment equity for the target groups that the Government has declared, in which the ethnocultural diversity of the country is to be recognized, is the context within which equitable participation by the official language communities will occur. In Clause 39 of Bill C-72, we have an assurance that proportionality will be maintained.
With those concluding reassurances to the English-speaking people of this country whom I particularly address because of my background and experience and the concerns I know are out there, I want to urge all to join me in giving firm support to Bill C-72.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be brief. I wish to state unequivocally to every Member of this House and every citizen of this nation that I have been a supporter of bilingualism. That position has cost me in my constituency. It nearly cost me my seat on one occasion. Therefore, I think my dedication to bilingualism has been proven by my vote, my behaviour, and I cannot be seen as opposing bilingualism in practice in the Government of Canada. Let that be clearly understood by all concerned.
I want to compliment those whose principles required they stand in contradiction of my stand, such as the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) and his confreres. I compliment them on the principles they espouse. It is only appropriate that one should recognize the principles of others. My difficulty has not been with bilingualism but with its heavy-handed administration to the prejudice of unilingual Canadians of whatever language. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I do not rise to confront my Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or my Party. 1 rise in support of the principle which I believe transcends some of the obligations one has as a member of a Party. This Government has been a good government, perhaps the best in the last 25 years, so let there be no misunderstanding about my loyalty to bilingualism.
However, I want to see unilingual Canadians able to use federal premises in the language of their choice, whether it be
in Chicoutimi or St. Stephen. I want to see unilingual Canadians able to tender on the Government of Canada in their own language. I want to see bilingual competence in federal offices. However, I do not want to see it to the prejudice of the talent of unilingual Canadians who may seek education which this Bill does not offer.
I want to compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) for his very fine and reassuring speech. He has given Canadians the reassurance that this may be applied in an evenhanded way. My objection is that scientists and experts, in whatever sphere, find themselves barred from occupations as federal civil servants because of lack of language.
I, Sir, have had more difficulty with learning language than any other subject, and I sympathize with those who are dead-ended because they have neither been offered training nor are capable of accepting it.
The assurance I would like is that there will be unilingual opportunity in Canada in every sphere. My position in no way qualifies my support of my colleague or my Prime Minister.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I must say I do not
doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Member who has just finished speaking, although I believe many of them do not fully understand the purpose of this Bill. I know there are many anglophones in English Canada. I said it, and I will say it, without trying to anger anyone. In Canada, especially English Canada, there are many people who say: We love you French Canadians...

As I said, I am a Canadien franfais, and there is no translation for that.

There are English-speaking Canadians who love French Canadians, but, as I have said before, in subservience if possible! But that cannot be. It is impossible, and we will not accept it. That must be understood. That is what the people who are outside now, as we speak, do not understand. We want to be at home. We want to be ourselves. We are not taking anything away from others who also have the right to be themselves. That is what must be understood, and that is the purpose of this Bill, the continuation of everything we have known. Lastly, I would like to thank someone who has always cared about us. I think we ought to pay tribute to him, our colleague who has always . ..


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), but his time has elapsed. Consequently, unless there is unanimous consent that the debate continue, it is my duty, since it is now 12:42 p.m., pursuant to the Order passed on Monday, July 4, 1988, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of this bill.
July 7, 1988



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:
Call in the Members.
	5. 0. 21	
MacDonald	Mulroney	Tardif(Kingston and	Murphy	(Richmond-Wolfe)the Islands)	Nystrom	TardifMacDougall	Obcrle	(Charlesbourg)(Timiskaming)	Parry	TremblayMacLellan	Pennock	(Quebec-Est)Mailly	Pietz	TurnerMalepart	Prud'homme	(Ottawa-Carleton)Manly	Reid	Van De WalleMarchi	Riis	WarnerMarin	Robichaud	WeinerMartin	Rossi	WhiteMasse	St. Germain	WilsonMayer	St-Julien	(EtobicokeMcDermid	Scott	Centre)McLaughlin	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Young-129McMillan	Scowen	Merrithew	Shields	Mitchell	Skelly	Mitges	Sparrow	Moore	Stevens	NAYS


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that according to the rules the bell will ring for 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration rising on a point of order?
Allmand	Cooper	GrayAndre	Cossitt	(Windsor West)Axworthy	Darling	GriseBaker	de Cotret	GuilbaultBeatty	Della Noce	(Drummond)Bernier	Dewar	HamelinBlackburn	Dick	Hawkes(Jonquiere)	Dorin	HendersonBlais	Duplcssis	HicksBosley	Edwards	HnatyshynBouchard	Ellis	Hopkins(Robcrval)	Epp	HovdeboBouchard	(Thunder Bay-	Hudon(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Nipigon)	IsabelleBoyer	Epp	JamesBrightwcll	(Provcncher)	JewettBrisco	Fennell	JohnstonBrowcs	Ferland	(Saint-Henri-Caccia	Fontaine	Westmount)Cadieux	Foster	JoncasCaldwell	Friesen	JourdenaisCardiff	Frith	KeeperCassidy	Fulton	KelleherChampagne	Gagliano	Kempling(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Gagnon	KingBagot)	Garneau	LadouceurClark	Gauthier	Landry(Brandon-Souris)	Girard	LaytonClifford	Graham	LeblancCollins	Gray	LesickComeau	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	LewisCook	la-Madeleine)	Lopez


Mrs. McDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my tardiness. Had I been here, I proudly would have voted for the motion.


Mrs. Vezina:: Mr. Speaker, 1 too am sorry for being late. I missed the beginning of the vote, and I wanted to assure the House that I would have voted in favour in the vote just taken.


Some Hon. Members:: Bravo!


Mr. Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.23 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
July 7, 1988


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is disturbing news from south of the border. Governor Thompson of Illinois has urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to divert billions of gallons of Lake Michigan into the midwest river system. The Governor of Illinois described the situation as "a navigation emergency" and requested the Corps to divert Great Lakes water at Chicago to get river traffic flowing again.
This is the thin edge of the wedge. Today's emergency will become tomorrow's routine. The Government of Canada should make strong representations in Washington and make it absolutely clear that Governor Thompson's proposal is unacceptable today, tomorrow, and one hundred years from now.
When will the Government wake up to the fact that water is included in the trade agreement, whether or not it acknowledges it? Americans say that water is included, according to the July 1 issue of Inside U.S. Trade. If the Government does not wake up, Canadians will have a strong message at the next election.

[ Translation]



CANADA DAY

[Stage Direction]
Thanks again to the Limoilou Economic Development Corporation, to the thousands of young people who participated, and to the people of Quebec-Est!


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Quebec film maker Jean-Claude Lauzon, whose public service announcement on violence in the home was awarded a prize at the International Publicity Film Festival at Cannes.
Of the 216 entries from numerous countries, only the Quebec Government film dared to deal with the problem of violence against women.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and Social Services, as well as the Solicitor General of the Province of Quebec for their publicity campaign against family violence.
The federal Government should follow their example and plan a similar campaign in order to sensitize all Canadians to the problem of family violence.
Each year, more than a million women are battered in Canada. It is the federal Government's duty to try to curtail violence against women by encouraging victims to come out of their isolation and by urging relatives, friends and neighbours to intervene when necessary. The Government must accept its responsibility and break the silence which surrounds the problem of family violence.



QUEBEC-EST CONSTITUENCY-CONGRATULATIONS ON INITIATIVES OF LIMOILOU ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, July 1 was a day of joyous celebration for all Canadian men and women, whatever part of Canada they hail from, and whatever their language or origin.
Canada Day is an event that rekindles the feelings of pride and belonging that are natural to any nation with a strong identity and strong roots.
Once again this year, thanks to the brilliant initiative of the Limoilou Economic Development Corporation, people in my riding of Quebec-Est celebrated the arrival of their ancestors with a lively performance by gifted actors in period costumes.
All of those who participated in this day of rejoicing in beautiful Cartier-Breboeuf Park will remember that in our area, people take things in hand, know how to organize and bring their projects to fruition.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this House several times this year to draw the attention of Hon. Members and the public to the aspirations of the Armenian community living in the Soviet Union. This winter, I asked the top Soviet leaders to deal with the demands of the Armenian people who want the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karaback, with its Armenian majority, to be annexed to the Republic of Armenia.

Today we learned from the newspapers that more demonstrations have taken place during this week in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, and that there has been a call for a general strike, which seems to have been respected.

July 7, 1988



It is reported that during these demonstrations, five Armenian demonstrators were killed by the forces of the Soviet Department of the Interior and about thirty more were injured.
My office reached the Soviet Embassy this morning, but it refused to confirm or comment on these events, although Soviet television itself, picked up by Agence France Presse, reports bloody demonstrations in the Armenian Republic. [English]
I wish to press the Government of the Soviet Union to bring more comprehension to dealing with what seems to me to be the legitimate grievances of the Armenian people. I offer my sympathy to the Armenian community on the suffering it is undergoing.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government will spend $110 million to clean up the St. Lawrence River. This is the most important federal environmental initiative in Quebec.
Our Government recognizes the priceless value of the St. Lawrence River, this living heritage. Most Quebecers have had the pleasure to live by its shores, to admire it and to swim in it.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Quebecers, I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Environment Minister (Mr. McMillan) for this timely initiative to revive the magnificent St. Lawrence River.



NATIVE PEOPLES


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the on-the-job training of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has provided an excellent program for facilitating the entry of aboriginal people into the workforce. The Government states that it wishes to support the self-sufficiency of aboriginal people. Nowhere is this more important than providing people with the skills to enter the workforce.
Despite these fine sentiments there is a situation in the Yukon, brought to my attention by a number of constituents, both employers and potential trainees, that this program has not yet received funding for the 1988-89 fiscal year. This means that potential trainees in business, mining, government services, and band offices sit waiting for positions. Last year the program had over 100 trainees with a 95 per cent success in job placement rate. At the present time 45 trainees could be
placed, but three and a half months after the start of the year there is still no money.
Where is the commitment of the federal Government? Is it more interested in ramming through legislation in a vain attempt to impress voters than seeing ordinary Canadians get jobs?



DISASTERS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on July 31, 1987, a vicious tornado devastated areas of Edmonton. The cost in lives and property damage was enormous. In disasters of this magnitude the federal Government has always rushed to provide emergency aid in many forms.
The morning after July 1, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Mr. Mazankowski), and CMHC officials and I flew in an Armed Forces helicopter to assess the degree of damage.
Last month the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) presented a cheque for $22 million to the Alberta Government as partial compensation for those damages.
The previous year the federal Government allocated $16 million as its contribution to the Edmonton flood disaster of 1986.
Our Government is always ready to help ordinary Canadians when disaster strikes.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, if we consider today's vote on the Official Languages Bill, during which nine government Members voted against the advancement of official languages and other Members either stayed away or abstained, the demonstration on Parliament Hill by Canadians who are opposed to the advancement of official languages and the speeches made by certain Members here in the House on the amendments, especially by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), all this goes to show that once again, part of the population of Canada and especially part of its Parliamentarians have no understanding of Quebec and Canada, no understanding of our history. I think that the purpose of the official languages legislation is to protect francophones, and I hope that sanctions will be taken against certain individuals, because to us francophones, despite today's vote, the insult remains. No apologies were made to the francophones in this country.

July 7, 1988
17236______________________________



TAX REFORM


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, critics of the tax reform proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have lost face once again, since as a result of this reform, the vast majority of wage earners and pensioners will pay less income tax. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians will pay less income tax as of July 1, and they will notice the positive impact of this reform when they realize they are getting a bigger paycheck that will put more money in their pockets.
From now on, there will be only three taxation levels instead of ten, which will make the system easier to understand. The tax rate will be set at 17 per cent for taxable incomes below $27,500, at 26 per cent for incomes from $27,500 to $55,000, and at 29 per cent for incomes over $55,000. Many tax concessions have been eliminated to make up for the drop in tax rates and to spread the tax burden more equitably. Income tax credits will take the place of a number of exemptions and deductions. Furthermore, the maximum credit per eligible child has been increased to $559 for 1988.
Mr. Speaker, since the Conservative Government came to power, more and more people are working, we have managed to reduce the deficit, and 850,000 Canadians on low incomes will no longer pay income tax. We can say that with this Minister of Finance, consumers are getting their money's worth, Mr. Speaker!



PRIVATIZATION


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government announced that it would be privatizing Eldorado Nuclear the Minister then in charge of privatization said in a press release that "existing pension and benefit plans will be adopted by the new company". In a statement and a letter sent to employees she repeated that promise. The company itself repeated that promise before a committee of the House of Commons.
Now in a proposal made public to the workers yesterday it becomes apparent for existing workers who continue to work for this firm that they will lose the protection of their present
pension plans. The protection will only exist for those people who have already retired.
I call upon the Government to reaffirm the promise it made to the workers. I call upon the company to reaffirm the promise it made to the workers,
I can tell the Government at this time that any work it wants done on that legislation this afternoon is in jeopardy if this broken promise is not rectified by the Government.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 the Government of Canada announced its drought relief program for livestock producers. The federal Government will spend $76 million, and share assistance with all three prairie provinces.
This is just another example of the kind of leadership western Canadians have come to expect from the Conservative Government. This Government never has to wait for the squeaky calls of the lonely drugstore cowboy Grits in the West or, worse yet, a drought wish list by the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and a Mr. Nobody from Saskatchewan called Romanov or Romanow or something.
No western Canadians can see any leadership qualities in the Hon. Member for Oshawa. Apparently the NDP drought policy will be issued during the next federal election campaign. By next spring, if they waited for New Democrats to take action or form policies, farmers in Saskatchewan will be spitting pure dust and dead cows will be pushing up daisies.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the walls of this great House of Commons were vibrating. They were vibrating with the passionate call of my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), for support of Bill C-72. A great worker for Quebec, he wanted that support and I quote:
-for the sake of Canada and for the sake of its people.

July 7, 1988

Speaking, I believe, for the vast majority of French Quebecers, the Member of Parliament from Charlevoix pronounced clearly and precisely the message that is needed for a strong and united Canada. He said:
I need you English Quebecers. I need a strong English community in
Quebec.
These words, Mr. Speaker, were music to my ears, and I know my hon. friend was direct and sincere in his delivery. We the anglophone minority of Quebec have contributed much to our Belle Province and must continue to play an active role in our distinct society.
Yes, we are a fundamental part of this distinct society, and good will, demonstrated in concrete terms by our Quebec and Canadian Governments, will go a long way to reassuring my community that we are, in fact, needed. Our federal Government and the Government of Quebec must respond to this call. They must recognize the special needs of the minorities across Quebec and Canada.
Improved access to services in one's language, increased opportunities in jobs and careers in one or both languages, and support for the special needs of the minority communities are prescribed in laws like Bill C-72.
But the good will, the trust, the confidence, and the generosity called for by the Member from Charlevoix must come from all our leaders. Canadians deserve nothing less.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservative Government has decided to spend $110 million on cleaning up the St. Lawrence River.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I hope the applause will not be counted as part of my speaking time.
This amount includes $20 million for the protection of endangered species and environmentally sensitive areas. There are plans for upgrading existing wildlife reserves along the St. Lawrence and for creating a national wildlife reserve between Montreal and Sorel.
Survival plans will be implemented for the most endangered species like the peregrine falcon and the beluga whale, and the Government has announced funding of $6 million for an action plan for the whales. Finally, negotiations will start with the
Province of Quebec on creating a marine park at the mouth of the Saguenay, at a cost of $75 million.
Mr. Speaker, free trade, official languages and bilingualism, the environment, tax reform: you can count on the Tories to do the job!


An Hon. Member:: Dinosaurs keep out!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, you will know that we often deal with very important and global matters in this House, but I have a small item that was brought to my attention by a constituent that I thought deserved the attention of this House.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not possible in the city of Winnipeg at the main post office to buy a stamp with the Queen's picture on it? This may not be a national disaster, but it certainly is an inconvenience and it is a public relations disaster for the Post Office.
My friend, who writes to many people in many countries, likes to use the stamp with the Queen's picture on it. Why can't we buy a stamp for 37 cents to mail a letter in the city of Winnipeg with a picture of the Queen on it?
Let's take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians who strongly support the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement just as strongly object to the large-scale export of Canadian water to the United States.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has stated quite clearly that nothing in the trade agreement requires Canada to export water and that it is government policy not to allow any large-scale export of Canadian water. That being the case, there is no reason that the Government should not introduce its own legislation to turn its policy into the law of our land.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
July 7, 1988

[Stage Direction]
DROUGHT IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will address it to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
Southwestern Ontario is facing the worst drought in some 50 years. For example, corn producers have already lost 20 per cent of their crop worth over $200 million. Every day the drought continues it amounts to some $20 million of additional loss to farmers. By the end of this month if the drought continues it is estimated that the losses will approach $800 million. Losses are similar in other field and fruit and vegetable crops. 1 wonder what action the Government is taking in the face of this worst drought for farmers in southwestern Ontario in a generation.
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the situation. The Hon. Member did not mention that there was a frost in parts of Ontario as recently as about 10 days ago that has also caused problems. We have been monitoring the weather situation, and particularly moisture, going back to the beginning of February. We are doing the same thing in Ontario as we are doing on the Prairies.
We have meetings planned with the respective farm organizations regionally for the end of this month or the beginning of next month so that we can get a good assessment of the situation. I think the Hon. Member would know, as an agriculture critic, that some of the crops are not beyond help yet as far as rain is concerned, and the reason we have scheduled the meetings with the farmers and farm groups in about a month's time is because we think that at that time we will be in a much better position to assess exactly what the situation is, and on that basis be able to determine what kind of assistance will be needed.
If the Hon. Member wants to be fair about this, he will recognize that this Government has been very responsive when dealing with farmers' problems, whether they be weather related, market related or whatever. We have been very much on top of it and have been very willing to provide assistance to farmers. We will do the same thing in this case.


CROP INSURANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago the Canada-Ontario Crop Insurance Review Committee reported to the Minister of Agriculture recommending, for instance, that benefits be increased from 80 per cent to 90 per cent. Corn producers have asked that the compensation level be increased by 50 per cent this year. The Ontario Government has offered to put in place a tripartite system which would provide additional benefits. The Minister of Agriculture has apparently told the Ontario Government, "We will take your cash but we won't increase the benefits".
I wonder why the Government has failed to act on those recommendations made over a year ago in a booklet entitled Looking Ahead Toward 1988. In fact, those recommendations which were made by that federal-provincial review committee were designed for exactly the kind of disaster we face today. Yet no action has been taken. The Government has been sitting on the report and has done nothing for over a year.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member for Algoma should know that our Government has done everything in its power to assist Canadian farmers and that we are at the present time reviewing all of our programs with regard to grain throughout Canada. My colleague the Minister responsible for grains, the Minister of Agriculture and myself will be holding consultations in all regions of the country in the course of the next few weeks. We will meet with all interested parties to see how the present structure in the grain sector could be modified to advantage. We have stood up for Canadian farmers, and invested more in their well-being that any previous Government. I have no doubt that we shall continue to do so and we will ensure that grain sector programs in Ontario and the rest of Canada match the needs of producers as closely as possible.


CROP INSURANCE-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPLICATION DEADLINE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government was able to come up with $164 million for what was almost a political disaster in Lac-Saint-Jean last month, while a natural disaster in western Canada got only $76 million.
Since the Government has failed to act for a year to put in place better crop insurance programs, and thus the participation rate has been very low because the present program is simply no good, and since the Government did not act on the recommendations of the committee, will the Government extend the deadline so that farmers can apply for crop insurance up until at least the end of August? This will provide some assistance from the Government to help them face the worst natural disaster they have faced in over 50 years.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago we announced that the Government would allot $153 million to aid western producers. We clearly indicated that we were monitoring the situation very closely in Ontario and in Quebec, and indeed everywhere in Canada. We are currently in touch with Mr. Riddell who toured Southern Ontario to gain first-hand knowledge of the drought situation in that area and we hope that if we have to intervene the Government of Ontario will be as receptive as were the Governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, who provided us with exceptional co-operation in the application of a program in the prairie provinces. And we hope that in this case the Government of Ontario will co-operate closely with us in the application of a program to meet...
July 7, 1988

As for crop insurance, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and myself will be meeting with our provincial counterparts on Monday for the annual federal-provincial conference, and the question of crop insurance is on the agenda.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the appropriate Minister. In light of disturbing reports from Illinois where Governor Thompson is proposing to triple the flow of Great Lakes waters from Lake Michigan into the mid-West river system because of navigation problems, why is the Government of Canada not making strong representations in Washington to the effect that this proposition is totally unacceptable because of its effect on Canadian waters in the Great Lakes?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the thrust of the Hon. Member's question is a charge that the Government of Canada is not making a sufficiently vigorous representation to Washington. I do not know why he would make such a statement. 1 do not think he is privy to the inner workings of the Government of Canada or to any diplomatic notes that may be sent by us to the U.S. Government.
In any event, I assure the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada is taking the issue very seriously. The Hon. Member must know that there is enormous pressure from within the United States to resist what Governor Thompson is seeking, the diversion of water from Lake Michigan at the Chicago diversion point. Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, for example, have already made their opposition clear, as has the Government of Canada.
The U.S. Government has given us its assurance that we will be fully consulted at every stage of the U.S. Government's deliberations on the matter. For our part, we are making our concern known to the U.S. administration in the strongest possible terms.


CANADIAN POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between being consulted and making Canada's position clearly and effectively known. The Minister does not seem to be informed on his own Government's inner workings, judging from his answer. He did not answer my question.
Why is the Government of Canada not making strong representations in Washington on this matter? When will the Government of Canada wake up to the reality that, as far as
Oral Questions
Washington is concerned, the trade agreement includes water? Having included water, the federal water policy of the Minister of the Environment becomes a mockery because of the fact that water will then be part of the American interpretation of the agreement. Why is Canada not making strong representations in Washington on the proposal of Governor Thompson of Illinois?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must have water on his brain. The proposal of Governor Thompson is to have the U.S. administration, through the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, approve and arrange for the diversion of American water from Lake Michigan, which is totally within U.S. boundaries, to elsewhere within the United States. It has nothing to do with diversion of Canadian water, or inter-basin diversions, or water exports.
In any event, we take the matter seriously. We are concerned about the effect on Canada of possible American action on American water for American domestic purposes. In that respect, we are making the most vigorous representations that could possibly be made to the U.S. administration.


RIGHT OF UNITED STATES TO DIVERT WATER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on this very serious problem. Diversions which in fact take place from Lake Michigan, as the Minister knows, would have serious and damaging effects on downstream Great Lakes communities. Does the Government accept that the United States has the right to undertake such diversions from Lake Michigan unilaterally?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition of joint management of the Great Lakes by Canada and the United States. Some decisions do require joint decision-making or some recourse, for example, to the International Joint Commission. This particular question happens to be within the jurisdiction of the U.S. However, given the spirit of co-operation over many years, in fact over many decades, in the management of the Great Lakes in general, it is expected by both parties that any decision by one affecting the other would involve the utmost in consultation. Certainly that principle applies in spades here.
In any event, it has nothing to do with free trade, federal water policy, or inter-basin diversions within Canada affecting the U.S. It has everything to do with a proposal from one State Governor, in connection with which there is great opposition in the U.S., for diverting American water from Lake Michigan to somewhere else, in this case to the Mississippi. We oppose it for good domestic reasons, and in that connection you can be assured that the Government of Canada will continue to be very categorical in its representations to the U.S.

July 7, 1988
Oral Questions CANADIAN POLICY


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister recognizes that a diversion from Lake Michigan would have a serious impact on water levels in Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, and would affect all the communities along the Canadian side of those lakes.
The Government of Canada, in a statement tabled at public meetings held by the IJC in 1983, stated its "longstanding opposition to unilateral increases in diversions from the Great Lakes system", and its view that "such proposals should be considered only after consultation and agreement between Canada and the U.S." Therefore, is the Minister saying that his Government has changed that policy and we are no longer taking the position that we must agree to any water diversion from Lake Michigan?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in policy. Canada has not been approached formally by the U.S. administration about any decision the U.S. Government has taken or is even contemplating taking on this question. All we have is an idea or proposal from one state Governor, that being Governor Thompson of Illinois, who is trying to do the very thing which has been proposed by all kinds of different state Governors over the years in connection with one water situation or another. In almost every case there has been as much resistance within the U.S. to what was proposed as there has been in Canada.
In any event, we expect to be consulted. We expect to be informed. Ultimately, if there were to be any diversion, which we do not expect, we would expect our concurrence to be granted before the project could be proceeded with. However, the matter is totally academic. It is only a proposal and no decision has been made, much less it is likely to happen.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE ON POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF WATER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it may be academic for the Minister; it is not academic for the hundreds of communities along the Great Lakes that will be affected by this kind of diversion.
I put it to the Minister as straightforwardly as I can, that he said previously that there was not a Canadian role in this as far as agreement was concerned. It was an American decision with respect to American water. Is he now prepared to stand up and very clearly tell this House that we will insist, as we have in the past, that there be Canadian agreement before any diversion takes place?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as far as any diversion is concerned the answer is yes.
I am saying as clearly as I can that any such diversion from Lake Michigan within the U.S. would have profound implications for Canada. It would have profound implications for navigation, for recreation, and for commercial interests. We oppose it in the strongest possible terms. However, it is only a
proposal. It has to go through a labyrinth of complex legal obstacles in the U.S.
As long as we are making our views known, and as long as we have a commitment from the U.S. Government to consult us at every stage along the way, and ultimately we are in a position to oppose the diversion if the Americans were ever stupid enough to proceed with it, I think the Hon. Member should not be so exercised.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Energy was asked what the Government was going to do to ensure that some of Canada's natural gas was reserved for use by Canadians when the Americans already have one-third of our total reserves under long-term contract. We learned the answer when listening to the speech of the President of the Treasury Board yesterday in Calgary. She said in effect it really does not matter if the Conservatives lose the next election because we cannot make any change to our energy policy anyway, it is enshrined in stone under the free trade agreement. It is really under the jurisdiction of Washington to make decisions as to whether any changes are going to be made.
Why does Washington now control our energy policy? Why did the Government feel it necessary to have Washington make these decisions on Canadian energy policy?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board decision on the Pan-Alberta application was and is based on procedures developed and announced prior to completion of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. There is no direct link between that agreement and the NEB decision. It is clear, however, that as U.S. buyers are becoming more confident in stability of supply in the Canada-U.S. energy environment, we are going to have more sales to the U.S.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant impact involved in the decision of the NEB on the Pan-Alberta Gas proposal. That impact is that under the free trade agreement the NEB has had its powers almost completely stripped away. It is nothing more than a monitoring agency. It cannot turn down those requests. More and more of our natural gas is to be destined for delivery to the U.S. and Canadians will not have access to it. I take great exception to the President of the Treasury Board saying it does not matter who you vote for, you cannot change energy policy-

July 7, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I want the Government to know that galls me and other people on this side and 1 want to know why it does not gall the Government.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard anything so silly in all of my life in this House. That Member knows full well that the NEB operates under a set of guidelines and those guidelines are clear. They have public reviews where every consumer and consumer organization in this country has an opportunity to appear and make a complaint. There was virtually no complaint submitted to the NEB on this ruling. He knows that, and he is just trying to make political points on something he knows full well is not true.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Agriculture Canada is in the process of transferring storage reservoirs and irrigation projects in southwestern Saskatchewan in particular from the PFRA to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation.
Given that this provincial body is primarily concerned with municipal, urban, and recreational use of water, can the Minister assure the farmers of the Swift Current-Maple Creek area that agriculture will be given the same priority as it was under the PFRA and that the traditional responsibility of the PFRA is not going to be abandoned?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a question which has a certain amount of topicality as far as the negotiations are concerned. The simple answer to that question is yes, that is one of the prime objectives of the negotiations. The way in which the PFRA has been able to deliver services in the past will be maintained if and when there is an agreement reached with the Government of Saskatchewan. Therefore, the simple answer to the question is yes.


FUTURE OF PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the cattleman who was denied the Saskatchewan Water Corporation's permission to water his thirsty cattle because boaters on the Duncarn Dam would suffer will need stronger reassurance from the federal Government than that.
Oral Questions
Is this the first step in the privatization of the PFRA as was recommended by the Nielsen Report?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has specific concerns about farmers in areas affected or about to be affected, 1 would be more than happy, as would the Minister of Agriculture, to look at them specifically. If he has some things with which he wants us to deal, we will be happy to do so if he lets us know.
Second, no, this is not the first step in any kind of privatization as recommended by the Nielsen Commission, absolutely not.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.
Two hundred and fifty-five families in Saint-Maurice de l'Echouerie, in the Gaspe, have not received their mail since July 4, because Canada Post failed to renew the delivery contract with the drivers who normally deliver the mail.
Could the Minister explain to these families why Canada Post decided, without warning, to send the mail 30 miles down the road to the village of Riviere-au-Renard? Why do these families have to travel 60 miles a day to pick up their mail? Is that the new Canada?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member is not able to direct that question to Canada Post directly, where he knows it belongs. I will refer it for him.
I also refer him to Beauchesne's where he will see that that type of question is, if anything, an Order Paper question and is not fit for Question Period.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, 255 families at Saint-Maurice de l'Echouerie are protesting and holding up a truck that delivers all the mail in the area. Is the Minister going to act responsibly and intervene to restore mail delivery to these people who are entitled to this service?

July 7, 1988
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member might do the House a favour and spend a half hour with his colleague, the Member for Papineau, the former Postmaster General, who was the Minister responsible when Canada Post was made a Crown corporation. The Hon. Member for Papineau should instruct that Hon. Member as to what is the role of Crown corporations.


ROUTE TAKEN BY MAIL TRUCK
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the women and children of Saint-Maurice de l'Echouerie took over their post office to draw the public's attention to their situation. The mail truck goes past their door, past their post office and off to another village, without stopping, and drops their mail there. Why can't the truck stop in their village? Why not? Why do women and children have to risk criminal charges to get their point across and get proper service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Member stood up on a Statement Pursuant to S. O. 21 before Question Period and said that at the main post office in Winnipeg they were unable to buy a stamp with the Queen's picture on it. I am informed that Winnipeg Postal Station A has 10,000 stamps with the Queen's picture on them.
With regard to the question or statement or whatever it was the Hon. Member made, I will refer it to the Post Office and seek their reaction since he is apparently not able to do that on his own.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may think it is funny, but a constituent of mine in Winnipeg wrote me a letter to indicate that he could not buy a stamp in Winnipeg with the Queen's picture on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the Hon. Member has the floor. [Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would like to ask the Minister whether he realizes that when ordinary citizens can't use Parliament to voice their needs, they have only one alternative and that is take direct action or let themselves be victimized. Is the Minister prepared to act responsibly as a Minister of this Parliament and protect Canadians against the arbitrary decisions of the bureaucracy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when the Canada Post Corporation Act was brought before committee Jean-Claude Parrot, the head of CUPW, stated: "What we are saying is that under a Crown corporation we hope management will have its own authority to make certain decisions and to act as management".
That is what happened. The Hon. Member's question is one for management. Why does he not follow his leader's example and let management deal with it?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and relates, as well, to the proposal to divert water from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi Valley.
The Minister's answer to the House a few moments ago indicating that the American Government had given our Government assurances that we would be consulted all along the way has an ominous ring and is reminiscent of the days when the Polar Sea sailed through our Northwest Passage.
Can the Minister advise the House whether the Government of Canada is prepared to join with those in the United States who oppose this diversion in the American courts, to oppose publicly any move to divert water from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi Valley, rather than waiting till later, as we did in the case of the Polar Seal


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must know that the Supreme Court is the effective regulatory body in connection with the project in question. There is at present no formal process in train, as I understand it.
It is a proposal from only one state Governor. His proposal is being vigorously resisted by neighbouring states and by conservation groups and, as I understand it, even from within the U.S. administration itself.
If at some point the Government of Canada thought it advisable to intervene in some fashion-I do not know whether it would necessarily take the form of the recommendation of the Hon. Member-he can be assured that the Government of Canada, on behalf of Canadians and in the public interest, will take every relevant step necessary, as we have in the past, to oppose this insane kind of idea.
July 7, 1988


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At a special immigration inquiry convened in Toronto yesterday, 14 Americans and one West German, who were members of an anarchist delegation and who took part in a violent and ugly rampage through downtown Toronto on Monday, were suddenly freed after immigration enforcement officers were ordered, from on high, to drop the cases and testimony that they had prepared against these individuals.
Will the Minister explain why the Government made a back-room deal to drop the cases that would have prevented these people from ever returning to Canada without special permission? Does the Minister believe that this kind of sweetheart arrangement will engender public confidence in the system, when such violent radicals will have full opportunity to return, while so many relatives of Canadians, for example, are denied the legitimate right of visiting or gaining landed immigrant status in Canada? For whom is the law working?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in this case the law was working to get them out of the country, which I would have thought the Hon. Member would have supported. There is no secret deal. The counsel for the 13 Americans and one West German gave assurances to the adjudicator that her clients would leave the country. To my certain knowledge, I believe 13 of the 14 have already left. We are seeking confirmation on the 14.
There was nothing behind the scenes about it. It was an assurance that was given to the adjudicator. Since the objective was to have them leave the country so that we can do more for people who are trying to bring in relatives and so on, it was a perfectly appropriate action.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had the obligation to uphold and apply the law, and to send a strong message that such violent elements are not welcome in Canada. She abandoned her obligation. That is most regrettable.
Given that these 15 individuals were charged with property damage, mischief, obstructing and assaulting police, escaping custody and resisting arrest, is she not worried that she has set a very dangerous precedent in cutting a deal that is very convenient to these culprits? Why does she believe that the price of the important principle in barring these people from re-entering Canada and of sending a clear signal to other like-minded radicals, is a price not worth paying? Since these
Oral Questions
individuals were not deported, they are allowed to return into the country scot-free.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, under the process in place at the moment, it would have taken another two or three years to get them out of the country, as the Hon. Member well knows. He also knows that we are trying to change that, but 1 will not get into that again.
Let me just say that these people are now gone and they will not come back.


EMPLOYMENT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It has been almost three years since the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration recommended to the Minister of Labour that there be a program for older workers. It recognized the plight of older workers.
It has been two years since the Minister declared his program. Why does he continue to blame the provinces? When will he meet the promise to older workers of Canada and implement the program?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, let me put the record straight. I do not blame all the provinces. There are definitely some provinces that are not cooperating the way they should. I believe that the plight of older workers is the responsibility of all governments in Canada, including the provincial governments. Hopefully with their cooperation the program will be announced soon.


FUNDING OF PROPOSED PROGRAM
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, 41 per cent of older workers are frustrated and depressed, and have actually left the labour market. If the Minister is sincere about implementing the program, why does he not take the advice of the committee and contribute 100 per cent of funds to implement the program and keep his promise?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition always comes back with the 100 per cent program. Let me remind the Hon. Member, who, like myself as a matter of fact, was not here at the time, that that program was not for all older workers. It was discriminatory in that it dealt only with older workers in particular domains. The program we are proposing will deal with all older workers.

July 7, 1988
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the matter of diversion of Great Lakes waters to the United States. The Minister says that this is only a proposal from one state Governor and therefore it is not necessary for him and the Canadian Government to act on this matter right now.
Is it not true that this is a matter that the United States Corps of Engineers, an institution of the U.S. Federal Government, is looking into right now and about which it is on the verge of making a decision within the next two weeks? Why will he and the Canadian Government not intervene now to head off that decision by the U.S. Corps of Engineers?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear that the Canadian Government has already made its representations known. I also want to assure the Hon. Member that arrangements regarding the Great Lakes waters go back to 1909. The House may recall that there was a Liberal Prime Minister at the time. Since then, all of the arrangements in the Great Lakes water systems and the boundary water systems have been organized to the mutual benefit of both countries. It is Canada's belief that no diversion can take place without our official consent.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the representations by the Canadian Government have been so effective, will the Acting Prime Minister tell us why the United States Army Corps of Engineers is still looking into the matter? If the Government is so serious about the boundary waters treaty, why has the Government failed to raise this matter immediately with the International Joint Commission that operates on behalf of both Governments under that boundary waters treaty?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because, Mr. Speaker, we have taken our concerns directly to Washington and we feel that it is important in this case to do so.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the control of incubated eggs imported from the United States. Many producers have made representations to me, saying that they are worried and wonder
why nothing is done to control American imports that are replacing Canadian domestic production.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the marketing board and its members that measures will be taken to control import quotas for eggs and broiler chicks so that producers can plan their investments and production accordingly and thereby make this whole industry secure?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is aware of the pressures in the hatching egg sector and the request by the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency. There is speculation that importers have been attempting to establish artificially high historic levels in case controls are introduced.
Let me advise the Hon. Member that over-all levels of imports have declined by 14 per cent in the first five months of this year over last year's imports. While Canadian production is increasing, the Government has the agency's request under consideration.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of the Environment. Carmanah Creek Valley adjacent to Pacific Rim National Park contains the largest and tallest spruce trees in Canada-probably in the world. MacMillan Bloedel has proposed that a small portion of this valley be set aside as a park that would preserve some of the largest trees.
I would like to ask the Minister if he recognizes the importance of saving the Carmanah Valley in its entirety as a miniature eco-system that will go on living, and not simply preserving a few of the largest trees that will eventually die off and fall. If he does, could he tell the House what he and the Government are prepared to do to save this valley from logging?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, my answer is yes, I do recognize the ecological treasure at stake here. After some 15 or 17 years of a combination of procrastination and insurmountable difficulty, the federal Government under our administration finally confirmed the boundaries for Pacific Rim National Park and arranged for the transfer of provincial Crown land to the federal Crown, paid out from the A-Base of my own budget $25 million to make it possible to establish the national park, only to discover that another area to the west of the park was at risk.
July 7, 1988

Some of the trees simply had not been identified previously by conservationists or others as being so special as to warrant being included in the national park.
It would be with great reluctance that I would ever consider reopening the question of Pacific Rim and renegotiating the boundaries, because of the difficulties that bedevilled successive Governments to get the park completed. But I will use my good offices and those of the federal Government as a whole to see whether the provincial Government might be prevailed upon to establish a provincial ecological preserve, and also to put some benevolent pressure on MacMillan Bloedel, whose tree licence is relevant in this case, to see whether they would not respond very favourably to the overture being made by the Sierra Club and by others to have those trees saved.


PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON LOGGING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for his favourable response. We recognize on this side of the House that the Government has had difficulties in dealing with the Government of British Columbia. I would like to ask the Minister will he pursue actively the possibility with MacMillan Bloedel and the provincial Government of a two-year moratorium on the Carmanah Creek area while individuals and concerned organizations work for a more permanent solution.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member would know that it would be a matter of moral suasion in trying to exercise benevolent influence. There is not anything that is legal that I could do, nor would the Hon. Member want me to, in the sense of expropriating the land. I will say that the area in question is precious, the trees are almost unprecedented in their magnificence. I think all Members of the House would agree that everything that could be done ought to be done to protect them, and in that connection I will be doing what I can.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to a recent report of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, a tripartite agency of the Government, there is a serious shortage of skilled workers in Canada while, at the same time, we have over one million unemployed. The Centre concluded
Point of Order-Mr. Bissonnette
that the rate of unemployment would be lower if we had more effective training and mobility programs provided by the Government.
In these circumstances I want to ask the Minister how she and the Government can justify a cut of 32 per cent in training programs since 1984, and a further 11 per cent cut in those programs for this fiscal year? Since she is relatively new at her portfolio, would she not take a fresh look at this and recognize that labour market training and mobility should be a government public responsibility and should not be left to the free market system?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the Hon. Member knows, but I will remind him again, and that is that there are four million Canadians who change jobs every year. Most of them do not need government help. What we have done under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to concentrate first of all on those areas where there is a need, both on the side of the employee, who may need the training and upgrading, but also of employers who are looking for help.
The free market functions very well for most of those four million people. We have in the Canadian Jobs Strategy 84,000 participants in the skill investment area, 160,000 participants in the skill shortages area, from 1985 to 1988. Within the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have the flexibility to deal first of all with people who need training and upgrading at an entry level, plus the flexibility for areas where there is labour shortage and where people can upgrade their skills. That is why the program works so well.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, we are going to have to close Question Period. I will come to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in just a moment.

[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell Canadians that I was not able to be present for the vote on Bill C-72 at noon today because of communications and traffic problems, but that I unequivocally support this Bill.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Treasury Board to solve the problem of the language teachers which has been going on for too long and affects my riding as well.

July 7, 1988

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us a statement of the business that the Government intends to put before the House for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, today we will proceed to deal with the Bills that are on the Projected Order of Business as much as possible. The first Bill that we are going to deal with is Bill C-58. We will need unanimous consent in order to proceed with report stage and third reading of this particular Bill. We will then move to Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act, at report stage and third reading. Then, Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, report stage and third reading. It will be followed by Bill C-75, report stage. That is the Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum. Then we move to report stage of Bill C-122, followed by report stage of Bill C-129.
Mr. Speaker, the comments that 1 am going to make vis-avis report stage and third reading should apply to all Bills at all stages, and that is that obviously we can only move to third reading of a Bill with consent, where it is easy for it to be given. Naturally we would like to do third reading, but in the event that it is not possible to do third reading the same day, we will move it on and try to find a time which is convenient to the opposition spokespersons and the Government.
Tomorrow we will proceed with any of those Bills which have just mentioned which are not completed. In addition, I believe there has been some discussion with the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Clark), and their respective spokespersons vis-a-vis Bill C-92 at report stage, Bill C-132 at second reading and Bill C-112. 1 believe those discussions have taken place and that we will move those measures forward.
If it is at all possible, we would like at least to get started on the Government's reply to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-84.
On Monday morning, it is our intention to call Motion No. 25, the abortion motion, for procedural debate only in order to determine whether or not the motion as put on the Order Paper is procedurally correct. As soon as the procedural arguments have been made, we would then adjourn that matter to allow the Chair an opportunity to decide on it.
We would then move to report stage and third reading of Bill C-93, the multiculturalism Bill, followed by Bill C-82, which is the lobbyists' registration Bill. Obviously, we would also complete the proceedings on the reply to Bill C-84.
There is a Bill that has been sent to us from the Senate, Bill S-17, regarding a trust company. I understand that consideration on it will take place on Monday at a time which is convenient to the spokesperson for the Liberal Party who has some questions which he wishes to ask of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin).
That brings us to Tuesday morning when we will call Bill C-126, the Bretton Woods Bill, for report stage and third reading, and Bill C-l 10, the trade tribunal Bill for report stage and third reading.
I would also point out that we have had a request from our colleagues in the Liberal Party to recess the House on Tuesday at 6 p.m. We find that to be appropriate. Thus we will be moving a motion in that respect on either Monday or Tuesday.
I would point out that this schedule may sound like a reasonably heavy one, but it has been put together in the interests of getting us out of here. It has been put together with the assistance of the opposition spokespersons in order to meet the convenience of as many people being here at the appropriate time as possible.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order with respect to the House business. I would like to inquire of the Government House Leader whether there have been some discussions and whether the Government is now prepared to take Bill C-273, which is the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) regarding political rights, and turn it into a government order in order that this Bill may be expedited and may go to the Senate, and in order that the campaign promise of the last election made by not just my Party but by his Party with respect to granting political rights to people working for the Government of Canada may in fact be implemented. I say that particularly in light of the fact that the Bill as it has been adopted and redrafted by the legislative committee in large measure conforms to the promises which were made by the Progressive Conservatives during the last election campaign. In addition, it is acceptable to the other two Parties.
Given that there is a willingness on the part of the other two caucuses to see this go through with a minimum amount of House time, is the Government prepared to bring it up as a government order and see it expedited rather than continue to drag it back and possibly not get it up before the next election?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague opposite brought up the results of one of our election promises, that is, our promise with respect to parliamentary reform. As a result of parliamentary reform Private Members' Hour and Private Members' Business now mean something. My hon. colleague knows that the first Bill to pass all three stages was the Bill on tobacco presented by his colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). We did as a House and as a Government implement parliamentary reform to allow for Private Members' Business to mean something.
July 7, 1988

There is one thing that I think will be confirmed by his colleague, the House Leader for the NDP, and also by members of the Liberal Party too, that is, we have been very careful vis-a-vis Private Members' Hour to stand back and to let it operate as Private Members' Hour. The Hon. Member's suggestion has merit. However, I would not want to suggest that we do anything which abridges the rights of other private Members with other Bills and which sets a bad precedent. I am not afraid to set precedents, but I do not want to set one that disrupts what all of us have spent two years building in terms of an effective Private Members' Hour.
1 take the representation seriously. I will look into it. We will try to work it out with the House Leaders so that whatever we do is done with the agreement of caucus and does not abridge the rights we have built up over time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that same point. I want to ask the Deputy House Leader if he has not indeed heard the suggestion that was made. I think it came from me some weeks ago. That is to say, if we want to get through with Bill C-273 then we could ask the Government to take that order upon itself and put it to the House in due course.
It is much more difficult, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has said, to use the present system because that Bill will only come back next fall. There are only two days of debate, one at report stage and one at third reading. We are asking the Government, telling the Government, that if it wants to co-operate with us, that is, the Members interested in this Bill to give political rights to public servants, then it could pick up the Bill as a government order. That would make it a lot faster and a lot easier.
Business of the House
inspection and grading, for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments, without amendment.
* *
*



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, point of order. I would like to state that I was absent for the vote on Bill C-72 this morning for reasons beyond my control, but I wish to register my vote in favour of this Bill that is so important for Canada.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
July 7, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V.J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 7th day of July, 1988, at 3:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program
* *
*



Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 will take that representation under advisement too. 1 do say that whatever we do we should do as a House vis-a-vis Private Members' Hour. I think that is the safest way to proceed, but I will take it under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to interrupt Hon. Members for a moment. I will then come back to continue on some points of order and to continue this discussion, if it is necessary to do so. I see that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre and others are rising.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-141, an Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products, for their


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I will now hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre on the same point concerning the business of the House.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I am sure the discussions on this matter having been raised in the House can be pursued privately. I hope they could have a positive and early outcome. I will leave it at that.


Mr. Daubney:: Mr. Speaker, as the proposer of the Private Member's Bill in question, I would just like to make it clear on the record that I support the suggestion of my two colleagues, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). While I am a great believer in parliamentary reform and am proud that my Bill has got this far in that process, I recognize the reality of the legislative and electoral timetable. The only way I think that our Party would be in a position to fulfil its promise to the people made in 1984 is if the Government adopts this as a piece of government business. I certainly urge it to give serious consideration to doing that.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Senate split Bill C-103. It is sending back Bill C-103 to the House of Commons as Bill C-103, Part I, dealing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

July 7, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Plamondon
I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether the Government will consider introducing this Bill C-103, Part I immediately to the Chamber so that it can be passed, with one minor amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a procedural difficulty in this matter. There is a long-standing tradition that we do not comment upon the proceedings in the other place until we have received some notice one way or the other. The Hon. Member may have had a special communication, but the House has not received anything official. The Hon. Minister of State may wish to respond.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We would be very disappointed if the Senate has done anything to interfere with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We think this Bill will really help Atlantic Canada and it will put the administration of regional development into that area. We will be replying very quickly if there has been any tampering with that Bill by the other place.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I would like to state that I was absent for the vote on Bill C-72 this morning for reasons beyond my control, but I wish to register my vote in favour of this Bill that is so important for Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to seek the consent of the House to present, in both official languages, the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and at the same time I am seeking consent of the House to move concurrence in this report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Alan Redway: I move that the fourteenth report of the Public Accounts Committee be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises from the deliberations of the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-130. This morning the chairperson indicated that it was to be his ruling throughout the considerations by the legislative committee that the committee would not interrupt its proceedings in response to a vote within the House of Commons.
As an individual Member of Parliament responsible to my constituents for voting on a vast number of pieces of legislation coming before us, this seems to me to be a distinct limitation of my privileges as a Member of Parliament. I would ask the Speaker to review the situation and to make some remedy, if possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The complaint of the Hon. Member is that it may well be from time to time a committee might decide, as a consequence of the majority of the members in that committee, to carry on its proceedings even when a vote is taking place. Whatever may be the particular virtue or otherwise of that procedure, it has been allowed for a great many years in our tradition.
I might just say to the Hon. Member, with respect to the particular committee to which the Hon. Member refers, this morning, at the helpful suggestion of some Hon. Members and the co-operation of others in the committee, the committee did adjourn and all Members did take the vote.
I am aware of the complaint, and the Hon. Member will have to leave it with me. Under those circumstances, I cannot rule at the present time that it is a question of privilege.


Steven W. Langdon: If 1 could just clarify the ruling which was made by the Chair, it was not that a majority of Members would have to be in favour of an adjournment, but instead that unanimously the committee members would have to agree to adjourn in order to permit their participation in a vote in the House. I felt it important to make that distinction for you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Hon. Member's distinction, and I will consider the matter further. In the meantime, unless I feel it necessary to reopen it, that is where the matter lies. I will take a look at the particular distinction raised by the Hon. Member. If I feel that it is appropriate to do so, I will come back to the House and ask Hon. Members to argue the matter briefly.
July 7, 1988


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. For purposes of this legislative committee notice was not received of the meeting this morning until well past the period customarily expected by the House. In that case, I wonder if the meeting itself has any force.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to take that issue and raise it at the committee. I do not think that the Chair can rule on a matter like that.
With respect to the other matter raised by the Hon. Member, I have to be absolutely sure that it has not extended to the point where, in some way or another, Hon. Members in the committee, or the Hon. Member who has raised the complaint, are denied their rights to function as Members of Parliament. That, of course, is an issue of privilege.
I will further consider the distinction raised by the Hon. Member, but on this latter matter clearly the Chair does not have any jurisdiction to intervene. I invite the Hon. Member to take the problem back to the committee.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I know that the Member did not receive notice of the committee meeting at the appropriate time. In addition to that, and this may be a more general problem, I do not believe that the announcement that the committee was meeting was in the general notification of committees meeting that is circulated to all Members. In the House there are people who are not serving on standing or legislative committees who are interested in the transactions of those committees. The only means that Members have of knowing if a committee meeting is occurring is if it is listed in the daily bulletin.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Churchill. I know the Hon. Member understands that in this particular matter it is not the place for the Chair to intervene. However, the Chair has very generously allowed the matter to be raised. I am sure the appropriate people will attend to it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act, and the Immigration Act, 1976, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when I did the projected business that we would need the consent of the
Legal Assistance
House to proceed at this time to report stage and third reading of this Bill, and I would ask for that consent at this moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must now give to Hon. Members my ruling on Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976.
There are two motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and the Immigration Act, 1976.

The two motions standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) are in order. They will be grouped for debate and voted on separately-

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-58 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall, by order, add to or delete from the".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-58 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 41 on page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Governor in Council shall, by".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of comments to make about the Bill. As I understand the Government will support these amendments, I suggest that I make my comments on third reading when I will perhaps take issue with some of the general aspects of the Bill. In this case the Government and the Opposition are agreed that we might go forward to the vote, so I will raise my points generally at third reading stage.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has just said, his amendment is in order and acceptable to the Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, as is clearly stated, not only must the word "may" be replaced by "shall" on line 37 of the English version of the amendment, but also on line 41. Also in the French version, Mr. Speaker, the word inscrit must now appear in the amendment to be consistent with the word "shall", and also the word prend in French.

July 7, 1988
Royal Assent
By the way, Mr. Speaker, regarding this extremely important Bill on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, I would like to congratulate Hon. Members from both opposition Parties for their co-operation so that this Bill can be dealt with as soon as possible.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-58, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) rises and gives his fulsome support to this very progressive piece of legislation, I thought I might set the groundwork to allow him to understand the Bill fully so that he can convince his colleagues to support the Bill on third reading.
I want to join with the Parliamentary Secretary who made reference earlier on today with respect to the work of the legislative committee which studied the provisions of this Bill. There was excellent co-operation. The committee gave prompt attention to the Bill and dealt with it on a deliberate and reasonable basis. It is important for us to try to bring pieces of legislation forward in all stages of the process as best we can, have the differences fully examined and have the matters put to a vote. I do thank Members from all sides of the House for their co-operation.
At the outset of the Government's mandate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) enunciated a goal of constructive internationalism. This principle recognizes that some problems being international in scope can only be adequately addressed
through international co-operation. Law enforcement agencies have long recognized that major crimes, such as drug trafficking, the laundering of money obtained by crime, fraud, tax evasion and offences committed by terrorists and organized crime are often transnational in scope. Criminals seek to use international boundaries to cloak their activities, hide the proceeds of their crimes and escape detection. It is clear that nations must act together if this growing phenomenon is to be stopped because crime is no longer merely a local or national affair.
Hon. Members will recall that an important mutual legal assistance treaty was signed by the Prime Minister on March 18, 1985, at Quebec City. Since then, a second treaty with the United Kingdom limited to drug offences was signed by the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Thatcher at Ottawa on June 22 of this year. A number of other treaties are presently under negotiation with Australia and European and Caribbean countries.
Our goal is to negotiate a network of treaties so that we may, in concert with our treaty partners, improve our ability to investigate and prosecute transnational crime. The Bill before us today sets out the legal framework necessary to implement Canada's obligations in the Canada-U.S. and the Canada-U.K. mutual legal assistance treaties and in any other treaties to which Canada may become party.
I refer Hon. Members to my remarks at second reading on this Bill when I laid out the principles of the Bill. I think there is a stranger knocking at the door, interrupting an otherwise brilliant speech.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
and being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
July 7, 1988

Bill C-131 an Act to amend the National Transportation Act of 1987- Chapter 26, 1988;
Bill C-141, an Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in import, export and interprovincial trade and to provide for national standards and grades of agricultural products, for their inspection and grading, for the registration of establishments and for standards governing establishments- Chapter 27, 1988.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the third time and passed.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I know you are highly regarded in this House as a very excellent Speaker. You now have a new qualification as probably the fastest Speaker one has seen around here in a long time. You certainly got down there and back in very short order and I was unable to even finish my coffee while you were away.
I was referring to the Canada-U.K. mutual legal assistance treaty, but this legislation makes provision for other treaties which Canada may enter into with other countries.
Briefly, the mutual legal assistance as implemented by this Bill will be carried out by Canadian authorities making applications where necessary to Canadian courts according to recognized Canadian legal principles. The Bill provides authority to Canadian Superior Court judges to order four types of compulsory measures: search warrants; summonses to witnesses; orders to transfer temporarily persons in custody; and orders to lend exhibits. None of these types of assistance will be provided unless a treaty provides for the particular type of assistance, the request was made in compliance with the treaty, the assistance requested is not contrary to a Canadian public interest as determined by the Minister of Justice, and any conditions imposed by a Canadian judge have been accepted. In addition, there must be grounds sufficient to satisfy a Canadian judge that an offence has been committed in the requesting state to which a treaty applies, and that evidence of that offence or the whereabouts of an offender can be found in Canada. In the case of a search warrant, the Canadian court must also be satisfied that a less intrusive order, such as an evidence gathering order, would not suffice.
The same measures of assistance made available to a treaty partner will be available as a treaty obligation to Canadian
Legal Assistance
authorities investigating offences committed in Canada where there is believed to be evidence abroad.

During consideration in committee, several amendments were made to the Bill. The purpose of these amendments is to increase the flexibility of our legislative framework, so that we can achieve our objectives and meet the requests of the countries with which negotiations have been initiated since the introduction of Bill C-58.
One of these amendments expands the meaning of the word "treaty" as defined in the first version of Clause 2, since the legislation allows the implementation of only those treaties whose primary purpose is to provide for mutual legal assistance.
The amendment, as approved by the committee, now recognizes that Canada may wish to be a party to other conventions such as the proposed United Nations convention on unlawful trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances, whose primary purpose is to fight drug trafficking which will probably contain important provisions on mutual legal assistance.
This amendment gives Canada the requisite flexibility for being a party to such a convention and implementing the major mutual assistance measures provided therein, but only if the convention includes the guarantees set forth in paragraph 2 of the Bill.

Another amendment was the addition of a new Section 41 providing for the safe conduct of persons who voluntarily come to Canada pursuant to a Canadian request, to assist a Canadian investigation or to testify in court. This safe conduct for a person not in custody would parallel the safe conduct provided in Section 41 of the Bill for persons in custody who come to Canada pursuant to a request for assistance. This provision will encourage persons whose assistance is requested to travel to Canada. The safe conduct is provided only for a limited time and applies only with regard to acts committed prior to arrival in Canada pursuant to the request. This assurance is a prior requirement for this kind of assistance from some European countries. It is found in the European Convention on Mutual Assistance and the Australian legislation.
These are the principle elements of amendments made to Bill C-58. In conjunction with Bill C-61 concerning proceeds of crime, which I hope to take up immediately after this Bill, Canada will be taking a major step forward in the international fight against drug trafficking and other serious crimes.
Simply put, this Bill allows us to carry out our international obligations with respect to the examination and investigation of transboundary international crime, and allows us to assist other western industrialized countries and others around the world with respect to dealing with organized crime and terrorism, and the locating of evidence to make sure there are successful prosecutions of these undesirable and untenable acts.

July 7, 1988
Legal Assistance
I think we are giving leadership in this area of international co-operation. As I indicated in my remarks, we are in the process of dealing with a number of countries to obtain similar treaties. When we consider, in the light of my responsibilities as Minister of Justice, the actions taken to amend the Criminal Code so as to allow us to better investigate and prosecute criminal activity, I think this is the type of legislation that should commend itself to all Members of Parliament.
I hope there will be support from all Parties for this legislation because it is based on fair principles, it is under Canadian control, and allows us to call upon our friends who have signed treaties with us to collect evidence in Canada at the same time we extend our good offices to assist them. This is good progressive legislation whose time has come and I ask Members to support it wholeheartedly.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I am standing in for the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), our justice critic. I think all my friends and colleagues in this House know that he is one of the most hard working Members of this House and has taken a good deal of interest in this Bill. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today and I have been asked to speak on his behalf.
I sought to speak a few minutes earlier and, probably because my head was turned, two amendments were accepted by the Government which will presumably go down in the history books as standing in my name. That is something that has rarely occurred in my many years in Opposition, both in Queen's Park and here. 1 am, of course, seeking the privilege of being able to move amendments and have them carried as a matter of course. I trust that will occur very shortly once we become the Government.
I do not intend to be that controversial in my remarks. I simply want to talk about the reservations which we expressed when Bill C-58 came before the House for second reading which, unfortunately, have not been responded to by the Government during the course of committee stage or today. In other words, although we appreciate the modest improvement in the Bill which has occurred as a consequence of the two amendments which have just been accepted, we still have grave reservations about the Bill.
The Hon. Member said that this is because of the need for mutual legal assistance, particularly in such areas as the prosecution of drug traffickers and with respect to other serious crimes. To the extent that that is the purpose of what has taken place, I do not think there is any particular objection. In fact, most people would endorse that particular provision, particularly given the fact that along with the globalization of finance, commerce, and tourism, et cetera, has come the globalization of crime. Perhaps the easiest place for that to occur is where there is a lengthy common boundary as occurs between Canada and the United States with a good
deal of traffic back and forth in many areas between the two countries.
What concerns us in this particular case is the fact that there are a number of areas in the legal systems of the two countries in which there are significant irritants, as the word is used in international Parliaments.
The United States, as the larger country, has a rather less coherent legal administrative system. It, as well, takes a different view of freedom of speech with regard to people who take progressive opinions in different areas. There are really some significant irritants which we believe should have been sorted out prior to legislating to bring this treaty agreement into force.
My friend, the Member for Burnaby, mentioned as an example Farley Mowat who produced a wonderful book based on his experiences when he was bumped off an airplane bound for Los Angeles in 1985. Farley Mowat is a distinguished, famous, and popular author, not only in this country but around the world, including the United States. As the Member for Burnaby pointed out, Farley Mowat's offence was to suggest that he was going to shoot down American aircraft a few years ago using a shotgun somewhere in Newfoundland and hoping the planes would fly over him and within range. He was, of course, speaking in jest. One would question whether Farley Mowat would have been able to shoot in a vertical rather than horizontal direction.
The point is that the Americans lacked both the sense of humour and the administrative system, first, to recognize that this should not have been subject to an offence. Second, if it was noted in their intelligence files it should not have stayed as a black mark on the books of a Canadian citizen forever. Third, there should be some means by which this type of thing could be wiped off the books. Fourth, the degree to which the Americans seem to exercise their sovereign right to exclude people from their country is ridiculous. They are exercising this right against distinguished Canadians whom, there seems to be no conceivable reason to exclude from going into the United States, just as Canada would see no conceivable reason for excluding from Canada Americans of similar stature and similar distinction.
A friend of mine from Toronto, Professor Don Wilmott, a distinguished academic teaching at York University, has also suffered under the McCarran Act provisions which were brought in at the height of the red scare in the United States in the 1950s, which provisions have stayed on the books. It seems to me that a Canadian Government which was negotiating at the highest level for mutual legal assistance should have been entitled, while negotiating this agreement for which there is obviously a need, to ask to get away from the kind of legal irritant which is barring Canadians citizens from reasonable access to the United States.
July 7, 1988

We are not talking about the relationship between Canada and Pago Pago, Uruguay, or some other distant country from which there is a small volume of annual traffic. There are tens of millions of visits between Canada and the United States by citizens of the two countries on an annual basis. Probably one-quarter of the population of Canada seeks to visit the United States at some point during the course of a year because we are good neighbours and good friends in many ways.
However, there are too many cases where Canadians have been blocked because they attended a conference which was deemed to be left wing, because as students they went to a peace conference sponsored by a Soviet-sponsored peace body, or because they associated with a group in Canada which was legitimate under Canadian law and had the right to free association in Canada but which the Americans considered for some reason to be subversive and not acceptable in their country.
This is the kind of thing which should not occur between two mature nations which seek to be friendly with each other in a reasonable and normal way. Since Canada does not reject people on these grounds, one has to assume that it is the United States which is immature in this particular case.
1 am glad to know that Congress now has before it legislation which would repeal these offensive provisions of the McCarran Act. However, a person whose name has been put into a computer by American immigration because of the McCarran Act has to go through incredible amounts of red tape. I have approached the American Embassy here in Ottawa on behalf of constituents on this particular matter. I was subjected to bureaucratic bafflegab and stonewalling beyond belief. The Americans essentially say, "Oh, you know what Congress is like, we can't do anything about it. We're awfully sorry, we're terribly sympathetic, we can't help you, goodbye". I do not think that is good enough. The Government of Canada should have exercised the leverage it had in order to do away with an irritant which affects thousands of our citizens who would potentially go into the United States, which is quite unreasonable.
I know the problem is that the Government is uncritical with regard to actions and policies of the United States Government. That may be the reason it decided not to do anything in this particular area. We heard the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) say the other day, with regard to the tragic loss of life when an Iranian plane was shot down by an American missile, that as far as the Government was concerned it saw no reason to question the American account of the incident. Therefore, initially, the Government was not prepared to support requests which we and many other people, including the Iranians quite properly, were making for an impartial investigation into what took place there.
That same kind of credulity and perhaps naivety seems to exist with respect to the trade agreement. I will not go too far in that direction or you might call me back to order. The point
Legal Assistance
1 want to make is that while we are good friends, good neighbours, and extraordinarily important trading partners with the United States, and vice versa, at the same time Canadians too have interests with respect to the United States. We should be using every opportunity to promote those interests and ensure they are rolled over by American authorities. We also know that the Americans are too prone to do that.
The Corps of Engineers wants to open the taps and drain water from the Great Lakes. As far as they are concerned, it is a matter that could be approved by the Pentagon with no problem and Canadians should not be so presumptuous as to suggest that since we are affected by a lower water level of the Great Lakes, decisions on the Great Lakes should be made jointly rather than unilaterally.
I would also speak passionately about another unresolved matter. It is the failure of the Canadian Government to use every means possible to seek justice from the United States over the Canadian victims of brainwashing in Montreal which was sponsored and financed by the Central Intelligence Agency. That too is a legal question involving a mutual legal affair. In this case acts in Canada-


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Member would want to be a little more accurate. The victims in Montreal were in fact victims but, as I understand, not victims of brainwashing but as a result of the use of drugs that are found to be harmful. I think it is in error to say that it was brainwashing. It was medical treatment that was untried and should never have been used. They are victims, but I wish the Hon. Member would be accurate about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would only suggest to the Hon. Member to heed his own advice and let us perhaps stay closer to the subject at hand so that we may be able to keep on with the debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that these were victims of experiments which were financed by the CIA and certainly related to brainwashing although they may or may not have involved the use of brainwashing.
The reason I raise these questions is that our country is being given authority, according to the Bill, to enter into pacts for mutual legal assistance with many other countries in the world. There is no assurance that where there are irritants or outstanding legal questions with those countries, we will undertake to sort out those questions at a point when we have leverage. It is in the mutual interest of both countries to have a treaty for mutual legal assistance.
The Bar Association was not happy about the rather broad powers granted under this Bill. We believe that the problems with the Bill are sufficiently serious to justify our view not to support it as it stands at third reading.

July 7, 1988
Legal Assistance
The Government is prepared to give more legal recourse to foreign jurisdictions than Canadians give to ourselves. For example, in Canada, a person cannot be compelled to give evidence, but under this legislation any person can be forced to give evidence as a result of the invoking of the procedures in this treaty. If the requesting country, under a mutual treaty, provides that a witness is not required to give evidence when self incrimination might be involved, Canadian authorities cannot insist and the witness cannot be compelled to give evidence.
While my knowledge of the law fails me somewhat here, in the case of a country which may not have such a respect for the rule of law as we do here, and there may be no legal restriction on witnesses being compelled to give evidence, it could be that rather than Canadian standards of justice, the standards of testimony of a country about whose social and legal system we have grave misgivings would be brought to bear on the witness who is here in Canada.
I recognize that drug trafficking and other serious crimes are a great problem. However, the Bar Association itself gave a great deal of thought to its presentation and raised concerns about evidence gathering. Mr. Victor Paisley, Chairman of the Bar Association, said this in the Bar's submission:
... these provisions are at variance with Canadian criminal law. Interference by a state with the lives of its citizens or those under the protection of its laws ought to be kept to a minimum. The measures proposed under clause 18 seem to us to risk authorizing mere fishing expeditions.
He went on to say:
Compulsory examination on oath of individuals as an aid to criminal investigation is a substantial departure from Canadian traditions of fair play.
He cited the Court of Star Chamber in England, saying that it was a brief episode in British legal history under common law. He went on to say:
While some nations may still feel comfortable with inquisitorial procedures, we do not believe Canadians should be denied their traditional rights simply because a foreign state wishes to be accommodated.
In our view, no case has been made for an additional broad power to compel suspects or other persons to answer questions beyond the present provisions of Canadian criminal law. The right of an accused person not to be required to incriminate himself-the right to remain silent-is a fundamental part of our legal tradition.
This Bill does not supersede the Charter. It does supersede all other Canadian laws with respect to the requirement of evidence and other matters involved in the Bill. Therefore, the point raised by the Bar is valid and serious.
Whether or not the Bill would stand up to the Charter is something that I suppose would be tested in the courts at some point. Regardless of the outcome of such a decision, do we in the House wish to proceed with a Bill that would appear to be greatly at variance with the Canadian legal tradition of the right not to incriminate oneself? That is a fundamental part of Canadian legal tradition, as the Bar has stated. The Bill in its present form strays from that fundamental legal tradition. The Bill does not exclude the use of hearsay or opinion in evidence as invalid. I will leave it to knowledgeable legal persons to
expand on that issue, but that too is at variance with our existing practice.
The investigatory powers provided for in the Bill are very broad and subject to mischief and abuse. The concern is that a foreign government would be able to invoke the provisions of the treaty in order to investigate a criminal matter.
Present outstanding treaties exist with the United States and Great Britain. Despite President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher, we enjoy a good deal of common cause with those countries and we tend to trust their legal systems.
What about treaties with Governments in Africa or Latin America? We are concerned that a Government from Chile, El Salvador or Guatemala could use the powers under this treaty in order to harass people or make charges for offences that would not be considered offences in the normal way by Canadians.
This Bill represents something of an open door policy. It is skeleton legislation under which 100 treaties could be signed, with no further recourse to Parliament except for the possibility of questions in the House or occasional questions to the Minister during the Estimates.
There is also a concern about confidential information provided by the Canadian authorities. It should be clarified whether all of the protections guaranteed by the Privacy Act apply in this legislation. This concern was raised at second reading and it is important to raise it again.
The Bar Association also raised the question that in some foreign states they may be prepared to consider as domestic offences, offences that were committed outside of their territory, something which is not inherent in Canadian law. That, too, could raise a situation of harassment or of unreasonable intrusion on people living in Canada or on people who would become Canadians.
I have to say that I am concerned that, in the case where you have a dictatorial government in a foreign country which seeks to extend these powers into Canada, the protections which are given to the person who is the subject of investigation in Canada are significantly less than, for example, those that exist in the extradition treaties which Canada has signed with some 40 or 50 countries around the world.
Some of those countries have Governments which are perhaps not wholly democratic in the sense that we understand it here in Canada. Nonetheless, it is appropriate that there should be an extradition treaty with those countries if there is a significant risk that there may be criminals who are accused of an offence and who are suspected of being harboured in the other country. Canada has a reverse interest in terms of being able to pull people back from those countries as well. We have a case under way currently with respect to a person suspected of being involved in the explosion aboard the CP Air jet in Tokyo three years ago.

July 7, 1988

The extradition treaty provides for a court process before the suspected or the accused person can be extradited. The standards under which these provisions are being put forward would appear to be somewhat less in terms of the gathering of evidence, investigations and other forms of mutual legal assistance.
The final point I want to make is the following. The Government has agreed that the Schedule to the Act will contain the names of states which are signatories to the treaties. If we had had the opportunity, we would have liked to have moved as well for some means of public disclosure around the power of the Government to enter into informal or temporary agreements for mutual legal assistance for periods of up to six months. This can be done either for areas not specified in the treaty-if a treaty exists-or with a country that has not signed the treaty.
Again, there is the possibility of being able to agree to the request from, let us say, a country in Central America, where there are rather undemocratic regimes, for mutual legal assistance because they feel that there are persons in this country whom they are pursuing because of some political problems in their own country. And the idea that that could be done for six months and possibly renewed thereafter-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not possible.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -without any public disclosure under Section 6-the Minister says that it is not possible, but I am sure that that is the case. That is a very legitimate question which raises concerns with us.
According to the note that was prepared for the House of Commons in June by the Parliamentary Research Bureau, "the administrative arrangements that would be allowed under Section 6 could be negotiated and executed in total secrecy". I do not believe that that has changed.
Those are some of the concerns that we have and those are the reasons why we are not prepared to support the Bill. As indicated previously, we will agree to let the Bill go to third reading on division rather than calling a vote.
I would like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) or one of his colleagues to stand up and say, at the very least, that Canada had now determined that we are going to take an active role in negotiating those restrictions on Canadians under the McCarran Act, and in reaching for a resolution for the victims of the CIA experiments and that that would be one of the things that the Government would guarantee as part of the package for mutual legal assistance with the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in
Proceeds of Crime
criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and Bill read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AND NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are 14 motions and amendments on the Order Paper for report stage of Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control act.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14, standing in the names of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar) are the same as the amendments which were moved, debated and negatived in committee. Therefore, in accordance with Standing order 114(10), they will not be selected for debate in the House.

Motion No. 5 of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is similar to an amendment moved at the committee stage, debated and later negatived. Although similar, this motion is sufficiently different that it shall be put to the House.

Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn), will be debated and voted on separately.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, it was agreed that in the absence of the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) the motion could be moved by the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).

July 7, 1988
Proceeds of Crime


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Grise), on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, after discussion among the various parties, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to move the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marion Dewar: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-61 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 36 and 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"judge shall require notice to be given to and shall upon request hear any persons who, in the".
She said: Madam Speaker, the purpose in asking for this amendment is that if a person has an interest in the property it should be not only a request but a demand that they be heard. That is all we are asking for. I certainly hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
The other amendments which have been ruled out of order were ruled out of order because they were debated at committee. However, this one, as you have seen, Madam Speaker, and as you agree, is different enough that it would certainly make the Bill much more fair. The judge would have to hear anybody who has an interest in the property. 1 see the Minister nodding. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
The amendments which were not allowed included references to bawdy houses and prostitution. Prostitution in this country is not illegal. If this type of recommendation were included, and the Fraser Committee report was very clear on what it would do, prostitutes would be put in the same category as victims of organized crime. If their property, which was acquired not as a result of organized crime but legally, is seized and they have not been heard, it seems important that they should be heard before there is an order put in on it.
I must admit that I am certainly not as familiar with the Bill as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who worked on it at committee. I apologize for that. But the measure made all sorts of sense to me and I believe that this is the type of amendment that helps to make the Bill more fair.
I will speak to the Bill as a whole after report stage is dealt with.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Thank you Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar) is speaking to Motion No. 3, which the Chair has already ruled out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will try to clarify the issue for the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that in the case of Motion No. 5, the Chair's decision acknowledges there is a similarity with another amendment. However, the Chair found that there was nevertheless sufficient difference to allow Motion No. 5 to be moved again in the House.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I just want to spend a couple of minutes trying to deal with the motion which has been accepted by the Chair moved by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) on behalf of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
This appears to be something which, if one were to use the logic that is put forward by the Hon. Member that it is something that is desirable, would mandate a court to take certain action, that is to say, hear people who claim to have an interest in property which is subject to deliberations before the court. However, one can understand, in terms of our judicial process, that these are questions, after all, that should be left to the courts to decide.
First, does the claimant have a sufficient prima facie basis upon which to have a hearing? Second, once that has been established, the court should have the discretion to determine the basis upon which the person claiming interest can be heard. It is up to the court, in the final analysis, to determine the merits of these cases.
If we were to put a mandatory provision such as has been suggested by the Hon. Member there would be absolutely no discretion. Anyone could walk in off the streets and say: "I have an interest in this matter" and would be able to take up the time of the court simply as a matter of right.
You point out in your ruling, Madam Speaker, that a similar matter was discussed in the course of the committee. In effect, it was voted down. But since there is some difference in the wording put forward by the Hon. Member today and because it is sufficiently different we are considering it.
We still think that this Bill in its present form, with the exception of an amendment that I want to put forward myself at report stage, achieves a reasonable balance in the interests of the state to pursue, to seize, to freeze and, in effect, to forfeit the proceeds of illicit activity. The whole function of the Bill is to allow us to overcome a situation which, on the face of it, to any Canadian looking at the present situation is absurd.
^H
July 7, 1988

What we now have is a situation in which a person could be convicted of illegal drug trafficking, could have made an enormous amount of money out of this activity, could be convicted of the offence, served time in jail, came out and enjoyed the proceeds of the crime in circumstances in which the state has no right to attach the proceeds of that illicit activity and use the money for worth-while purposes such as public health, education and other important governmental objectives.
What happens is that we also in the same vein want to allow people who have a legitimate claim to come forward and make application to the court to establish that the moneys that are attempted to be seized by the provincial Attorney General are in fact property which should not be seized because it belongs to them. In our system, of course, there is an obligation to establish not beyond a reasonable doubt but on the basis of reasonable probabilities that there is a case for that person to make. It is always left in these circumstances for the court to hear the application. The discretion is there in the court to hear the application, by all means, but then if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient basis it will give an order.
I do not know whether there is anything accomplished by mandating every claimant, regardless of the merits of the case, to have their day in court to put forward this situation. I think that this balance is one which is understandable. It is consistent with the processes that we have in our Canadian judicial system. It allows an opportunity, a counterbalance, for legitimate third party interests to come forward and to apply to the court to have their cases heard.
I cannot say anything further. I will talk on third reading about this Bill which is, I think, a very good Bill which moves us forward in terms of fairness in the criminal justice system to allow the state to pursue and to discourage people who make large amounts of money out of illicit activity. I gave the example of drug trafficking.
This Bill is a good Bill. I wish I could be more accommodating to the Hon. Member with respect to her amendment. I think, on balance and reflection, she might agree with me that it might lead to unusual and unacceptable consequences for our judicial system. With the greatest of respect for the Hon. Member, I would like to indicate that we are not prepared to agree at this point in time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Proceeds of Crime Mr. Cassidy: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-61 be amended in Clause 2 in the French version by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
[DOT]contrevenant a qui une amende est infligee en vertu du paragra-*.


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


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker.. .


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Richard Grisé: I am sure my comments will be much shorter than the applause I just received, since this amendment, proposed by the Government, is merely aimed at bringing the term "amende" in the French version in line with the word "fine" in the English text in Clause 2, lines 2 and 3, at page 14.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drogs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, be concurred in as amended.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.

July 7, 1988
Proceeds of Crime
He said: It gives me great pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-61 which has been recognized as fundamental to law enforcement efforts against enterprise crime, especially drug trafficking. It is now recognized that it is long overdue. The Bill is designed to ensure that offenders are not allowed to profit from their crimes. Bill C-61 will provide effective but fair measures to ensure that crime does not pay.
At this time, I would like to commend the legislative committee that reviewed Bill C-61 and has now presented its report to the House. It is obvious that all members of the committee recognized the pressing need for this legislation, given the growth of enterprise crime in recent times. They have obviously carefully considered both the need for the new measures in the Bill and the safeguards contained therein which ensure that the interests of the accused person and the innocent third parties are protected.
Regarding the principles of the Bill, I refer Members to my remarks during second reading. Allow me to review briefly some of the major aspects of the legislation. The courts have been empowered to authorize seizure and restraint of assets upon the undertaking of the Attorney General to provide such compensation as the court deems appropriate where the case for forfeiture cannot be made out and losses to the owner or third parties are suffered. A process of immediate judicial review of these powers, upon application by the persons concerned, has been provided for and includes an opportunity for an accused person to claim the payments of reasonable living, business, and legal expenses out of the seized or restrained property.
I must point out that these types of safeguards are unprecedented in Canadian law. In addition, the rights of third parties are recognized throughout the entire process of seizure, restraint, and forfeiture. The legislation has balanced an effective forfeiture mechanism with the constitutionally protected right to counsel in a manner that is characteristic of the Government's approach to criminal matters and avoids the criticisms that have been levied at similar American legislation in this area.

The Bill also provides that a court may order the payment of a fine when forfeiture is impossible either because the offender has hidden his illicit gains or has removed them from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts.
Aside from the power to order the forfeiture of property on conviction, when the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt, following a hearing, that the property in question is proceeds of crime, the Bill provides that the court may order forfeiture of the goods when the offender has died or absconded to another country.
Madam Speaker, in this regard the legislative committee has passed an amendment allowing this procedure to be applied if the offender has fled to a country that refuses to
extradite him to Canada where he would stand trial in criminal court.
I think that this is a useful amendment that complies with the spirit of the act.

In recognition of the sophisticated attempts that are made to disguise the tainted sources of proceeds of crime and to invest them in so-called "legitimate" enterprises and other forms of property, the Bill creates a new offence of "laundering" that will be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
In recognition of the need for assistance to law enforcement agencies in their efforts against organized and enterprise crime, the Bill has created a protection against liability for any person, such as a bank employee, who reports to the authorities activity related to proceeds of crime on condition that the belief is reasonably held. Also, a provision for access to income tax records to assist in the investigation of drug related offences has been proposed. This will only be available upon court authorization to ensure that confidentiality of these records will be protected as much as possible. All members of the committee recognized the need for special rules regarding income tax information.
These are the principal elements of Bill C-61. In conjunction with Bill C-58-which has just received third reading- concerning mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, Canada will be fulfilling her international commitment to combat organized crime, especially in the area of drug trafficking.
In this regard I find it most appropriate that at this very time officials of my Department, as well as of the Departments of National Health and Welfare, External Affairs, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, are in Vienna, Austria, with other officials from all countries of the United Nations finalizing the Draft Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which is expected to be concluded this fall. That document specifically calls for an undertaking on behalf of signatories to implement proceeds of crime legislation.
Bill C-61 represents, together with Bill C-58, Canada's commitment to the international fight against drug trafficking.
I ask that Canada be allowed to join the ranks of such nations as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States that have all recently passed similar legislation.
Let me point out once again that this Bill has finally proceeded to third reading. I trust it will be accepted by the other place and made the law of the land. Similar attempts have been made by previous Governments to bring in legislation in connection with forfeiture of illicit proceeds of crime. This Bill is the synthesis of much consultation by Members of Parliament, in particular the Hon. Member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) and others who have been of great assistance to me with the legislation.
July 7, 1988

This Bill is a balanced and fair piece of legislation which does not contain some of the excesses seen in previous legislation. It is one in which the rights of parties are fully respected. There is an an effective mechanism for getting at the illicit proceeds of crime. It does not expand itself to the extent that it is done in the United States. I think this is the Canadian way. We want to make sure, when we are attacking the proceeds of crime, that we do so in a fair way respecting the rights of individuals to ownership of property legitimately obtained.
I commend this legislation at third reading. I hope it will receive the unanimous consent of all Parties. I thank Hon. Members who have been so helpful in their deliberations, especially the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), who has been in the forefront of the legislative committee's work on Bill C-58 and to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. He is an outstanding parliamentarian, a man who commands respect of Members on both sides of the House and who does a lot of work for me. I appreciate the great assistance that he gives.


Marion Dewar: Madam
Speaker, I only wish this Bill contained all the great attributes to which the Hon. Minister has alluded. But we are very disappointed on this side of the House. It could have been a much better Bill.
First, I think this kind of legislation is long overdue in Canada. It is something that we must see implemented. I want to commend the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the amendment which they accepted in recognizing that if a person were found innocent the Government would be required to see that he or she was compensated for loss. That is very important. I also commend the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for putting the amendment forward.
I am disappointed with some of the inclusions. I refer particularly to procurement and bawdy houses. It has been very clear in studies done in this country over the last decade-the latest one being the Fraser Commission Report- is that no direct connections have been made between organized crime and prostitution. We recognize that prostitution is not legal in Canada. But it has not be tied to organized crime. Some prostitutes have been seen to be operating very much in an entrepreneurial sense. The money they have acquired has been money which they have invested and used to look after families and this kind of thing. The Fraser Commission was very clear that if something specific were put in this legislation it would drive prostitutes into organized crime networks and connections. That is something about which we are very concerned. Evidence was brought forward in the committee and it was addressed at that time.
I am very disappointed that the Conservative Government did the royal cave-in to the banks. You can drive a truck full of money to a bank and unload it with no accountability as to where those proceeds came from. Even the administration in
Proceeds of Crime
the United States that we on this side of the House have often criticized made U.S. banks accountable. It is a shame and a disgrace that the Government has not made the banks accountable for this kind of thing. Many things will be whitewashed if you cannot trace them through the financial institutions.
The Minister has not rushed with this Bill. We had first reading of the Bill in 1987. Here we are at the last minute in an extended session trying to pass the Bill. The Minister has had plenty of time to recognize that the banks should be held accountable.
In 1981 the Government asked that a study be done. The report to the Justice Department in 1983 said:
-Without clear track and identify the movement of profits by sophisticated criminals, it will be hard for police and the courts to effectively use the- "freeze and seize" provisions.
Without clear powers to identify and track the proceeds of crime, it is difficult to connect the proceeds to a particular offence or to a particular criminal.
Given this obstacle, it follows that it would be equally difficult to apply provisions for freezing, seizure and forfeiture of criminal proceeds.
It will be very difficult to implement the objectives of the Bill before us. The senior counsel at the Bank of Nova Scotia said:
We're efficient at what we do. As such we're a good target of money launderers.
The bank is admitting to laundering, yet the Government has chosen to do nothing about it and has not made the banks accountable. My understanding is that the banks objected to the large amount of paper work. If that is the kind of thing that we are accepting as a legitimate excuse to not make the banks accountable, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
For the record, Madam Speaker, I would like to quote Mr. Rocky Pollack of the Canadian Bar Association. The Bar Association was very concerned. Mr. Pollack said:
I must say that everyone to whom I spoke, and it is not a representative population, was amazed that, as was reported I think in the paper last week, you can literally back up a truck to a Canadian bank, unload all those dollar bills in the back of the truck, and get a deposit slip, and so on, and it is all private and secret; nobody knows about it. That is rather amazing. That is my only comment.
We had the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) saying that he too felt strongly that the Bill had major loopholes and he wished the Government would amend it. When we get those kinds of comments from government Members, surely we must recognize that the Government has done a royal cave-in to the banks. Under no circumstances must the Government ask the banks to be accountable.
That is not the kind of thing New Democrats like to see in legislation. New Democrats believe that all Canadians should be accountable. We think it is very nice to draft legislation, but we will be unable to implement the intent of it because of grand loopholes like those found in tax reform.

July 7, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
The intent of the Bill is good. The goals and objectives are real. They are the kinds of things we like to see. We feel that the Bill is very inadequate when we cannot make the financial institutions accountable to the Government of Canada. We know that nothing different will happen. We know that the banks will still be the source through which people can launder money and remain attractive to criminals. I take exception to the Minister's comments that this is the Canadian way. The Canadian way is much more accountable and not becoming the protectors of people who want to launder money.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 MEMBER'S BUSINESS-BILLS   FOOD AND DRUGS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 9, consideration of the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (list of ingredients), be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House last considered Bill C-289, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) had the floor. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey).


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise today to speak on this Private Member's Bill, Bill C-289, which is intended to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding the listing of ingredients. The most important aspect of Private Members' Business, of course, is the opportunity for Members of Parliament from all Parties to develop and promote new laws and ideas together or, if some choose, to speak and vote against them and to do so as individual Members regardless of what side of the House they sit on. It is certainly a refreshing exercise and one that we all look forward to participating in.
I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for bringing forward this issue. It is a matter that I support. It is an issue of sensitivity which is receiving increased attention by health professionals and food regulators
due to concerns raised by the public at large as well as the print and visual media.
I have noticed that previous speakers have referred to tragedies resulting from food sensitivity reactions in their ridings or in ridings nearby. I too witnessed the grief of a family who lost their nine-year-old daughter last October. Kelly Chinnick was allergic to nuts and she was unaware that peanut butter was in the icing of a cake she tasted at a Thanksgiving celebration at her school. The reaction was fast and no one could help her. I know first hand that this type of grief never really subsides. As a caring society, we must do everything we can to help the Chinnicks and other families who find themselves in such distress.
In order to be of assistance, at first it seemed that I simply had to research and assess this problem in a practical way and surely some answers would surface. As I began that research, I found that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was not only aware of the increased prevalence of food allergy reactions but was also very concerned. He had already issued instructions to his Department to determine how much real increase in food-sensitivity reactions there had been, how much was perceived due to the availability of better instrumentation and diagnoses and how much was due to the population as a whole becoming more sensitive for one reason or another.
I found as well that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare was already conducting a study on the feasibility of mandatory labelling of food products sold in restaurants and fast-food outlets. Non-medical components used as fill found in prescription drugs, both brand name and generic, were also under study, and representatives from the Canadian Restaurant Association and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare were called as witnesses.
I also found that difficulties in assessing the problem also included documenting the specific incidents, determining if the adverse response was related to the consumption of foods in the first instance, and if so, to which food component. Health professionals have to play a detective game, the complexity of which would put any amateur sleuth to shame. They have to consider such things as age, sex, geographic location, racial origin, income levels, lifestyle, diseased state and much more to even properly assess the question. Of course, the question is, what is the rationale for labelling and what needs to be labelled.
The Government is seriously trying to wrestle with these problems in the face of pressure from individuals or groups proposing any number of quick solutions. The Government does not want to end up with an arbitrary system of disclosure that is patently and scientifically unsound. It is likely that a large proportion of food-sensitivity reactions are due to relatively few foods or food components. On the other hand, this is offset by the potential of almost any food to elicit a food-sensitivity response in an occasional individual.
July 7, 1988

The Government is thus looking for a system that will require disclosure of selective and known offending substances in order to discourage misinterpretation of information or proliferation of misinformation leading to unnecessary selfdiagnosis or diagnosis by unqualified non-medical practitioners. This is a typical problem and it is essential that the consumer be informed in a way that is meaningful to all concerned.
In resolving a problem of this complexity, it is vital to solicit input from all affected parties. In fact, this is the approach being taken by the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada, and to date, Health and Welfare officials together with our colleagues at Consumer and Corporate Affairs have had consultations with the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association and the Allergy Information Association.
Consensus has been reached that a chart identifying the foods served in an establishment and whether or not they contain the allergens on the priority list was the most suitable mechanism for providing information required by a sensitive consumer. In this context, the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada will also seek advice and input from the medical community on the proposed priority list of allergens.
Yes, it is a complex issue and many heads are at work to help allergy victims so that we can do what must be done as well as create something which is enforceable. The Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association is currently testing the use of a food chart in some of the larger food chains and restaurants. It has accepted that it has a responsibility to protect to the best of its ability the customers who are at risk to allergy, and I believe that this will prove to be workable. As well, it is very welcome news. I compliment the restaurant association for this generous and caring thrust.
I also wonder, however, if we are going quite far enough. That is why I support this Bill which, if passed to committee, will initiate further study.
We have technology to call on and I want to suggest that we use that technology to simplify the listing process in another area, the major chain fast-food outlets which could be required to computer list all the ingredients of foods offered.
Fast-food outlets are very popular and usually offer a very limited number of dishes. The main problem here is the practice of subcontracting of ingredients, either precooked or uncooked. By making use of a computer, ingredient lists could be compiled and also automatically added to or subtracted from when subcontracts of certain ingredients change. All outlets would have access to accurate information with a simple push of a button. Secret recipes involved would not be jeopardized as the ingredients would be lumped together for each packaged item, and I think suppliers would likely not hesitate to co-operate.
Food and Drugs Act
The thrust I have just described added to the charting method for restaurants now being tested would allow a tremendous breakthrough in the restricted lives that allergy victims find themselves living. That is what I want. I want to help severe food-allergy victims enjoy a fuller life without jeopardizing their safety.
Let me assure all Hon. Members that people who have this extreme sensitivity to certain foods do not want to shirk their own responsibilities to look after themselves and their loved ones. They know full well that preparing all meals and snacks themselves is certainly one way to guard against tragedy, but lifestyles continue to change. Everyone eats outside the home well over 50 per cent of the time and the trend toward restaurant and fast-food outlet consumption continues.
Surely all Canadians have the right to enjoy the same lifestyles in this wonderful country and not to be subjected to the frustrations of being denied the knowledge of what is in the food prepared for them in public outlets. We are not talking about convenience, we are talking about life and death when it comes to victims of severe allergies.
O)
The Hon. Member who brought this Bill forward has admitted that it is not perfect and I will not dwell on that, but its intent is sound. It should be supported by this House and moved into committee for further study so that amendments can be developed. I believe the need to assist severe allergy victims in Canada is well established and we are capable of developing forcible solutions to address that need which consumers in general will accept.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-289, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). It gives us an opportunity to increase the awareness of Canadians about ingredients of food which could be harmful to them or members of their family.
I want to say at the outset that I do not intend to speak at any great length on this Bill. Just by presenting the Bill the Hon. Member has raised awareness around some general problems in the food industry which have been responded to very positively by the industry, particularly through the appearance of the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare on several occasions. They were quite frank in recognizing that a problem exists and they desire to do something about it.
The Hon. Member also recognizes that her Bill will create some problems, particularly for small restaurant operators. Yet there is absolutely no doubt that the Canadian public wants to see some action along the lines proposed by the Hon. Member. Indeed, the Hon. Member who just finished speaking referred to the sentiments expressed by his own constituents and others.

July 7, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
I understand as well that a number of municipal Governments and organizations, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and a number of others, have written to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to express their support for the measures proposed in her Bill.
I think the House and Canadians would be well served by having this Bill referred to committee as quickly as possible. There we can discuss any weaknesses in the Bill and perhaps amend it to cover the concerns expressed before the committee by the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association. Hopefully we can come out with some legislative proposals that would serve the Canadian public and at the same time protect the industry and satisfy the problem that exists with respect to ingredients placed in foods which in several cases recently have caused the death of some young Canadians.
We in this Party, without further debate, support this Bill being referred to committee in order to have those things taken into consideration.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, 1 will be speaking on Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, as tabled by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
Bill C-289 addresses the problems of persons who, in a restaurant, unknowingly ingest food containing ingredients to which they are allergic. The Bill tabled in the House would compel each restaurant to make available for public consultation a list, in English or in French, of all the ingredients in any food sold by it.
The Bill would also compel each branch restaurant to afix on the packaging of any packaged foods sold by it a list, in English and in French, of the ingredients in such food.
The problem which Bill C-289 was introduced to solve is really quite acute in Canada. There are many persons who suffer from allergic reactions to various foods, food products or ingredients. There have even been some deaths caused by severe allergic reactions.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has pointed the finger at a considerable problem, and I want to thank her for raising the issue here in the House.
However, the motion of allergic reactions and how they are related to the foods we eat and our daily habits is in most cases ill-defined. In children, we see specific reactions to certain foods, and it is possible to prove that these reactions are due to allergies. Most adults are well aware that certain foods or beverages will cause digestive discomfort or allergic reactions, and that although the discomfort or reaction may not be serious, it is nevertheless unpleasant.
The impact of the substances in question tends to be worse when people are tense, nervous, tired or ill than when they are healthy and relaxed. Not enough is known as yet about the
actual mechanisms of such reactions, and they may depend far more on the characteristics of the person who consumed the allergy-causing product than on the product itself.
Consumers may suffer discomfort as a result of allergic reactions to substances used in the preparation of food, and this is even more likely to happen when they eat at a restaurant or eat food purchased from caterers.
By exercising a reasonable amount of care when shopping and cooking, a person can be reasonably sure of controlling the substances he eats in his own home. Thus, the individual who suffers from allergies will not be exposed to substances that may cause discomfort as long as he eats at home.
However, as soon as he goes to a restaurant or eats food purchased from a caterer, that control no longer exists. Anyone who eats food prepared outside the home has to assume the food does not contain any ingredients to which he could be allergic.
Madam Speaker, in the public mind, allergies may be related to the substances used in additives or preservatives, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, allergies to basic foods such as nuts, seafood and dairy products are quite common. A person might order a meal in a French restaurant without knowing that a particular dish is prepared with a cream sauce, or in an oriental restaurant without being aware that the meal includes a peanut sauce. Some people are allergic to certain types of oil or certain kinds of flour.
Furthermore, today's foods are prepared in a very complex way or in recipes with many ingredients. Often, many additives and preservatives are used, which may produce allergic reactions in some individuals.
We know that various substances may produce different reactions in some people. There is no question here of casting doubt on some foods or wondering whether some restaurants use unsafe ingredients. Agriculture Canada and Health and Welfare Canada have published strict regulations regarding food safety and freshness and the nature of additives.
Additives that present a complex risk are banned or subject to very strict control, like sulphites, for example, on which the Government recently imposed strict control after it was shown that they caused too many allergic reactions. Health and Welfare Canada now prohibits their use on all fruit and vegetables sold or served fresh, except grapes.
When people who are subject to allergies consume certain substances, a whole series of physiological effects that may produce reactions occurs and therein lies the problem. This is a matter of information in general and health affecting all consumers. We must ask ourselves how to inform those subject to allergic reactions, who therefore cannot take the chance of consuming food made outside the home.
July 7, 1988

Bill C-289, although incomplete and imperfect, allows us to take a step forward by offering a possible solution. I am sure that officials at Health and Welfare Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs will carefully study it in detail, while continuing to protect the health and safety of Canadian consumers. I am also sure, Madam Speaker, that they will continue to discover ways to protect persons suffering from food allergies.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) has tabled Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. This Bill would compel restaurants to make available for public consultation a list in English and in French, of all the ingredients in any foods sold by them. This Bill, madam Speaker, would also compel caterers to affix on the packaging of any packaged food they sell, in French and in English, a list of all the ingredients they use.
The purpose of Bill C-289 is to protect consumers who may have allergic reactions to various foods or to the ingredients in such food. The Bill, madam Speaker, proposes to solve this problem by forcing restaurants to provide a list of the ingredients they use.
Madam Speaker, the problem is the same for consumers who buy food in food stores. Consumers may also in that case have allergic reactions and that must be taken into consideration. In so far as food purchased in food stores is concerned, the problem is partially resolved by the listing of ingredients as required by food and drug regulations.
However, the requirement to list ingredients on prepackaged foods was not conceived with allergic persons in mind, but to give consumers a list, in decreasing order, of the various substances contained in the foods they purchase.
Madam Speaker, it is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that has the responsibility of managing the labelling, packaging, and marketing of foods, pursuant to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and regulations and the Food and Drugs Act. The Health Protection Branch of the Department of Health and Welfare advises the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the labelling and marketing of products that have any bearing on health.
Madam Speaker, various information is required on the labels of pre-packaged foods, such as the following.
1)	The common name of the food;
2)	The net quantity of the contents;
3)	The name and address of the person or company that produced the food;
4)	The list of ingredients;
5)	The shelf life of the food and preservation instructions.
All this information must be provided, in French and in English. The only exceptions are the name and address of the manufacturer which may be printed in either of the official languages of this country. And I refer you to Bill C-72.
Food and Drugs Act
Madam Speaker, as we are now debating Bill C-289, it is important to mention that it is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that was entrusted with the responsibility for these labelling requirements.
That is understandable as these measures were adopted to protect the consumer. The consumer must know what he is buying. He must be aware of the quality of the product and be sure it is not being sold on the basis of misleading advertising.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important point, and 1 want to make it clear that our present labelling requirements which have been in effect since the early seventies and are quite strict and effective, are above all aimed at protecting the consumer. However, while Bill C-289 is also aimed at protecting the consumer's health, its purpose is to protect the consumer against the possibility of allergic reactions to allergens in food consumed in restaurants. As I said before, neither the Food and Drugs Act nor the regulations on labelling were designed to indentify allergens.
However, Madam Speaker, the public is demanding specific information on ingredients and components of the food offered in restaurants and by suppliers.
Madam Speaker, Canadians are eating more and more meals outside the home. Every year, the percentage of our income spent on restaurant meals and on food purchased outside the home is increasing considerably, and the number and popularity of fast food restaurants is increasing as well.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, a number of Canadians suffering from allergies is important. Canadians are concerned about their health and, according to public opinion polls, they are aware of allergy problems. The use of additives, preservatives and colouring agents is often challenged, especially if they contain allergens. That is why food processors often indicate on their labels the fact that their products do not contain such substances.
There are also certain whole foods that may cause allergies without containing additives or preservatives. We know that some people are allergic to nuts, fish, the gluten found in corn and wheat and to dairy products.
In the last few decades, Madam Speaker, food technology has made tremendous progress. Many foods and food products are subject to complex processes or combine a large number of ingredients. All this increases the complexity of our food and also increases our chances of having an allergy.
For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, Canadians who are at risk should be offered a margin of safety when they go out to a restaurant, especially since this is becoming an increasingly common social custom.
In concluding, I would say that Bill C-289 is a step forward. However, we must not forget that identifying ingredients is only one of the solutions to the problem we are facing today. This legislation will certainly be a first step, but there are other questions that remain to be answered.

July 7, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
For instance, publishing exhaustive lists would preclude any substitution, and so a chef would no longer be free to be creative. If there is a shortage of a particular ingredient, another ingredient cannot be substituted. Chefs would no longer be free to improvise and follow their inspiration. Restaurants that offer daily specials, and these are usually the smaller establishments, would have trouble meeting these requirements.
Bill C-289 is a good start, Madam Speaker. Many Canadians suffer from allergies, and we must consider the problems they may face when they go out to a restaurant. Bill C-289 would seem to suggest a number of solutions, but there is room for improvement. A start has been made, but what we need now is further debate and discussion that will lead to satisfactory solutions.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-289 which has focused the attention of the House on the problems faced by many Canadians who suffer from various food allergies. This Bill would require the mandatory listing of the ingredients used in restaurant foods.
I want to compliment my colleague for introducing this Bill. It is important to make the Canadian public more aware of the problem. Indeed, I have spoken to a number of my constituents who have food allergies and they say that it is very necessary for restaurants to list food ingredients. I believe the House of Commons and the Government can find a solution to this problem.
Food allergies constitute a real problem for a significant number of Canadians. According to a recent report on Global News, 25,000 Canadians are at risk every day because of their food allergies. Other reports have stated that in Canada over the past two years at least 24 people have died from allergic reactions to food after having eaten in restaurants. This is a very frightening statistic to anyone with a dangerous food allergy.
There has been a recent precedent set in the area of food allergy and adverse reaction. In the early 1980s, sulphites, a group of substances that had been widely used as preservatives for years, received a good deal of public attention as the possible cause of a number of allergic reactions suffered by people eating in restaurants. In some cases the adverse reactions were severe enough to require medical attention and even hospitalization.
The health protection branch of Health and Welfare Canada has consulted with many expert sources on this issue. Meetings and consultations were held with groups such as The Allergy Information Association, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the medical community, regulatory agencies from other countries, and the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, which has resulted in a clearer picture of the problem.
We have learned that the use of sulphites on fresh fruits and vegetables in salad bars, for example, was the most common source of problems. Restaurants like to use sulphites to keep the salad ingredients looking fresh.
However, in further meetings with the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, that organization took voluntary steps to discourage the use of sulphites by its members. In addition to that voluntary initiative, the health protection branch went further. It felt it prudent to enact regulations prohibiting the use of sulphites.
It also carried out a consumer education program on the use of sulphites through the use of fact sheets and brochures. Based on all the available information, these have been effective and the problem with sulphites has been minimized.
I have spoken about sulphites at some length because there is at least a rough parallel between the way that issue was handled and the way a solution to the problem of allergic reactions to restaurant food is emerging. As I said, a number of unfortunate and even tragic incidents have occurred, and the media has reported on this issue.
Members know that we are now in a period of discussion and consultation, not the least caused by the introduction of this Bill. The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has held hearings on the topic. Officials of both Health and Welfare Canada and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are actively seeking the best possible solution to the problem. Extensive discussions are being held with the allergy association, the medical community, and the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association.
In a very encouraging development, the private sector is again addressing itself to resolving a very serious problem. The Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association is strongly encouraging a voluntary program among its 6,800 member companies. In fact, according to a recent report by Canadian Press, industry spokesmen have said that restaurant menus should warn consumers of ingredients that could lead to allergic reactions before they order a meal. The Vice-President of the Restaurant and Food Service Association was also quoted as saying that a system of warning charts could be introduced in quick service chains because they have highly centralized control over ingredients.
The consistency of the menus in chain restaurants, combined with the limited choices available, make the charts a manageable idea. According to the same Canadian Press report, the association has talked to 24 national quick service chains, and 22 of them have agreed to take part in the allergy chart idea.
This is good news. It shows that the food services industry is well aware of the problem and is more than willing to take steps to resolve it. It further shows that the idea of an ingredients list, if it can be fine-tuned and made manageable and practical, is indeed a good one.
July 7, 1988

However, there are some questions yet to be answered regarding ingredients list. What about the ingredients that went into the butter that is in the cake which is in the final product? Just how comprehensively would disclosure requirements be applied to sellers of food? Would they apply to owners of chip wagons and vendors of hotdogs at the Sparks Street Mall and at our ballparks?
The breadth and scope of the food service industry presents a very real challenge in this area. It is so diverse and widespread that any new programs must take these qualities into consideration.
Bill C-289 is serving a very useful purpose in getting the public to think seriously about the issue of food allergies and restaurant food. However, it leaves these and many other questions unanswered. It may very well be that the listing of restaurant food ingredients is the best way to tackle the issue. Indeed, present thinking by both industry and all of us concerned about allergies seems to be along these lines.
In the event that ingredients lists are the way to go, every effort must be made to see to it that the listing system that is adopted is the best possible one that can be put in place. In this area it does seem certain that Bill C-289 can be significantly improved.
It is essential that consumers get the information they need to protect themselves in the market-place and to make intelligent choices. This applies as much to allergy sufferers who dine in restaurants as it does to anyone else.
The Government is determined to bring about an effective solution to the issue. If that solution is to centre upon ingredients disclosure lists, the House can be assured that listing requirements will be applied in a manner that is effective, fair, and as cost-efficient as possible. I say this because some of the attraction in dining out, particularly at fast food or quick service outlets, is that prices are reasonable and obviously affordable to a great number of Canadians. We want to make sure that it stays that way.
We must adopt a system that affords the best possible protection to the Canadian consumer and allows greater freedom and safety for the sufferer of food allergies.
[ Translation]


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I shall speak on Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, tabled by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
Bill C-289 is concerned with the problems of those who, in a restaurant, unknowingly eat food containing ingredients to which they are allergic. The Bill tabled in the House would require every restaurant to make available to the public a list in French and English of all the ingredients used in the food sold.
Food and Drugs Act
The Bill would also require every branch of a restaurant and every restaurant chain to indicate on all packaging a list in French and English of the ingredients used in the food.
The problem that Bill C-289 seeks to deal with is really acute in Canada. Many people suffer allergic reactions to various foods, food products or ingredients. People have even died from severe allergic reactions. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has put her finger on a considerable problem and she must be thanked for bringing it to the House of Commons.
The concept of allergic reaction itself, and its relationship to diet and daily habits, are unfortunately undefined in most circumstances. Children have particular reactions to some foods and it is possible to show that these reactions are due to allergies. Almost all adults know very well that some foods or drinks will disturb their digestion or cause allergic reactions, which, although not serious, are nevertheless unpleasant.
The troublesome substances cause even more problems when people are tense, frightened, tired or sick than when they are well and relaxed. How such reactions occur is still little known and may have much more to do with the characteristics of the individual who ate the product that caused the allergy than with the characteristics of the product itself.
Consumers may suffer from allergic reactions to substances used in food preparation and this is more likely to occur when they eat in a restaurant or eat food supplied by a caterer.
By being careful when shopping and cooking, someone can be reasonably sure of controlling the substances eaten at home. Thus, an allergic individual keeps away from troublesome substances when eating at home. But when he eats in a restaurant or eats food purchased from a caterer, the person cannot monitor things as closely. Thus, a person who eats food prepared outside his home must take it for granted that such food does not contain any ingredient to which he might be allergic.
Madam Speaker, public opinion has it that allergies may be related to substances used in additives or preservatives. But that is not necessarily the case. For instance, many people are allergic to such staple foods as nuts, seafood, and dairy products. One might easily order a meal in a French restaurant without knowing that a given dish comes with a cream sauce, or in an oriental restaurant without knowing that a meal will be served with a peanut sauce. Some persons will have allergic reactions to certain oils or to certain types of flour.
Furthermore, it must be said that today's foods undergo complex preparation or are made from recipes containing a multitude of ingredients. Often, many additives and preservatives are used, ingredients which may provoke allergic reactions in some people.

July 7, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
We know that different substances can produce different reactions in some people. Our purpose here is not to call into question the safety of certain foods nor to ask whether some restaurants are using dangerous ingredients. Agriculture Canada and Health and Welfare Canada have published strict regulations on food safety, its freshness and the nature of additives used.
When additives do present a complex risk, they are banned or subjected to very strict controls, as was the case for sulfites, on which the Government recently imposed strict controls, after it was shown that these substances were causing too many allergic reactions.
So, Health and Welfare Canada now prohibits the use of such substances on any produce sold or served fresh, excepting grapes.
When certain substances are consumed by individuals subject to allergies they trigger a whole series of physiological sequences that may result in reactions, and there lies the problem. This is a comprehensive disclosure issue, a health issue that involves all consumers. We must ask ourselves how we can inform people who may be subject to allergic reactions, but who for that reason cannot consume food that is prepared outside their homes.
Bill C-289 gives us an opportunity to make a step forward by proposing a possible solution, albeit incomplete and imperfect.
I am convinced that officials of Health and Welfare Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada will review the details in a careful way, while Continuing to ensure the health and safety of Canadian consumers.
Madam Speaker, I am also convinced they will go on finding ways to ensure the protection of people with food allergies.


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, Bill C-289 comes as a commendable effort to limit a serious consumer problem. It is aimed at providing the information they need to individuals who may suffer from allergic reactions to foods they eat in restaurants.
The current packaging and labelling Act and regulations work toward that goal by requiring disclosure of information on foods that are bought in food stores. Under that Act, most foods sold in food stores must be labelled in both official languages. That requirement covers both foreign and domestic products.
Canadian consumers are entitled to complete information in both official languages on the food they buy. As consumers, they must have an opportunity to make informed choices, and to that end they are entitled to get in the language with which they are more familiar information that will guide their choices.
The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act requires certain compulsory information, and the regulations prescribe that information be supplied in both French and English.
Current requirements cover the common name of the food, the net weight of the product, the name and address of the relevant firm, the list of ingredients and directions as to the shelf life and preservation of the product.
Since its enactment in 1972, that Act has been working well: it is consistent, and both producers and entrepreneurs know it well. Suppliers know what is expected from them, and they provide on the labels bilingual information meeting the requirements.
With respect to the list of ingredients, most prepackaged food must have one showing either the decreasing order of ingredients or the percentage of their use. There are exceptions of course, and here are some of them:
-Repackaged products from bulk retail production;
-Prepackaged individual portions served with meals and snacks in restaurants;
-Individual portions prepared by a supplier and sold in vending machines or mobile canteens;
-Standard alcoholic beverages;
-Vinegar.
None of the standards specified in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act applies to food sold in restaurants or other similar establishments. In such places, people suffering from allergies might unknowingly run the risk of eating food or substances to which they are allergic. In some cases the ensuing allergic reaction is serious and, now and then, it may even be fatal.
Bill C-289 is a commendable effort aimed at eliminating such situations and providing consumers with the information to which they are entitled with respect to foods served in restaurants. It is a step in the right direction, but the motion of the Hon. Member is very brief. The question has a number of aspects with which the motion does not deal, and it can be improved in many ways.
For instance, the restaurant business has to be a very flexible undertaking. Various ingredients may be available to the chef today but not tomorrow. Many restaurants change menus regularly-every day, in some cases-to offer a better choice to their patrons and take advantage of what is available on the market. It would be next to impossible for a restaurant-or even an establishment which has printing facilities- to provide clients with the full list of ingredients used to prepare daily menus.
Think of the many ingredients used to prepare a French sauce, for instance, or any other food dish. Menus would be ridiculously bulky and practically illegible. Ethnic restaurants would have to deal with the added problem of translating the names of exotic ingredients without being in a position to guarantee that an allergy-prone customer would be protected against unknown ingredients. Such an excess of information might cause a real problem.
July 7, 1988

Moreover, customers suffering from food allergies might get a false sense of security with such a list of ingredients. The risk of error remains high. One single lapse in concentration and an additional ingredient in a recipe could have unfortunate results. Not even a minimal substitution or change would be allowed. In view of the very nature of restaurants, this is hardly a reasonable attempt.
Certain practical difficulties associated with the production and labelling of foods should be taken into account.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-289 deals with a problem which I feel is real and should be dealt with. I wonder, however, if this Bill is really the best possible way to protect Canadians suffering from food allergies.
For instance, some believe that we could require restaurant owners to provide upon request to consumers suffering from food allergies a verbal list of all their ingredients.
This would have the benefit of immediate effectiveness while relieving the restaurant owner of the obligation and costs of a printed menu. Good restaurants-I do not mean the most expensive ones-willingly provide such information. Fast food operators could have a list of ingredients which could be distributed upon request.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if such suggestions are likely to help solve the problem. But we must of necessity examine all proposals which could help us protect Canadians suffering from food allergies.
Through its committee responsible for warning labels on food and drug packaging, the House of Commons addressed this issue once before. On the other hand, the officials at Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada and Health and Welfare Canada continue to look for all possible ways to help Canadians suffering from allergies. There is no doubt that Bill C-289 will greatly help us solve this problem.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to this Bill very briefly as one who has had personal experience with an allergic reaction which necessitated my going to the hospital on three occasions, twice here in the national capital area, in fact to the Riverside Hospital, and once in Nairobi, Africa, where I took a severe allergic reaction to some foods that 1 had eaten. One instance, in fact, caused me to go into a very difficult breathing period when I thought I was going to pass out and die. I can relate very closely to this Bill from a personal point of view.
The Bill is entitled Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. This Bill is designed to help Canadians with food allergies when they eat out at restaurants or places that supply fast foods. As you know, Sir, there are many within our country. We had a very unfortunate incident recently in which a young lady in the National Capital Region died from an
Food and Drugs Act
allergic reaction to some nuts that she ate which she did not realize were in the food she had consumed.
The particular Bill here would have a dual effect. First, it would require every restaurant to make available for the public consultation, a list in English and French, of all the ingredients in any foods sold by it. The Bill would also compel each branch restaurant of a restaurant chain to affix on the packaging of any foods sold by it a list in English and in French of the ingredients in such food.
Many thousands of Canadians suffer from food allergies. They are described in some contexts as a nuisance. I guess I can describe my own as a nuisance because it did not persist for very long. However, for some Canadians they can be much greater than a nuisance, they can be deadly.
The CBC reported quite recently that in the last two years upward of 24 persons have died in Canada from severe allergies to foods. As things now stand, while most packaged foods sold in food stores have labelling requirements for ingredients and quantities, there are as yet no mandatory labelling requirements for restaurant food. Instead, individuals with food allergies have to ask the appropriate questions as to whether the ingredients in a restaurant food will trigger an allergic reaction. In other words, it is incumbent upon the person who goes to a restaurant to eat to ask those questions.
Therefore this Bill is performing a very valuable service in so far as it is causing a much greater debate on the subject, and in that it is raising the question of whether or not the present system is adequate. Certainly, Canadian consumers deserve the best possible protection, whether they buy food in a supermarket for preparation and consumption at home or whether they go out and eat in a restaurant, be that restaurant a very humble one or a very luxurious one.
The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has heard testimony recently on this issue from the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association and, in particular, Mr. Bill Dover, who is the President of Red Lobster of Canada which, in principle, is supporting the directions of this Bill. I hope that in due course the House will do the same thing.


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.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-73, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario.

July 7, 1988
Committee Report


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Member for Algoma. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INDIAN LANDS AGREEMENT (1986) ACT PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-73, Bill C-122, and Bill C-123, I have the honour to present to the house the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario, with amendments.
I might add, Madam Speaker, that we made good progress on this Bill. It is very important to a number of bands throughout Ontario, including five in Manitoulin Island, Nipissing, and Sarnia, because it provides for the negotiating authority for these bands respecting important land claims.
There is one amendment in the report. There is another one which we will be putting at report stage. I am pleased to present this report to the House now.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]




[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are 18 proposed motions in amendment to Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Four are in the name of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux); two are in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy); and the remainder are submitted by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).

The first and second motions in amendment are proposed by the Minister and Mr. Kaplan respectively. They are of a technical nature to the French text of the Bill and are in order. [English]
Motion No. 3, proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill, seeks to oblige mine employers themselves to test air quality in
the mines. I must regretfully rule that the motion in amendment is out of order, in that it is beyond the scope of the clause.
The purpose of Clause 1 to which the motion is proposed is to set out compliance obligations that employers must meet. These requirements involve compliance in working conditions set by the Coal Mining Safety Commission. A motion in amendment, placing an obligation on mine employers themselves to conduct air quality tests, is a different category of obligation from those set out in the clause. For this reason Motion No. 3 is out of order.

The fourth motion in amendment, like the first proposed by the Minister, is again of a technical nature. This motion seeks to make a change to the English language of the bill and is in order.

The sixth motion in amendment stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill. It seeks to limit searches of employees by the employer for the purpose of preventing drinking or smoking in the mines. The motion in amendment is in order.
[ Translation]
These four motions in amendment to clause 1 (motions 1, 2, 4 and 6) will be debated together and voted on separately.

Motion No. 5, in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre, seeks to insert "technology" in the list of prescribed processes for which mining employers must meet safety standards. This is similar to Motion No. 12 which in this case is applied to Clause 3 of the Bill, rather than to Clause 1. Of a contrary intent is Motion No. 13, proposed by the Minister; it seeks to delete a reference to "technology" in another line of Clause 3. These motions will be debated together and the vote on Motion No. 5 will be applied to Motion No. 12, while Motion No. 13 will be voted separately.

All the following motions in amendment deal with clause 3 of the Bill. Motions 7 and 8 are identical and seek to modify the French text of the Bill by deleting an unnecessary reference to a previous sub-paragraph. Since the Minister's motion, numbered 7, was received first, it will be the one selected for debate and decision.

Motions Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14 are all in order and will be grouped for debate, but voted separately.
July 7, 1988

Canada Labour Code

Motions 15, 16, 17 and 18 are in order. For the purpose of debate, these four motions shall be debated together, but they will be voted on separately.

In summary, Motion Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 will be debated together and voted separately. Motions Nos. 5, 12, and 13 will be considered next. The vote on Motion No. 5 will be applied to Motion No. 12, and there will a separate vote on Motion No. 13. Thereafter Motions Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14 will be grouped for debate and also voted separately. Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18 will also be grouped for debate, but voted separately.

I suggest that the House should now proceed to debate motions No. 1, 2, 4 and 6.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 1 in the French version by striking out lines 16 and 17 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) permet /'inspection et la verification, au nom des employes, de la maniere".
Motion No. 2


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: On behalf of my colleague the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Guilbault: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 1 in the French version by striking out lines 16 to 20 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"c) permet qu'on procede, au nom des employes, a l'inspection et a la verification de la mine et des machines et appareils qui s'y trouvent, de la maniere et aux intervalles maximums reglementaires"


Pierre H. Cadieux: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 1 in the English version by striking out line 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"conformity with plans and procedures as".


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 17 to 20 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"for the purpose of preventing articles for use in smoking from being brought in the mine,".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question? On debate, the Hon. Minister.
[ Translation]


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, concerning motions No. 1 and 2, after checking the wording of Motion No. 2, I suggest to withdraw Motion No. 1 and to vote in favour of Motion No. 2, because the wording of that motion is better than the wording of Motion No. 1. I am sorry I have to admit that, but it is true, and because the wording of Motion No. 2 is better and more appropriate, I suggest to withdraw Motion No. 1 and to vote in favour of Motion No. 2.
Concerning Motion No. 4, if I may, Madam Speaker, this is simply a technical amendment which had escaped those who drafted the original text, the word "as" being much more appropriate in the English version than the word "so". This being purely a technical amendment, I do not think there will be any opposition to that motion.
As to Motion No. 6, if I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to reserve my right to respond once the mover of that motion has put forward his arguments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to ask the House whether there is unanimous consent, first, for Motion No. 1 to be withdrawn and second, for the Minister to be recognized once the Hon. Member for Churchill has made his case on Motion No. 6.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 withdrawn.


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on motion No. 2. As the Minister indicated earlier, he kindly accepted to withdraw his motion No. 1 in order to accept motion No. 2. Essentially, the amendment merely improves the Bill's wording, not its meaning.
Clause 1 proposes many things, for example, in paragraph c): "permet qu'on procede, au nom des employes, a Tinspec-tion et a la verification de la mine et des machines et appareils qui s'y trouvent, de la maniere et aux intervalles maximums reglementaires." That is, in fact, the wording of the proposed amendment. It's about the same as in the Bill, except that it reads better in French.
If Moliere were amongst us, he would be happy to see such an improvement in the wording of the Bill, not for the purpose of changing the substance of Bill C-124, but of expressing it in a more elegant or natural French. That is the sole objective of this motion which is moved by my colleague from York-Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and which I was happy to present on his behalf.

July 7, 1988
Canada Labour Code


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to find in Bill C-124, respecting the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, that we have a number of technical amendments at this time. It is amazing that the amendments are in the name of a Member who is not a member of the legislative committee. Usually members of the legislative committee make amendments. It is not unusual that we have this number of amendments, because committee study on Bill C-124 was a rush job. Government Members would not allow the committee to call any witnesses other than the Minister and his staff, nor would they allow a second meeting of the committee.
Let me refresh Hon. Members' memories. The committee met on May 9, 1988 at 3.38 p.m. The Minister and one of his officials appeared with him. I asked permission to contact members of the unions involved and the only employer involved in the case. The request was denied by members of the committee. I asked that there be a second meeting so that we could study the legislation. Again, government Members refused.
As a result of the process all the clauses of the Bill were passed by 5.07 p.m. The Bill was studied in committee for only one and a half hours. The Minister and his official spoke. We had a procedural squabble over the desire to have witnesses who would know what this legislation would do to them.
I said that we would not stall the legislation, that what we wanted was the right to have witnesses "one week hence", and that I was able to guarantee the legislation would pass committee stage that day or the following one. Conservative members on that committee, I believe on instructions from the Department, refused to allow any witnesses whatever.
This piece of legislation was allowed through second reading on the basis of one afternoon's debate. This was not legislation that the Opposition was stalling. This was not legislation that was even being opposed by the opposition Parties. We recognized that as Members of Parliament we had an obligation to allow people who would be affected to make their presentations, to explain what they believed should be in the legislation, but the request was denied and I believe Parliament failed in its duty in doing so.
Today, two nionths after the Government refused to have a second meeting of this committee, the legislation was brought to the House. Obviously any time during those two months we could have heard from witnesses. This was not a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. This was an example of government arrogance, an example of the Government refusing to listen to those affected, an example of the Government assuming that it knew better than any of those who would be affected.
The Minister has admitted that one of the opposition motions is better than his own Department's. He has withdrawn his own amendment. We have other amendments that
are probably technically better than the Government's amendments. In addition, we have a number of what 1 would call controversial issues dealing with the work site which were never raised in the House of Commons. Motion No. 6 speaks to that.
Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order and speaks to a matter of controversy and concern to people in the workforce. As well, since this legislation was rushed through committee study, the Minister himself has received representations from one union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees whose members work at the plant. The union would like to see the committee looking at workplace safety being restructured so that it could include a representative of the union, but that will not happen.
I do not have much time to explain all these points because 1 am limited to speaking for only 10 minutes. However, I think what I have said sets the groundwork. This legislation is coming to the House flawed. The process that we went through was very objectionable. It denied us the advice of people who will be directly affected by the legislation. It prevents Parliament from resolving some of the difficulties of people who work in the mines at Cape Breton.
Some suggestions were made to the Minister, and he knows that. There is a conflict among the unions in Cape Breton, and the Minister also knows that. Had the committee had the opportunity in one afternoon to hear from a representative of each of the three unions involved, as well as from the management, perhaps we could have amended this Bill in a manner that would have met all concerns. I do not believe the issues were without any possibility of being resolved. Instead, the House of Commons committee refused to allow these problems to be resolved and, worse than that, the committee refused even to allow the participants any sort of a fair hearing.
This legislation affects only one employer. It affects only three groups of unionized workers. I do not believe the House of Commons was in such a rush that we could not have heard from them. I do not believe our agenda was so tight that we could not have heard from them. I find it very regrettable that Conservative Members refused to allow witnesses to appear. As a result the legislation will not meet the needs of all workers at that work site, particularly those of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
The legislation we have is meant to prevent fires and explosions at the work site. We accept and support that, but for some reason the Minister and his officials have deemed it necessary to give the employer the right to search for drugs, alcohol, and other goods. If the purpose of the legislation is to prevent explosions and fires, then we should certainly allow for searches for those goods which would directly cause explosions and fires. Obviously smoking materials could do that and, therefore it would obviously be correct to search for those items. That is something to which the employees agreed as well.


July 7, 1988

I find it unusual that in this legislation we are granting an employer a right we do not grant any other employer who falls under the Canada Labour Code. I must ask the Minister why he is setting this precedent in this legislation. I believe that is why he has reserved his right to speak after me on this amendment. Why would he introduce this widespread power when the legislation is supposed to give an employer a very specific right to deal with a very specific problem?
I appreciate that you have given me some extra time, Madam Speaker, because of the complexity of the situation. While the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he could explain if this legislation granting this extraordinary right under the Canada Labour Code will set a precedent for other legislation that the Minister might be introducing.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Hon. Members who, by unanimous consent, granted me the right and the privilege to speak after the movers of the motion had done so.
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, we in the Government intend to support Motion No. 2 for the reasons mentioned by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), not for those invoked by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), who just said or who just tried to say that...

"If some amendments have to be brought at this stage it is because of a rush job". I think my hon. colleague will recognize that, on the contrary, this Bill is not the product of a rush job.
If the Hon. Member were to check with the unions involved, the employer, and even the federations such as the CLC, he would find and would have to admit that we have been consulting with the parties in the Cape Breton mine since 1985 with respect to the terms of this legislation. There was even one meeting which the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) attended dealing with this particular legislation.
When I am told that this has been a rush job, I take issue with that and 1 think it is wrong. It is unjustified at this time in the debate to try to take cheap political shots by saying that this Bill is the result of a rush job. It is not, and I think the Hon. Member would agree with that.
With respect to the Hon. Member's remarks about the committee, I doubt very much that the committee members, including the Conservative committee members, took any instructions from the Department of Labour, assuming such instructions would have been given. I can assure Hon. Members that this Minister and his Department did not give instructions to committee members to refuse to hear witnesses. Most of those witnesses had been consulted before the introduction of the Bill.
Canada Labour Code
I admit that this Bill is not perfect in its drafting and that is why this Minister himself is proposing some amendments. It is to ensure that we have the best Bill possible, perhaps not perfect but the best Bill possible.
I have here some correspondence from the parties in Cape Breton who are concerned with this legislation. They wrote to me after the committee hearings saying that they were pleased that the Bill was passed without amendment. My hon. colleague probably has copies of these letters and, if he does not, it will be a pleasure for me to give him copies. 1 will not take the time of the House to read them but they are here.
I will turn to the specific amendment, Motion No. 6.

I simply want to add a comment on Motion No. 6, moved by the Hon. Member, which is aimed at eliminating searches for drugs and alcohol. The Hon. Member said that we would be creating a precedent, that this had never been done before, and that consequently, this could create a precedent so that the Government or governments might be tempted to introduce similar measures in other bills.
As for creating a precedent, Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that he, as an expert, is probably aware that in Canada similar legislation exists in Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Outside Canada, we find similar legislation in the U.K. and the United States. Madam Speaker, requirements like the one for searches to detect the presence of articles for use in smoking, alcohol or drugs, constitute protection of the kind included in the safety regulations in effect in coal mines operated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation since 1967. Madam Speaker, the searches have been going on since 1967, and the reason is simply for the sake of the safety of employees working in these mines. The atmosphere in a coal mine is such that explosions can be touched off by sparks generated either by matches or articles used in smoking or because someone was working while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. All this could cause the mine to explode and with it the employees in the mines at the time. Even the miners support this measure because it is for their own protection in a very specific context and environment and, I might as well say it, a very explosive environment!
This measure, Madam Speaker, was requested by people who work in the mines in Cape Breton, by employers and employees, and it is necessary and indeed essential, considering the purpose of this legislation which is to protect the health and safety of employees.
As for whether this would constitute a precedent for subsequent federal legislation, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that this amendment will not constitute a precedent for other industries where no such measures or procedures exist at this time, Madam Speaker.

July 7, 1988
Canada Labour Code

Motion No. 2 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux).
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 6 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will now proceed to the second grouping. The first one is Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The second one is Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 13.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 33 at page 4
and substituting the following therefor:
"of any mining method, ma-"


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I know that this was a rush job in the committee but the Minister is moving an amendment. He seemed to imply that it was a rush job prior to the legislation. However, I want to respond to some of the other remarks he made and I will use this opportunity.
The Minister waved some letters which he said were from workers on the plant site who said they wanted this legislation passed without amendment. He forgot to point out that he also had correspondence from people working at that site who wanted amendments.
I made only one charge against the Government, and that is that it would not allow witnesses to appear before the committee. That was based on the fact that we had at least one group of employees at that work site who had some concerns about the legislation and wanted an opportunity to present their case. That is what I said. I admitted in my presentation that there were other unions who liked the legislation. This was an interunion conflict. I never implied that it was all black or white. I said that there were some concerns which could have been resolved in a second meeting of the committee. That is what was not allowed.
Here we are with government Members who have no idea what the Minister's motion is about, and the Minister cannot even explain in one or two sentences what his motion does.
They want a quick vote. I would hope that they would have enough interest in what we are doing in this House to get at least a one or two line explanation from the Minister. We do not oppose the legislation or the amendment in front of us. However, I believe the Government should at least have the decency to explain what the amendment is.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, since my hon. friend wants me to speak on this motion, I will do so very briefly. However, I took it for granted that NDP Members, like Conservatives, know how to read. It is very obvious what the motion is about. It is on the Order Paper and anyone who reads it knows what it is. Perhaps contrary to the NDP, in this caucus there are some discussions with respect to legislation. Members on this side are well aware of what it is. As surprising as it may sound, when there is a question all Members have to do is ask. Our Members are very aware that if they have a question they can ask, which they do.
Again, it is self-evident. It is an amendment in order to comply with the other articles of the Bill, and I think my colleague is taking cheap shots. I suppose he is entitled to do that-it is a democracy-but we are dealing with the safety of workers. This Bill deals with the safety of those workers and even the subject to which my hon. friend was trying to allude, the interunion difficulty with respect to one element of this Bill, was discussed with the unions before and after study by the committee. I think my hon. friend is taking cheap shots for nothing.
Motion No. 13 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will now go to the next group of amendments. The first one is Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, this may sound strange, but with respect to Motion No. 10 I believe my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) wanted to move this amendment.
It is an amendment that will be useful in the sense that both texts, French and English, will be made to have the same wording. As Minister of Labour, of course, in order to make sure that the text of this legislation is compatible in both languages and is for the protection of workers in the mines of Cape Breton, I will definitely agree to the amendment as long as my friend is here to move the motion. If not, perhaps someone from the NDP will volunteer to move the motion.
July 7, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister was talking about Motion No. 10, is that correct?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With unanimous consent, then, the motion will be moved.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 3 in the French version by striking
out line 30 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"frais raisonnables de deplacement et de sejour entraines".
Motion No. 10 agreed to.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 3 in the French version by striking
out line 20 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"des employes et un".
Motion No. 7 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We now come to the next grouping. The first one is Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.
The next one is Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre. The motion is withdrawn in the absence of the Hon. Member.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre H. Cadieux: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With regard to Bill C-75 there are four motions on the Order Paper offered in amendment to it. Motion Nos. 1 to 4 inclusive stand in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). I understand that the Hon. Minister had tabled identical amendments in the legislative committee, but that due to the infringement upon the financial initiative of the Crown by one of the amendments and consequential effects to other amendments they could not be dealt with at the committee stage. I have noticed that the Minister has obtained a new Royal Recommendation which satisfies the requirement as far as Motion No. 3 is concerned.
Since Motion Nos. 1 to 4 inclusive are related, I would suggest that they be grouped together for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 being applied to Motion Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The House will now proceed to debate Motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-75 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purposes of subsection 13(2), 25(3), 37(1) or 140(5), the government or Minister proposing".
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-75 be amended by adding immediately after line 33 at page 57 the following:
"104. The interest owner of an interest in relation to lands situated in that portion of the offshore area that is described in Schedule IV is, in respect of those lands, exempt from the payment under section 81 of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act of any amount in respect of any period mentioned in subsection 140(1) or specified in a notice issued pursuant to subsection 140(7)."
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-75 be amended by adding immediately after line 27 at page 82 the following:
"140. (1) No person shall, on or before January 1, 2000, in that portion of the offshore area described in Schedule IV, explore or drill for or produce, conserve or process petroleum or transport petroleum produced in that portion of the offshore area.
(2)	A public review of the environmental and socio-economic impact of exploration and drilling activities in that portion of the offshore area described in Schedule IV shall be conducted by a panel that is to be established for that purpose, in accordance with this section, on or before January 1, 1996.
(3)	The panel referred to in subsection (2) shall consist of not more than five members.

July 7, 1988
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
(4)	Two members of the panel referred to in subsection (2) may be appointed by the Federal Minister and two by the Provincial Minister, and the chairman of the panel is to be appointed by both the Federal Minister and the Provincial Minister.
(5)	Where the two Ministers fail to agree on the appointment of the chairman of the panel referred to in subsection (2) within sixty days after the first appointment of a member of the panel, the chairman shall be selected by an arbitration panel, constituted in accordance with section 47, within thirty days after the appointment of the chairman of the arbitration panel, unless at any time prior thereto the two Ministers agree on the appointment.
(6)	A report containing the results of the public review conducted pursuant to subsection (2), including any recommendations of the panel made in respect of those results, shall be prepared by the panel referred to in that subsection and submitted to the Federal Minister and the Provincial Minister on or before July 1, 1999.
(7)	On or before January 1, 2000, the Federal Minister and Provincial Minister may, after consideration of the report submitted to them pursuant to subsection (6), jointly issue a written notice prohibiting, for such further period as is specified in the notice, in all or any part of that portion of the offshore area described in Shedule IV, the exploration or driling for and the production, conservation and processing of petroleum and the transportation of petroleum produced in that portion of the offshore area.
(8)	The Federal Minister shall cause a copy of any notice issued pursuant to subsection (7) to be published in the Canada Gazette forthwith after the notice has been issued."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-75 be amended by adding immediately after Schedule III at page 161 the following:
"SCHEDULE IV (Sections 104 and 140)


LIMITS OF THE PORTION OF THE OFFSHORE AREA REFERRED TO IN SECTIONS 104 AND 140
[Stage Direction]
(All latitudes and longitudes referred to in this schedule are determined according to the NAD 27 datum. All parallels of latitude referred to in this schedule are to be determined in such a manner that they are parallel with boundaries of grid areas as defined by the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations.)
COMMENCING at the intersection of latitude 42 degrees 30' 00"N and the geodetic line from point C to point D of the Single Maritime Boundary between Canada and the United States of America, at approximate longitude 67 degrees 27' 05"W, said Boundary constituted by the Judgement of the Chamber of the International Court of Justice at The Hague on October 12, 1984, said point C being at latitude 42 degrees 31' 08"N and longitude 67 degrees 28' 05"W and said point D being at latitude 40 degrees 27' 05"N and longitude 65 degrees 41' 59"W as shown in said Judgement;
THENCE easterly along latitude 42 degrees 30'00"to longitude 66 degrees 30'00"W;
THENCE south along longitude 66 degrees 30'00"W to latitude 42 degrees 25'00"N;
THENCE easterly along latitude 42 degrees 25'00"N to longitude 65 degrees 45'00"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 45'00"W to latitude 42 degrees 20'00"N;
THENCE easterly along latitude 42 degrees 20'00"N to longitude 65 degrees 37'30"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 37'30"W to latitude 42 degrees lOW'N;
THENCE easterly along latitude 42 degrees I0'00"N to longitude 65 degrees 30'00"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 30' 00"W to latitude 42 degrees 05' 00"N;
THENCE easterly along latitude 42 degrees 05' 00"N to longitude 65 degrees 22' 30"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 22' 30"W to latitude 41 degrees 50' 00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 50' 00"N to longitude 65 degrees 30' 00"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 30' 00"W to latitude 41 degrees 40' 00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 40' 00"N to longitude 65 degrees 37' 30"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 37' 30"W to latitude 41 degrees 35' 00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 35' 00"N to longitude 65 degrees 45' 00"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 45'00"W to latitude 41 degrees 25'00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 25'00"N to longitude 65 degrees 52'30"W;
THENCE south along longitude 65 degrees 52'30"W to latitude 41 degrees 15'00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 15'00"N to longitude 66 degrees 07'30"W;
THENCE south along longitude 66 degrees 07'30"W to latitude 41 degrees 05'00"N;
THENCE westerly along latitude 41 degrees 05'00"N to its intersection with said geodetic line from point C to point D, at approximate longitude 66 degrees 13'33"W;
THENCE northwesterly along said geodetic line to the point of commencement."
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose to the House today, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), a package of amendments to Bill C-75 dealing with an issue of deep concern to Nova Scotians, the protection of the Georges Bank fishery.
There is no dispute that the Georges Bank fishery is an important economic resource for Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the people of southwestern Nova Scotia in particular.
The Government was fully aware of the importance of the Georges Bank fishery. It was also very much aware of the environmental sensitivity of the Bank and of the concerns being expressed by the Government of Nova Scotia and by the people of region over the potential impact that petroleum activity could have on the Bank. Therefore, discussions were held with the Energy Minister and the Premier of Nova Scotia and others on how best to satisfactorily resolve the impasse.
It was agreed, following these extensive discussions and consultations, that there should be a full and open public review of the environmental and socio-economic issues related to petroleum activities on the Georges Bank.
There had also been the concern expressed that such an environmental review conducted under the auspices of the Oil and Gas Management Board would not provide the objectivity this important issue deserved. As a result, it was agreed that the review would be conducted by an independent panel rather than the new Offshore Oil and Gas Management Board.

July 7, 1988

The Georges Bank is a unique fishery resource, and unique measures are required in the circumstances to balance the interests of all concerned. The moratorium and public review process will provide assurances to all Canadians that the Government understands the seriousness of environmental concerns and how these relate to other major considerations in our lives.
An agreement was reached with the Government of Nova Scotia on an amendment package for Georges Bank which contains the following key provisions. First, a moratorium is to be put in place on oil and gas activity on the Georges Bank until at least the year 2000.
Second, prior to the year 1996 an independent review panel will be constituted to hold public hearings on the environmental and social impacts of drilling on the Bank. The panel will report to the federal and provincial Ministers of Energy on or before July 1, 1999. The Ministers will then jointly decide whether the ban on petroleum activity should be extended beyond January 1, 2000.
These amendments will bring the federal accord legislation into line with that of the Province of Nova Scotia whose legislature passed the Georges Bank amendment package on May 25, 1988. The decisions embodied in the Georges Bank amendment package represent a credible solution to a very sensitive issue, one which is widely supported as being in the best public interest. I am pleased that the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia, working together in a climate of cooperation, were able to resolve this issue.
I am today asking this House to join with others in supporting these measures by giving the amendments its stamp of approval.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, it is my opinion that these amendments merely mirror the legislation in the Province of Nova Scotia, nothing more and nothing less. I would like the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's confirmation that that is in fact the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With unanimous consent, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, 1 can assure my hon. friend and other colleagues in the House that this is mirror legislation to legislation which has previously been passed in the Legislature of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to Motion No. 3.1 move:
That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting from subsection 140(2) therein
the date 1996 and substituting therefore the date 1990.
That Motion No. 3 be amended by adding immediately after subsection
140(6) the following:
"(7) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if the report submitted pursuant to subsection (6) concludes that the exploratory work or activity can proceed in the offshore area described in Schedule IV without undue risk to the
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
environment or resources of the area, the Federal Minister and the Provincial Minister may jointly declare that the authorization of the work or activity is a fundamental decision for the purposes of this Act and may be granted on condition that any proposed development resulting from any authorized work or activity could not proceed without a further public review of the proposed development. And by renumbering the subsections following and by substituting in the renumbered subsection (8) a reference to subsection (8) for the reference to subsection (7)."
Basically the main motion would freeze what is commonly called the Georges Bank from all exploration activity until the year 2000. This is done in conjunction with the Province of Nova Scotia but very much in a unilateral manner.
There is no need to include such a freeze within the Bill. The board which will be established under Bill C-75 already has the power to halt all exploration or development if there is an environmental problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before the Hon. Member continues, may 1 know who will second the amendment? It will be seconded by Mr. Clifford.


Paul Gagnon: Madam Speaker, there was a lot of discussion in the committee. I was privileged to be a member of that committee, where we heard from the Canadian Petroleum Association, Texaco Canada, and Chevron Canada. Obviously they are not unbiased about this issue and have a point of view to express. They brought me a book written by Richard H. Backus, Chairman of the Department of Biology at Woods Hole. He is a well- known independent biologist who looked at the environmental situation. At the outset he was opposed to oil development but concluded that development should proceed. Let me quote what he wrote:
My own opinion is that cautious development together with suitable
monitoring should proceed, with no opportunity being lost during the process
for learning more about the bank and its fisheries and thus about coastal
marine systems in general.
1 submit that the safeguards already exist. We do not need a 12-year ban. People who have considered the environmental situation believe that we should proceed in a very cautious manner.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I only have a couple of remarks on the subamendments moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon). He indicated that the motions were put through in a unilateral manner. There would be nothing unilateral in sitting down and negotiating with the province which has an agreement with the federal Government that the offshore resources in Nova Scotia will be treated in the same way as the resources in western Canada and the western basin.
The people of Nova Scotia have decided on a moratorium until the year 2000. The people of Nova Scotia have said that they fear the environmental impact on Georges Bank, which is a very important resource to Nova Scotia.

July 7, 1988
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
The Member is asking us to take a unilateral position like that which was taken by a previous Government when it imposed on the western basin and western provinces the divisive National Energy Program. Had it remained, it could have broken the country in two.
1 would not want to be party to imposing anything on the Nova Scotia people that they and their legislature did not want. Therefore I ask my colleagues to defeat the subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As we have ruled earlier that a vote on Motion No. 1 would apply to the other motions, we shall deal with the amendment to Motion No. 3. The question is on the amendment of Mr. Gagnon. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Gagnon) negatived.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, for clarification, did we just vote on two subamendments?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since the amendments dealt with two different parts of the same motion they were treated as one amendment, which has now been negatived on division.
The next question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), final reading on Bill C-75, an Act to implement the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord. The Bill before the House will implement the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord that was signed on August 26, 1986, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan. Lying at the heart of the legislation is a new shared management regime under which the province has an equal say in decisions. This will significantly improve on the arrangements contained in the 1982 agreement with Nova Scotia, pursuant to which the province had only an advisory role in a federally controlled system.
The legislation will create a new independent board to administer and regulate petroleum activities in the offshore on behalf of the two Governments. The board will have considerable autonomy on technical decisions but will be subject to the joint direction of the two Governments on any fundamental decisions.
The legislation will convert the $200 million offshore development fund created under the 1982 agreement into a grant. Above and beyond this, the Government of Canada will make available a new $25 million fund to Nova Scotia Resources Ventures Limited, to assist in participating in exploration and development drilling in the offshore area.
This legislation incorporates existing federal legislation, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the Oil and Gas Production Act, so that there will be consistency in the legal framework for oil and gas activity in all offshore areas of Canada. This is highly desirable, from both an industry and government perspective, in ensuring consistently safe and well understood practices to be applied in all coastal areas.
In conclusion, the legislation will assure the Government of Nova Scotia of its rightful place alongside the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as an equal partner with the Government of Canada in the management of petroleum resources of the East Coast.
The legislation will set aside the question of which level of government has jurisdiction over the offshore resources in favour of a joint management regime under which these resources are managed together for the benefit of all Canadians and, particularly, those in Nova Scotia.
It will thus create a stable investment climate to encourage industry investment by eliminating the risk that jurisdictional disputes will delay important project decisions.
July 7, 1988

The Government of Nova Scotia has passed into law the provincial legislation implementing the Nova Scotia Accord. I would ask this House to join with Nova Scotia in sanctioning this important legislation, thereby taking Canada one more purposeful step forward in national reconciliation and full realization of the benefits that will flow from the accord.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-75, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments.
We have been in the process of passing this Bill for a good many months now and I think that we have a Bill that is going to be satisfactory to all of the people of Nova Scotia. For that, I am very pleased. I would like to thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) for his cooperation in agreeing to this amendment, and also his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Shields) who was probably the one who was really instrumental in formulating this policy. 1 would like to thank him as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: During the course of the legislative committee meetings it was brought to the attention of all the Members of Parliament on the committee that this Bill could be substantially improved by the addition of an amendment which would protect the bountiful fish resource of Georges Bank. Although this Bill was initiated with offshore petroleum resource management, it was made clearly evident by representatives of the Nova Scotia fishing industry that protection of the fishery was of equivalent importance to oil and gas resources and had to be given consideration within the framework of this Bill. I think that is rightly put forward.
I want to thank also at this point the representatives of the fishing industry who came before the committee and, particularly, the organization known as NORIG, for their very relevant and in-depth presentation and support given to all committee members.
According to the accord to which this Bill relates, which was originally signed on the August 26, 1986, one of its seven major objectives was as follows: "To achieve the early development of petroleum resources in the offshore area for the benefit of Canada as a whole and Nova Scotia in particular". This statement overlooked the fact that there is a traditional resource in Nova Scotia, and that is, the fishery.
To act for the benefit of Canada as a whole and Nova Scotia in particular, we have to give particular attention to the fishery. Georges Bank is the most prolific fishery grounds in the world. That is of tremendous importance to the Province of Nova Scotia. It is many times more prolific than any other fishing grounds in the world, and of course there are a great many good fishing grounds throughout the world.
Six thousand people in the Province of Nova Scotia depend on the fishing industry directly related to Georges Bank. If we did not heed the seriousness of drilling in Georges Bank then
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
the quality of life in Nova Scotia could be set off balance as a result of petroleum exploration and development. As a result, we have this amendment, which places a 12-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development on the Canadian side of Georges Bank. We establish by this amendment as well a review panel which will report on the environmental and socio-economic impact of exploration and drilling activities in this specific area by January 1, 1996.
Bill C-75 acted as a catalyst to make the legislative committee in the House of Commons confront the needs of the region, ensure the best use of the offshore resources, including the fishery, and put in place a process which will provide an equal hearing to those with differing concerns on offshore resource management.
I think that sets up the framework that all Canadians would like to see. There are, of course, various interests that will not be satisfied by this, but I think that what has been put in place is fair, and certainly fair to the fishing industry of Nova Scotia.
The situation on the Georges Bank highlighted three factors which are relevant to making decisions about resource development and management; socio-economic concerns, scientific evidence, and the political objectives of the people.
This proposed legislation provides a viable process for federal-provincial co-operation on offshore petroleum resource management. As I mentioned in my speech during second reading, the process will have limited use as no resource development is currently taking place. The lack of a coherent energy policy by this Government has led to merely ad hoc initiatives which may or may not be in the long-term interests of Canadians. This is why we did not have these very important provisions in the original Bill.
Furthermore, the objective of the Government, "to protect, preserve and advance the attainment of national security of supply" of energy resources, will be superseded by the terms of the free trade agreement.
The development of offshore resources is more likely to be based on decisions by U.S. multinationals whose objective it is to supply U.S. markets rather than plan to meet the future needs of Canadians. 1 do not think that that is wrong. The energy multinationals have played a very important role in the development of oil and gas and energy needs of this country and they are to be congratulated and thanked by the Canadian public.
However, there is a limit. One cannot expect oil companies, multinational or otherwise, to act in the interests of the fishing industry of Nova Scotia. It just makes common sense that oil companies have their vested interests. Fishermen and the fishing industry have their vested interests. This is why it is paramount that the Governments of this country look at situations like this and come down on the side of the people, the best interests of the people and the region in which they live. This is being done with the amendments that have been brought forward here this evening in the House of Commons at report stage. I feel good about this Bill. It certainly has the support of my Party as amended.

July 7, 1988
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
The fact that the Government has failed the people of Canada on two counts is demonstrated by the response of the Nova Scotian community to the idea of oil and gas drilling on Georges Bank. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources failed to develop a national energy strategy upon which regional initiatives would be based to ensure a security of supply.
In addition, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and other members of the Government have not taken into consideration, or did not take into consideration initially, the needs of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. It was really members of the fishing industry and the communities involved that brought to the attention of the Government the need for these amendments, both here and in the Province of Nova Scotia.
This is one of the finest examples we will see in Canada of people interested in a particular resource knowing that they could lose the very vital industry on which their incomes and their livelihoods have come to depend. They have reached out to the Government and made their presentation in a forceful and objective manner. They have succeeded in having the Government, all Members of the House of Commons, and all members of the Legislature of the Province of Nova Scotia, listen to their arguments and accept their validity.
To have shown a disregard and a lack of empathy for the needs of the people dependent on the Georges Bank fishery would have been a catastrophe. It would have been a very bad example to the rest of the country. It would have been devastating for the people of Nova Scotia. We now have these amendments which are the results of this positive process which was initiated by the people in southwest Nova Scotia.
In addition to serving the needs of Nova Scotians and Canadians, the amended legislation is playing a leadership role in gaining U.S. support to prohibit oil and gas drilling on its portion of the Georges Bank. In June, the United States House Appropriations Committee voted to extend the one-year moratorium on any sites less than 400 metres deep. Previously, this restriction was only on 60 metre sites. Thus, that committee has increased protection of the U.S. side of the Georges Bank to almost 7 million acres.
This is a direct result of the action taken by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia to say that we are not going to be drilling on Georges Bank during the moratorium period of 12 years. Had we not listened to the fishing community in Nova Scotia and to the concerns of Nova Scotians in general, and had we allowed the possibility of drilling to occur on Georges Bank, then this would have set a precedent for the United States. It could very well have followed suit. Not only have we prevented the drilling on the
Canadian side of Georges Bank, we have also prevented drilling on the United States side of Georges Bank.
Some people may ask why we should worry about the United States side. Primarily, it is because the current in Georges Bank goes in a circular motion. Any spills or debris that is thrown into the bank comes around on to the Nova Scotia and the Canadian side. Any debris, any spillage, any pollution of any kind not only pollutes the side on which it occurs but it pollutes both sides of the border.
Canada is establishing an admirable precedent with this legislation. We have decided that the fishery as a resource takes precedence over petroleum resources until it is proven that no damage will be incurred to the Georges Bank or to the quality of life in Nova Scotia.
All the politicians in the Province of Nova Scotia and almost all of the politicians in the House of Commons-certainly all the members of my Party-have decided that we will not risk sacrificing the fishery in order to promote oil and gas development, particularly since this country does not have a comprehensive energy policy. We would be throwing darts in the dark if we were to allow drilling since we would not know what exactly would occur from any commencement of activity on the Georges Bank.
In this instance, the democratic process has worked. Nova Scotians have affected the legislative process. It is my pleasure to tell the House that Liberals support the speedy passage of Bill C-75.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular Bill. It is an area with respect to which I am not particularly well informed. However, there is a principle here which needs to be considered.
I have often wondered why it is that we think that all our non-renewable resources have to be spent as quickly as possible. That idea is the position that has been taken by much of the world's oil industry. It has been taken all over the world and, to a great extent, it has been supported by Governments around the world. In this case, the interest of companies in the Georges Bank and the development of the industry in that area ended up in a rather bitter fight between the oil exploiters and the fishermen of Georges Bank. It is good to know that in this particular situation a good look was taken at the responsibilities and the needs of both groups.
A moratorium is being imposed which gives both groups the opportunity to assure themselves that one will not hurt the other in any way when, sometime in the future, there is the possibility of development of the industry on Georges Bank. There are several attractive features in the plan which are being developed in this particular Bill by the Minister. These are positions which might be models for the future.
July 7, 1988

The previous Liberal Government took a similar type of approach in looking at the Mackenzie Valley as a source of gas and a pipeline which would have traversed all of Canada. It ended up making a recommendation, and following the recommendation which put that particular pipeline on hold. As it happens, the events have caught up to the pipeline. It now seems much less of an economic requirement. This might happen in the case of the Georges Bank as well.
The Bill establishes a model which might be used in the future with respect to the development of other resources and other conflicts that arise between industries. It is refreshing, and 1 must say unusual, to have the will of the people override the desire of large corporations to make more money. That is exactly what this particular Bill is dealing with, the desire of the industry to exploit the gas on Georges Bank, and it is against that group of people who think that perhaps it is not worth doing so. There are other examples of the use of resources to increase the value and the standard of living of part of the population. In some cases, that type of use of resources becomes worth-while. In other cases, development of resources can go in the opposite direction and do more harm to the population than good.
For example, in the development of its North Sea oil, Norway decided that the speed of development should be at the requirement of the country rather than at the requirement of the oil industry. Norway set a timetable which allowed the development to the extent that it did make for a real change in the life structure of Norwegians. Norway used the benefits from those resources to improve the lifestyle of Norwegians without a boom structure. The significance of that type of approach is very important, and it needs to be looked at and perhaps it can become a model for resource development or other industrial development in certain areas.
The previous speaker indicated that not only has it helped in giving opportunities to the fishermen and the people of Nova Scotia to decide on the direction of their lives and the type of lifestyle they want to live, but it served as an example to the United States. I have here a letter from possibly the next President of the United States, Michael Dukakis. He wrote to his Department of the Interior telling them that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was extremely pleased that Canada was doing what it was doing, and suggesting that the United States take similar action in ensuring that the banks were not disturbed without knowing exactly what the effects would be.
It is refreshing to note that all political Parties here, and the two Parties in Nova Scotia, backed the idea and the Bill. I must express concern on the part of the fishermen that, although they appreciate the 12-year moratorium and the panel being put in place, they have a concern that at some time at the end of the moratorium drilling might start with the support and blessing of both Governments without an investigation into its effect.
We in the New Democratic Party also support the passage of this Bill right now.
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I take great pride and pleasure in saying a few words on this most tremendous achievement for the people of Nova Scotia, particularly the people of the western part of Nova Scotia which includes the south shore and South West Nova. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), referred to the fact that it affected some 6,000 fishermen in Nova Scotia. It affects the 6,000 fishermen plus all the fish plant workers who depend on the products of Georges Banks, the lucrative scallops, the groundfish, and the lobsters that are caught in that area. There are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of landed fish values from that area taken on shore every year. Therefore, it affects thousands and thousands of people, for example, fish plant workers, cab drivers, and all the people who are directly and indirectly associated and dependent on the fishery.
It affects a great number of communities that I represent that have depended on the fishery for hundreds of years. In most of those communities fishing is all that they know, communities such as Argyle, Yarmouth, and Digby, and communities that I do not represent on the south shore such as Lunenburg, Shelburne, and Lockeport. All of those people can now rest assured that there will be no activity on Georges Banks involving drilling. After this Bill is passed those people will have a good nights sleep.
I wish to say a heartfelt thank you to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) who had his ears tugged both ways. On the one hand fishermen and people like myself were approaching the Minister and stating that we do not want this to happen, and on the other hand the oil companies from the West indicated that they wanted to do some drilling on Georges Banks. The Minister had a difficult choice to make. There were no studies available that specifically stated that there should be no drilling. The Minister decided to do what was right. He went to southwestern Nova Scotia and communities such as Pubnico and Yarmouth. He met with the fishermen, and he met with people who depend on the fishery. He walked the streets of Pubnico and Yarmouth and talked to individual citizens and asked: "Should we drill on Georges Bank?" He received a resounding answer.
The point I am attempting to make is that the Minister decided not to listen to the people around him. He spoke to the people of the area. That is what is important. The NDP, the socialist Party, thinks that it has a monopoly on the concerns of people. That is not the case. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which now forms the Government is as concerned, and in some cases more so, because it actually takes concrete measures to go and meet with the people, and we are seeing the results. We are seeing the results of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was courageous and went against what would normally be called "the flow of things", and what would normally be called "the big company interest". He went with the people. The Minister showed leadership, and I certainly appreciate that leadership.

July 7, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the previous Government's unilateral strategy of imposing a National Energy Program on the people of the West. I wish to remind my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon), that the National Energy Program did much harm to his home province. Would he not feel the same way if people from Ottawa had gone to southwestern Nova Scotia and imposed a decision which they did not accept?
I wish to remind my colleagues from the West that sometimes the people of Atlantic Canada want to be a part of the decision-making process. The people of southwestern Nova Scotia have a great debt of thanks and appreciation to give to the Minister. On their behalf I wish to extend my full appreciation to the Minister and to his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, for having brought in this very significant and positive piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-121, an Act to	authorize	the reorganization	and	divestiture	of
Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for Bill C-121, an Act to	authorize	the reorganization	and	divestiture	of
Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, standing in the name for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Motions Nos. 1 and 2 cause the Chair some difficulty procedurally.

The Bill and, more specifically, Clause 5 are concerned only with shares and voting securities of Eldorado Nuclear and not with other matters related to Eldorado Nuclear's operations. Therefore, although these proposed motions in amendment may be of utmost importance I must regretfully rule that, procedurally, they are inadmissible in that they go beyond the scope of the Bill.

Motion No. 3 is acceptable and will now be put to the House. It is in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.
Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) to move the motion on behalf of the Member from Winnipeg North?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-12I be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at
page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"17. All sections shall come into force five years following proclamation by
Governor in Council."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion sets the date for coming into force of this legislation five years after proclamation. That, perhaps, is not too surprising because we in the New Democratic Party feel that a lot in this Bill is not the kind of development that should occur. Our preference would be not to pass the Bill at all. We would prefer that Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Corporation remain in public ownership rather than becoming a private corporation. There are good reasons for that preference. First, the corporation has not come to a satisfactory agreement with the workers regarding their pensions and other benefits. That in itself is a good reason to hold off the effect of this Bill.
As a resident of Saskatchewan I am against this Bill because Saskatchewan got a very bad deal by accepting a tremendous amount of debt and gave away part of the company that was worthwhile having. The economic benefits are being passed on to the private corporation. The direct benefits for sales, particularly in the case of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, are being lost to the public.
There are many reasons that we should not be doing what is being suggested in this Bill. There is a need in dealing particularly with uranium to establish standards for occupational health and safety for the workers. Those standards are much more likely to be established at a high level if the corporations remain in the public domain for at least another five years.
When the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation was established and when the uranium industry developed in Saskatchewan, two large corporations along with the Government went into the development of uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan. The Government kept the major portion of shares in those cases. When the surface rights were signed for those corporations there was a requirement that at least 50 per cent of the workers had to be native northerners. A New Democratic Government and a Conservative Government in Saskatchewan made fair attempts to meet that requirement, but in 15 years or so that requirement has not been met. At the time there was much public policy input into how these corporations developed.
July 7, 1988

Because we are dealing with uranium, and I suppose this is true with almost any resource development, there is a real need to develop long-lasting and effective environmental protection structures. There are special problems associated with uranium mining. Control is more easily developed by public corporations than by private corporations. The bottom line is too important to the private corporation which has a tendency to cut as many environmental corners as it can. That is a standard approach which has been a problem in other resource development industries and other manufacturing concerns across the country.
We need to be involved with the industry to some extent. We need a window on the industry to give us some knowledge about what is happening, where uranium is being shipped, how it is being treated and whether it is becoming more of an environmental problem. These are some of the good reasons that we think that it would be much better if this legislation were not put into effect for another 5 years.
Summing up all these disadvantages, one sees a clear reason for putting the legislation off. In fact, one wonders why the Government persists with this Bill at all. It is not a good Bill for the people of Canada who are taking on the debt of Eldorado and it is not good for the people of Saskatchewan who are taking on the debt of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to the Government's legislation, which is to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
The reason we are in favour of a hoist on the proclamation of this legislation is that we believe that the Government has not really studied it. We believe that promises made by the former Minister of Privatization, the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), have not been kept. We believe that the native people of northern Saskatchewan are not adequately protected by this legislation.
I would like to spend most of my time speaking about the pension problem. In a statement earlier today, I pointed out that a promise made by the previous Minister of Privatization was that existing pension plans would be protected and would continue to exist. That promise has been broken by the corporation. In some briefings it gave to employees in the last couple of days, the new corporation has indicated that the status of the surplus in the pension plans will be distributed in such a way that the workers who are currently there will not have the same protection in the future as they have at this time.
The Minister made a direct promise in a press release. It was a direct promise that was again made by the company
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
when it appeared before the standing committee of this House. Even before this legislation was brought back to the House for consideration at report stage, the companies announced that they have a new plan, which means that those people who are already retired will be protected and the surplus will be used to help them, but those workers who remain with Eldorado will not be covered by cost-of-living increases in the future, as would have been the case before the privatization.
I believe that for the sake of honour, the Government which made this promise when it said it wanted to privatize this company should look into what has happened in the last couple of days. As I indicated earlier today, we will not allow this legislation to go to third reading tonight because we want the Government to take this opportunity to investigate what we consider to be very serious charges which we made in the House of Commons earlier today. At 2.15 p.m. today, we made the Government aware of that intention. We believe it would be extremely foolish for this House to pass this Bill at report stage and third reading at this time without investigating this matter.
Time after time, those workers have been told that their present plan would be protected. That issue came before the committee as well. Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North would have provided that any surplus in the pension plans of Eldorado and any subsidiary of Eldorado shall be used only for the benefit of current contributors and pensioners and their beneficiaries. We wanted in the legislation the protection that would ensure that that surplus would be used in such a way that those workers, past and present, would be protected.
The Speaker, in his good judgment, said that we could not introduce that motion because it went beyond the scope of the Government's Bill. It may be beyond the scope of the Government's Bill, and it may be technically out of order, but it does not go beyond the scope of the promise the Government made to those workers.
The use of surplus funds in pension plans is a very political issue in Canada. The employees, past and present, believe that they were promised that they would have the same protection now as they had before the effort to privatize Eldorado Nuclear. They believed that they had that assurance from the Minister. She said so in her press release, and she further stated it in a statement she sent to the employees.
This is an issue which deserves investigation. We cannot let this legislation pass until the Government has investigated this matter and assured the workers that that promise made by the Government will be kept.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has raised in the House. It is not a matter that is new to the House either.

July 7, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Several years ago, amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act were before the House. In those amendments, there was no mention at all of what would happen to surplus pension funds, more adequately and properly called excess earnings of a pension plan. For that very reason, I moved an amendment to the Pension Benefits Standards Act at that time which would have guaranteed that any excess earnings of pension plans would belong to the pension plans and that no employer had the unilateral right to claim those excess earnings as if they belonged to the employer.
The argument I made at that time, an argument which I think still holds true today, is that a pension plan, like any other benefit that an employee enjoys in an arrangement with an employer, belongs to that employee because it is deferred wages. It is deferred wages in the sense that a group of employees in a bargaining unit enter into negotiations with an employer for a collective agreement and there are certain elements in that collective agreement whereby the employees agree that rather than accept money on a weekly basis in the way of salary increases, they decide with the employer's agreement to defer some of that salary to pay for other benefits such as benefits paid under private pension plans.
That argument is one with which employers generally do not agree because they tend to view these excess earnings as a benefit that comes to them as a matter of right. That is an argument I reject, quite frankly.
Several years ago, one of the largest grabs that was ever made to a pension plan was made by Conrad Black in the Dominion Store employee case. This gave rise to a number of court cases. It was finally concluded about a year ago, I believe, that some if not all of that money did in fact belong to the employees, and Conrad Black was directed to pay those moneys back to the employees. That was done for the very same reasons that I argued here. Those moneys in the pension plan belong to the employee. They are deferred wages that the employee passed up in order to secure a benefit under the pension plan and therefore belong to them.
In this particular case, as I understand it, the employer is doing exactly the same. There are surplus funds in this pension plan and there has been absolutely no discussion and no attempt at negotiating with the union on behalf of the employees as to how those excess earnings should be used. Should they be used to increase benefits under the plan? Should they be used to provide another and different benefit to the employees? Nothing like that has gone on.
1 am sure that in the transition period there will be certain disruptions in the workforce. It would not surprise me at all to find that many members of that workforce with 25, 30 or 36 years of service may find themselves on a scrap heap, so to speak. They deserve better. While I make the key argument that surplus funds in any pension plan belong to the employees,
I would not be adverse to the employer sitting down with the
union and attempting to negotiate the disposition of those surplus funds. However, the option has to be there. The employer has absolutely no right at all to take those funds and use them in any way be wishes.
This is a very serious matter, and I agree with what the Hon. Member for Churchill said. This Party will not agree to third reading of this Bill tonight. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) gave assurances to those employees and their union that those surplus pension funds would be protected, therefore the Minister has some obligation to reassure those employees and the union that those funds will be used on behalf of the employees concerned. That must be done before we agree to third reading. That is the Government's obligation at the very minimum.
In addition, I think it is high time that we took another look at the Pension Benefits Standards Act and amended it to make it illegal for an employee to treat a pension plan in this manner. Both opposition Parties supported my amendment in the House to that effect, and it should have been done two years ago. If it had been, we would not be facing this problem today. Neither would these employees, many of whom have long service with the company and are entitled to much better treatment than they appear to be getting today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this amendment calling for a five-year delay in the coming into force of these provisions following proclamation.
As other Members have said, we would prefer that this privatization not take place at all. There are several good reasons for that, apart from the ones which have been spoken to such as pensions and protection of workers. Obviously, with the price of uranium today this is not a favourable time to be selling this company. To do so, the Government effectively has had to write off Eldorado's accumulated debt and excuse the corporation from anything but a very limited responsibility for the environmental clean-up. That is a very important issue and it should be studied and addressed more carefully over the five-year period that we are asking for in the amendment.
The environmental issues surrounding such industries as this one are extremely serious. We have just heard the results of the conferences held on the environment and the consequences of inadequate environmental protection. No longer, as we so clearly know, can one industry assume that the effect it has on the environment will not have important consequences, not only on local areas or a country but globally as well. Therefore, this issue really does require extended study.
Another area that I would particularly like to address is that of benefits to certain targeted groups. One thing that has been done, as a Member outlined previously, was an attempt to ensure that northerners and native people have access to these jobs. While it had not been accomplished totally, it was at least a principle that this Crown corporation was attempting to
July 7, 1988

implement. 1 think it is clear to all of us that a Crown corporation can have somewhat more latitude in this area and should indeed operate not only with the principle of making a profit but also ensuring that the objectives of its policies, both economic and labour, are in the interests of the workers and the country in general. Certainly making a profit is important, but management should have as one of its principles the taking into account of these other factors.
We have the example of other industries. The limestone project in Manitoba is one where local employment has proven to be extremely effective. Local workers have been hired. We have concerns about this in my own riding where we see the impending sale of the Northwest Telephone Corporation. We are attempting to ensure that the 400 NTC jobs which currently exist in Whitehorse will remain. While that number of jobs in a large urban area may not be a serious consideration, certainly in the smaller areas where mines such as that of Eldorado Nuclear are located there is a need to ensure that workers have either the ability to be retrained or they have an opportunity to participate in the workforce.
Certainly this issue was raised by several groups when they appeared before the committee. The steelworkers, for example, raised some particular concerns when they said, "We have learned the hard way to be wary of mergers. In this case we have received half-hearted assurances that there will be no job loss as a result of the merger. Our members deserve more. They deserve an ironclad commitment that there will be no lay-offs as a result of the merger".
The steelworkers' proposal was that the new company employ a minimum number of jobs at each local, making allowances for the fact that obviously uranium mining is a cyclical business. This proposal for a five-year delay in implementation would allow for the kind of adjustment that may be necessary and would take into account the cyclical nature of non-renewable resource development.
It does seem, however, that the major privatizations tend to favour management rather than the interests of workers. Management no longer has to meet the objectives of a Crown corporation or even set an example in health and safety conditions which are particularly important and necessary in an industry such as this one. As I mentioned earlier, over the five-year period there could be much greater study on both health and safety standards for employees and environmental consequences.
In this particular industry and others similar to it there is often very high unemployment. We have already addressed the commitment of the Government of Saskatchewan, which in its focus on developing non-renewable resources in northern Saskatchewan really attempted to develop a model for the integration of aboriginal people and other people living in those more remote areas. As we have seen by that example, it does require a commitment and a plan. The circumstances
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
which led to the Saskatchewan policy were clearly well planned out and well thought out.
The proposed amendment would allow time to deal with these important issues which have long-term consequences for the workers, the environment, and the industry.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on this very important amendment before the House tonight. I hope the Government will be inclined to support it. The people of Canada deserve a chance to comment on this proposition in a federal election. The proposal to unload at a fire sale price into the private sector the uranium industry in Canada makes very little sense from the point of view of most Canadians. They should certainly have the opportunity in an election to comment on the Government's performance and this proposition.
The Government is proposing to, for some $250 million, sell off the assets of the merger between Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and then assume $600 million in debt. To any reasonable taxpayer this must be viewed as a red hot deal, except that the taxpayer is being stung.
Second, a massive clean-up of some 880 million cubic yards of material will have to be dealt with by the taxpayers at an estimated cost of between $250 million and $660 million. If we take the worst case scenario and add the $600 million in cleanup costs to the $600 million in debt which the taxpayers will assume, the taxpayers will be $1 billion in the hole. I, as a taxpayer, would certainly want to comment on this proposition in the next federal election.
Of course, the question is why the Conservative Government of Canada would want to do such a thing. The only apparent reason is a philosophical fixation that nothing in the public sector is any good, a philosophical fixation of the Conservative Party, which is truly a contradiction when it comes right down to it, that the Government is bad. They have spent a period of time since September of 1984 proving to the Canadian people how bad a Government can be. There has been a litany of catastrophes from that date forward.
The one before us tonight, wherein the Government is proposing that the assets of the corporation be sold off and its debt and liabilities be assumed by the taxpayers, makes no economic sense. I guess the Government would prefer to act in a manner which is consistent with the philosophy that this Government is bad and go ahead with it. It is, however, my hope that the Government will adopt the amendment before the House tonight.
Another reason that we should wait for the period of time suggested in this amendment is that there will have to be a major clean-up and the technology and the mechanism for carrying out that clean-up have not been worked out. With regard to making nuclear waste safe, some time should be taken and this property should be held intact by the Government until such a decision has been made.

July 7, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Another aspect for consideration is that there is a substantia! amount of money in the workers' pension fund which we suspect will be raided by the company. This legislation should definitely offer an opportunity to protect those funds for the workers.
The fourth aspect is that the uranium market is extremely depressed. The prospects of that market improving over the next five years are pretty remote. There is talk of uranium being depressed under $20 a pound. If it remains at that price over the next five years, there will be some serious difficulties in the economics of that company.
Undoubtedly in future the people of Canada will have to make a contribution to the survival of this industry if they wish to continue with it. The taxpayers will pay again, thanks to the Conservative Government. That payment will be made to individuals in the private sector rather than toward maintaining a public corporation.
It is surprising that the New Democratic Party is the only group in the House tonight that will take a position to try to defend the workers in this industry, to try to protect the pension plan of those workers. The New Democratic Party is the only organization in the House speaking out on the issue of nuclear safety. Tonight we are speaking on the rotten economics of this proposal put forward by the Conservative Government. It is surprising that other members of the Opposition are not attempting to defend the Canadian people against such an outrageous proposal.
The five-year amendment makes a lot of sense. If that amendment were in place, the first thing that would happen is an election. The outcome of that election is clear in the minds of most Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada will not form the next Government. I hear the odd snicker and sounds of regret around me in the House. This is truly false bravado. It is very difficult for someone facing annihilation to be able to admit the faultiness of his or her ways, even in the eleventh hour.
To reflect on Canadian history, the time of the depression was very similar to the eleventh hour of this Government. At that time another famous Canadian Conservative, R. B. Bennett, led the country down the drain. In the eleventh hour he recognized the wrong-headedness of his approach and attempted to change it all.
Unfortunately, I do not think Members opposite would recognize the merits of the proposition in that amendment which would provide Canadians with a safety valve. Perhaps other Members who are coming into the House will rise to speak in support of this common sense proposal for a delay of five years before this legislation becomes law. Canadians need more time to consider this. I urge the House to support this very reasonable approach.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that has been accepted by the Chair would defer the proclamation of the Bill for the privatization of Eldorado. There are other issues that we had hoped to address with our amendments but which have not been accepted by the Chair.
It seems that Eldorado did not realize the Bill had not been passed because in the last couple of days it has submitted a radical change in the pension plan of Eldorado employees, which at the very least is not in good faith in terms of commitments that were made by the company during the course of the discussions on privatization.
The Minister of State for Privatization indicated: "I can confirm that pensions are protected by this agreement". She said in her press release that existing pension and benefit plans would be adopted by the new company.
I am not sure what kind of games are being played, but the existing company, before being privatized and merged with the Saskatchewan company, is changing the pension plan radically. I cannot give all the details because we are only just absorbing them ourselves, but the detailed information which has been sent to the workers in the last few days gives them next to no time to analyse what will happen and judge whether or not Eldorado's proposals make sense.
It appears that in order to sweeten the deal as far as Eldorado's sale is concerned, the company will be allowed to strip $12 million in surplus from the existing pension plan. It is called a residual surplus. The successor company will be allowed to use that residual surplus to offset employee and employer contributions for approximately four or five years.
If I understand that correctly, it means there is a substantial sweetener which reduces the cost of acquisition of Eldorado when it moves into the private sector. My colleagues have already mentioned that this is not a good deal, at least for the taxpayers of Canada. In return for getting about $250 million, we are absorbing some $600 million in debt plus taking on the obligation for clean-up in Port Hope, which could cost another $200 million to $600 million.
The workers in the Eldorado properties in many cases are longstay employees who made a commitment to the company. They have been there for some 20 to 30 years and had been relying on an indexed pension. That was one of the benefits and one of the reasons they stayed with the company. Now, instead, they are being offered a number of different options.
I must confess that the information here would probably be Greek to an average pension consultant. It is certainly difficult for a worker in Saskatchewan or a worker in Port Hope to grasp easily. The workers are being told that they have an important initial decision to make about either a deferred pension option or an improved benefit entitlement option. In either case, they are becoming members of the new money purchased pension plan. The only option is how they dispose of their existing rights under the plan that have accrued in the last several years.
July 7, 1988

This has not been done with the consent of the workers. While the workers pay half the cost, the decisions are made entirely by the management of Eldorado. One commitment that was made was that the workers would be protected in retirement if there were serious inflation. Now they will get a money purchase plan. The company states: "When you retire, the money accumulated in your account is used to purchase a life annuity, a contract that guarantees that you will receive a regular monthly pension based on the amount of money in your account and the interest rates in effective when you retire".
This means that the pension of those workers on this new pension plan could be worth half as much as they expect, if interest rates happen to be low. If they strike it lucky, or the Bank of Canada squeezes the economy dry and interest rates become particularly high, perhaps they will do better and have a pension that is greater than they anticipated. However, that is not the kind of security people look to. When people retire, they do not want to play a speculative game of chance with their monthly pension. They want to know what their pension will be.
Furthermore, when the workers retire at age 60 or 65, hopefully their health will not be too badly eroded from the industrial pollution at Eldorado. Today, people can expect to live from 12 to 25 years after retiring at age 60 to 65. Even if inflation is at 4 per cent or 5 per cent, the value of the pension without indexing drops to half its purchasing power every 15 years. This means that the worker who retires at age 60 will see his pension halved in value at age 75. While their expenses for care, nursing, and so on will go up, the value of the pension will continue to drop if this money benefit plan is not changed.
In its haste to privatize Eldorado, the Government has broken faith with the workers of Eldorado. Perhaps the workers at Eldorado should have known, but the Conservatives have broken their promises on indexed pensions. The Conservatives, who have broken promise after promise to the Canadian people in the last five years, are breaking another promise.
The Minister of State for Privatization said that existing pension and benefit plans would be adopted by the new company. The new company has not even been formed, and the existing company is changing radically the kind of pension benefit plans that those workers had. Shame on the Government; shame on the Government for that kind of treatment to workers who have given their lives to this company. That is the kind of shoddy treatment people have come to expect from the Progressive Conservative Government.
In the course of the next election, the credibility of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Government will be first and foremost among the issues facing the Canadian people. They will want to know whether they can get a Government that has integrity and is honest and fair.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
The few hundred workers at Eldorado who are affected, many other workers, and other people know that the Government can be judged on its treatment of the workers at Eldorado as much as it can be judged on its treatment of other people, such as the old age pensioners who were subjected to the threat of deindexed pensions in 1985.
I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised exactly the opposite in the 1984 election campaign. He has eroded and degraded political promises to the point where a Small Claims Court Judge in Kitchener warned the public not to believe anything they hear from politicians. 1 must say that is unfair to the New Democratic Party. We keep our promises. The Progressive Conservatives have systematically broken their promises one after another. They cannot be trusted and in this Eldorado case, when they took away pension protection from the Eldorado workers in the course of privatizing the company, it once again demonstrated that this is not a Government which can be trusted.
Mir. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I listened with close attention to the comments of the Member of the socialist Party on Motion No. 3, the purpose of which is to defer the privatization of Eldorado Nuclear for five years. Firstly, the privatization of Eldorado Nuclear will be effected over a period of seven years. As far as privatization is concerned, the Bill itself stipulates that the privatization provisions will be applied over a period of seven years.
The policy of the New Democratic Party, as I understand it, is to make a decision today, but to apply it five years later. I would judge this to be a fairly unusual practice in management or administration.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the other Members of the socialist Party have also spoken on the importance of the employees' pension fund. They have said that the employees' pension fund was completely-that what was being done was disastrous.

With regard to the pension fund for the employees, Eldorado Resources Limited has sent special bulletins to the employees.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Could you explain it to them on the basis of that information?


Richard Grisé: They have the option to take the pension they have earned to date in the current pension plan, which will be paid to them on their retirement, or to take the value of their earned pension benefit under the pension plan and transfer this lump sum to the Eldorado money purchase pension plan. I could go on. They have had some organized meetings. They had meetings in Port Hope on July 7 and July 8, Blind River on July 14, and in Ottawa on July 18.

July 7, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
We listened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) but he never listens to anybody but himself. He is such a great Member. He won in 1984 by a very strong majority of 32 votes, but we know where he will be after the next election. The words from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre tonight are exactly the same as the ones he said about the privatization of de Havilland and Canadair. I listened to the western members of the New Democratic Party. They want to defend Saskatchewan.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about defending the workers?


Richard Grisé: How can you defend Saskatchewan? What happened with de Havilland? Was it bad for Toronto? What happened with Canadair? Was it bad for Montreal? Do you or do you not want something good for Saskatoon? The Member should go and tell the employees of Canadair and de Havilland that they have had a bad deal since they have been in the private sector.

Madam Speaker, once again it is quite clear that only ... and I want to congratulate the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) who supports privatization, and who earlier supported quite actively a bill concerning energy in Southern Nova Scotia. That is the type of Bill that will allow us to continue to help the Canadian economy and to obtain the assistance of the private sector; we have tangible evidence: take de Havilland, and Canadair, for instance. But of course, the socialist Party can only accept control by the state, by Shirley Carr, by Bob White.
Madam Speaker, they will only tolerate private enterprise in the Oshawa riding. For some strange reason, in the riding of Oshawa, private enterprise becomes acceptable, foreign investment becomes acceptable! But elsewhere in Canada, Madam Speaker, we are not to help private enterprise, everything must remain public to help the socialist Party progress.
Madam Speaker, this Government has put forth a valid privatization program that has provided exceptional results up till now, and we will continue to apply it; we will privatize Eldorado, we will privatize Air Canada, and people will have better service. Employees have better guaranties, there is more activity in private concerns, employees have better security, and we will continue our application of these programs.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be relatively brief. I have sat here tonight, on my duty night, in complete incredulity of the position of the New Democratic Party.
What does this motion mean? This motion means that the New Democratic Party is clearly against the Province of Saskatchewan. This Party has an opportunity to vote in favour of the establishment of the largest integrated uranium company in the world with headquarters in Saskatchewan. It
should be ashamed of itself. This will not be forgotten by the electorate of Saskatchewan in the next election. What do its members say? I will summarize their argument.
They want to postpone this for five years. That has the effect of killing the deal. They know it and we know it. We are not bumpkins out in Saskatchewan. We understand from where the New Democratic Party takes their orders. The union leadership tells them where to march and they march, ready, aye, ready, as soon as their union leadership-Shirley Carr and the group-tell them where to go. Let me just simply tell New Democratic Party Members that they are not going to fool the people of Saskatchewan in the next election.


Michael Morris Cassidy: With the barons of Bay Street-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am talking about promises. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is a man who makes promises. The man got up on behalf of the New Democratic Party and said: "Elect a New Democrat and we will move the frigates from New Brunswick to Montreal, ready, aye, ready". That is the New Democrats-ready, aye, ready when the union leadership speaks.
The people of Saskatchewan are not going to forget this. I am a great admirer of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) who wants to run in the riding of Saskatoon- Humboldt. What has he to say to the people of Saskatoon when they are awaiting the head office of this new gigantic corporation to be opened? It is an opportunity for value-added, for us to take our natural resources and develop them under the control of the people of Saskatchewan.
What are they going to say about a Member who comes into this House and tries to crush this Bill and bring to a halt this new development for Saskatchewan and things that we want to do out West? We want to develop our resources and have control over our resources in a way which is fair and equitable. They want to hoist this for five years because they are concerned about the pension plan. This Party believes that everything should be run by the Government. They believe that Crown corporations should be established for every conceivable operation in this society.
Members of that Party are telling us that because Eldorado is carrying on a Crown corporation function, and there is some concern with respect to pensions, we as a Government should move in and have a heavy hand and a political influence on Crown corporations. J. S. Woodsworth would roll over in his grave if he heard these people talking now. Imagine. It is a terrible insult they are paying to the concept of Crown corporations which are supposed to operate in the public interest without political interference. Now all the New Democrats, Shirley Carr, and union leaders should say: "Political interference. We want to control everything in society".
m
<5:

July 7, 1988

Air Canada
I will now sit down because I think I have made my point. The New Democratic Party is against Saskatchewan. It is against the interests of the people of that province. Shame on them. This will be remembered.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), I have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the Members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are 10 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for 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. I am now ready to make my ruling concerning the grouping for debate and voting.

The amendment contained in Motion No. 1 having been adopted by the legislative committee, the motion therefore will not be put to the House.

Motions Nos. 2 and 7 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 3 and 5 are in order. They will be debated together but voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4 and 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) provide the Chair with some difficulty. That part of Motion No. 4 which attempts to insert a new paragraph (f) and Motion No. 6 may appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill, in that the Bill envisages the issuance and sale of shares of Air Canada to the public but does not delve into matters of what Air Canada itself may do with its shares, nor with what matters Air Canada should be required to maintain in the future. However, after careful consideration I have decided to give the Hon. Members the benefit of the doubt and allow the motions to be put. They will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 8 and 9 are in order. They will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North attempts to amend the title of the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Beauchesne's Citation 780 states that the title may be amended if the Bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the Bill has been or, even if all the proposed amendments were adopted, will be amended in such a manner as to warrant a change to its title. Therefore, I will not put this motion in amendment to the House.

The House will now consider Motions Nos. 2 and 7. [English]


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I rise on debate on Motions Nos. 2 and 7. I regret your decision, although I accept it, not to allow Motion No. 10 to be considered. That was the motion which seeks to change the title of the Bill to the Canadian Public Ownership Termination Act. I felt that was particularly apt-

July 7, 1988
Air Canada


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If I may, I now realize that the Hon. Member is on debate. It would be proper for me to put the motions to the House.
Both motions stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North who is not in the House. Therefore I need unanimous consent for the motions to be moved by another Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I have an indication from the New Democratic Party as to who will move the motions?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I will, Madam Speaker.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-I29 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 27 at page 3
and substituting the following therefor:
"those votes to not more than five".
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 18 at page 7
and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of the Corporation up to a maximum of forty-five per cent of voting
shares."
He said: Madam Speaker, these two amendments which have been grouped go to the heart of the Bill. The first amendment is designed to limit foreign ownership in Air Canada shares to 5 per cent of the voting shares instead of the 25 per cent which is being permitted in the proposal put forward by the Government.
The second amendment which is contained in Motion No. 7 asks for, in effect, a limitation of the number of shares which the Minister can sell or dispose of to 45 per cent. The reason for this amendment, if I can begin with it, is very simply that we are trying to keep the Government to its promises, even if only partly to its promises.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself, after meeting with the president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, back in January, 1985, gave assurances that Air Canada was not and is not for sale. In order to try to keep the Prime Minister from appearing to have failed to have spoken the truth, the Government decided to sell only 45 per cent of Air Canada, a decision which seems to me probably gives us the worst of both worlds. Madam Speaker, may we have order in the House, please?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Government then decided that government shares would not be voted, but that effectively the owners of the 45 per cent of the shares that were to be sold to the public would be able to dictate the future of Air Canada, and there would be no voice at all for the 55 per cent of the shares left in public hands. On top of that, the Government designed a Bill which does not embody the 45 per cent pledge. Madam
Speaker, with respect, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) insists on wishing to have the floor. I am not sure if the rules would give him the floor, but I would suggest that order be called again, or the Members who wish to have conversations take them somewhere else.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. There are many conversations going on, and it makes it very difficult for the Chair to hear the Hon. Member who has the floor. I know that it is getting late, but the Chair would appreciate a little more discipline in the House, if at all possible. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: I did not necessarily expect to have the full attention of members of the Government, but I was finding that your attention was becoming distracted, Madam Speaker, by these other conversations. As a matter of fact, I will speak to some of my friends from Quebec.
[ Translation]
I will speak to my friends of Quebec who are colleagues but belong to the Progressive Conservative Party. They supported the Bill which is aimed at selling 45 per cent of Air Canada shares but which will lead to total loss of control over the company because the shares held by the Government will not be votable shares, nor will they impart any sense of direction at all.
Madam Speaker, the proposition here was to make sure that at least the Government would not be allowed to sell off the whole company, that the sale would be restricted to 45 per cent of the shares. The oral promises of this Government inspire precious little confidence because they have so often been broken.
Madam Speaker, the credibility of the Government is on the line. Therefore we need legislation to make sure that if the Government says that no more than 45 per cent of the company is to be put on the block, then the sale of shares will indeed be limited to 45 per cent.

I would also point out that there is a very real danger that the control or the direction of the company will be taken by an American airline which will decide that Air Canada will become a junior version of Air America. There will be bases and maintenance in Canada and some type of head office operation in Montreal, but if 25 per cent of the ownership is allowed to fall into the hands of foreign owners, what is to stop a foreign airline from integrating Air Canada's operations with its American operations to the point where Montreal becomes a weigh station on a hub and spoke organization of air routes around Syracuse, New York, rather than around Montreal and Toronto; where Minneapolis or Denver become a spoke rather than Calgary or Edmonton? This is the type of thing that I fear we may see with the allowance of foreign ownership up to the level of 25 per cent.
July 7, 1988

Yesterday we saw the sell-out of the country by the Government in the free trade agreement that the Prime Minister struck with his good friend, Ronald Reagan. I note with interest that the last good friend of the Prime Minister's good friend, Edwin Meese, has resigned under yet another cloud of scandal and-


Richard Grisé: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is straying far off the motion under consideration which has to do with the privatization of Air Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Considering the danger that Air Canada may be Americanized because the Government's Bill provides that 25 per cent of Air Canada shares may be acquired by Americans, our amendment to Motion No. 2 sets a 5 per cent limit on the maximum number of shares which may be bought by foreigners and non-Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I am moving that specific amendment because this Government puts more faith in President Reagan and in all the Washington Republicans, it puts more faith in those people than in the men and women of Canada.
We New Democrats believe that Air Canada must remain under full Canadian control. It is a good company which has been providing outstanding service in this country for 50 years. As we see it, there was no need to privatize, particularly such inefficient privatization in terms of-we are not talking about a cat or a mouse-owing to the fact that only 45 per cent of the shares will remain in the private sector but that full control will be in the private sector.
What is the point of the Government hanging on to 55 per cent of Air Canada if it does not have the kind of managing authority which under normal circumstances any owner of 55 per cent of the shares of a company would have?

Those are some of the concerns that we were trying to address with this particular amendment. We want to take the Government at its word and ensure that, if the Government is not selling more than 45 per cent of the shares, there is a legislative assurance that the people of Canada will retain majority control. We as a Government would be prepared to use that majority control when we become the Government, which I hope will be in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would say to my friends and erstwhile colleagues from the Progressive Conservative ranks, "look to
Air Canada
your seat-mate because one of the two of you will not be in the House of Commons after the next election".


An Hon. Member:: You won't be around.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I will be around, Madam Speaker. I undertake that Ottawa Centre will remain as a New Democratic seat, and I will stay there. The Liberal Party is so anxious that it has put two candidates up against me and it can only run one. It does not realize the old rule of politics.
I would also point out that the partial privatization, as its called for-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for London Middlesex (Mr. Clifford) on a point of order.


Mr. Clifford:: It is very clear that the privatization of Air Canada is something on which the Government has acted very wisely and the people of Canada and, most important, the employees of the firm want. I wish the Hon. Member would stick to that particular argument.


Michael Morris Cassidy: No one in the House, Madam Speaker, not even I, could recognize the intervention of the Hon. Member as a point of order.
Apart from the airline pilots, the unions at Air Canada representing the workers have not supported privatization. In fact, they have opposed the privatization. The only group that is for privatization is those workers whose average incomes are two or three times that of any other group of workers in Air Canada. They are entitled to their views. I believe that they should look at the situation of the sale and deregulation of airlines in the United States. In the airline industry it was thought that this might be a benefit to the employees. In fact, there have been sharp cut-backs in salaries and working conditions for the workers. Many workers have been laid off. Some of those airlines which have been around for 40 or 50 years have been merged and have now disappeared.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Are you talking about Air Canada?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am talking about the airlines that have gone through the process of deregulation in the United States.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Let's talk about Air Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would point out that the same thing that happened to the airlines in the United States is what is liable to happen to Air Canada. The two British airlines now merged have together lost almost half of their workforce. I do not think the employees of Air Canada would like to see a sharp drop in jobs and job security or a reduction from jobs that currently are decent jobs to jobs that pay $7 or $8 an hour. The Conservatives may think that this country can prosper when every worker in the airline industry is paid $7 or $8 an hour. Workers at that salary level cannot buy goods and services. We are going to take our country down with this kind of proposal.

July 7, 1988
Air Canada


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) on a point of order.


Mr. Ferland:: Madam Speaker, I feel the NDP Member is pushing a bit too far this evening, and shows no respect for Air Canada workers.
Air Canada workers clearly stated they supported privatizing Air Canada, they were all for becoming owners.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. That was not a point of order. That was debate. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to enter into it later on if he so wishes.
The Hon. Member's time has expired.
I now recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Hudon).


Mr. Hudon:: Madam Speaker, I would invite the Hon. Member opposite to join his group outside, those who oppose free trade, who walk around with small umbrellas, small Chinese shoes, woollen socks, who oppose-
I am beginning to understand why last month Madam Speaker-this was one of the few Bills I kept for my election campaign-when an Hon. Member proposed to enshrine property rights into the Canadian Constitution, they all voted against that. They will have to explain that at some point in time, because that is what they are afraid of.
Those people are strict supporters of nationalizing almost everything. When he suggested earlier that private sector corporations, former Crown corporations that are now in the private sector, were thriving corporations, it is because they were feeding on Government money. They were feeding strictly on Government money, and today Air Canada as you very well know has come to a crossroads, because if it is to expand, it will need huge investments that will have to come from Canadians. That will belong to Canadians. But they absolutely oppose all private ownership. Very soon, we will have to ask them if they feel that even bank accounts or what-have-you should belong to the State.
Madam Speaker, those were recorded votes and all NDP Members who will run under that banner in Quebec will come and explain that to Quebecers. I will write articles on that, I will fight my election campaign on that. Common property belongs to all. They are here strictly to undermine other people's credibility, Madam Speaker.
There is a lockout in my constituency, at the Expro Company. For some four months an NDP backbencher has been simply destroying the credibility of that company, because they want it to belong to workers in order to do the same "ruddy" business. They are destroying-


Michael Morris Cassidy: And rightly so!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Go and ask workers at the Expro Company tomorrow morning if they are ready for the NDP diversification plan. No way! They won't have any part of it. They are going to vote now to go back to work because a settlement is underway, and don't worry, you won't have them on your side. Because you have been undermining and wasting their livelihood day after day, without proving to the Secretary of State any of the allegations.
But you, because you speak in the House of Commons, you assume nobody is listening. In the end they will know what is being said in the House of Commons. They are not idiots. Expro workers are not idiots. Canadians and Quebecers who support private ownership are not idiots either.
Go and join your small Chinese shoe wearers opposite! Go out and shout for an election! We are ready to fight an election campaign on free trade.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on Motions Nos. 2 and 7.
With respect to Motion No. 7, let me point out that I can see the merit in the motion put forward by the Member from Winnipeg. In the announcement of the privatization of Air Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that only 45 per cent of the shares would be sold. This was trumpeted as being a headline item in the Government's announcement, yet we see nothing about it in the Bill. The Government is being somewhat hypocritical by saying in its announcement of Air Canada's privatization that only 45 per cent of the shares would be sold while in the Bill, which is the governing vehicle for the actual privatization, there is nothing mentioning that all.
With respect to Motion No. 2, the motion is not exactly as stated by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The amendment as put forward does not actually refer to the percentage of shares to be held by non-residents. That is in another subclause of the same section. The amendment mentions when the voting takes place and how many nonresident votes will actually be counted.
I can sympathize with the position taken by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. However, our Party feels a definite obligation to the Government in one particular way. The Government did not include any provision in this Bill originally to indicate when the votes take place at annual meetings of the corporation how many non-resident votes will actually be counted.
The situation is that 25 per cent of non-government votes of Air Canada could be held by non-residents. The problem is that at an annual meeting the 25 per cent held by nonresidents could be 50 per cent or more of the actual votes that would be cast at the annual meeting.
July 7, 1988

My amendment to the Bill in Motion No. 1 provides that at the annual meeting of the corporation no more than 25 per cent of the votes actually counted would be non-resident votes. This means that at the most only one-quarter of the votes counted at an annual meeting can be votes of non-Canadians. It prevents non-residents actually winning the day at the meeting. Because the Government agreed to that motion, I feel we are honour bound to go along with it. We feel it may not have been the best provision but it is one the Government accepted. It is somewhat in keeping with the provision in Bill C-121, and it is much better than not having the motion at all.
In that regard we feel the Bill has been improved considerably. Therefore, we are not going to ask for a further amendment.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the debate has certainly taken an interesting turn tonight. Before we head out we should recognize that Air Canada is one of the finest airlines in the world, one of the safest, and one of the best to fly. It is a source of enormous pride to Canadians. That probably resulted in the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that Air Canada was not for sale. It is certainly with regret that I as a Canadian and other people now find that it is on the block. Air Canada is on the block in a very difficult way, in a way that many people do not understand. There is an option for Americans to purchase it as well as other non-residents.
There is quite a long history to privatization of Air Canada. When the previous Government was in power, a committee studied the deregulation process in which the privatization of Air Canada came up and was quite widely supported by that Government. Things have now come full circle. The present Government now intends to sell Air Canada. In my opinion this Bill should have been called "an Act to make Max Ward happy" or "an Act to make PWA happy".
Throughout the history of the discussion of the privatization of Air Canada it is key that no other airline can operate effectively in this country unless it hobbles Air Canada. It is such a powerful, effective competitor in the market-place that it dominates the airline business in this country. People who have been here for a number of Parliaments have heard airlines protest that they must hobble Air Canada to get a fair share of the market. The sale of the shares is a very disturbing item and that is what this amendment comes to. This very prestigious airline was built by the people of Canada and operated on behalf of the people of Canada. It is internationally recognized as a tremendous airline. This airline is now up for sale. Instead of being held by all Canadians, it will be held by a small number of Canadians. In fact, a majority of the actual controlling shares could be held by Americans, and that is extremely disturbing. It does not make any sense.
I would urge the Government to reconsider its position. What is the point of selling those shares in the United States market and jeopardizing the control of that airline? This must be stopped.
Air Canada
The other irrational aspect of this sale is that 45 per cent of the shareholders, not the 55 per cent owned by the people of Canada, could wind up being very closely held shares. Those closely held shares could in fact control the company. I wonder what would happen if others who have interests in other airlines in Canada were to purchase substantial blocks of those shares. Again, that would make a very interesting proposition that has to be considered.
What is the state of Air Canada? Air Canada is a very large airline. It has a great mix of airplanes. Canadian Airlines International rationalized its fleet into DC-lOs, 737s, and a new 767. However, Air Canada will likely have to cut back on airplanes. It will likely have to rationalize its equipment and downgrade it so that it can reduce its enormous stock and its costly overhead and training programs.
Of course, the end result of that in private hands will be an enormous loss of jobs. That will happen, whether it will mean fewer people in the cockpit or fewer people doing maintenance on a limited variety of aircraft. Indeed, this will become a very lean airline. It only makes sense that if it is cut free in the private sector in a deregulated environment, a lot of people will lose their jobs. That is the reality of the structure of the airline.
What is the market in which the shares will be held? Air Canada will be competing in the private sector against two other major airlines as well as many regional airlines. It will have trouble selling the shares. The employees may want to buy them, but look at the stability of the situation in which they will be buying them. This Parliament will change and it will be a very different Parliament after the next election if we read the trend of the polls correctly. I suspect that there will be a majority of Members in the House who will want Air Canada held as a national carrier. The people who are buying shares in that kind of environment will be very concerned about the stability of the shares.
Market conditions for airlines change. The fluctuation in the number of people flying is enormous. As interest rates go up, profits will be eroded. Airline travel will drop and there will be fewer people flying, fewer profits, and a great deal of uncertainty. Those shares will be likely to drop substantially in value when they hit the market.
Another area of concern is the directorship of Air Canada. I personally believe that this Government has hobbled the Board of Directors of Air Canada and has limited its ability to function rationally in the airline market-place. I think it has inflicted great harm on that company to date, and I along with other people certainly regret that.
Again, the prognosis is that the airline will cut its number of aircraft, it will cut its routes, it will cut its employees, and it will cut its inventory. Down the road, we will see a much smaller operation with a great number of people losing their jobs. Again, this airline will lose its position as Canada's national carrier, and it will lose its position and reputation in the world community.

July 7, 1988
Air Canada
The Bill before us tonight is downgrading a thing of great pride to Canada. It is turning a major public asset and utility into the hands of very few people, to the detriment of the transportation system of Canada and indeed to the detriment of Air Canada's reputation.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, Air Canada has served this country for over 50 years. It has been an extremely reputable airline, as the Hon. Member who spoke previously said, and it has certainly provided a standard in aviation services to which many of its competitors have aspired. More important, Air Canada has been a symbol of a public commitment to the provision of air service to a country which has a very diverse geography and through which air travel is extremely expensive and difficult. Air Canada certainly was the pioneer.
It is with sadness that I participate in this debate today. I do not think Air Canada should be privatized nor do I think any part of it should. This rather peculiar arrangement of having 45 per cent of the shares sold and 55 per cent held by the Government is not necessarily one which, in my view nor in the view of my Party, will serve the interests of Canadians.
The two motions before us now are obviously attempts to preserve some integrity in this Bill at least with regard to Air Canada's shares. The motions deal with the percentage of shares that can be held by non-residents, as well as with the percentage of shares to be disposed of in the public market.
On the matter of foreign ownership, it is extremely concerning that not only is this a move by the Government to privatize this airline but in fact it is a move to de-Canadianize it in a very specific way. It de-Canadianizes it by allowing the number of foreign-owned voting shares to be up to 25 per cent. This motion proposes that that figure should be reduced to 5 per cent to prevent the eventual takeover of Air Canada by non-residents.
The Government has indicated that 45 per cent of Air Canada's shares will be sold and that the remaining 55 per cent will be voted passively by the Government. In essence, the shareholders of the 45 per cent will dictate to the 55 per cent what will be done. The 25 per cent of foreign-owned or nonresident owned shares will be a part of that 45 per cent. Clearly, it is not in the interests of Canadians to have our national airline, the people's airline, controlled by foreign interests.
The 25 per cent limitation exists because, as I understand it, that is the limit the United States puts on foreign ownership of its airlines. However, the 5 per cent proposed in this amendment would be reasonable and would greatly improve upon this legislation, because it would ensure that we do not run the risks that were outlined in committee by Professor Fred Lazar, a transport economist at York University. He pointed out several areas of concern. Eventually, with the high percentage of non-resident ownership, we could see diversions of flights that might serve particular areas of Canada.
As we have seen with deregulation in the United States and as we are beginning to see in Canada, a diversion of services is often a diversion away from the less profitable areas, the more remote areas of Canada, those areas where air transport in some cases is essential or in some cases is the only mode of transportation. That would be the case for some of the far northern areas.
Those of us who live in more remote areas of Canada are very sensitive to the possibility of seeing the principle of serving the entire country including more remote locations undermined by having control taken away from the public sector and also by having potential control over the airline by non-residents who would obviously not have the interests of Canada-


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the Hon. Member knows, the Bill deals with the privatization of only 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada and 55 per cent will be retained by the Government. Therefore, the comments of the Hon. Member with respect to foreign ownership and control of Air Canada are completely out of order and irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would ask you to rule that the points being made by the Member are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In a Bill as
complex as this one a ruling on the question of relevancy is rather difficult. Many Members have spoken on different aspects of the Bill, and I am sure that if the Hon. Member wishes to enter debate and disagree with what an Hon. Member is saying, he can do that a bit later.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Clearly, Madam Speaker, what is being discussed here is the incremental aspect of a percentage of foreign ownership. The motion clearly suggests that this potential would be drastically reduced if the percentage were reduced to 5 per cent of the shares. That is the crux of the argument. I well understand, as I have already said, that it refers to the 45 per cent of the shares held by the public.
Another aspect of this Bill that I would like to comment on is Section 8 which leaves the percentage figure as it stands now entirely open. It could be 1 per cent or 50 per cent. The amendment would hold the Government and subsequent Governments to the promise that only 45 per cent of the shares would be sold. Of course we heard initially that Air Canada was not for sale. Now half of it is for sale or it will be partially privatized, but what is important about our amendment is that it simply confirms the statements the Government has already made. The 45 per cent would be specified in the legislation.
If the Government is going to control actively its 55 per cent as proposed and place its majority of directors on the board, then Air Canada's management will still have to respond to the public policy agenda I referred to earlier, which most Canadians want from a Canadian airline that serves all areas of the country. Unfortunately, I feel that under privatization we are going to lose that.
July 7, 1988

I think it is extremely important that this House think carefully about what is being done both in limiting the amount of foreign ownership, as Motion No. 2 proposes, and in specifying the 45 per cent public ownership in the Act as well. Therefore, I urge this House to support these very reasoned amendments.
I suppose for most of us they are second choice amendments because they are still directed to privatization. However, they would greatly enhance the Bill and ensure that at least some part of Canada's airline would remain under control of its people.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, one of the difficulties with duty night is that I have to sit and listen to representatives of the NDP. Do people understand what they are saying here tonight? The Liberals used to have a truth squad. Maybe they would like to reconstitute that organization to follow the NDP around. These people are giving out misinformation. When 1 am not on duty I can get up and shut off the television and do important work, but here I am on my duty night faced with a steady diet of these people telling us untruths.
Let me just set the record straight. What is this whole thing about foreign ownership? Let me understand what they are saying. Possibly we can get these people into a little seminar and bring in someone to explain the provisions of the Act. A maximum of 25 per cent can be foreign owned under privatization. Where is the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the transport critic for the NDP? I am sure he would bring this to their attention if he were in the House. Airlines in Canada must be controlled by Canadians.
What is the basis of this amendment? They talked about the idea that somehow this privatization poses some threat to our national airline. Quite the contrary. This privatization will ensure a stronger, more vital airline to serve all Canadians. This has nothing to do with whether it is owned by the Government or the people of Canada. We will still have the same strong airline.


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The truth somehow affects New Democrats in a very strange way.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Chair could instruct the Minister that giving misinformation in this House is a very serious matter. When he uses the facts and figures that he is using, that is misleading the House. With 25 per cent, a single American purchaser would control the airline under the terms laid down in the legislation. Could the Minister please give the correct information in the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member is starting to debate again, which he did very artfully
Air Canada
a little earlier today. He might want to do it later but this is debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to get on to the question of safety and the NDP suggestion that somehow privatization will negatively affect the safety of airlines, specifically Air Canada, I suppose. What kind of suggestion is that? Are they not aware of the fact that this Government brought in revisions to the Aeronautics Act? Are they not aware that for the first time in 62 years this Government updated and brought into legislation brand new regulations for all airlines?


Raymond John Skelly: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this is again a matter of a reputable member of Cabinet providing Members of the House with precise information. The new regulations are in effect, but the Government has cut the staff of people who enforce those regulations and the industry is not safe-


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: That is a joke.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: My comments are the same as they were 30 seconds ago.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I never correct the Chair, but you said something about an artful intervention. I do not believe it is artful; it is an intervention purely and simply without foundation.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member and the House that all airlines are controlled by rigorous regulations under the Aeronautics Act. This is not a question of privatization. That is totally irrelevant to the question. I would have thought that the NDP, who march to the orders of union leaders in this country, would want to listen to the employees of Air Canada, members of unions. They are overwhelmingly in favour of this Act. They understand the flexibility, the new dimensions, and the new opportunities it gives the company.
Canada is not acting alone in its privatization program. The socialist friend of the New Democrats, Mr. Mitterrand in France, presided over a substantial number of privatizations. 1 did not hear New Democratic Party Members standing up on statements and motions, beating their chests, and denouncing President Mitterrand and the socialists in France for not stopping the privatizations in that country. Why the double standard?
We are trying to do something sensible and reasonable here. We should defeat these amendments with alacrity, if not sooner.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I always thought it was the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who told jokes in this House.

July 7, 1988
Air Canada
The intervention of the Minister was rather remarkable, but not in a very favourable manner. First, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Air Canada was not for sale. After a few years he decided that that promise was no longer operative and said that they would only sell 45 per cent of it. This Minister has now stood in the House and said that if only 25 per cent is foreign owned it does not mean that it is foreign controlled. If we trust the Prime Minister's word, only 45 per cent is going to be sold. If 25 per cent can be foreign owned, by most people's mathematics five-ninths of the shares that will be offered to the public could be in the hands of a foreign group. The Government itself has set up this arithmetic.
In addition, the Government has said that for the time being the 55 per cent that will remain in the public domain, again if we trust the Prime Minister, will be in a silent partnership, that it will follow the lead of the other 45 per cent.
I realize that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has never been the Minister of Finance, probably for good reason. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can get up later this evening and explain why 25 per cent is not a majority of 45 per cent and why that 25 per cent cannot do as it wishes with the shares it has. The problem of the poor Minister of Justice is probably that he has not done very well in math over the years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was my best subject.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is something I would not admit. The Government is trying to pretend that what it put in the legislation and what it said to the public are not what it put in the legislation and what it said to the public. It is obvious that foreign domination of Air Canada will be possible. The Government has set that up by its very statements. That is very obvious to anyone listening this evening. Why would the Government pretend otherwise? Why would the Minister of Justice try to pretend that that is not what is in the legislation and that that is not the result of the various ministerial statements, including those of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Prime Minister on this very important issue?
We are putting our amendments forward and explaining why they are important to us. We know full well that our amendment provides for the limitation of foreign ownership to 5 per cent. We do not pretend that it says anything else, yet the Government pretends that what it has in the legislation is not there. There is something very sad about that approach.
It is very logical to me that, if the Government means what it says and is going to allow only 45 per cent of the shares to be privatized, as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said, it should say it in the legislation. We believe that the legislation should say what the Government says it means to do.
We find it very ironic that every attempt of the New Democratic Party to put the words of the Government into legislation is refuted by the Government. Is it afraid of its own
words, or does the Government once again not mean what it is saying? Three years ago it was not selling any of Air Canada. Now it is selling only 45 per cent. However, it will not allow that to be put in the legislation because it might be forced to live up to its word.
We are trying to help the Government by putting the words of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in the legislation. Our position is that we do not want to privatize any of Air Canada. However, we recognize that due to the numbers in this House the Government will eventually get its way on this legislation as it does on most. Therefore, we at least want the safeguard of having in the legislation that which the Government has promised.
We feel the same way with regard to foreign ownership. We have been assured that there will not be foreign control of Air Canada. The Minister of Justice has just used his convoluted math to explain why there will never be foreign control. Yet, the very fact that 25 per cent of the shares would be allowed to go into foreign hands means that there would be effective foreign control. Again, if the Government means what it says, why does the legislation not say that?
The pensioners heard one thing in the 1984 election campaign, and the Minister of Finance broke that word only a few months later in the spring of 1985. One must wonder whether the pensioners would like to see legislation which contains what the Government says. They would have loved to have seen the promise made during the 1984 election campaign that the Conservatives would not deindex the old age pension in legislation. They know that less than nine months later the Minister of Finance, with the support of the Prime Minister, broke that promise.
Earlier tonight we dealt with legislation dealing with the privatization of Eldorado. The workers of that company were told by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), the then Minister responsible for privatization, that they would not lose any of the pension benefits they had before Eldorado was privatized. Only two days ago we received information that that was no longer the case, that the new corporation would not guarantee the pension benefits which workers had prior to the privatization despite the words of the Minister of the Employment and Immigration.
Motion Nos. 2 and 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) are in amendment to the legislation to privatize Air Canada and do not attempt to do something revolutionary. We are only trying to ensure that the Government lives up to what it said, that there will be no more than 45 per cent privatization and no foreign control of Air Canada. I find it amazing that the Government is afraid to put into legislation the words it has uttered in this House.
July 7, 1988


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to support the amendments moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Air Canada exists for a very good reason. One does not have to fly from Newfoundland and Labrador to Victoria to understand why Air Canada exists. It exists for exactly the same reason as the CBC. It is one of the structures in Canada that is necessary to hold the country together and provide services which would not be available to Canadians if it did not exist.
Canadians understand that perfectly. Not long ago I had an opportunity to travel to Sydney and Cape Breton. I was quite surprised to learn that there was no longer an Air Canada DC-9 service from Halifax to Sydney. Instead, I believe there was a Dash-8 service in its place, which creates horrendous problems for many Canadians with mobility difficulties. I thought there was unanimous agreement in this House that no Member on any side of the House wanted to see a reduction in services for disabled Canadians. A key issue which arose in the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and was reflected in the recommendations made in the Obstacles report that Members on all sides of the House supported was that it was absolutely demeaning for an individual who required a wheelchair to gain access to an aircraft only to have that access by a fork-lift truck.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the debate on report stage, not second reading debate on the principle of the Bill. I hope you will draw the Hon. Member's attention to that fact. His remarks should be relevant to the amendments before the House rather debate on the question of principle that was dealt with at second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I realize that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has sent a message to everyone in the House. However, the Chair has been fairly lenient tonight as everyone has gone a little beyond the scope of the motions.
However, I would still ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks as close as possible to the motions before the House. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Red way) has made so many interventions that he may as well have made a 10-minute speech. The House would have found that to be of much more value than his interventions.
I believe I am talking to the amendments because they clearly indicate that if they are not accepted by the House, the privatization of Air Canada will mean a reduction of services to Canadians. There is absolutely no question in my mind that if this Bill is not amended according to these proposed amendments reduction in service will occur. I believe my comments are entirely relevant. Of course, I accept your admonition that I should be a bit careful in order not to attract
Air Canada
the wrath of the Hon. Member for York East, but I think the problems that this Bill will create without those amendments will mean tremendous hardship for a substantial number of disabled Canadians who require a wheelchair in order to have accessibility.
I have no idea why the Hon. Member for York East would object to our talking about the problems that that segment of the population will face if these amendments are not adopted by the House. Furthermore, the refusal of these amendments will also affect the issue of the one fare policy that has been with the Government for some time now. That is a policy whereby the CTC made a commitment to allow an individual who was unable to travel alone to have an attendant travel with him for the price of one fare. 1 suspect that this policy issue is being held up by the CTC because it wants to see this Bill passed. I further suggest that without the adoption of these amendments I doubt very much we will see that policy established at Air Canada or any other air carrier in this country.
I repeat that Air Canada exists to be a unifying force across Canada. If it is privatized, I suspect that management will cut out routes that may not be profitable because they cannot make a dollar. That will affect many communities in Canada.
The other day I spoke to a person who told me that it was more expensive to travel from Toronto to Newfoundland than from Toronto to Florida. Air Canada told me that it was more expensive because the volume of people travelling between Toronto and Florida was greater than from Toronto to Newfoundland. When management begins making decisions based on private enterprise rather than on public policy, one can well imagine what will happen to airline traffic in many communities that are now served by Air Canada because other private operators will not service them.
According to Angus Reid polls the majority of Canadians support Air Canada. As a matter of fact, the figures are quite dramatic. Angus Reid found that 63 per cent of Canadians believed Air Canada was well run, as opposed to 20 per cent who thought it was not well run. The same kind of popular support applies to CBC for exactly the same reason. The CBC is a unifying force in Canada and provides a service to many communities that is not provided by private networks.
The Hon. Member for York East asks about Canada Post. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents said that Canada Post is not well run. Angus Reid did not need to ask Canadians about that. He could have simply asked Members of Parliament, who would tell him that Canada Post is not well run.


Raymond John Skelly: The Tories are running that.


Neil Young: The Tories are running Canada Post. Imagine what will happen with Air Canada.


Alan Redway: They run Air Canada too. That is why it is so popular.

July 7, 1988
Air Canada


Neil Young: I want to give the Eton. Member for York East an opportunity to give us the benefit of his wisdom rather than sit there chipping away at other Members. I am sure the Hon. Member for York East will want to look good back home and, given the nature of his constituency, will want to be critical of what the Government is trying to do to Air Canada. If he knows what is good for him, in the next election he will oppose what the Government is trying to do to Air Canada.


Raymond Garneau: Madam
Speaker, I wish to speak on the two motions now under discussion, No. 2 and No. 7, which deal with the percentage of Air Canada shares that the Government could sell and with the percentage of voting shares that could be held by nonresidents, respectively.
Madam Speaker, with respect to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North limiting the shares that the Government could sell to 45 per cent, I wonder why the Government Members did not agree right away to this amendment, since it is in complete conformity with what the Deputy Prime Minister said in documents issued by the very Government presenting this Bill, saying that the intention was to sell only 45 per cent. If that was the intention, why not put it in the Bill? Madam Speaker, this is all utter hypocrisy. Because the Leader of this Conservative Government had promised not to privatize Air Canada, he had to find some way to get out of his commitment without losing too much face. And what did they find? They came up with this discrepancy between the Bill and the press releases. The press release said that it would be only 45 per cent and for that reason, the Prime Minister could say that he did not lie to the people, he did not privatize Air Canada, he only sold 45 per cent. But the Bill presented by this Government allows the Minister to sell 100 per cent. So I would just like to ask the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to put their money where their mouth is.
If it is true about the 45 per cent, why don't they put it in the Bill? And if it is not true, why not admit it? Anyway, Madam Speaker, I think this whole debate about 45 per cent of private ownership versus public ownership, as well as the 5 per cent vote instead of 25 per cent, is a tempest in a teapot, because this Parliament and this Government have presented and passed on second reading Bill C-130, where it is said in section 8, and I will read it to you, Madam Speaker, in order to show you how foolish this Government is. Section 8 of Bill C-130, passed on second reading, says:
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between
(a)	this Act, or any regulation made under this Act, or the Agreement, and
(b)	a provision of any other Act of Parliament or of any regulation within the meaning of section 2 of the Interpretation Act, other than a provision as enacted or amended by Part 111 or IV of this Act.. .


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry . . . The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have no doubt that the member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) can read at a relatively fast pace. But I don't see why it is relevant here to read sections of Bill C-130 on free trade, an excellent Bill by the way, initiated by our Government, in relation with amendments 2 and 7.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can be patient, I am sure the Member for Laval-des-Rapides will show us the connection.


Raymond Garneau: Because the length of speeches is limited to 10 minute maximum, Madam Speaker, we have really very little time to say anything. However, if the Hon. Member paid very close attention and followed my explanation which may be a little difficult for him to understand, I suppose he could see the connection between what we are doing and what we are debating, even the unamended clauses in Bills C-129 and C-130. The clause I have just read is practically a constitutional clause which invalidates any legislation which may have been passed before this one, so that when Bill C-129 is read a third time and finally adopted, we might as well throw it into the waste basket, because clause 8 of Bill C-130 which was given second reading and which is now in committee invalidates all provisions which might be inconsistent with other adopted legislation.
Madam Speaker, Part IV which amends the Foreign Investment Review Act will allow investments up to $150 million in 1992, and the Government will not be able to control these investments. Because the equity of Air Canada may vary, in view especially of the very complex indexation formula, this could reach much more thant 25 per cent of the total shares of the new privatized Air Canada which could be held by non residents. So the Government, both in Bill C-129 and the legislation concerning Eldorado which was considered earlier, is pulling our legs, because this other legislation will erase all that.
They showed great understanding for Canadian interests by saying: There are clauses in there-the clause which limits to 25 per cent the number of votes by non residents, and a little later, as soon as they pass the steamroller on Bill C-130, they will stand up and say that all these clauses meant absolutely nothing. Madam Speaker, the House should adjourn as soon as possible to prevent this Government which has no respect for the basic values developed in this country over the past 100 years from making further blunders such as this.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on what was said by members of the socialist Party and my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) said that, in the event of privatization, Air Canada would lose its pride. We were also told that...
July 7, 1988



There will be a loss of jobs. I would like the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to remember what the NDP said. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is in the House right now; he is the greatest Minister of Finance that Canada has ever had or will ever have.


An Hon. Member:: What about Mr. Crosbie?


Richard Grisé: When the Minister of Finance issued his first Budget, the NDP said that we would lose 200,000 jobs in Canada with the first Conservative budget. Well, so far the Government has created 1.3 million jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

... 1,300,000 jobs, and that's not all, Madam Speaker.
Those who say that privatization of Air Canada will lead to a loss of jobs should also refer to previous cases of privatization. How many jobs were lost at de Havilland, Canadair and Bombardier?


An Hon. Member:: Good work, Richard, you're getting on their nerves!


Richard Grisé: That's privatization, but the socialists are against it.
The Liberal-NDP coalition is slowly emerging. It is a wonderful sight, Madam Speaker.
The National Transportation Act states very clearly: [English]
The National Transportation Act requires an airline to be 75 per cent Canadian owned and to be Canadian controlled in order to obtain a licence.

The National Transportation Act clearly states that Canadian airlines must be 75 per cent owned by Canadians.
1 was listening earlier to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who is having some trouble with his calculations since he figured out that 25 per cent of 45 per cent of shares is five-ninths. I don't understand how . .. Since the Minister of Finance and a finance critic are in the House, they could maybe explain to me ...

How can 45 per cent be a majority? It would come up to five-ninths like the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) said a few minutes ago. 1 have a little problem with that.


An Hon. Member:: That is only one of your problems.


Richard Grisé: You have more problems than I do. I am not talking to you, Madam Speaker. 1 am talking to the Member for-
Air Canada


An Hon. Member:: That is unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Maybe the Hon. Member was not speaking to me, but he should.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I will continue to address my comments to the Chair, of course ...


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In a more clever fashion, I hope.


Richard Grisé: I beg your pardon. Especially after the day we went through yesterday, going third reading, to Bill C-72 which remains an historic event and one which all the people in my riding of Chambly support just as the Bill authorizing the privatization of Air Canada.
I was listening to NDP Members . .. Madam Speaker, I am not allowed to refer to this-but how many of them attended the legislative committee on the privatization of Air Canada? Did they hear the comments made by Air Canada management? Did they hear the comments made by Bob White's colleagues? Of course they heard of them, Madam Speaker- but they didn't really hear them, they read them, because all the comments made by the socialists in tonight's debate are a rehash of the comments made by the representatives of certain unions and Bob White's allies on the subject of the privatization of Air Canada.
On the other hand, no mention is made of the Air Canada Employees' Committee on Share-Buying which appeared before our Committee. And how many of them are in favour...


Some Hon. Members:: Name them!


Richard Grisé: . .. they have confidence in their Parliamentary Secretary, Madam Speaker, which is why Ministers can get away from their job.

The Ministers have confidence in their Parliamentary Secretary being able to manage the House for the time remaining.

No, no, he's a good guy. The Member from Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) is an excellent MP, of course, just like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister in charge of political functions on the South-Shore and in the Monteregie region.
I could also make a few comments on motion No. 7 in the name of the Member from Winnipeg.

July 7, 1988
Business of the House

The motion as presented is defective. The corporation issues shares and, once issued, by definition 100 per cent are owned by the shareholders who purchase them. This is the case whether 10 shares or 20 million shares are issued. To be operative the motion would have to identify a specific group to which the limit would apply, i.e., for example, non-residents.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would also like-when they talk about the famous 25 per cent they forget to mention that this is 25 per cent of shares not held by the Government; we are not talking about 25 per cent of all shares but 25 per cent of unheld shares. In other words, 25 per cent of 45 per cent. Not bad, it works out to between 11 and 12 per cent. So it is very unlikely that anyone holding 11 per cent of the shares would gain control over a company. Is that what they are trying to tell us?
One thing for sure is that the socialists are scared stiff of foreign investment. They will not have foreign investment.. .

No foreign investment in Canada, except in Oshawa! There can be hundreds and millions of dollars in foreign investment, U.S. investment-what a shame for the socialists-but it is not welcome in Canada, except in Oshawa!


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member wants to sell Air Canada to the Americans.


Richard Grisé: With respect to Motion No. 2, what could result is that 25 per cent would be owned by non-resident interests but only 5 per cent of the shares could be voted. Therefore, non-residents would be denied the fundamental right of share ownership, the right to vote.

Madam Speaker, in both instances I strongly suggest that the House reject these two amendments.


George Baker: Madam
Speaker, I have a couple of words to say with respect to the motions before the House. I do not know why the Government will not accept the principle of these amendments. As the representative of the Official Opposition pointed out a few moments ago, they represent only what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had promised. It was only what the Government had promised prior to the announcement that we see in this particular legislation.
We have to be very careful of the Government of Canada. It is comprised of the very people who said: "No, no, we are not going to sell Air Canada". It is just like they said that they would not close down the Newfoundland railway. They also said: "We are not going to do anything to all your marine services in eastern Canada". Yet, what did they do? They
introduced a Bill similar to this one here today creating Marine Atlantic.
We were not careful enough when that Bill went through. We were not careful enough because now, today under Marine Atlantic, one cannot even get a cabin crossing the Gulf from Newfoundland to North Sydney, Nova Scotia. The reason for that is that there is not one on the boat. One has to be very careful when one deals with a Bill presented by the Government of Canada, especially when we talk about shares, controls over what happens to a Crown corporation, and what happens to the service after it is disposed of.
The Government has sold the hotels that one could stay at. It has closed down the Newfoundland railway. It is selling the tracks to Venezuela. It has changed the CN service to Newfoundland so that there is no ferry in the middle of the night. It is now selling the telephone company. It is selling Terra Nova Telecommunications.
The Hon. Member here in the back will also be able to say that it is selling the telephone company in northwestern Canada on bids. This is a part of the privatization policy of the Government of Canada with no concern for the people using these services at all. There was no Bill introduced into this Chamber with respect to selling the telephone company. It just passed it along to some friends it might have in CN and said to CN: "You select some people to sell the company concerned". What does one do? The company cannot be rolled over within three years. In other words, it cannot be sold within three years by the successful bidder.
That is no protection at all for the communities or the people who are using that particular service. That is quite a record, is it not, Madam Speaker? It closed down the railway in Newfoundland. The tracks are being transported, presumably, to Venezuela eventually. It changed the marine service so one cannot get a cabin on the night crossing. It has sold the hotels that one used to stay at. That was all done within a four-year period. It is now selling the CN telephone company. We now have a Bill before the House which would authorize the sale of the airline company.
What else is there left to sell? The Government has sold everything in the air. It has sold everything on the ground. It has sold everything on the water. After it has sold the telephone company. What is there left to sell?
The people of Canada will make sure that with the next election there will be no more sales by this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask whoever is representing the Government House

July 7, 1988

Leader at this point to tell us what the legislation will be for tomorrow. I understand that there has been some change in the proposed legislation to be offered by the Government already this evening. If I could have some information, it would be helpful to all sides of the House.

So if the Government spokesman would give us some information concerning the House business for tomorrow we would be very grateful.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I take note of the question of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I will immediately advise our Deputy House Leader and he will be getting in touch with the House leaders of the other Parties at the earliest opportunity.


Marcel Prud'homme: It does not make sense!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I rise on a matter of privilege. I want to say how my privileges have been expanded and enlarged in the House tonight by the unusual presence of spectators from all
Business of the House
across Canada who came to see us in action, and I want to say "thank you" to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is not new to the House and should know that the Speaker is the only one to recognize people in the gallery.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted, we have discussed matters with Members respecting Bills that are very important to the West. Tomorrow we will do the appropriate stages of Bill C-92, report stage; Bill C-131 to committee; and Bill C-112 to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 10 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, July 8, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers