1988-05-17

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the second report of the official parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group which visited Tokyo, Japan, for a study on trade matters from April 11 to April 14, 1988.


PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE IN GUATEMALA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the interparliamentary conference in Guatemala City, Guatemala, April 11 to April 16, 1988.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, consideration is presently being given to a motion, but at the present time the House Leader for the Official Opposition is not in the House and he has asked that we defer this matter until 3 p.m. I ask permission of the House now to revert to Motions at three o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent?


Mr. Guilbault (St-Jacques):: Wait a minute. I think that, if the Government is ready to proceed with the motion, the Official Opposition would be.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make it clear that there have been some very delicate negotiations going on between the three House Leaders on this most important issue and, rather than agree now to allow the motion to be put later in the day, I am sure there would be unanimous consent to do that at three o'clock. I suggest that we give consideration to just letting this stand for the moment and come back to it at three o'clock. Hopefully by that time the delicate negotiations would have been completed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nowlan:: What is the motion about?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants (Mr. Nowlan) on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am asking what the subject matter is of the delicate negotiations. All we have heard about is some motion about some delicate negotiations. I kind of think I know what it is, but I would like to know for sure what the subject matter of the delicate negotiations is. Surely that should be in the public domain.


Mr. Gauthier:: Ask your Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not trying to be obstructionist, but I heard the exchange and if you are asking Members to give unanimous consent on a blank motion dealing with sensitive discussions, I think it is a fair question to ask what the subject matter is.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Keep talking.


Mr. Speaker:: For whatever reason, I think the wish is just to put this matter over at the moment. I think I can indicate to the House that I will hear the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) at three o'clock on this matter and then I will see what the disposition of the House is.


Mr. Murphy:: You will know at three o'clock.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I understand what is happening procedurally? I believe the Government House Leader asked for unanimous

May 17, 1988
Petitions
consent to defer consideration of this matter until three o'clock. Maybe I missed something, but I did not hear the question put to the Efouse as to whether there was unanimous consent. If it is put, we on this side of the House will give consent. However, I would like it to be clear that this discussion is not being postponed until three o'clock this afternoon by request of the Official Opposition. On the contrary, we are perfectly ready to discuss this matter right now.
[DOT] <mo)

Mir. Speaker: I understand the position taken by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), but 1 think the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has asked unanimous consent for a discussion later today, probably at three o'clock.

Perhaps the Hon. Minister of State can give the Chair further guidance.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there has been some mix-up. I am not attributing it to anyone, but my latest information was that the House Leader of the Official Opposition wished to do it at three o'clock. In view of the comments of my colleague, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), perhaps we should defer until three o'clock. I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants (Mr. Nowlan), and perhaps we can proceed at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, the situation is that there has been a discussion but the matter has not been settled at this time. As I have indicated, the Minister of State will be heard at three o'clock and the House can then decide to deal with this as it sees fit at that time.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who are concerned about the issues surrounding Bill C-55. They believe that it threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
The petitioners believe that Bill C-55 will result in many, perhaps most, refugees who reach our borders being turned away without having their claims heard on the merits of their
case.
The petitioners go on with a whole set of other concerns regarding Bill C-55, but they are basically asking that Parliament withdraw this Bill and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission. They say, as well, that universal access to such hearings ought to be provided for every applicant in Canada as well as the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from many residents of the riding of Etobicoke North as well as other centres in Ontario. The petition deals with the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the Department of Justice between Canada and the U.S.S.R. dealing only with Nazi war criminals. My constituents call upon Parliament to enter into negotiations to amend the Memorandum of Agreement to reflect the prosecution of all war criminals in order that not only Nazi war criminals will be singled out.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106,* signed by several constituents of mine from the federal riding of Brant. The petitioners are totally opposed to the Government proceeding at this time with the trade agreement with the United States. They call upon the Government to call an election so that the people can decide whether or not Canada should enter into this agreement. They fear that many jobs will be lost if the present agreement goes through unamended.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 500 members of Holy Cross Parish in my constituency of Ottawa Centre with respect to the question of abortion. The petitioners note that the Supreme Court of Canada has nullified the only federal law concerning abortion and has given Parliament the responsibility of passing, as soon as possible, new legislation on this matter. They pray that Parliament enact a new law which fully guarantees and protects the right to life of all unborn children from the time of conception onward.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is my duty and privilege to present to the House of Commons today one of a number of petitions signed by residents in and around the federal constituency of Moncton. The petition deals with abortion.
The petitioners are cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent ruling has virtually removed all laws which apply to the abortion process in Canada. They are urging this House to introduce the necessary legislation to
May 17, 1988

place limits upon abortion and protect the rights of the unborn child.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are back in the House of Commons again to deal with Bill C-60. As you know, Canadian artists, composers, and writers have been waiting too long for this particular piece of legislation to amend an Act which has been substantially unchanged since 1924. Canadian creators need protection, fair compensation, and adequate remedies for infringement. They need these things now. At the same time, users of copyright works must have quick and easy access to these works at a reasonable cost.
Bill C-60 makes all this possible. It defines new forms of intellectual creativity such as computer software which has not been subject to copyright until now. It will now be subject to copyright legislation. At long last, this Bill provides appropriate penalties for the commercial theft of copyright.

This Bill enforces the principles of existing artistic creative rights by providing for the establishment of collectives, which give both the creator and the public a legal means to arrive at fair compensation for use of those rights.
Liberal Senators have voted to make two amendments to the Bill, one to delete exhibition rights and the other to delay the implementation of the new Copyright Board's power concerning the collective administration of copyright.
Copyright Act
Bill C-60, as passed by this House, is a good piece of legislation. It is reasoned, it is fair, it is sensible and it is workable. And it is long overdue.

First, I will address the amendment which proposes the deletion of the exhibition right, the first amendment proposed by the other place. I will then address the proposal to amend the Bill to provide for a minimum one-year delay in the coming into force of the provisions dealing with collectives.
I want to make it very clear at the outset that I cannot support the deletion of exhibition rights. That amendment is anti-artist and anti-creator. The exhibition right, which was rejected by the Liberal Party in the other place, is an economic right designed to benefit visual artists, many of whom are not all that well off. The Bill would allow these artists to be paid for the exhibition of their works even after they no longer own the work. It allows them, if they wish, to be paid for the assignment of the exhibition right as part of the purchase price of their works of art. It can be paid for at the same time as the work of art is originally sold. This right is long overdue and something which artists in Canada strongly support.
The report of the Senate committee acknowledges that the various museum associations stated that they supported the principle of compensation for an exhibition right. But not so with Liberal Senators. Indeed, the Chairman of the Senate committee himself refused even to endorse the principle of the right when I appeared before the committee in the other place.
In 1985, all three Parties in this House worked together on a subcommittee to conduct a study of possible changes to the copyright law. All three Parties unanimously recommended that an exhibition right be provided in new copyright legislation. This all-Party recommendation, which came out of the subcommittee's work, was based on very extensive inquiry. I understand that the all-Party subcommittee reviewed over 300 written submissions and heard 111 witnesses in public hearings all over the country. After months of this work, the provision of a new exhibition right for visual artists was unanimously recommended by all three political Parties through their representatives on the subcommittee.
Subsequently, Bill C-60 was drafted to include this recommendation, and Bill C-60 itself was the subject of very careful and lengthy analysis by a legislative committee of the House.
The legislative committee considered general changes that should be made to the copyright law as well as specific changes such as this. Bill C-60 was tabled last May, one year ago. It was the subject of eight months of study. Over 100 briefs were reviewed and 30 sets of witnesses appeared before the legislative committee.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, after only a few days of cursory analysis, Liberal Senators say that this right, which would

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
benefit our artists who contribute so much to Canadian life, should be deleted. The Liberal committee chairman said in the other place the bill "goes too far" in protecting creators. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. This House must support the artists of Canada by rejecting the amendment to delete the exhibition right.

Let me reiterate what I said about new exceptions to copyright. Members of the House will be aware that Bill C-60 is phase 1 of a two-phased approach to copyright reform. Work on phase 2, in which exceptions to copyright are being addressed, is progressing very well. I am pleased to hear of the work of the consultative committees of users and creators. I should be in a position to table phase 2 legislation within a few months.
With respect to exhibition rights, my Department and I will continue to consult with both creators and users of visual art. If all parts of that community reach a solid and mutually satisfactory understanding with the Government concerning exceptions to the exhibition right, then the phase 2 Bill will be drafted accordingly.
I now want to address the second amendment proposed by the Senate committee. This amendment would delay for a year the implementation of the Copyright Board's powers with respect to new collectives. I must say that this amendment makes absolutely no sense to me because the work of the Copyright Board will be to the advantage of both users and creators. Its function is to help arrive at a decision when there is no mutually agreed upon process between creators and users.
The Copyright Board would operate to ensure a balance between the interests of the consumer and those of the creator. By establishing the new board as a fully independent agency, by granting it quasi-judicial authority, and by making it the final arbiter in financial disputes between creator and user, Bill C-60 provides the proper balance and a solid guarantee of fairness to those who create works and those who use them.
One can only try to imagine why certain members of the other place would want to delay copyright reform by proposing a technical amendment that really does not benefit anyone.
Canadian creators have been most emphatic in their desire to have Bill C-60 passed quickly. Last month, a diverse alliance of creator organizations, some 36 in all, issued an unequivocal statement to the members of the other place. These groups represent thousands of Canadian creators and, in delivering their message to the other place, both to Senators personally and through the public media, they said:
This Bill affects the livelihood and existence of Canada's creative community: composers and lyricists, authors and poets, visual and performing artists, choreographers, computer software designers and record companies, among others. It was discussed for more than a generation by our cultural industries, associations, panels, users, politicians both in and out of power, and by various governments. Many of the players in this process have died of old age. So let's get on with the copyright revision. We need protection, fair compensation and adequate remedies for infringement, now.
That was the message that an alliance of 36 creator organizations sent to members of the other place. Unfortunately, these words fell on deaf ears among certain members of the other place.
The Bill is now back in our court. Since it was this House which originally endorsed Bill C-60 in February of this year, I do not think I should need to convince Hon. Members once again of its importance and its urgency.
With Bill C-60 we can stop commercial piracy, be it of software, sound recordings, audio tapes or video tapes; we can end the outrageously outdated two-cent compulsory licensing of sound recordings; and we can establish the framework of a workable regulatory system for the collection of royalties earned by our creative artists.
By acting promptly, we can save 8,000 jobs. That is the estimate placed on the cost in lost employment due to computer software piracy alone. That is what Bill C-60 is able to do. It is able to correct these inequities and bring in new arrangements. Our writers, composers and our artists, including our software creators, as well as all the others who so richly endow Canada's cultural life, deserve to receive the benefits to which they are justly entitled. They have subsidized the public's enjoyment and benefits of their efforts and talents for long enough.
For 64 years they have waited to see basic creative rights respected. If we are truly serious about the value and importance of maintaining and encouraging the growth of Canada's unique identity, of our culture, then we must deliver those rights to our creators and artists, and we must do it now. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt):
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with both amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, because this House believes that the amendments contradict the principles of the Bill which will provide new rights for creators and a new board to adjudicate between the interests of creators and users of copyright material.
More specifically:
Amendment 1 deletes the new exhibition right to the detriment of visual artists who should be compensated for the exhibition of their works.
Amendment 2 delays the coming into force of sections giving the Copyright Board jurisdiction over the collective administration of copyright, to the detriment of both users and creators of copyright material, for whom the Board would be an adjudicative tribunal operating to assure that royalties to be paid will be equitable.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act. I understand the need and urgency for this copyright revision, and I am pleased the Minister was able to bring this revision into the House, which will allow new economic rights for creators and a series of other rights to which I will allude in a
May 17, 1988

few moments. I would acknowledge that that is an extremely worthwhile goal.
Certainly, this society is ready to recognize these Canadian creators as those who expose, propose and propound Canadian values and cultural perspectives which are key in today's society and have become even more important as we move toward changing the Canadian pattern of operation. However, I do believe that legislators have, as a fundamental responsibility and obligation, as well as a duty, to strike the necessary balance between the competing interests of the creators in establishing their economic rights and in ensuring a fair return through the recognition of their works and that of the public having access to them.
Canadian creative talent should be available to Canadians at a fair price for both the user and the creator. There is a fault in the Minister's Bill. There is a problem we have had to face with this Minister who has not seemed to understand and who has been trying to dump a guilt trip on the other House, trying to indicate a sense of culpability, when it was merely fulfiling a very important obligation which is set out in the Constitution of this land, which is to be a place of sober second thought. The Senate is there to look at the kinds of legislation going through this House and to make solid concrete, intelligent, well reasoned recommendations to the Minister and to the Government. The recommendations should be considered so that we would end up with the best kind of legislation to meet the fair and equitable needs of all Canadians.
It is sad that this Minister does not care to acknowledge that. The Minister said yesterday in the House, and I quote from Hansard at page 15478:
I close merely by saying that fear and the creation of fear will get Hon.
Members opposite nowhere because Canadians understand the game they are
playing. Canadians understand what it is they are trying to do and they simply
will not buy it.
Canadians who have been writing and speaking to me certainly know the game the Minister was playing. The Minister forgot to put together a whole Bill. She decided to do it in two phases. She would have been able to come in here with glowing pride, with a tremendous sense of accomplishment, had she followed the thinking of 1924 when the Bill was brought in. They did a complete overhaul then. They did not put it into two phases and leave half the population wondering where they are. It is for this reason that we had to fight long and hard in committee. We had to bring in over 150 amendments to the Bill because the Minister wrote such inadequate legislation. The Senate then had to add amendments along the way.
I would like to suggest that the 1924 overhaul did not address copyright in a patchwork fashion the way this Government has chosen to. This is an extremely complex law, as the Minister knows. The other House has outlined in its background report to this House that the copyright is a legal recognition of the exclusive right of a creator to determine the use of a work and to share in the benefits produced by that use. That is very sensible. It goes on to state that since 1924,
Copyright Act
technology has changed dramatically, increasing the number of ways in which the results of artistic endeavour may be exploited.
The Copyright Act has proved remarkably adaptable to the new technology, considering that its framers could not have foreseen the advent of such inventions as television, photocopiers, videos tape recorders, computers and other devices. I wish this Minister had been as foresighted as the Minister who drew up that Bill in 1924. I will not go through the history of all the various committees which have looked at this over time. The Bill was brought into this House on May 27, 1987, by the Minister. The two cents per song for recording artists was absolutely ludicrous. On March 11, 1987, I brought it to the attention of the Minister. I had public meetings on the issue and asked for the abolition of Section 19, the two cents per song compulsory licence, so that we could move forward without waiting for half time, part time, incomplete phase 1, phase 2 legislation. The Minister did not see the light of day then and she still has not seen the light of day.
It is true that this legislation has had a long, hard row before it saw the light of day. I would like to point out the complexities of this particular Bill. We are dealing with the first stages containing approximately 25 per cent of the revisions and recommendations which flowed from the From Gutenberg to Telidon document and then, from that study to the Charter of Rights for Creators. It addresses exhibition rights, which introduces a totally new right and a new concept into the country. I welcome that right. It would provide the holder with the sole right to present artistic works at public exhibitions.
Second, it addresses moral rights, which expands existing moral rights and defines the nature of an infringement. I am pleased that there are some very strict conditions contained within those moral rights.
It abolishes the compulsory licenses of sound recordings at the rate of two cents per side. But, of course, it does not deal with the whole concern of performing rights.
With respect to collectives, it provides the statutory foundation for the collective administration of all economic rights for creators under copyright.
It has a provision for a Copyright board which reconstitutes the existing Copyright Appeal Board as the "copyright board" and expands its jurisdiction. The Minister knows that there are some concerns about that.
With respect to choreographic works, it provides copyright protection for any choreographic work regardless of whether or not it has a story line. That is a very innovative provision.
With respect to computer software it explicitly extends copyright protection to computer software. This is a provision which is long overdue and which should have been brought in by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am sorry that we had to wait this long for it.

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
With respect to copyright infringement, it substantially increases the penalties for infringement of copyright and penalties for piracy.
With respect to industrial design, it clarifies the relationship between industrial design and copyright protection. With respect to computer software and industrial design, it is regrettable that the microchip was not dealt with. It is regrettable that such a provision did not come out under the auspices of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce heard evidence touching on each one of these issues. There is no doubt that it supported overwhelmingly the thrust of this Bill. It understood the need to support the economic rights of artists, and was well aware of those issues.
The Minister can snicker and make all kinds of faces, but the reality is that the Senate certainly did recognize those rights.


Mr. Nunziata:: Don't make faces, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She is so petty.


Sheila Finestone: I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, if there is any pettiness in this House let the wearer wear it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are doing well.


Sheila Finestone: The Bill goes on to address some of the very serious issues with respect to which we have had some concerns. I suggest that, as copyright is both a means of securing financial benefits to creators for previous productions and an inducement for further creative activity, copyright law represents therefore a trade-off or balance between rewarding and encouraging creators on the one side of the coin, something which is absolutely fundamental, and ensuring fair reward through negotiated distribution of their creative output, which is the other side of the coin.
Those of us who took our legislative responsibility seriously in attempting to achieve that fair balance have been charged with being guilty of obstructionism. May I say that I do not feel that that was fair criticism. I suggest that what we were attempting to do, something which is a legislator's responsibility, was to look at what was in the best interest of fairness for both the users and the creators because we have to know the rules of the game. When we do not know the rules of the game we certainly are not on a level playing field.
Let me say once and for all that we were never opposed to creators, nor were we ever trying to restrict creators unduly from getting fair return for their work. That is not the issue. The creators are certainly well aware that that was not the issue.
However, we do feel that there must be an element of fairness. I do not believe that this Bill has been totally fair to all concerned. It asks users to wait to see what is in the second
phase of copyright. How long will we have to wait until these exemptions are addressed? We need only take a look at the Government's legislative agenda in this respect, and you tell me, Mr. Speaker, when phase 2 is likely to see the light of day.
Meanwhile, in phase 1 we provide no protection for continuing industry practices that have been acceptable for many years, and which in all fairness did not create unfair economic penalties for the creators. As an example, I turn the Minister's attention to the broadcasters who are required by the CRTC to retain tapes of complete broadcasts for 30 days, or with respect to the use of ephemeral recordings. It has other implications. These have been practices which have been in place for decades. As a result, now, broadcasters have no protection if they keep a tape to fulfil CRTC requirements or use a recording for re-broadcasting because of the time zone differences since Bill C-60 does not address specific exemptions.
This accepted practice could be deemed to be in violation of copyright law. There is the potential of penalties of anywhere up to $25,000 for violations. I ask: Is this what the Government means by fairness to our Canadian broadcasters?
The 1924 Copyright Act, although very progressive in its day, has certainly fallen short in providing creators the vehicles by which to enforce their economic rights. The Government's attempt to right these errors by its creator's Bill and the inclusion of stiffer penalties, as well as codifying the role of creative collectives, is an excellent initiative. But while this Bill has been updated, it has become highly contagious in certain areas. As a recent bulletin of the Canadian Conference of the Arts states:
It pits the cultural community not against the Philistines or the prudes, but against itself-visual artists versus galleries, authors versus libraries, composers versus record companies, even, at times, artists versus each other.
Those are not the words of Members in the other place. Nor are they the words of Members of the Opposition. Those were the words of the spokespersons for the Canadian Conference of the Arts. I suggest the Minister would have done well had she heeded them. It is unfortunate that such dissension has been created between everyone on this very vital issue.
Those of us who asked questions and moved amendments were attempting to provide the necessary mechanisms by which users could be provided that particular balance. It has been said that users had it their way for over 60 years. I am now asking: Does that mean that we should punish them by having inequitable and incomplete legislation? I do not think that is the way this place should work. I suggest that not striking a fair balance with the opportunity that we had to do so is inappropriate.
I would like to quote the words of one of the Senators, Senator Sinclair, who said on April 27, 1988:
The Minister appeared before the Committee and talked with some pride about the fact that she was leading the parade. She was proud that "Canada was going to lead the way," she said. There is nothing wrong with leading,
May 17, 1988

where the harm comes is when you lead and you do not know where you are
going.
Not only does the Minister not know where she is going but nobody else does either. That is what is troubling to the people who must use this Bill. That is what has been most unfair.


Mr. McDermid:: Who wrote that for you?


Sheila Finestone: I am quoting the words of a Senator in the other place. I suggest that it is too bad that the issue of fairness was not fully regarded at this time.
Let us look at the Senate amendments and what we are addressing today.


John V. Nunziata: Open your ears, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You mean we shouldn't do anything about it? That is really sad.


Sheila Finestone: I would suggest that it was not a case of not doing anything at all. I would suggest that it was a case of doing things right and doing things fairly. But the Minister is either so thin-skinned or so thick-skinned that she does not wish to hear what we are saying. What we are addressing here today from the other place after hearings and after careful study are two amendments to which the Minister does not care to listen. The first would delete the lines dealing with exhibition rights. The second would have delayed the coming into force of collectives for one year after they were assented to, or on such later day as may be fixed by proclamation. By making these amendments the Senate was attempting to achieve balance.
Essentially, it is a shame that the Senate had to bring these amendments in. I would have preferred none of these amendments, and the Minister knows that. The Minister knows I attempted to negotiate with her behind the scenes in order to bring in a Bill that would alleviate the fears that she has created in the artistic as well as the users' world. But, no, the Minister did not care to listen. Therefore, the Senate was forced to move in this direction.
After the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce tabled its report in the Senate, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) suggesting a compromise until phase 2 and the fair use provisions were introduced. First, I said that we would have reinstated the following principle to Clause 2 on page 2 dealing with exhibition rights. That was "to present an artistic work, for a purpose other than sale or hire, not owned by a museum and presented by that museum for a public exhibition". As a temporary measure that would have found favour right across the board.
This amendment resulted from a meeting held on February 22, 1988, organized by the Canadian Conference of the Arts. I take this opportunity to commend them for taking such
Copyright Act
initiative. It is too bad that the Minister had not thought to do the same. The meeting was attended by the Canadian Artists' Representation, CARFAC, VIS-ART Copyright Inc., the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, RCAA, the Association of National Non-Profit Artist Run Centres, ANNPAC, the Canadian Museums' Association, and I will turn to them in a minute, the Canadian Art Museum Directors' Organization, CAMDO, and the Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada, PADAC. It was strange, Mr. Speaker, but these were all the people the Minister is standing here and telling us we were fighting against, and they were trying to get the Minister to listen.
With respect to the presence of the Canadian Museum Association, in her speech earlier today the Minister stated that all three Parties got together and all three Parties agreed to the exhibition right. She forgot to add that when the three Parties got together to review the report From Gutenberg to Telidon and wrote their charter of creators report, they had totally ignored and had not invited the museum representatives to even speak their piece on this particular Bill, when it has such a serious impact on the manner in which they function and operate. I do not call that a complete hearing.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that after all these groups got together under the aegis of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the week after that meeting, George Horan of CARFAC wrote to the Minister of Communications stating the objectives of both creators and users, and that they could be met through the agreement that they had made. That agreement encompassed the following. One, expanding the right to the entire life's work of an artist; two, simplifying the administrative burdens of the institutions; three, avoiding potential abuses such as redating works of art; four, recognizing and encouraging public institutions' public collecting functions; five, creating a new economic base for practicing visual artists and their heirs.
On their own, creators and users had struck that elusive balance that the Minister could not seem to find, but were told by the Department of Communications, "No, wait until phase 2". As a result, the agreement fell apart, and that is sad. Through the use of an all-Party agreement this amendment could have been passed in a matter of minutes in the Chamber, and we would not have to be dealing with the Senate amendment.
Now museums and artists will have to wait until phase 2 to address their agreement. I would like to forewarn the Minister that she may not be the Minister, the players in the game may not be the same, the heads of all those organizations who came to an agreement may not be the same, and we may have missed that important window of opportunity, that important moment in time. It is quite regrettable. I hope the Minister feels a sense of discomfort, because she earned it.
I would hope that the Minister would consider amending the definition section, including a definition of artistic works, and a definition of public exhibition. We asked the Minister to

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
consider these amendments, she refused, but I do understand that she is well on the way to that definition. I do wish she had brought that amendment into the House to clarify just what is an artistic work in today's society.
My second proposal to the Minister was to amend Clause 26. The Minister has the contents of that proposal, which was that 26(1), Sections 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 25 shall come into force on day or days to be picked by proclamation, giving the Minister all kinds of latitude; 26(2), Sections 50.1 to 50.6 of the Copyright Act, and the headings in relation thereto, as enacted by section 14 of this Act relating only to those licensing bodies giving access to repertoires of literary works, shall come into force on the day, that is one year after the day they are assented to, or on such later day or days as may be fixed by proclamation; 26(3), Section 50.7 of the Copyright Act, and the heading immediately preceding that section, as enacted by Section 14 of this Act, shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
These were reasoned amendments that would have allowed for the absence of phase 2 at this particular time. They addressed the concerns raised by the educational community. That is a very large constituency out there that trains and educates our children through public school, high school, university, and post-secondary education of all types. It talked to the whole area of repography, the use of photocopies. My amendment was made applicable only to collectives dealing with literary works. The recording industry would have been able to negotiate fair return because of the removal of the compulsory licence. Through Bill C-60 the fears of educators, who felt that they were being forced to enter into negotiations with collectives before phase 2 of copyright addressing fair use or exceptions was even introduced, could have been allayed.
As Lorraine Flaherty from the Canadian School Trustees Association stated before the Senate Banking Committee, "We know very clearly that once Bill C-60 is passed, the collectives will be ready to start negotiations. In addition to not knowing where those negotiations will take place, we feel we are at a terrible disadvantage in not even knowing what it is we are negotiating".
It is pretty sad that they cannot know what they are supposed to be negotiating. At least in the U.S. copyright legislation is an exemption for the use of copyright material within a classroom or in an educational setting. Our universities and the Canadian Association of University Teachers told the Minister that they do not even know if they can use this material for examination purposes, which should obviously be exempted from copyright. Witnesses have stated that they are unaware whether such exemptions will appear in phase 2. I would suggest that that is leaving our educators in a very difficult position. How can they negotiate a fee, be asked to acquire a licence, when they do not know what the repography practice of the collective will be and what the definitions are in respect of this whole area? I would suggest there are some serious concerns that have to be addressed in this particular area.
On a number of occasions the Minister of Communications has also indicated that it is her intention to introduce phase 2 very soon. The Minister wants to introduce a broadcast Bill. She wants to introduce a telecommunication policy. She wants to introduce a film policy. She wants to introduce second phase of copyright. This Government wants to put through the Meech Lake Agreement, the free trade agreement, all types of reform on tax measures. There is a whole list of important legislation on the docket. When does she think that this one will come into play?
As phase 2 is to address exceptions and as literary collectives are in the process of being formed and will not be ready to commence negotiations for some time, this was a reasonable delay that was not an excessive burden. It would simply ensure that before negotiations began, all the rules, the level playing field and all the exemptions would at least be on the table for discussion. After all, one does not buy a house without seeing all the rooms. Why would one expect them to enter negotiations without knowing all the terms?
As well, the Government assumed that the provinces would negotiate with collectives for schools under their jurisdiction, similar to the way the Quebec Government has done with the Union des Ecrivians du Quebec and the Society for the Advancement of Rights in Audiovisuals. Under those agreements, the schools of Quebec have immediate access to a repertoire of literary and audio-visual works in exchange for $1.5 million a year which is negotiated with the Quebec Ministry of Education. As a result, creators are ensured their economic rights while users have immediate access to the things they need. The youth are benefiting from modern technology and from immediate access to information without having their teachers confront fines.
The Quebec example works well, and it is what the Government envisioned happening in the rest of the country. If this is what the Government envisioned, it failed in encouraging that relationship between the provincial Ministers of Education and the collectives. As a result, educators and their students may well be the losers.
This Government has constantly stated that it is its goal and it has always been its goal to reduce tensions between the federal and provincial jurisdictions, that harmony is its goal and that we need to have a level playing field. If this Minister had pursued that logic, then perhaps she would have paid closer attention to or even heeded the communique dated February 26, 1988, from the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada which stated that the Parliament of Canada should postpone the enactment of Bill C-60 until the more substantive elements of copyright reform are known. The Minister should have been aware of that, and certainly the Senate brought it to her attention.
Although I would not agree that there should be a total delay of this Bill, I would certainly agree that the concerns of
May 17, 1988

the provinces, the Ministers of Education and the educators were well worth heeding. Certainly they should have been able to sit down with the Minister to come to some kind of interim agreement in this regard.
The last area I would like to address is that of broadcasting. A very serious error on the part of the Minister has been made. We have heard from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and from the CBC that the recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Bishop v. Tele-Metropole, involving the temporary copying of a performance of a song for broadcast at a future time, will have serious consequences for broadcasters. This decision is awaiting possible appeal to the Supreme Court. We have been told that unless the Federal Court's decision is overturned, broadcasters fear they will have to pay composers large fees for reproduction of their works or will face the stiff penalties for piracy imposed under Bill C-60.
The Government, in its response to the Charter of Rights for Creators in 1986, indicated that an ephemeral recording exception would be granted to cover not only the CRTC requirements and the time zone requirements to which 1 referred at the outset of my remarks but also the routine prerecording of works for later transmission. Such a right would be granted for six months after the initial transmission. Upon the expiry of that period, the recording would be kept only for research and study purposes.
These ephemeral recording exceptions are by no means novel. These exceptions are incorporated in copyright law in many other jurisdictions including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland, Holland, Italy, Sweden and Luxembourg. It is only this Minister and this Government that do not care to include it at this point. As a result of the Government not proceeding with this particular exemption, it could potentially be very costly to broadcasters.
The CBC, appearing before us on Estimates last week, estimated, upon questioning from me, that the costs would be $31 million. Upon further investigation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has estimated that the lack of this ephemeral right will potentially cost them $18.5 million. That amounts to $49.5 million or close to $50 million. The Department of Communications and the Minister were well aware of this and had a very comprehensive analysis done for them about it. I would read into the record the following:-

"An estimate of additional costs the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may incur as a result of the implementation of certain recommendations contained in the Report of the SubCommittee on Revision of Copyright, a Charter of Rights for Creators
We estimate that the proposals concerning performers' rights, record producers' rights and ephemeral rights would result in an additional annual expenditure for the CBC of nearly $37 million. We will analyse in greater detail our separate estimates for each of these three categories.
Copyright Act
Mr. Speaker, I will comment on only one of these, namely ephemeral rights. The estimate for this particular category works out to nearly $31 million, that is, $22,600,000 for radio and $8 million for television. These figures are based on rates commonly paid in 1985 for rebroadcasts with musical content. In the case of radio, the rate is $10 to $12 per thirty seconds, depending on whether the rebroadcast is on the French or the English network, and for television, from $16 to $18 per thirty seconds, depending on the network.
For radio, at the present time only broadcasts that are to be repeated require payment of copyright. We calculate that with 326 hours of broadcasts per week, including network and local broadcasts, this works out, at the above-mentioned rates, to $434,640 per week and $22,601,280 annually.
All these radio broadcasts are produced using prerecordings, in order to maximize use of studios and personnel. The requisite rights being previously obtained from those who hold broadcasting rights.
For television, we calculate 73.5 hours of broadcasts per week, which at the rates mentioned works out to $150,720 per week and $7,837,440 annually. The comments regarding prerecording for radio apply, substantially, to television as well.
There is absolutely no doubt that copyright comes under the Berne Convention and that protection must be extended to foreign creators.
As for Recommendation 80 rising from the Charter of Rights for Creators, the exemption it provides for the making of ephemeral recordings by broadcasters is designed only to accommodate the broadcast of programs in different time zones, provided the recording is erased after eight days.
The Report stresses that the exemption should not apply to prerecordings, which are common practice and which allow broadcasters to maximize the use of their studios and collect material and contributions when convenient for those participating.
If the exemption is adopted in this very limited form, it would be of no use to broadcasters. There is no reason why prerecordings should be subject to authorization or payment, when the material in question has been released for broadcasting. This is confirmed by the exemption provided under Article 11 bis of the Berne Convention.
In accordance with this provision, many countries have included in their copyright acts an exemption allowing for the making of ephemeral recordings by broadcasters. The Minister was aware of all this, Mr. Speaker.
Many of these countries, including Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, the United Kingdom, Italy and even the United States, are not even signatories to the Berne Convention. The exemption allows prerecording and provides that the recording may be used for a period of six months in the United States, one year in Sweden, Finland and Australia,

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
and so forth. One could say that the limitations proposed in the Sub-Committee's report are far more restrictive than any of the rules on ephemeral recordings adopted by other countries thus far. If Canada were to adopt provisions governing ephemeral recordings as recommended in the White Paper From Gutenberg to Telidon, which allow for a six-month period, Canadian broadcasters would be able to avoid the additional expense.
I just think it is too bad that the Minister did not listen and that these ephemeral recording exceptions, which are by no means novel, were not included. As a result of the Government not proceeding with this particular exemption it could potentially, as I have said, be very costly, costly to the extent of $50 million. That does not include the other concern of the broadcasters involving the incidental use of an artistic work in a broadcast, that is, music background at a hockey game or having a marching band in a Santa Claus parade. At a time when the Minister of Communications said that her goal was for Canadians to see themselves, the Government has cut out the support system from under the industry through cuts in capital cost allowance for film production of $100 million and now potential costs of $50 million for an exemption which should have been included in this legislation for fair use. This could be a loss in total of $150 million in revenue for an industry that must fulfil Canadian content requirements.
What type of a message is it that the Minister is sending to Canadians and to our broadcasters? Was this a message which the Minister was sending to the American Congress so she could get her free trade Bill through? I have a sense that, if you read what the Minister had to say yesterday in this House, it would tend to confirm that what I am saying is a reality. She said:
Opposition Members are so tied up with relying on what Americans have to
say that they forget the purpose of our cultural policies.
When a Minister is removing potentially $150 million from the film and audio-visual industry, I would suggest the Minister had better re-read her words and re-think her philosophy.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have her Bill with the heartaches, with the costs, with the legal entanglements and with the lack of attention to fairness which will certainly not add to the glow of starting what was very much needed, copyright revision, which if it had been done properly, if it had been done in its fullest extent, certainly would have earned the Minister a very important place in the history of the evolution of copyright in Canada.
While we are dealing with the amendments brought forward by the other place, I will read the last of the comments which the other place had to make. I hope the Minister will remember them. The conclusion reads:
The Committee would like to reiterate its support for the broad thrust of Bill C-60 which is certainly responsive to the creators' need for legal protection of the fruits of their efforts. At the same time, it is necessary that the rights of users also be adequately protected and thus a balance maintained. The amendments suggested in this report seek to engineer such a balance between creator and user needs while keeping alterations to the proposed legislation at a minimum.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider and think about all aspects of our Canadian society.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to reply to the Minister's motion and to the Senate amendments. I just cannot believe what I am hearing from the Liberal Party. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) said, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Minister will have her Bill". After all that, the Liberals will vote for the Bill.


Sheila Finestone: I did not say that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what it seems to be. The Senate said it will support the thrust of the Bill, then it goes back to the rights of the users. We have been through that debate. The Liberal Party cannot have it both ways. That is the problem. The Liberals wonder why, as the Official Opposition and supposedly the alternative to an unpopular Government, the people are not embracing them. They should look right at this Bill and their position here in this House and in the Senate. The Member for Mount Royal said that the Minister was guilt-tripping the other House, meaning the Senate. The Senate was merely fulfilling its constitutional job as the place for sober second thought. Technically, yes, the Senate is fulfilling its job. The other place has to look at the legislation that we passed in the House with all-Party agreement, remember? We had hearings. The legislative committee had 256 briefs and heard from over 80 witnesses. I was not part of the committee then, but the committee heard all these arguments. The Senate has not found anything new. One has to ask, was the Senate really fulfilling its duties as the place of sober second thought? We have had the House debate. The parliamentary committee heard witnesses. Sometimes you have to make a decision, and you cannot be on both sides of every issue as the Liberal Party is.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), refers to the Liberal Party as Noah's Ark. The Liberal Party takes two of every animal on it. One for one side and one for the other side. The Liberals do not stand for anything. They are the classic mugwumps. Do you know what a mugwump is, Mr. Speaker? You sit on a fence with your mug on one side and your wump on the other. When the question is asked, "What position do you take?" you answer, "I am a mugwump". The Liberals support the Bill here in the House then reject it in the Senate. It comes back here and the Liberals support it in the House. Who speaks for the Liberal Party? This was the Party that used to be for the Canadian artists. The Liberals prided themselves on that.
May 17, 1988

The Conservatives and the New Democrats have also pushed artistic policy. The Liberals have abandoned Canadian artists because they have to choose. They have to change their mind-set. We have to choose to pay the creators. We have to give them a bit of a break. We have seen the professor who comes along and xeroxes a whole book and sells it to his students. Maybe now they are going to have to pay the artist. The galleries show creators' work. Of course, they pay the salaries of their staff, the maintenance people, the cleaners and the people who produce the catalogues. Now they are going to have to pay the creators. Creators are the worst paid people in this country. The average artist makes less than $10,000 a year.
I say the Senate was not fulfilling its constitutional duty of sober second thought. It was out of touch. It was lobbied at the last moment by a group that does not want to accede to this change in mind-set. Senator Ian Sinclair introduced these amendments. He has never run for anything in his life, being the former Chairman of CPR, except maybe running to the bank to deposit his money. Yet he does this. I say it is hypocrisy of the worse kind by the Liberal Party. I never thought I would see that in the Liberal Party. They supported the Bill in the House and it looks as though they are going to support it again.


Sheila Finestone: You don't even know what the Bill is all about.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, I know what the Bill is about. If the Hon. Member would listen for a minute she would understand.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She never does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: She speaks about fairness. What about fairness to the average artist?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That does not count.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about fairness to the House that spent all this time considering the Bill? What about fairness to the legislative committee and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture? They considered these positions and had to make a difficult choice. It was not easy and I congratulate the Minister for bringing this Bill back to the House so quickly.
Sometimes you have to make decisions. That is why you have leadership. I consider the Liberal Party critic on this matter a personal friend outside the House, but if she were the Minister tomorrow she would be postponing this Bill until hell freezes over.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is right.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: She talks about the provinces having to be consulted. She talks about another committee. There has to be further consultation with the Senate and so on. That is a recipe
Copyright Act
for not getting anything done. We see that when the Government does not want to do anything. They say all these things.


John V. Nunziata: That is what you are proposing on Meech Lake.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have a Liberal Party which has failed to take an opportunity to show leadership. As Pierre Berton and the other artists said when they came to Ottawa, the Senate has other things to hold up, why is it holding up this Bill to help our poor artists?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Pierre Berton?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He was speaking for the others because his name is well-known. He is not a poor artist, but the vast majority are. Finally the Government gives them a break, and what does the Senate do? It holds it up.
I think the Senate has another agenda. The Liberal Party is badly split-you have the Senate group, the Trudeauists, who seem to be opposed to the Turnerists, the minority in the Liberal caucus. This gets confusing! The agenda may be to just hold up the House of Commons. That is done in a number of ways, and it may be a legitimate strategy with respect to free trade and the Constitution and things like that. Yet why bring the poor artists into this? What was the Senate doing sending this Bill back when we have had all these debates? It is hypocrisy of the worst kind. It is an abandonment of the traditional feelings of the Liberal Party for the Canadian artist. It is a slap in the face of the House of Commons. It is gross hypocrisy.


John V. Nunziata: How about your position on Meech Lake?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My position on Meech Lake is well-known. I do not have to apologize to anyone. I stood up and voted against it in the House. My Party's position is also well-known. I want to know his position on this Bill. Why is he letting down Canadian artists? Has he read the Bill? We have not passed an amendment to the copyright law in 64 years. As I said, it takes some leadership and needs a change in mind-set. The mind-set is that you have to pay the creators.
There are problems with it and I am going to discuss some of the things that I think the Minister could do. I know she has to leave so I will just jump ahead to one of them.
I was a little concerned with the Minister's speech when she talked about phase 2. She said it was progressing very well and she would table it within a few months. I am not being critical, but she has said that on other occasions with respect to other Bills and because of circumstances, drafting and various things, it is difficult to do.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is in the drafting stage.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not want members of the Senate, who will be reading this debate, to think that now they can sit on these amendments when we pass them today because they are waiting for phase 2 of the Bill. I congratulate the Minister for

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
being firm and I have some suggestions for the phase 2 aspect which may help the librarians, the museum people and some others who feel this will somehow restrict their use of artistic materials. We do not want to do that, and neither do the artists.
I take it from the way the Minister is nodding that that was not meant to give a message to the Senate to delay this Bill. We want the Senate to pass it. We will campaign against the Senate and the Liberal Party with the artistic community in the upcoming election if it does not pass it. They should know that very well. There are also some Senators, like Senator Royce Frith, who understand artists. They have pushed hard for passage of this Bill.
Bill C-60 is the first of two phases of copyright reform promised by the Minister. The second phase is expected to address some of the concerns of user groups and complete the revisions to the Bill by dealing with a number of issues not dealt with in Bill C-60. The process of having two phases does make for a bit of uncertainty. The Minister first promised that phase 2 would be introduced last fall and then said it would be sometime in the spring. She is now saying it will be very shortly, and 1 welcome that.
As an example of what we in the NDP would like to see in phase 2, I would like to cite the concept of spontaneous use. This concept was proposed by the Canadian Teachers' Federation and Trustees' Association. It means that as part of negotiated agreements, educators would be able to use articles from newspapers or magazines for their immediacy. In other words, you want to use it for the class now or exhibit it now or put it on television now without having to ask the owner of the copyright beforehand. Spontaneous use means just that. One could not under this provision save something to be used in four months. If this is clearly spelled out in future legislation it should pose no threat to creators because it provides a mechanism for the most recent work to be used while still receiving just remuneration. There is a good balance. It should also help teachers to get access to up-to-date materials. The idea of spontaneous use as one of the terms of reference of the Copyright Appeal Board should help creators and users find common ground to make the legislation work.
I think we can find some common ground here. I believe it can be found in ongoing negotiations involving creators, libraries, educators and museums. After all, creators want their rights respected, but they also want their books to be read, their paintings to be viewed, their music to be listened to, all by the widest possible audience. Artists do not simply create to make money. They want these expressions of their soul to be shared. That is the essence of being an artist. Neither should there be starving artists in our society. Neither should they be the last people to get paid. That is what this copyright reform changes.
The Bill provides artists with some needed protection to help them exercise their craft. With the co-operation of both sides I think this revised copyright law could work. However, you
have to bite the bullet. You have to come down on the side of helping the artist. You cannot have, as the Liberal Party does, one view in the Senate and one in the House of Commons and then contradictory views in their speeches.
I want to summarize. I thought the Minister would probably have to leave and I wanted to get those remarks in about phase 2. I welcome the continuation of phase 2.
I will conclude because a lot has been said before in this debate. This comes at the end of a long process. There was the Government's White Paper in 1984, From Gutenberg to Telidon, the House of Commons Subcommittee on Copyright report, and Charter of Rights for Creators. We have heard witnesses, had the debate, and made the decision.
In fairness, what is the Senate doing? What kind of game is it playing? We have debated this issue and have come down on the side of helping creators. We can smooth the rough edges in phase 2. If it is a reasonable Bill, we in the New Democratic Party hope to speed it through. We will support the Minister in getting it into the House for debate.
I ask the Senate to pass this Bill as soon as possible. It is not perfect legislation, but it represents an important step. The Liberal Senators, who make $76,000 a year, are holding up a Bill which would help artists whose average income is less than $10,000 a year. Is that fair? I do not think it is. I think the Canadian people will respond to this unfair act of the Senators.
Therefore, I, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, will support this legislation with one speaker today. We hope that it will go back to the Senate and that the Senate will pass it.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a question rather than make a speech, which will take far less time, because I, of course, do not want to delay the passage of this Bill either. I listened attentively to the partisan diatribe of my colleague from the New Democratic Party which lasted some minutes. He said that the Bill was carried unanimously at second reading. Does he still believe that that is correct?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was not the critic at that time. The Member may correct me. I believe that the Liberal Party supported it. Indeed, the Party speaker said today that she basically supported it. I believe it was supported by the Liberal critic in the House of Commons Subcommittee on Copyright. If the Bill was not supported unanimously, the Member can correct me and I will be pleased that he put that on the record.
The Member made reference to my speech being partisan. Yes, it was partisan, because I really believe that the Liberal Party is letting artists down. We do have to make a decision. The Hon. Member is a good Member. He is decisive and I believe he would make a decision on this. One must choose sometimes. We must make a choice here. We could delay this, as I said, until hell freezes over. We have a very small window of passing this. If it is held up, we will not see another Bill
May 17, 1988

before the election, and then God knows when we will see another Bill.
We have done precious little to help the average artists in this country. This is the end of the process and it need not be needlessly held up. It is wrong. The only way to get it through the Senate is to tell the Liberal Party that it will have to pay a political price for it.
The Member will be campaigning in the next election campaign. I am sure there are artists, creators, and performers in his riding. They are upset about this. They came to Ottawa with a brief representing a wide section of the community. I suggest that the Member put some pressure on his Liberal colleagues in the Senate to get on with this Bill. They have drawn attention to something about which they are concerned. The Minister today promised a speed up of phase 2. We have suggested spontaneous use, which can take off the rough edges. The Liberal Party critic had some suggestions. Let us get on with it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Member said that during the election campaign we may run across authors and so on in our constituencies. I myself am a member of the Composers, Authors, and Publishers Association of Canada. I am, therefore, aware that the Bill does enjoy the support of a large number of authors.
In closing I want to state that the Senate has every right to propose amendments. We in the House can say what we like about them and dispose of them, but to say that other Members of Parliament, whether in this House or the other House, do not have the right to speak seems quite strange, particularly from a Party which calls itself "new" and "democratic". One of the basic elements of democracy is to allow others to speak.
In order to give others the time to speak I will end my remarks right now because I do not want to delay this Bill further. However, I did not want to allow the occasion to pass to respond to someone making accusations which were, at best, not totally accurate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that people could not speak. I was not saying that the Senate did not have a right under our Constitution-unfortunately as far as I am concerned since they are not elected to anything-to speak. Under the Constitution they indeed have a right to propose amendments and veto Bills, except for constitutional Bills.
I am asking the Hon. Member and his Party to make a decision. Are they for it or against it? Do not say one thing in one place and another thing in another place. That is why the Liberal Party is unable to govern this country. This is a very good example of how weak the Liberal Party is.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, my intention is just to make a very brief comment which I will address to the Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), as is our custom. However, I will take advantage of the opportunity to make a
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
comment perhaps to obtain an assurance from the Minister, which she can perhaps give me after this debate.
I understand that this phase of the Bill contains no exemptions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: All the exemptions which are presently in copyright continue.


David Berger: The Minister replied briefly. I will make known the nature of my concern. I understand, from speaking to an organization which makes talking books for blind people, that they have always been in favour of an exemption for such use of copyright material for the blind. I am not sure whether such an exemption is contained within the present legislation. I understand that it may be coming up in phase 2 of the legislation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is right.


David Berger: I just want to indicate that I consider this an extremely important matter which should, therefore, be dealt with expeditiously. I therefore add my support to that of those who have expressed the view that phase 2 ought to be advanced as quickly as possible in order that there not be unintended and adverse consequences as a result of this legislation for people who are working with the blind.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very reasonable comment and I agree with it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Miss MacDonald) agreed to.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology) moved: that Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate for two principal reasons. First, I want to comment on

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
the proposed amendment to the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. Second, in a more positive sense, I want to bring some good news to DEVCO and the people of Nova Scotia, particularly those in Cape Breton, about this Government's commitment to the future of coal mining in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.
The proposed minor amendment to the Act is important because it supports the fact that there has been substantial expansion of the Cape Breton Development Corporation coal division in recent years. In keeping with the more commercial mandate which the division has been pursuing, the Corporation must be given the necessary support and operating flexibility for this growth to continue.
The amendment to Section 19(2) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act addresses this requirement by providing the coal division with up to $50 million of working capital advances from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
In order to understand why it is necessary to increase the present limit on working capital advances, it is necessary to review the changing and expanding operations of the coal division.
When DEVCO was established in 1967, the Act to create the Corporation included a provision whereby the Minister of Finance could, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Corporation and the Minister responsible for DEVCO, authorize advances to the coal division for working capital. However, the total amount of advances outstanding at any time under this provision could not exceed $10 million.
The expectation at that time, of course, was that there would be a gradual phase-out of coal-related activities by DEVCO. It is interesting to note that at the time the original $10 million limit was established, the current assets of the coal division were only $7 million, the total assets were $12 million, and the total annual operating revenue was approximately $20 million.
In the 1970s, the increasing demand for coal following the world-wide oil crisis led the Government of Canada to emphasize the important role which an expanded and modernized coal industry could contribute to the economy of Cape Breton.
These changing circumstances and the growing activity of the coal division meant that the original $10 million limit on working capital advances was insufficient to meet the Corporation's expanding operating requirements.
Accordingly, in 1975, the Government of Canada amended Section 19(2) of the CBDC Act to provide the present limit of $25 million for working capital advances.
By the end of the 1975-76 fiscal year, the current assets of the coal division had grown to $37 million, the total assets had expanded to $108 million and coal sales had more than doubled to $53 million.
Since then, even greater growth and improvements have taken place. For example, during the past four years the Government of Canada has invested more than $400 million into DEVCO's coal mining operations. That capital investment is almost equal to the total amount invested by all the previous federal Governments.
A major portion of this substantial investment, approximately $218 million, was used to develop the new Phalen colliery and the associated expansion of the Victoria Junction coal preparation plant.
This new colliery, which became operational during the summer of 1987, has an eventual design capacity of over 2.6 million tonnes of coal annually, currently employs between 650 to 700 people, and uses state of the art mining equipment and mining methods. When the full design capacity is attained by 1989-90, the total run of the mine coal produced by the Corporation will be approximately 4.6 million tonnes.
The management of the Corporation, and the people of Cape Breton, who built the new Phalen mine and expanded the coal preparation plant, should take pride and be commended for completing these major projects on time and within the approved $218 million budget.
The challenge now is to ensure that these new assets reach their full operating potential and successfully contribute to a stronger and more viable coal division.
Already there are indications that expanded production, as well as the many important efficiency measures which have been implemented by the Corporation in recent years, are having a noticeable impact.
Preliminary indications are that the coal division's operating results for the year ended March 31, 1988, will be very close to the budgeted loss of $1.8 million. This shows continuing improvement when compared to operating losses of about $17 million in each of the previous two years.
For the current 1988-89 year, the Corporation is forecasting its first ever operating profit, excluding depreciation, of $13.1 million. This will also be the first time that the coal division will be in a position to contribute toward its annual capital investment requirements with a positive cash flow generated internally from its own operations.
Unfortunately, the expected operating profit will not be enough to offset the capital expenditures required to maintain the Corporation's mines and surface infrastructure in top working condition. The federal Government will, therefore, still have to provide funding to cover most of the $43.1 million in ongoing capital requirements. This expenditure will ensure that the Government's investment in DEVCO's assets is maintained in a safe and efficient working manner.
Part of these expenditures relate to the continued development of various coal technologies, primarily coal-water-fuel, so-called carbogel research, wherein Devco is acknowledged as a world leader. The Corporation is hopeful that this technology
May 17, 1988

will be ready for commercial exploitation when world energy prices rebound to a level whereby coal-water-fuel sources can successfully compete.
While the signs are most encouraging, and Cape Bretoners should again start to take pride in a much healthier and more viable coal industry, one should not become complacent.
Further out in the future for 1989-90 and 1990-91, the Corporation is again forecasting operating losses. These losses are mainly attributable to anticipated reduced lower coal price agreements with its main customer, the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, as well as increased operating costs.
The Corporation is looking closely at these problems and will be recommending what action the Government should consider to ensure that the Cape Breton coal industry continues to be as efficient and competitive as possible.
The recent increase in the operating activity of the coal division has led to higher working capital requirements with corresponding increases in the working capital advances provided from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Again, it is worth-while to compare some of the current financial statistics against those of 1975 when the previous working capital advance limit was established. While final numbers are not yet available for the year ended March 31, 1988, the preliminary numbers indicate that the current assets of the coal division have increased to $75 million, total assets are approaching $600 million, and annual coal sales are about $200 million.
During recent months, the working capital advance account has been fully drawn by the Corporation to its current maximum permitted level of $25 million. Unless this limit is quickly raised, the lack of available financing could unduly constrain the future operations of the Corporation.
There are several operating and financial factors forecast to occur within the next five years, which will continue to influence the working capital requirements of the coal division and which will result in the need for working capital advances significantly higher than the present limit.
The most significant factors leading to an increased working capital requirement are those of increasing production levels and correspondingly higher inventory levels for both coal and materials. Saleable coal production is forecast to be 4.3 million tonnes by 1991-92. Coal inventory projections show increasing levels over the next four years in both volume and dollar value. The addition of the Phalen colliery has already resulted in an increased requirement for materials inventory. As well, the Corporation has found that there are operating and financial advantages to carrying additional operating materials on a program basis in inventory as opposed to ad hoc purchasing of inventory requirements.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
As a result of these forecasted higher annual production levels, substantially larger amounts of coal will have to be sold in presently unsecured markets where tough international competition exists. Shipping schedules to these markets will have to comply with market locations and demand. As well, the requirement to have coal aged a minimum of 30 days, and sometimes longer, to allow the methane gas to dissipate prior to loading, is another factor influencing inventory levels.
The constraint on winter shipping due to ice conditions can also result in inventory build-up during that period of year. This may result in inventory build-ups during certain periods of year because of delivery constraints. Competitive forces in some of these markets may also result in extended payment terms, adding further pressure on the Corporation's working capital requirements.
As I indicated previously, although the coal division is forecast to have a positive cash flow from operations for 198889, there may be periods during the year when temporary working capital requirements will occur. The Corporation has undertaken a detailed analysis of the trends and ratios for its working capital requirements. Based on this historical analysis, future requirements have been projected, allowing for the impact of the many financial and operating factors which will influence this situation.
Based on this analysis, the Minister is proposing that Section 19(2) of the CBDC Act be amended to set a new upper limit of $50 million which, I believe, is reasonable given the future operating results which I described previously. He is also proposing that a simpler mechanism for future amendments be provided in Section 19(2), through the proposed wording, which will identify the future limit as "such other amount as may be established by an appropriation Act or other Act of Parliament".
It should be understood that although these changes will give the Corporation access to additional working capital funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such funds or portions thereof will only be drawn as required and then only for such periods as are necessary.
The Corporation utilizes strict cash management procedures and maintains cash balances at the minimum levels which allow for normal operations to be maintained. As a result, during any period when the working capital and cash positions are improved, any available cash in excess of the normal operating requirements is used to reduce the balance outstanding on the working capital advance account by returning those moneys to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
In addition to the internal cash management practices followed by the Corporation, officials from the Department closely monitor and approve all draw-downs for working capital purposes, as well as draw-downs for the approved annual budgetary appropriations to the Corporation.

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
In closing, let me say that the proposed amendment to Section 19(2) of the CBDC act will provide the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation with access to funds for working capital purposes in an amount of up to $50 million, an increase of $25 million from the previous limit. The fact that this increased amount is required is clearly supported by the current and projected activities of the coal division.
The growth and improvement which has occurred in the Cape Breton Development Corporation in recent years is commendable and important to the future of the Cape Breton coal industry and, indeed, the entire economy of Cape Breton Island. The commitment by this Government to assist with this growth and improvement has been substantial, and will continue to be so.
I, therefore, ask all Members to support this proposed increase in the limit of working capital advances which can be made available to DEVCO so that the growth of the coal mining industry in Cape Breton will continue unimpeded.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is fast approaching one o'clock, but I do want to say at the outset that I can assure my colleague, who spoke for the Government, of my support, and the support of my Party, with respect to the substantive parts of Bill C-127, namely, to amend Section 19(2) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, and to replace the upper limit, which shall not exceed $50 million, or such other amount as may be established by an appropriation Act or other Act of Parliament.
In supporting this particular provision, I hope it is not interpreted that I or my Party are in agreement with a number of the activities which have been taking place with this particular Crown corporation in Cape Breton. In fact, I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know has considerable interest in the subject matter itself, would want to give some careful consideration to a number of activities taking place within the Corporation. I believe they directly relate to what we are talking about here today, namely, some of the ways in which management and its attitude implements different policies and procedures within this Crown corporation.
I listened to my colleague on the government side go through a number of aspects of the life of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I thought he would have explained perhaps in greater detail some of the many sacrifices which have been made by coal miners and other employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation toward improvements and, indeed, the success we have been able to see with respect to our small economy on the island of Cape Breton.
One major fact which seems to have eluded my colleague- he may have touched upon it but he certainly did not go into detail-was that the Cape Breton Development Corporation for a good number of years supplied coal to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. It obtained that coal at a preferential rate,
substantially low cost to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Then, through a series of protracted discussions and negotiations, the price of that particular coal was increased to reflect both the cost of mining the coal as well as the true value of the labour component which was so necessarily a part of that particular price.
The Government of Canada, at the behest of the provincial Government, has now reduced substantially the price of this coal to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. If one were just a paper tiger, one could conceptually say that perhaps there is nothing inherently wrong with what is taking place. However, I wish to point out to my colleague opposite that there are a number of factors which must be reflected upon and, indeed, given due consideration.
I would hope that this lower price of coal given to a federal Crown corporation will not jeopardize labour's attempt to receive now and in the future a reasonable price for its labour and efforts. I would hope that all Members of the House will concur and agree that when labour is paid a fair and decent wage, that in itself goes a long way in assisting and improving our local economies. It is these individuals who purchase goods and various items.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it one o'clock and resume debate later this day.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if there was some agreement across the way so that the Member's remarks might be made on a continuous basis, we would be quite prepared not to see the clock, and possibly even finish the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: There being unanimous consent, the Hon. Member may continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I was saying with respect to the price of coal being paid by the Nova Scotia Power Corporation that I hope-and it is my sincere desire, and I underline "sincere"-that the price of this coal will not reflect negatively upon those men and women who have contributed so substantially over the years. When they do look forward to receiving additional increases in their living wage I hope that they will not be jeopardized by the fact that the federal Government has lowered the price of coal thereby lessening the revenues going to the Crown corporation.
As I was saying a moment ago, it is these individuals who contribute substantially to our economy through the purchase of various goods and products. It is through their wages that we have a better society. I hope that the Hon. Member will give due consideration to that particular fact of life which is
May 17, 1988

now part and parcel of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
There has been some mention of the activities of the Corporation, but nowhere was there to be found mention of the fact that in excess of 600 individuals previously employed with this Crown Corporation are now without meaningful employment. One of the objectives of this particular Crown Corporation was to assist and to facilitate the improvement and the enrichment of employment opportunities. I think that the Government has made a number of mistakes in its handling of this particular Crown Corporation. I draw again to the attention of all Members the fact of the serious job losses that have occurred at this Crown Corporation.
Again, I impress upon my colleagues opposite that the attitude of management in the implementation of human resource policy and its insensitivity both to the traditions and the history of coal mining in Cape Breton have left a scar on the community. There are serious problems with regard to those individuals who have a hearing loss. There are serious problems with those individuals who were on pre-retirement leave and seeking assistance from the Crown Corporation and the Government so that they do not have to pay any more unemployment insurance benefits. As the Hon. Member opposite knows, 1 can refer to many different programs under which unemployment insurance premiums are not requested of such individuals, but they are being requested here. There is a serious problem with the concept of continuous service for the purposes of individuals embarking and being successful in obtaining early retirement from the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Those are just three of the many difficult problems that are inherent in the Corporation. We do not seem to be getting any real satisfaction from the Government of Canada with regard to resolving those particular problems. These problems are complicated. Their seriousness is enhanced by the fact that some-not all-members of management have a preconceived attitude toward labour that somehow it is looking for a free lunch. They think that somehow labour does not want to contribute to the productivity of the Corporation. They think that somehow labour does not share the objectives of the Crown Corporation, and that it is not willing to participate in doing its fair share.
1 believe that that attitude is a wrong attitude for senior members of management to have in terms of exercising their responsibility. 1 hope that the Government of Canada will impress upon management, and do some reflection itself, with respect to how these policies and procedures are being followed. It is the Government who has designed and conceived the policy that management is presently carrying out.
There has been some mention of some of the moneys which have been directed to the coal water fuel project at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I thought that my colleague from Nova Scotia would have given due credit in that respect for it was I as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
Energy, Mines and Resources who initiated that project back some years ago. The Cape Breton Development Corporation, in co-operation with other agencies, has been able to pursue this policy. Quite frankly, that was the initial stage some years ago. What we need today is a very substantial commitment from the Government of Canada research and development of new technologies at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Again, I point out to my colleague and my colleagues that the coal water fuel technology program and the synthetic fuels project are just two of many programs that the Government of Canada ought to be pursuing with vigour and enthusiasm in trying to solicit the assistance of the private sector in order to see them realized. They will provide meaningful jobs and, indeed, income for individuals who reside in this particular area of Canada.
I must draw to the attention of all Members that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in its present form has a tremendous impact on the future viability of this particular Corporation. I say so with great sincerity for ACOA, which was supposed to be set up to facilitate regional economic development, is in the process of considering the possibility of financing another coal mining operation in Nova Scotia. Upon reflection, one sees that that will mean a net loss to the Province of Nova Scotia of some 100 jobs. But, in particular, it will have profound negative effects on the future viability of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, both from a revenue perspective and in terms of its coal markets.
This new coal mine would also be selling its product to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. It would have a negative impact on employment. It would certainly have a negative impact with regard to men and women who are attempting to obtain a fair and decent salary increase from the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This, again, is another issue of grave concern to the miners and all the individuals at the Cape Breton Development Corporation as to what is transpiring at this particular Crown Corporation.
The Chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation on Saturday made some very interesting remarks with regard to the splitting of the legislation which would do away with the industrial development division of this Crown Corporation and leave it as a coal company, thereby creating a new and separate Crown corporation. Basically, I suggest that the Chairman, who was appointed by the Conservative Government, is questioning, and I say quite sincerely, the thinking as well as the rationale for doing this to the Cape Breton Development Corporation at this time. Again, 1 hope that my colleague opposite will give careful consideration to this particular aspect of what is taking place in that Crown Corporation.
I have listed numerous concerns that I have with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Hon. Member has heard me on many occasions on the floor of the House, and he will continue to hear from me as I question what is taking

May 17, 1988
Copyright Act
place at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. But with respect to the particulars of Bill C-127, and in terms of the amendment, and in terms of increasing the sum from $25 million to $50 million, he has my blessing. We are prepared to move rather quickly with that.
However, in no way should members of the Government or, indeed, members of the media conclude that I am in agreement with the Conservative policy on coal development in Cape Breton. Nor am I in agreement with the senior management, in cahoots with senior cabinet Ministers, as to the present goings-on at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
I believe that there has to be some fundamental changes, some of which I have touched upon. To respond to my colleague, he has my support as well as that of my Party in approving this particular amendment to Section 19(2).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Forrestall).


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The agreement was that the previous Member would be allowed to speak, and then it would be one o'clock. I now would expect that it is one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is correct that that was the agreement. Is the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: I was wondering whether we could conclude second reading. It is a very important Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I think we could probably deal with it in all stages in the next 20 or 25 minutes, if the House would agree.


Raymond John Skelly: The New Democratic Party does recognize the importance of this Bill, and would have our contribution at three o'clock this afternoon. Therefore, that is the way the ball goes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: It being 1.10 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Section 20, VII (a) and (b), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, discriminates against sick people. When one of my constituents on regular UIC benefits had a stroke, his sick benefits were terminated after just one week because he was not in the initial benefit phase of his claim.
The initial benefit phase covers up to a maximum of 25 weeks and sick benefits can only be paid during this period. My constituent got sick on the 24th week of his claim and, pursuant to the regulations, the Department of Employment and Immigration rejected his request for an extension to his benefit period to cover the time of recuperation from his stroke.
Apparently, had my constituent been in jail or on full workers' compensation, he would have received this extension. What a ridiculous regulation. People cannot schedule their illnesses to occur within this initial benefit phase. Their families desperately need this money during those difficult times. I would urge the Minister to review this regulation and ensure that sick people are treated in a just manner.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the National Action Committee on the Status of Women's annual lobby day on the Hill. As in previous years, members of the National Action Committee group were strident, rude, and showed little or no respect for the democratic process. Their performance, not only yesterday but at the weekend meetings, clearly demonstrates that this group does not speak for the majority of women.
Originally this group brought about much needed reform and equal opportunity rights for women in Canada, but it has become evident that it has forgotten its grassroots membership. In reality, it has now been taken over by a militant executive, not interested in the best interests of the grassroots membership but more interested in promoting the political agenda of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and theNDP.
I believe that we should not fund advocacy groups, but in a democracy if we fund one women's group, we should fund all. We are not seeing wise stewardship of taxpayers' dollars in funding the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and I urge the Minister to take away its funding.
May 17, 1988



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the former employees of Massey Combine Corporation need help. The Government has both the responsibility and the means to help them.
These men and women lost their jobs, benefits, and a lot of hope when Massey went into receivership. Their families are looking for some action to restore their lost benefits and to provide retraining to get them back into the workforce. However, so far, the Government has done nothing. It cut the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program which used to help the people in the farm machinery industry. It has talked about replacing the LAB Program with a program for older worker adjustment, for over two years.
Meanwhile, the Government is sitting on about $30-million worth of shares in Massey Corporation. It got these shares in the agreement to bail out Massey in 1986. Now that Massey is in receivership, these holdings serve no useful purpose. The Government should sell these shares and use the proceeds to help the Massey workers. These people and their families have waited long enough, and many of them are very desperate.



BRIDGES


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to reiterate for the people of the riding of Champlain my complete, total support for the construction of a bridge on the Saint-Maurice River at Mattawin.
It is most urgent to carry out this project, especially since the ferry has ceased to operate due to a major breakdown, resulting in huge economic losses for the community.
Local groups and individuals, coordinated by the Mekinac county government, have worked seriously over the last three years to acquire this essential tool for economic development.
The Conservative Government has believed in it by saying that it is ready to grant $2 million for the project. It is now up to the Government of Quebec to do its part and to invest the same amount as the federal Government.
In closing, I would like to remind you that building this bridge is not a local whim. Quite the contrary! It affects the forestry, mining and tourism industries. The economic future of a whole region is at stake and as a responsible government, we have understood that.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WATER RESOURCES

Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, through the trade agreement we have invited a third party, the Americans, to our resource table. They now have unfettered access to Canada's water resources. This could seriously impede Canada's development of exciting sunrise industries based on new evolving technology, and thwart jobs that come from water resource development.
The trade agreement gives the Americans access to our water and many of the jobs and expertise related to its development. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The trade agreement should have exempted water, then we could have created the technology and skills for the whole world, not just for us.
What could the Government possibly get from the Americans that is worth giving up control of our water resources? Check Article 409 in the free trade agreement. The Government has made a serious mistake. I hope it will repair it.



THE ECONOMY


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, we can never have enough good news. When that news concerns Canada's economic indicators, it just keeps getting better and better. Since our Government took office in 1984, Canada has seen more than 1.25 million new jobs created with 82 per cent of them full-time. The unemployment rate has fallen four full percentage points to 7.7 per cent.
In the Kitchener-Waterloo region the unemployment rate continues to be in the low 5 per cent range, with the April monthly figure at 4.5 per cent. With the exception of Toronto, the Kitchener-Waterloo area has consistently enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. It is encouraging to note that this economic prosperity is evenly spread throughout the local industry, with the auto parts manufacturing and construction sectors doing especially well.
Canadians are to be congratulated for their enterprise and industry. Their efforts have made Canada's economy the envy of the industrialized world.
5. O. 21 TRADE

May 17, 1988



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON STEEL EXPORTS

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. steel industry is continuing lobbying efforts to try to force Canada to agree to restrict Canadian steel exports to the United States. The Government has not agreed to join a U.S. steel restraint program in the past, and we demand that it not now capitulate to pressure from the United States.
Recent statements from U.S. steel industry spokesmen show again how flawed the trade agreement is for Canada. A spokesman for Inland Steel Company of Chicago said this week in Toronto that the trade pact does not preclude the establishment of a formal restraint agreement between the two countries, meaning Canadian exports can still be restricted, and he is correct.
Canadian exports will still be vulnerable to U.S. trade remedy laws and arbitrary U.S. trade actions under the trade sell-out. Furthermore, the agreement does not allow Canada to stop the harassment of Canadian exports to the U.S. nor does it guarantee our access to U.S. markets. Canada has made significant concessions in the agricultural, cultural, energy and manufacturing sectors, in return for minimal guarantees of access to U.S. markets.
The deal stinks, Mr. Speaker. Let Canadians decide.
* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to bring to the attention of all Canadians the seriousness of drought in western Canada.
It is estimated that it takes 300 years to produce one inch of top soil. Two weeks ago in one 24-hour period more rich agricultural real estate changed hands in my riding than could have been possible with all the earth-moving equipment in Canada. Mother nature lifted the powder-dry top soil until it blotted out the sun and headlights were required to see the road.
During this period of arid and semi-arid conditions, which now prevail over the western Prairies, all farmers should implement tilling practices which would reduce further wind erosion.
For this region all Canadians could pray next Sunday for rain as rain, is the only assistance Conservatives were not able to deliver. But we are working on it, Mr. Speaker!
[ Translation]



GOVERNMENT PROMISES

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, representatives of women's groups were right to be disappointed with the Conservative Government's performance. First of all, the Government has not respected its commitments regarding the equality of women in the work place, whether in terms of wages, working conditions or fringe benefits. We recall that the Conservative Government has still not respected its commitment to allow homemakers to participate in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, i.e. a homemaker's pension.
Also, we remember that the Conservative Government has not respected its commitment to allow more maternity leave under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Mr. Speaker, I think that the women of Canada realize that they have been deceived, as were seniors, the sick and the family in general, by this Conservative Government.
*
* *



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a recent ruling of a GATT panel recommended that a tariff on European Economic Community beef imports into Canada be dropped. The panel ruled that Canadian cattle producers cannot bring a complaint against the EEC because they produce cattle and not meat.
The panel ruled against a Canadian Import Tribunal ruling which placed a countervailing duty on heavily subsidized EEC beef imports. The panel report implies that GATT offers no protection to cattle producers and other primary producers world-wide.
With GATT negotiations now beginning, I urge our Government to take the lead in seeking reforms in GATT to accommodate world agriculture.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian banks are like the television character Alf. When faced with evidence that they have bungled, they say "No
May 17, 1988

problem". Despite massive increases in bank service charges in recent years, bankers such as CIBC Vice-President Warren Moysey say "Service charges do not concern our customers".
The Canadian Bankers' Association cited polls alleging that 73 per cent of Canadians are satisfied with banks. Yet another banker, Janice DeStein of the TD Bank, calls our committee investigation of the issue "unjustified and unnecessary". Like Alf, the banks seem to come from another planet.
A Gallup poll released yesterday said 50 per cent of Canadians believe service charges are unreasonably high. In fact 69 per cent said a committee probe into bank charges was very necessary.
Alfs TV family may accept his insatiable gluttony, but Canadians will not accept the greed of the chartered banks. It is time that the banks pull their heads out of the sand and clean up their collective act.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this House will soon vote on the Free Trade Agreement. The issue is simple: the Americans want to stop foreign imports because of their trade balance deficit. Each year Canadian sales to the United-States amount to S95 billion. This represents 20 per cent of our whole annual production or, to put it another way, one out of every five jobs. The Free Trade Agreement guarantees us continued access to this $95 billion market and allows us to improve on it. Every time a Liberal or a Socialist speaks against the Agreement, he speaks against jobs, against one out of every five Canadian jobs.
To put it simply: to oppose free trade is to accept the loss of one out of every five jobs.
* *
*



MEECH LAKE ACCORD


[Stage Direction]
legislatures and a period of three years is even provided to ratify such a change. It is a trully democratic process that requires a certain involvement, I would even say a necessary involvement of the citizens of this country.
On the contrary, the Meech Lake Accord provides us with a fundamentally undemocratic vision since, for example, Supreme Court judges are to be appointed by Cabinet Ministers only, without consulting legislators and citizens. That maybe convenient for the minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, but for me and for many Canadians it is not!


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join with my colleague, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), yesterday to unveil the Niagara Falls Tourism Economic Impact Study.
Niagara Falls served as the model for this study, and other towns and municipalities throughout the country will now have a valuable tool for measuring the over-all economic impact of tourism on their local, regional, and provincial economies.
The study confirmed what we have known for a long time in Niagara Falls, that is, that tourism is a gigantic business. Over 11 million people visited Niagara Falls last year and spent over $500 million. The economic spin-off for Ontario was $1.2 billion and 28,000 jobs, 15,000 in Niagara Falls alone.
This is National Tourism Week. The federal Government, in conjuction with the City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Falls Visitor and Convention Bureau, has shown in this study its firm commitment to developing tourism in Canada.
I know that my colleagues and constituents will join with me in extending a warm welcome to all Canadians intending to visit the beautiful Province of Ontario and, of course, one of the world's natural wonders, Niagara Falls, Canada.
* *
*


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) assured us last week end that he would leave politics if the Meech Lake Accord was rejected. I wish him well.
Obviously, the Minister still does not understand that the Constitution does not only involve some 10 or 11 people but that it is on the contrary the fundamental law of the land that protects the freedom of all Canadians. To amend the Constitution, we must have the assent of Parliament and of provincial



AIDS-FUNDS FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to respond to one of the most dramatic health problems which Canada faces today, AIDS. Apparently the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has no idea how to tackle this serious problem. We read in the papers

May 17, 1988
Oral Questions
this morning that this Conservative Government only provides a meagre $750,000 for AIDS education programs, while Great Britain and Australia are spending millions of dollars.
In April, the Royal Society of Canada suggested that the Federal Government spend $80 million a year on education and $35 million on research. This Conservative Government has done nothing yet, Mr. Speaker. Already 1,761 cases of AIDS have been diagnosed in Canada, 978 of which have resulted in death. An estimated 50,000 individuals are exposed to the virus. According to estimations from the Federal Centre on AIDS, 7,000 people across Canada will have the illness by 1991.
The lack of Government action in that area is deplorable. This minister of National Health and Welfare and this Government must stand ready to give monies towards AIDS education in our society, they must be ready to spend on research and encourage young people to use healthy and enlightened sexual practices. If not, this Government, bear the blame for the lack of responsibility of Canadian men and women in the face of this terrible disease.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday American Senators and the White House insisted that Canadian provinces must comply with the trade deal.
We believe in a strong national government, but the provinces do have certain areas of jurisdiction under our Constitution which the Americans now want to rewrite. The Government has agreed to let them do it. The Prime Minister's Government wants to take away those provincial rights and hand them over to the Americans.
It is one thing for Canadians to disagree among ourselves about how our country should operate. It is another thing to allow a foreign country to dictate how we should operate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: On what basis does the Prime Minister conclude that he has the right to let the American Congress challenge the Canadian concept of Confederation?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, of course the comments by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition are quite grossly exaggerated, as we have come to expect in this House.
The Senate Finance Committee is considering a mark-up of an administration suggested Bill to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the United States. They can only deal, of course, with American law with respect to implementing the FTA. Individual Senators can make whatever statements they like about what they would like to see with respect to compliance by Canada or provinces of Canada with the free trade agreement.
The situation is that the U.S. administration will look to the Canadian Government to provide assurances that we are in a position and have the capacity to implement the agreement signed between the U.S. and Canada. The Prime Minister has already given them those assurances, and we will give them those assurances again once Parliament has enacted the legislation which we propose to put before the House.
All that has been said in the United States is that they would like to have the provinces comply with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Naturally, that is our position as well.


DISSIDENT PROVINCES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the Minister's Bill. Meanwhile, we should take a look at the text of the agreement with the United States. According to Section 103 of the trade agreement signed by the Prime Minister, the federal Government will take all necessary measures to oblige provincial and local administrations to conform to the agreement. The Prime Minister and his Minister are aware that taking all necessary measures means the federal Government could use its spending power or fiscal power to this end.
Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister answer my question? Does he intend to cut federal spending in provinces that do not accept this agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that was a technique that doubtless would have been tried by the Liberal Party when it was in power. In fact they attempted every bullying tactic imaginable in the years 1980-1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hallmark of our Prime Minister is conciliation, co-operation, consultation with the provinces. He met with the Premiers 10 times in negotiating the Free Trade Agreement.
I can give the assurance in response to this canard thrown out by the Leader of the Opposition that we will not threaten to reduce spending in any province in this country that happens to disagree with us. This is a democracy, and we will not act like the Liberal bully boys of the past.
May 17, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if that is not what the phrase "take all necessary measures" means in this text of the agreement, will the Minister be good enough to tell us, in his opinion, exactly what it means? Will he tells us how far the federal Government is prepared to override provincial jurisdiction in order to please Americans? Tell us that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the clients of McMillan Binch must be thanking God that they are not getting this kind of legal advice any longer from the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Kaplan:: Answer the questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: It means nothing of the sort. It means that we will be introducing legislation to this House which hopefully will be passed by this House and the Senate, unless there is another attempt by the unelected, discarded autocrats appointed there by the hon. gentleman's predecessor to stop this process.
We will be asking them to pass legislation and we will be able to provide assurances to the U.S. Government that we are in a position and have a capacity to implement the agreement. When the hon. gentleman sees the legislation, he will understand that. We will be in a position to implement it, despite the fact that the Premier of Ontario does not want it implemented even though he is only one of 10 Premiers.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the political interference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the refugee hearing for Mr. Santokh Singh.
In one of his two secret letters to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, one reason that was cited for refusing the applicant was: "Indian authorities have made strong and repeated representations for his return to India". However, yesterday in Calgary, both the Foreign Minister for India and the Indian High Commissioner to Canada insisted that India never applied any pressure, never sought his extradition, never suggested refusing him refugee status, and concluded by saying: "As of now, there is no case".
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House and Canadians this very glaring and serious contradiction which now hangs over his Government's actions like a cloud? If it was not due to overtures from India, and since both CS1S and the
Oral Questions
RCMP gave this claimant a good and positive security report, what were the reasons that motivated such an overwhelming and unprecedented political intervention into a unanimous decision by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if we remove all the rhetoric and inflammation from that question, we will see that all the hon. gentleman is complaining about is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs takes seriously his duties as a Minister to bring to the attention of his colleagues matters they should consider when making decisions themselves in areas such as immigration.
In fact the request of the gentleman, to whom the Hon. Member referred, for refugee status was initially rejected by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee on April 15, 1987, as manifestly unfounded. There were changes when other panels heard this matter later. It is quite obvious that people acting in good faith, looking at the same kind of information, can come to different conclusions.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs was acting most properly and in accordance with his public duties when he made these representations to his fellow Minister.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Minister for International Trade is answering refugee questions, but if the Secretary of State for External Affairs was doing his job properly he owes, in decency and honesty, the real reasons behind the decision. If he is not prepared to table those reasons, he ought to table his resignation as soon as possible.


REQUEST FOR RE-EVALUATION OF CASE
Sergio Marchi: I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, not the Minister for International Trade. Since the Government's promotion of the Refugee Advisory Committee as an independent and impartial body has now been shattered by the actions of her colleague, and given that this may prompt lawyers to apply to the Federal Court to rule on the bias of this Refugee Advisory Committee, which could in effect paralyze the entire system, will the Minister move immediately to re-evaluate the Singh file according to the merits and facts of the case, which should have been done in the first place, and, therefore, signal that she will not tolerate any political interference in the judicial processing of a refugee claim at the Refugee Advisory Committee stage?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Hon. Member knows and is ignoring is that the Refugee Status Advisory Committee is just that, it is an advisory committee, and there are always other factors that go into these decisions. This case still has the possibility and, indeed, the lawyer for Mr. Singh said this morning that he intends to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. I fully intend that the Immigration Appeal

May 17, 1988
Oral Questions
Board will have an opportunity to hear this case without biased comments either from him or from me.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Elon. Minister for International Trade who said yesterday of the trade deal: "I don't consider it as being an intrusion into anyone's jurisdiction". The Minister will be well aware that in areas such as liquor pricing, energy pricing, and a whole host of others, it obviously intrudes into provincial jurisdiction. Yesterday the United States Senators asked the Canadian Government to pre-empt provincial laws.
If the deal does not intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction as the Minister maintains, why does the American Senate want to block the deal until and unless the provinces have complied with its terms? Will the Minister explain this obvious contradiction?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I not know where there is any contradiction. We want the United States to implement the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement and to have an agreement that will also be binding with respect to the State Governments. There are 51, are there?


An Hon. Member:: Fifty.


John Carnell Crosbie: Fifty.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We are 51. You said it that time, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman has the type of mentality that would make him an ideal fifty-oneth, of that 1 can assure him.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A Freudian slip, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: We would naturally want and expect the American States to be bound with reference to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the American legislation contemplates that position exactly.
With respect to the provinces, there is only one area at the present time where any positive action has to be taken with reference to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and that is in the area of wine and liquor regulation, which has also been found to be an area where action must be taken as a result of the GATT panel that reported in that area some months ago.
There is one province that is refusing to comply with the recommendation of the GATT panel, and also with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It is too bad that one province chooses to set itself up above the rest of the nation and all other provinces in that respect.
When our legislation is introduced to the House we hope to be in a position to say that we are in a position and have the capacity to implement the agreement. We certainly do not propose to intrude on the jurisdiction of the provinces but to exercise our own constitutional jurisdiction-


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


John Carnell Crosbie: -with respect to the implementation of the trade and commerce power.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Minister for International Trade at one time wanted part of Canada to become a fifty-first state, but we get somewhat nervous when the Minister responsible for international trade is not certain about the number of States in the United States.


THREAT OF COURT ACTION BY PROVINCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. All along the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have indicated that there would be no problem in getting the provinces to go along with the trade deal. The Minister for International Trade said again yesterday that we are not going to force Ontario to do anything. The Minister is well aware, as he just indicated, that one province is now threatening to take the federal Government to court. The United States Chief Negotiator, Peter Murphy, when he was asked about provincial objections, said: "You can count on it, it is a problem".
Once again, will the Minister explain why, if there is a province that is threatening to take the federal Government to court, and if the U.S. negotiator says that there are serious problems in terms of the provinces, the Government continues to say that there is absolutely no problem in forcing the provinces to go along with this deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's introductory remarks certainly could be described as risible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Try it again, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 know that English is not the strong point of the hon. gentleman opposite.
Back to this particular question, there is nothing strange or unusual in a province or a government, federal, provincial or municipal, or a person, male, female, or whatever, taking a matter to the courts to ask the courts to give an interpretation

May 17, 1988

of whether a province or the federal Government has certain powers or not. The courts are there for that exact purpose. We have a judiciary that is independent. It will render decisions if asked to.
There is nothing unusual in Ontario suggesting that it might ask a court to examine legislation, which it has not even seen yet, to determine if it does x, y, or z. There is nothing to get alarmed about. It happens in this country in every way-every day people are going to court.


USE OF FEDERAL POWERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what there is to be alarmed about is the fact that the Government signed Article 103 of the deal which obliges the Government to take all necessary measures to enforce provincial compliance, even if the measures are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal Government.
My question to the Minister for International Trade is this. Is the Government prepared to use its extraordinary powers to accomplish this? Is the Government prepared to use these powers to step on provincial jurisdiction? How far is the Government prepared to go in trampling on provincial rights when it comes to areas of their jurisdiction?


Mr. Shields:: Like the NDP did with the national energy policy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there was never a word heard from the NDP when the last Liberal administration used its powers to crush the West with the national energy policy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a lie!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is not true.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are lying, John!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a mistruth, John, and you know it.


Jack Wendele Shields: You wanted it to go further, that is what you wanted.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there was no talk then of trample. No, Members of the NDP supported the Government of the day in full voice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You're lying!


Jack Wendele Shields: You wanted it to go further.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is the Government of Canada only to exercise its legislative jurisdiction when the NDP agrees with what it is doing, or is it entitled to do it whenever, whether the NDP agrees or not?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEFINITION OF SUBSIDY-UNITED STATES POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. Canadians have been under the impression from reading Article 1907 of the agreement that there would be a five to seven year negotiation of an acceptable definition of subsidy, which would accommodate Canada's regional development and other industrial and social policies such as those that deal with resources, agriculture, day care, et cetera.
Today's The Wall Street Journal reports on a plan-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's a good paper.
The newspaper reports on a plan settled yesterday by the U.S. administration and the Senate Finance Committee under this section not to develop rules concerning Canadian subsidies but, I am quoting the article and the plan, "to end Canadian subsidies within seven years".
Is this the interpretation of the Canadian Government as well of Article 1907? If it is not, will the Minister get in touch with the Americans and let them know that this U.S. objective and this U.S. plan are not acceptable to Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman opposite is going to get upset by every article he reads in an American paper between now and the end of this year, he will be in a constant state of upsetness.
Is this the basis for Question Period in this House? The hon. gentleman scans The Wall Street Journal, sees some suggested story about some purported plan by some purported, alleged Senator, that suggests that the U.S. Administration should not agree on a definition of subsidy, and he brings the matter up in the House now and expects it to take it seriously. Really!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION-FEDERAL POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Americans do not like the way that economic activity is organized in Canada, or the role of the provinces. I want to ask the Minister if he can assure us that the Government of Canada will not use the trade deal or the legislation that it proposes to introduce to assert paramountcy, and effectively expropriate and take over areas in which provinces have been exercising jurisdiction and legislating in relation to industries ever since Confederation.


John Horton McDermid: You guys should know about expropriation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting to see how the Hon. Member

May 17, 1988
Oral Questions
is shocked now by the suggestion of expropriation? This is the 25 per cent backer-inner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They backed in and expropriated 25 per cent from all the oil and gas producers of the country, and now we see the crocodile tears dribbling down the Hon. Member's face at this suggestion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Government does not propose to expropriate anything at all. It proposes to use its proper constitutional jurisdiction with respect to the treaty power and the trade and commerce power to see that this country has a national government that is able to act in those areas given to it by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. We do not propose to intrude upon anyone else's jurisdiction whatever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It arises out of the case of Mr. Santokh Singh. Yesterday the Minister declared before the House that she supports the integrity of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and the Immigration Appeal Board. Yet she knows that when three highly qualified members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee-Mr. William Barton, Mr. Yvon Beaulne, and Dr. Ed Ziegler- unanimously found Mr. Santokh Singh to be a refugee, the Minister set aside their recommendation and replaced it with an opposite recommendation from three immigration officials who are not members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.
Therefore will the Minister tell this House who were these immigration officials whose recommendation she preferred to the legally constituted committee? What were their qualifications for judging refugee status?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the officials in question were officials of the Department of Immigration: Mr. Dubois, Mr. Beaupre, and Mr. Robbins, who have long experience in dealing with immigration and refugee matters.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION BE REINSTATED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister claims to support the integrity of the refugee status advisory committee and of the Immigration Appeal Board, and the Minister knows that the Immigration Appeal Board has been crippled by a Federal Court decision on a very similar matter, that is, relating to the tenure of the officials on the board, will the Minister restore the credibility, at least of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, by reinstating the original RSAC recommendation, and also by reinstating the appointments of Messrs. Barton, Beaulne and Ziegler who were discontinued after they gave their recommendation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what I have said that I will do, and I think that we should do, is let the process take its natural course.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why didn't you do that in the first place?


John R. Rodriguez: It is not a natural course.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister is answering the question. The Hon. Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Singh has very able legal counsel who have stated that they will appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board.
The advisory committee is an advisory committee; it is just that. I do respect its integrity. All proper procedures were followed and will continue to be followed.


CSIS SECURITY CHECK
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal activity by members of the Sikh community.
In his letter dated April 1, 1987, to the Minister of Immigration, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated, and I quote: "Major Santokh Singh Bagga is wanted in India because of his suspected involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate the Indian Prime Minister and a number of other subversive activities".
Will the Solicitor General confirm that this statement by his colleague is untrue? Will he further confirm that Mr. Singh was security cleared both by the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member, as is usual and normal in cases where a person is applying for this status, that CSIS is requested to do a security check. I can advise the Hon.
May 17, 1988

Member that, yes, indeed, a security check was done, and was given to the relevant Ministers.
The Elon. Member knows that, for security reasons and for matters under the Privacy Act, we do not reveal the contents of those checks or make them public.


CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Mr. Singh about 20 minutes ago. He asked me to ask the Solicitor General to confirm that he was cleared both by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
If that was the case, can the Solicitor General explain to Mr. Singh and to Canadians why the Secretary of State for External Affairs would allege that Mr. Singh was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the Indian Prime Minister?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already said. For privacy and security reasons we do not reveal the contents of security checks that are done on individuals.
Is the Hon. Member suggesting that every time we do a security check on somebody in Canada that I should rise in the House and tell the people of Canada personal information relating to that individual? Is that what the Hon. Member is suggesting?


BANKRUPTCIES
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Minister knows, the bankruptcy laws are hopelessly outdated. We desperately need new laws to be brought in to protect many thousands of employees, as well as suppliers.
Can the Minister tell the House if we can hope to see some legislation brought forward to address the many shortcomings in the present legislation?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his continuing interest in this very important subject.
I am very hopeful that I will be able to introduce legislation in this session. It rather depends upon the ability to gain the co-operation of the opposition Parties in dealing with the legislative program of the Government.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Put it on today, this afternoon.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: I would be pleased to join with the Hon. Member in talking to the New Democratic Party to see if we can get them to act responsibly, and perhaps we will have an opportunity to make corrections to the Bankruptcy Act.


PULP MILL OUTFALLS-DIOXIN LEVELS IN CRABS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Health and Welfare. When it comes to dioxins the Conservative Government takes the same position as Ronald Reagan does on acid rain, lots of studies but no action.
While a 20-part-per-trillion tolerance has been established for 2378 TCDD, tests conducted near the outfalls of B.C. pulp mills have shown alarming levels of dioxins in crabs and oysters far above that level of tolerance.
Why has the Government not put a complete ban on all crab fishing near pulp mill outflows when dioxin levels up to 24,968 parts per trillion have been found in the hepato-pancreas of crabs, and when the Minister knows that many people consider the hepato-pancreas a delicacy?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has to be a little careful in making certain statements as if they are facts.
The release that was issued yesterday on behalf of the Government, and two of my colleagues, very clear states the type of sampling that was done, and the type of sampling that will continue. I would direct the attention of the Hon. Member to the backgrounder which I think is accurate.
In respect of the dungeness crab, I asked very clearly whether there were people who were using the pancreas for purposes of their own food supply. I say to the Hon. Member that the edible parts of the crab, also included in the backgrounder, were well within the tolerance levels. I still wish to have sampling done even beyond that.
For the Hon. Member to say that some of the intestinal tract will not have certain dioxins or other toxins in it, and to make that statement as he did, is obviously stating a fact that all of us know. That is why, if the Hon. Member looks at this background paper, he will find that is why we made it the way we did.
Additionally, I asked yesterday if there were Vietnamese communities eating the pancreas and that is also being checked out further.


James Douglas Manly: I think the Minister illustrates the problem. Things are being checked out and there is a real and present danger there.

May 17, 1988
Oral Questions


EXAMPLE SET BY SWEDISH PULP MILLS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The alarming nature of dioxin levels can be seen by the fact that at Crofton there is a threefold increase in dioxin levels in the eggs of the blue heron, and not one egg hatched last year out of 57 active nests.
What is Canada doing to follow the example of Sweden where the great majority of pulp mills have cut dioxin levels by up to 80 per cent, and where people are encouraged to use unbleached and semi-bleached paper products in an attempt to cut down on the use of chlorine in pulp mills and dioxin contamination in the environment?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on that point also, if the Hon. Member had read the material that was prepared yesterday, he would find that with chlorine bleach if we move toward the oxygen method, while that reduces the dioxins by approximately 50 per cent, it does not eliminate them.
If the Hon. Member looks at the action plan in the paper to cover further sampling to see what other action can be taken by the Government of Canada in respect to protection, that is the issue that has to be dealt with.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that, when he rises and makes statements, he make them on facts, rather than the type of impression he was attempting to leave in the House today.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- CANADIAN STEEL EXPORTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. Yesterday, David Hawley, an official of Inland Steel in Chicago, told a conference in Toronto that the United States steel industry is withholding its support for the free trade agreement, and it is pressing for a formal restraint agreement to limit Canadian steel exports to the United States in spite of the free trade agreement.
Can the Minister advise the House if the United States Government has asked for a formal restraint agreement on steel exports from Canada? What guarantee can the Minister give to Canadian steel producers that there will not be a formal restraint agreement to restrict Canadian exports of
steel as a result of pressures from the United States Government?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I received no request for such action to be taken. It is well known, however, that the Canadian steel industry is extremely efficient and productive and that it will be one of the greatest beneficiaries of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. That is why, when I spoke in Hamilton yesterday, many illustrious members of the industry were present at the meeting to applaud heartily whenever 1 spoke positively about the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Ms. Copps:: You weren't applauded in Hamilton, so disabuse yourself of that notion.


John Carnell Crosbie: I missed the hon. lady's comment, but I could have heard her voice in Hamilton yesterday had she been speaking here in the House.
One of the main reasons for the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is to be protected from such suggestions of U.S. figures as we will be-


Mr. Benjamin:: We are not; we are not.


John Carnell Crosbie: -when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement takes effect. Please read the agreement, Mr. Benjamin.


UNITED STATES OFFICIALS' COMPLAINTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, yesterday United States officials also complained about the subsidies provided to Sysco steel, and the countervail duty and the dumping duty provisions of the free trade agreement. Since the U.S. will still be free to use the countervail duty and dumping duties against Canadian steel exporters, does this not really make a sham of the whole agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we export steel and steel products to the United States and they export steel and steel products to Canada. We have an extremely efficient industry. Last year when the Americans introduced their voluntary program, we were exempted from it.
Twenty countries were supplying steel products to the United States. They negotiated voluntary restraint arrangements with 20 countries and we were exempted because of the integrated and mutually beneficial nature of the two-way trade in steel between Canada and the U.S., and because Canadian steel exports were found to be fairly traded. That has not changed. Thank God, when we have the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in place, we will have all the protection we need for products that are fairly traded.
May 17, 1988


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Last August, the former president of the Automobile Protection Association, Phil Edmonston, wrote to the Minister about the offer made by Chrysler. The company intended to offer compensation to 6,000 Canadians who purchased a demonstration model.
In a letter dated August 22, the Minister answered, and I quote: "The falsification of odometers is also a criminal offence under the federal Weights and Measures Act". The Minister added: "The matter has been referred to the Solicitor General who is responsible for enforcement of the legislation".
What has been done about this matter? Have charges been laid to protect consumers?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I gather Mr. Edmonston has received his nomination for the New Democratic Party, has he?
If the Hon. Member wants the kind of details for which he has asked, he should give me some warning that he will ask for that. I will look into the questions he has raised and get back to him.


REQUEST THAT CORPORATION BE PROSECUTED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responded that Chrysler indeed had broken the weights and measures law regarding the disconnecting of the Chrysler odometers. There are 6,000 Canadian consumers who have not been compensated by Chrysler. In the United States, Chrysler has been prosecuted. Will the Minister stand up for Canadian consumers and prosecute Chrysler, and ensure that Canadian consumers get a deal?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have replied, and I repeat I will look into the matter and get back to the Hon. Member.


AIDS DISEASE-ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Almost two years ago he said on the subject of AIDS that "Canadians are concerned about this dreaded disease and
Oral Questions
expect their Government to take action". How can he explain then why his own advisory committee on AIDS has not met for six months and why, according to the director of the centre, there are no meetings scheduled in the near future? Why is it that the federal Centre for AIDS, established with much fanfare when the Minister made his original announcement, is now running on overdraft because there is no money for an operating budget?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, the term used by the Hon. Member, "overdraft", is not the case. That is not a word that describes in any way the situation with the federal Centre for AIDS. As she knows, the Government came forward with $39 million for a five-year program.
The second point she made was that the national advisory committee did not meet for six months. Today I asked the Deputy Minister to check it out, and she said very clearly to me that, if a meeting had been called, the money would have been there for them to have a meeting.


FEDERAL FUNDING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister is misleading on both counts. My office spoke this morning to his appointed director, Dr. Alastair Clayton, who said that there were no meetings scheduled in the near future, and in fact it was a member of the advisory committee, Kate Hentchen from the Montreal General Hospital, who advised me specifically today that the federal Centre for AIDS has run out of funding and is operating on overdraft. It has no money for any more meetings and there are no meetings scheduled, according to the director of the centre. How can the Minister claim that he is doing everything possible when the bodies involved cannot even meet together to discuss this extremely serious issue?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I already answered the first question so that answer stands. Second, I have also said quite publicly that the Government is considering additional initiatives on the matter of combating AIDS, including public education, and that announcement will be made in due time.


CANADA-NOVA SCOTIA OFFSHORE FUND USE OF MONEYS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Fund. I am sure the Minister is now aware that the Auditor General is investigating some of the management and spending practices regarding moneys from that fund.

May 17, 1988
Oral Questions
Some $2 million of the Offshore Fund has now been funnelled through the City of Dartmouth into the hands of a private developer called Portland Estates to pay for the sewer costs of this private development. Does the Minister think it is appropriate to use funds from the Offshore Fund to pay the sewer costs of a private development when the terms of reference of that fund are to provide the moneys for infrastructure costs related to resource activity in the offshore? Is that an appropriate use of the fund? Is it an appropriate use of taxpayers' money to pay the sewer costs of a private developer?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Government of Canada signed an agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia, providing for a development fund to help the people and the private and public sector in Nova Scotia take advantage of offshore development.
These agreements are governed by an accord between the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia. The projects have been submitted to the respective committees, Mr. Speaker, and the Auditor General is examining the situation, and we will comment as soon as the results are known.


AIDS DISEASE-FUNDING FOR RESEARCH
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In 1985 and 1986 the Health and Welfare Committee of this House heard from pretty solid witnesses, like Dr. Phil Gold, the physician in chief of the Montreal General Hospital, who told us that we were spending "about one-tenth of what we should be spending for AIDS research".
On the basis of this testimony and testimony similar to that, the Health and Welfare Committee of this House recommended substantial funding for AIDS research.
Why is it that two years later the Government still has not provided adequate funding for AIDS research in Canada? When will it do so?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the committee report as well as reports that I have received, including from Dr. Gold, Dr. Gilmore and others. When we came in with the initial program of $39 million I said at that time that, if that was not enough, I would go back to my Cabinet colleagues on it.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister that there is now an Auditor General's investigation into this matter, and I would like to inform him that the private developer in question is a Mr. Allan Stockall, the fellow who received some $2 million to defray sewer costs.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Stockall contributed some $1,500 to the Conservative Party in 1984, and some $1,500 to the Conservative Party in 1985? As the Minister responsible, does he justify this kind of expenditure of the taxpayers' money when the main beneficiary is a high-ranking Nova Scotia Tory, a private developer for whom sewer costs are being paid, when that money should be going toward the costs of offshore development for the people of Nova Scotia? Does he justify that?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think Canada has a law preventing citizens from contributing to political parties. Furthermore, I am not in the habit of checking whether contributions were made before approving a project proposed by the Government of Nova Scotia.
The report of the committee said pretty well the same thing that additional money was needed.
It was that response, and the Royal Society's report, which we asked to have done and for which we paid $250,000, which have given us a broad ranging view of the various aspects of the AIDS illness. It was from all of those recommendations that I made recommendations to the Government. In response to the Hon. Member, as I responded to his colleague earlier, the answer stands as to the announcement.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer, but I remind him that the funding he provided for research was substantially less than that recommended by the Health and Welfare Committee of this House and again substantially less than the kinds of sums mentioned by people like Dr. Phil Gold.


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. What kind of priorities has he set for his Government and for this country when he can find billions of dollars for nuclear submarines but has difficulty coming up with a few millions for research into a problem such as AIDS? Why is it mega-bucks for subs but peanuts for AIDS research?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has been misled. As he may remember, one of our first initiatives was on behalf of spousal
May 17, 1988

allowances benefiting Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64. We have moved on social policy to child care.
On the social side of the ledger we have attempted-


Ms. Mitchell:: Two years ago you made a commitment and you have done nothing about it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the social side of the ledger, be it from the spousal allowance to child care-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What are you talking about?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the Government has made a very significant effort. There is a special problem-


Mr. Ouellet:: Answer the question. Do you know what the question is?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: A special problem has arisen with respect to the AIDS infection-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could Hon. Members allow the Prime Minister to answer the question, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what is particularly regrettable about the intervention of the Hon. Member for Papineau is that he comes once a month to the House of Commons. I would have thought he would do a little better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The issue raised by-


Mr. Rossi:: You're out of your depth!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Rossi, we are going to put the police on you.


Carlo Rossi: Okay, stupid.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Carlo, just a minute, please!

My hon. friend raises a very sensitive and important national issue, Mr. Speaker. The AIDS problem deserves the highest attention not only by this Parliament but by Governments, agencies, and research institutions across Canada. We have committed large amounts of funds to this matter. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated a number of times that if those funds are insufficient he will return to his Cabinet colleagues for further funding.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He already has.
Motions


Martin Brian Mulroney: He has already done that. He is in the process of bringing forth more initiatives that we believe will be of great benefit to Canada in its pursuit of a solution to this very, very challenging, very sad, human problem. I hope my hon. friend will agree with the approach of the Government in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning there was an agreement among the Parties to revert to Motions at this time in order that I could put the following motion which has been discussed with the House Leaders of the two opposition Parties and the independent Members of the House. I move:
That consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Member has to have unanimous consent. I do not want to be operating outside of the rules.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the situation. I was here this morning. We gave unanimous consent but it was not sought by the Chair. I would just like the Chair to make sure the rules are followed, that is, unanimous consent be put at this time to revert to Routine Proceedings. I think that we should operate under the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to revert to Motions at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion

May 17, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Shields
among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. 1 move:
That consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice for amendments to the Constitution of Canada (Government Orders, Government Business, Number 23) shall be conducted as follows;
(1)	No later than 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 1988, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or a Member of their respective Parties acting on their behalf, may each give notice of a motion incorporating amendments described in addendum A and B, respectively, of the report of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord, tabled in the House on September 21, 1987, and, when the said Government Order is taken up on a subsequent sitting day, the Speaker shall, after the main motion is proposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, declare these motions to have been duly moved and seconded;
(2)	No later than 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 1988, other Members may give notice of amendments substantively different from those of which notice has been given pursuant to Section (1) of this Order, and when the said Government Order is taken up on a subsequent sitting day, the Speaker may declare these motions to have been duly moved and seconded;
(3)	No amendment shall be permitted other than as provided for by Sections (1) and (2) of this Order;
(4)	During the debate on the said Government Order, and any amendments thereto, no Member may speak more than once;
(5)	At the conclusion of debate on the said Government Order, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, all of the questions necessary to dispose of all of the proposed amendments and of the Main Motion, as amended or not amended, as the case may be, in the following order:
(I)	The motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition or a Member acting on his behalf pursuant to Section (1) of this Order;
(II)	The motion proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party or a Member acting on his behalf pursuant to Section (1) of this Order;
(III)	Any motion proposed pursuant to Section (2) of this Order;
(IV)	The Main Motion;
(6)	For the purposes of this Order, a Whip may request a deferred vote on all questions set out in Section (5) of this Order for 48 hours.
(7)	During consideration of this Government Order, the provisions of Standing 9(4) shall not apply.
I might advise the House before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, that this has been discussed with all Parties. This is exactly the same order used when the debate ensued last fall. I would also advise that we intend to start the debate on this question on Thursday of this week. I will also formally advise the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway accused the Minister for International Trade of lying. I am sure he would want to withdraw that statement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did. It is unparliamentary for me to call the Minister for International Trade a liar and I therefore withdraw that unconditionally. I would express the hope that the Minister would show some integrity-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and look at the votes on the National Energy Program where my friend and I both voted against the provisions of the NEP. I wish the Hon. Member would tell the Minister that so the Minister is informed.
I unconditionally withdraw, and express the hope that my good friend over there will talk to the Minister and inform him so he is not ignorant about these matters.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to read his own speeches where he implied that the NEP did not go far enough and that we should go after one of the big boys like Imperial Oil and nationalize it. It is clear that the NDP voted against the policy but only because it did not go far enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On another point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will try something totally different from the point made by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). I would like simply to say that we appreciate the cooperation offered by my friend, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, as well as the Deputy Government House Leader in negotiating today's special order. I appreciate their co-operation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-127 which will increase the present working capital provision of
May 17, 1988

DEVCO from $25 million annually to $50 million annually. We in this Party have no problem with that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let's vote on it then.


John R. Rodriguez: We will support it and vote for it in due course, brother. I want to take this opportunity to say a few things about DEVCO and just where the Government is headed in Cape Breton with DEVCO.
There was a time when the DEVCO workforce was up around 6,500 employees. That was in 1965. Over the years the workforce has been eroded to 3,400 employees at present.
DEVCO had two arms. There was the coal mining arm and the industrial development division. That concept placed DEVCO in the picture of economic development in Cape Breton. In fact, DEVCO not only dealt with the coal mining operations on the island, it was also plugged into the diversification of the economy of Cape Breton. That seemed to be a proper approach.
What has happened now, of course, is that the Government established ACOA. The industrial development division of DEVCO has been put into Enterprise Cape Breton and it will now go under ACOA. ACOA will be administered by a Minister whose head office is here in Ottawa. The headquarters of ACOA will be in Moncton, New Brunswick. However, the major decision-making will be centralized here in Ottawa. DEVCO will simply be the coal mining operation.
At present there are three coal mines under the jurisdiction of DEVCO that need development work. We know the Government inherited DEVCO from the private sector. It was originally DOSCOE. The private sector could not make enough money. It never really invested in modernization of the operation and so the company left the shores of Cape Breton. The Government of the day had to save the jobs and avert disaster in Cape Breton. That is how it inherited DEVCO. It was not a planned initiative by the Government to enter the market-place. There was no planning to it. It was the private sector defaulting on its responsibility to the community, not living up to its social responsibility in Cape Breton, and pulling out. Like so many other Crown corporations, it is a history of the failure of the private sector, and the inability of Governments to hold the private sector responsible for their actions in a community. That is the history of DEVCO and it is now being sheared off and set up.
The question which the people of Cape Breton, the workers at DEVCO, have in their minds is: What is the long-term aim of the Government? What is the agenda?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Does it have one?


John R. Rodriguez: It has. Every time the Government says it is not going to do something, it is going to do it. It said it was not going to privatize Air Canada, and we know what happened. The Government's "no" means "yes".
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
In this particular case the Government said it has no intention of selling off DEVCO to the private sector. We know that is the hidden agenda, and the people of Cape Breton are concerned. The workers at DEVCO are concerned. They know that there is a private operator in Pictou County called Westray. They are establishing a coal mine operation in Pictou County, Nova Scotia. The people of Cape Breton are concerned about what will happen once Westray is established. Of course they have probably already approached ACOA hats in hands for some hand-outs. I understand it is $75 million. You notice how these capitalists operate? They are all against government involvement in business. They want nothing to do with that. They want no regulations. They want governments off their backs. I hear it all the time. They condemn people who are on welfare. The John Bullochs of this world are all against the unemployment insurance program and our other social programs. They say they are disincentives to work.
However, why is it not a disincentive for the Corporation to go hat in hand to the Government for a $75 million hand-out? That is what is happening. They have a proposal before ACOA for $75 million. Therefore, on the one hand the Government will fund the establishment of coal mines in Pictou County in Nova Scotia while, on the other hand, setting DEVCO up by sharing it off and leaving it in left field.
We can see what will happen. DEVCO will be squeezed, it will not be advanced the money it needs to develop its mines. There will be no marketing for its coal and no money for research and development.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nonsense.


John R. Rodriguez: DEVCO has a very interesting experimental program under way called carbogel. It is still in its early stages. It is a coal and water process to develop energy, a liquefaction program. It is funded to the tune of $1 million or $2 million a year out of DEVCO. It seems to me that the Government will not give DEVCO the funds it needs. It will fund this other operation in another part of Nova Scotia, and eventually you will see that once the workforce of DEVCO has been cut back and DEVCO has been made profitable the Government will allow DEVCO to be bought out. I have no doubt that Westray may very well be the company which eventually takes over DEVCO.
These are the concerns that the people of Cape Breton have. When we get into Committee of the Whole we are going to try to get a commitment from the Government with respect to the long-term prospects for DEVCO. For example, is the Government prepared to forbid any more lay-offs and allow an attrition process to take place? Is it prepared to make a commitment that DEVCO will in fact become more aggressive in terms of finding new markets for its coal? Is it going to give a commitment that it will not allow this new company in Pictou County, which the Government is going to fund with taxpayers' money, to raid the major customer of DEVCO, the

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
Nova Scotia Power Corporation? Is it prepared to make those commitments? Those are the kinds of things we are looking for.
In fact, the Government owes it to the people of Cape Breton to ensure that their major coal mining operation enterprise, DEVCO, is not destroyed, is not sold off to the private sector which will eventually close it out. When the Government is questioned, then it will say that those decisions are taken in the private sector and it has no responsibility for them.
The downsizing of DEVCO, the future of DEVCO, a commitment from the Government with respect to the funding of DEVCO, its expansion and its marketing are the issues we will seek to have clarified in Committee of the Whole. As I said, we are going to support the Bill, but we are gravely concerned, as are the workers and people of Cape Breton, about the future of DEVCO.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I suggest that, were you to seek the unanimous consent of the House you might find agreement to deal with this matter in Committee of the Whole. At a later stage I may ask for unanimous consent for third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Bill proceed to Committee of the Whole?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Advances to Corporation for working capital


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister responsible what the Government's intention is with respect to DEVCO. Is it the intention of the Government to allow the company to shrink, to allow the workforce to shrink, and eventually to phase out or sell the company? What is the Government's intention?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman's question is appreciated and quite legitimate. It is a matter of some regret that the Member was not here when I spoke
earlier in the day. At the very outset of my general remarks earlier today I indicated that there were two matters I wanted to address. The first was the nature of the amendment and the underlying history behind it.
Second, and most important, in a most positive vein, this amendment, as well as dealing with the commitment with respect to cash flow, is also a long-term commitment to the future of coal mining in Cape Breton. The Government has no intention now or in the foreseeable future of abandoning DEVCO. I can give that undertaking with complete assurances.


John R. Rodriguez: Perhaps we can be a little more specific. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a commitment that the workforce at DEVCO will not be shrunk through lay-offs but that any process to reduce the workforce would be through attrition rather than lay-offs?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member will be aware that in large measure the downsizing of DEVCO is as much a product of the productivity of the miners. It is, second, a consequence of the new mine with state of the art mining procedures and processes. There are 650 to 700 people employed there.
As good an indication as I can give to the Hon. Member may be that DEVCO has increased from a $7 million or $8 million corporation to one approaching a $500 million business. That alone speaks with certainty of the future.
The Hon. Member knows that I am not in a position to give undying assurances. I can suggest to him, however, that the workforce has been downsized but should now grow with the growth of the coal industry in Cape Breton Island.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, I rather take exception to something the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said with respect to the productivity of the workforce of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The workforce of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has one of the finest productivity rates in Canada. If there is a problem with DEVCO, it is the lack of concerted effort by the Government to have a strong management team.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will admit that we have gone for months without a president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, for no real good reason other than the federal Government has refused to appoint one. A president and chief executive officer for a Crown corporation is very important. When will the Government deem it fit to appoint a president?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, let me assure the Member that I was making no derogatory comments on the productivity of Cape Breton coal miners. It is quite the opposite. I was saying that it was due to their productivity that built-in efficiencies have occurred so that this year DEVCO will show
May 17, 1988

an operating profit. It still has a couple of years in its plan, but at the end of the cycle when Phelan is fully operational and efficiencies of the new processes are working at their maximum, the question of productivity or lower numbers will not even come into question. Indeed, it should grow.
The Government hoped that the new president could have been named some time ago. I can only give the Member the assurance that when he hears the news, perhaps as early as next week, he will be relatively pleased.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm or deny that in the next seven days Mr. Ernest Boutiler, the current President of Sydney Steel Corporation, will be appointed president and chief executive officer of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boutiler will be pleased to hear those comments by the Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond. I am not sure whether it will come as a surprise to him or not.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, is the Parliamentary Secretary confirming his appointment here today?


J. Michael Forrestall: Of course not. Perhaps he is a candidate himself, Mr. Chairman.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that documents have been provided to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Government of Canada and particularly the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) with regard to the position of the Cape Breton Development Corporation concerning the funding of a coal mine in Pictou County. I tabled those documents in the House some time ago.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking to the House, since we are dealing with this federal Crown corporation, to provide to Members who are interested, including myself and the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the Member for Nickel Belt, all the information from the Government of Nova Scotia suggesting that a new coal mine in Pictou County will in no way compete with the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
A submission was made by the Government of Nova Scotia regarding this particular matter. In the spirit of openness and the spirit in which this Bill is being passed today, will the Parliamentary Secretary provide that information and all other information which the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia have on this new coal mine in Pictou County.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I think the distinguished Member is very aware that it would be quite inappropriate for me to give that kind of undertaking. However, I would be pleased to make available to the hon. gentleman that which he can get by a phone call himself, which is the information that the province is quite prepared to release at this point in time
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
with respect to Westray and the Pictou area. That matter is under very active consideration now and no decision has been made with respect to it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, this whole Westray operation is very interesting. I recall when the uranium industry was being started in Elliot Lake. Stephen Roman, who owned Denison Mines, began that mining operation. In order that the mining magnate could develop the mine and assure income, governments were quite willing to guarantee the price for uranium. In fact, they guaranteed the price for uranium, guaranteed contracts and the length of the contract. For example, Ontario Hydro helped make the Roman empire.
DEVCO's major customer is the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Some 60 per cent of the coal mined by DEVCO goes to Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Has the Government made any attempt to ensure that there is a long term 30-year contract for coal delivery to Nova Scotia Power Corporation, similar to what Ontario Hydro had with Denison Mines? Has there been any attempt by the Government to secure that market for DEVCO and at least give some assurance to the workers that their jobs will be protected for the future?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult to respond to the Member's question in detail. The phenomenal growth of DEVCO, from the concept of a Crown corporation established not only to downsize but phase out coal mining, from a $7 million entity a few short years ago into a half billion dollar enterprise today would suggest that any government would want to carry on that kind of phenomenal growth.
It is the stated intention of the Province of Nova Scotia to move away from dependency on imported oil and into coal. Indeed, the present Government of Nova Scotia intends to generate excess capacity for hopeful sales to New England states.
The coal industry in Nova Scotia is very vital to the provincial government and is crucial to this Government's long term economic planning.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, this is the concern of the people of Cape Breton and the workers in those mines. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to clear up some of the rumours and some of these concerns with respect to the opening up of the coal mine in Pictou County. The workers and the people in Cape Breton are concerned that the Government is going to put up money for Westray to open a new mine for coal and that coal is going to be supplied to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation and obviously there will be some cutbacks to the coal from DEVCO. I think it is incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary to give assurance to the people of Cape Breton that whatever is done with respect to Pictou County and ACOA that it will not interfere with the coal contracts that are now in existence between the Nova Scotia Power Corporation and DEVCO.

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
That is the foundation of DEVCO's present existence. Sixty per cent of its production goes there. God knows, it has been a declining production over the years. Surely, we are not going to let happen to DEVCO what we let happen to Sysco with respect to the production of railway lines.


J. Michael Forrestall: Again, Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat to the Hon. Member that the coal production forecasts are for some 4.6 million tonnes within the next couple of years. That does not seem to me to be a negative thing. It seems a very positive thing. The people responsible for DEVCO will have to ensure that any further development in the coal area in Nova Scotia is not incompatible one with the other. Neither the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia nor the present federal Government is in the business of putting people out of work. That is not our role. I am sure it is not one the Hon. Member would support.
I think what I am saying is that on any development with respect to Westray, I am sure the consideration being given to that development is based in no small measure on that compatibility. I am a little more positive than the Hon. Member. He has some scepticism with respect to the future of the employees of DEVCO, but I do not. 1 have great faith in the future of coal and the development of coal mining in the Province of Nova Scotia. I have absolute faith in the capacity of DEVCO to find that type of market.
As I mentioned earlier today, DEVCO and the federal Government have in place a series of talks dealing just exactly with the concerns raised by the Hon. Member with respect to finding new long term sales opportunities.


David Charles Dingwall: On that note, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can confirm today whether or not the mandate for the Cape Breton Development Corporation has been changed in view of the statements made by the previous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when she indicated very clearly that DEVCO was not to be in the business of exporting its coal abroad. Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm to the House that that direction is no longer being given to the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I think 1 can put to rest the Member's fears. When I talk about finding long-term markets,
I am talking about the long term markets that will derive from the value added to that coal, and that is in the generation of electricity.


David Charles Dingwall: The Parliamentary Secretary is very clear by his answer that internationally there will not be a thrust in terms of the exporting of coal, but let me ask him another question with respect to the health services program at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate to the House why senior management, either at the behest or the direction of the Government of Canada, is attempting to delude the health services program at
the Cape Breton Development Corporation, thereby reducing the number of nurses at the various stations throughout the Cape Breton Development Corporation. At one point in time it was in the position of seriously doing away with the employee assistance program. However, I am now informed it is not proceeding on that but it is proceeding with respect to downsizing the number of nurses at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether or not the Government has plans to change this regressive direction?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the Hon. Member. I do not have the answer to that question. It would come as somewhat of a surprise to me if there is a downsizing of nurses as suggested by the Hon. Member. I would undertake to the Hon. Member to find the answer to that question and provide it to him at a later date.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the continuous service aspect for pre-retirement leave, the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that coal miners at the Cape Breton Development Corporation are entitled to what they call a compassionate disability leave. Under the compassionate disability, one of the things written into the collective agreement is that one must have x number of continuous years of service. However, about two years ago the Government of Canada came with an early retirement incentive plan to provide older miners who worked in the coal industry an opportunity for pre-retirement. It was very clearly spelled out what the conditions were. The conditions were different from that of compassionate disability in that members did not need to have x number of years of continuous service with respect to the early incentive retirement plan at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Coupled with the fact that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia adjudicated clearly and convincingly that if continuous service is not spelled out in the collective agreement and/or the agreement reached with the Government of Canada, management then does not have the discretion to say one must have continuous service. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would care to comment on that situation. There are a large number of individuals who could in effect go on pre-retirement early leave if the continuous service argument was not applicable, as it should not be applicable with respect to that incentive program.


J. Michael Forrestall: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Hon. Member will appreciate my necessary response. It would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on a matter of internal responsibility such as that. Let me assure the Hon. Member that the situation is being watched very closely and his comments are not lost.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sensitivity of the Parliamentary Secretary to these issues. Another issue which is of burning significance to a great number of employees at the Cape Breton Development Corporation is what is known as PRL, Pre-Retirement Leave which took place back in the early 1970s. I am glad to see the Minister of
May 17, 1988

National Health and Welfare has entered the House. He might want to participate in the debate since it concerns pension and pension reform. On the pre-retirement leave plan of some years ago, individuals who went on pre-retirement leave then and now, some 15 years or 16 years, have had to pay unemployment insurance premiums when in fact they could never and will never be able to collect unemployment insurance. But they must pay the unemployment insurance premiums. The unfairness and discriminatory aspects of that is that other individuals who are on pre-retirement leave, compassionate disability, and so on, do not have to pay unemployment insurance premiums.
There has been a hassle between the senior management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Government of Canada as to whether they want to change that, for example, having some 267 people not pay unemployment insurance premiums any longer. I suggest with great respect that it is not a lot of money to the Government but it is a lot of money to those individuals who are on a fixed limited income.
1 would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would give due consideration to those concerns to see whether or not he and the Government would be prepared to change that regressive aspect of the employee relations at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


J. Michael Forrestall: The representations are very sensibly given. I take them as such. I would be very pleased to pursue them.
Again, I must say that apart from the principle that is involved, which I do not find myself in any serious disagreement with, the matter is still very much in the jurisdiction of the corporation itself. It would be somewhat inappropriate to try to respond in a major policy way with respect to that particular question. However, I am sensitive to it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, there are other issues of equal importance. However, again, I raise them for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Some 600 individuals were not tested at the Cape Breton Development Corporation, people who made claims to the effect that they had serious hearing loss as a result of employment at the corporation. Management in its wisdom decided that in order to adjudicate, to provide some degree of fairness and to expedite those claims that it would take a number of the tests with specialists. These were local specialists. There were also specialists involved from Halifax. The management talked to Compensation officials, its doctors and what have you. It felt that it would be in a position to adjudicate those various claims.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary through you, Mr. Chairman, this question. In view of the large number of hearing loss claims at Cape Breton Development Corporation, and in view of the fact that these men in many instances are one mile down, or six or seven miles underneath the ocean
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
mining coal, and due to the fact that the new machinery has a noise volume which is rather excessive to say the least, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to once again look at this situation and try to have the Government adjudicate it in order to resolve these matters in an expeditious way?
I say to the Hon. Member that many of these individuals are being told by senior management people that they will have to wait not one day, not two weeks, not three weeks, not one month, but maybe five years before their claim can be adjudicated. I would ask that the Parliamentary Secretary, with due sensitivity to those concerns, respond in perhaps a positive light.


J. Michael Forrestall: For the sake of those involved, I trust that the Hon. Member is not exaggerating. I have not heard any suggestion that they might have to wait up to five years. However, his representation is one that I will bring forcibly to the attention of the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity.


David Charles Dingwall: My final question, Mr. Chairman, to the Parliamentary Secretary goes back to the initial question with regard to the new coal mine in Pictou County. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his many years of experience, was able to respond that he would provide information. I understand that this is information that the Department has on file with regard to this particular matter. I sincerely ask the Parliamentary Secretary to provide expeditiously, not information which is of a confidential nature in terms of cash flow of the particular company-we are not specifically after that-but the thinking, the rationale and the full explanations that have been given to the Government of Canada, not only by senior management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation but, indeed, by the Premier's office, and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation with respect to what they are saying with regard to this particular project.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, union representatives have requested of the Premier written assurances that there will be no downsizing with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I want to be absolutely certain that the information that one source is getting all sources are getting, and that it is of the same quality and of the same nature. In other words, I do not want to have information which could be misinterpreted or which could be misplaced or could be questioned in another chamber.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who has shown some concern here could provide that information to Members who are interested in this subject matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I can only reiterate my undertaking of a few moments ago to do what I can with respect to information.
I can reassure the Hon. Member, as I did a few moments ago, and my colleague from Nickel Belt, that the Government is not in the business of putting people out of work. It is in the business of creating employment, employment opportunities

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
and economic opportunities. Coal mining in Nova Scotia is one of those opportunities.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns of the people of Cape Breton is, of course, the level of employment at DEVCO. It is also a concern of the workers. However, there is another concern. It is to work in a safe and healthy environment.
Everyone knows that one of the dangers for coal miners, one which they live in constant fear of, is black lung disease. The present regulations provide for coal dust levels of two parts per million. However, in actual fact it is somewhere up around six parts per million-I am getting a signal that I am being a bit conservative-small "c" conservative, Mr. Chairman.
I am being signalled that it is eight parts per million in reality. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us a commitment, since he is in a committing mood here today, that in fact greater resources will be directed toward bringing the levels of coal dust in the mines closer to the two parts per million that we have been unable to achieve so far?


J. Michael Forrestall: I can give the Hon. Member this assurance. If we can get on with this stage of the Bill and increase the working capital limits for DEVCO that the management of DEVCO will have whatever pressure I can lend with respect to achieving that goal. I must say that I was not aware that it was eight parts per million. I must claim that I have no expertise with respect to the significance of the difference between two and eight. It does seem like a significant amount. I would be pleased in terms of commitment to ensure that that question is raised.


John R. Rodriguez: If the Government had come forward with a Bill stating that we can raise the capitalization not up to $50 million but up to $100 million, and if one of the prime efforts on which we were to concentrate would be how to get that level down to two, or even to eliminate it completely, we would be more than willing to support that effort. However, I want to say that there is another effort that is important to the existence of DEVCO and to its future. That is to say the research that is going on at DEVCO in these situations with respect to carbogel, which is the coal water process. I understand that is taking place under DEVCO's jurisdiction. I understand that the corporation puts annually into that effort $1 million to $2 million. It is extremely important in terms of looking to the future.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if there will be any greater commitment to that research that might be reflected in a greater amount of money put into the effort of that process?


J. Michael Forrestall: My information with respect to that is that the level of $1 million to $2 million is a flexible level, and that the moneys required for adequate research are available as and when needed. There was a project under consideration, and the
corporation together with other institutions has been expending approximately that much on an annual basis, with some promising results.


John R. Rodriguez: I noticed in the Estimates that in 1985-86 the Government transferred to DEVCO $160.8 million. In 1988-89 the Estimates indicate a transfer of $45 million to DEVCO. I presume that the reason it is down is because of greater productivity, greater earnings, and the downsizing of the workforce somewhat; am I correct? I see the Parliamentary Secretary is nodding.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a commitment to the House that should the price of coal drop, and support from the Government is needed, the Government would be prepared to contribute to DEVCO in the same amounts as it has in the past to ensure that the operation continues?


J. Michael Forrestall: I have given assurances to the House, both at second reading and during the committee stage, that through this amendment the Government is demonstrating its very firm commitment to precisely the question the Hon. Member raises. When funds are necessary, as has been the practice in the past, those funds will be available in the future. The well-being and the efficiency of DEVCO and coal mining in Cape Breton is very important to all of us, and in that sense I can certainly give the Hon. Member that understanding.


John R. Rodriguez: We hear the Parliamentary Secretary beating his chest and pleading his commitment to Cape Breton and to DEVCO. Some of the mines are in need of upgrading, for example, the Lingan mine facility and the Donkin-Morien mine. Could the Parliamentary Secretary be more specific. Does he think $25 million is enough? There needs to be a commitment to upgrading the mines. Can the Parliamentary Secretary be specific with respect to the intent of the commitment? Can he give us a figure, a commitment, to the upgrading of those two mines?


J. Michael Forrestall: Let me reassure the distinguished Member that if $50 million in working requirement is not sufficient, I believe the most pleased people in the world to increase that would be this Parliament. That would mean that things were working well, expansion was taking place, and necessary modernization programs were in fact ongoing and being put in place. For the time being, I think the doubling of that is a reflection of the very significant growth at DEVCO, but more important, it is a matter of faith of this Parliament, previous Parliaments, and I trust Parliaments to come in DEVCO and its future in Cape Breton Island.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I wish to return to the question of employment at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The question of a mine in Pictou County is one thing. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he is optimistic about future coal sales and the future of the coal industry. Since the Government came into power there have been approximately 600 jobs lost at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. As
May 17, 1988

the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has stated, the number of employees is down to 3,400.
If that enthusiasm and confidence is in the Cape Breton Development Corporation, certainly the Government should be prepared to state emphatically that there will not be a further reduction in the job level at the Cape Breton Development Corporation, by attrition or otherwise. It is not only a question of jobs, it has become a question of maintaining the economic base of that area. Maintaining that job level is vital. As the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows, that industry is a cornerstone industry and it cannot afford to have further job reductions.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Member will be aware that the new colliery is beginning to approach its production capacities. The downsizing has now come to an end, and I think the Hon. Member would share that view. What happens from now on can only be positive and could only result in an increase in the labour force, not a further reduction.
In the definitive sense, DEVCO is a Crown corporation that stands on its own. The management will have to answer that question. I have no sense of anything other than absolute confidence that, quite the contrary to any further reductions, there will be an increase in the workforce.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I grant that management has the hands-on decision as to the actual workforce in the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The reason that DEVCO is a Crown corporation is because of the economic situation on Cape Breton Island. We need the Government to have the ability to decree public policy and direct the corporation.
I wish to mention one such case which has been important, a case of which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has actual knowledge. It is the case of stockpiling of coal at the international piers. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember the concern that caused to residents of Sydney in the Whitney Pier area. The Parliamentary Secretary may or may not know, but the Government should certainly know that that stockpiling is taking place again. The Government gave its assurance that no stockpiling would take place. What is the Government going to do in reaction to what has obviously been a disregard for the Government's instructions in this matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps that speaks loudly for the urgency of naming a new president and chief operating officer, a matter which I hope will happen within the next several days. The situation is a very serious one. Stockpiling and the buildup of inventory will be necessary over the next two or three years as a result of a number of situations which I dwelled upon at some length in my remarks earlier today, Mr. Chairman.
The Hon. Member's comments are noted. We are very much aware of the situation, and very concerned about it. Hopefully, with the appointment of the new president very shortly, these matters can be rectified.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is one thing for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to say that some stockpiling has to take place. The Government assured us that no stockpiling would take place because it was of very great concern to the people in the Whitney Pier area. Once stockpiling takes place, where does it stop? The Government is not saying that there will only be 20,000 tonnes stockpiled. The Government has gone from saying that stockpiling was not allowed under its previous directive to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to now saying that stockpiling is allowed. There is infinity between the two positions. Surely the Government can at least clarify the contradiction in those two positions.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that there would necessarily be stockpiling at the pier, I said that there would be a buildup of inventories because of the nature of markets and the capacity to deliver into a very real market on time when required. Several other factors are involved. Under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to build and hold inventory than it is to approach it in another way. That inventory buildup will probably be necessary, but it does not necessarily follow that there will be stockpiling at the pier.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I would then ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this question and to assure the people of Sydney that stockpiling which seems to be re-emerging will in fact cease and that the Government will reinforce the directive it has already given to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to that effect.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, there has been no change in that policy in that regard.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the third time and passed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because I think this Bill is a good one. However, a great deal needs to be done to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, but as far as it goes, I think this Bill can be supported.

May 17, 1988
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
I listened to my friend from Nickel Belt speak at second reading stage. I was surprised at the strident position that he and his Party are now taking with respect to supporting the Cape Breton industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. We certainly could have used that support from his Party last week when this came up for a vote and members of the New Democratic Party chose to support Bill C-103 which unequivocally, without hesitation or remorse and without afterthought completely terminated and absolutely abolished the industrial development division of DEVCO.
My friend and colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond and I realized that that abolishment was in the Bill, and we had been speaking long and hard on the injustice of doing away with the industrial development division. Certainly our Party took the position that this was completely unjustified.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation legislation was brought forward in 1967. The legislation came about because of the will of the Canadian people, through the Members of Parliament of the time. The economy of Cape Breton was in such a difficult position that not only did the coal industry in Ccipc Breton hsve to be strengthened snd perhsps diversified but as well a development agency had to be set up to bring new jobs into the Cape Breton area.
That was the situation in 1967. The economy of Cape Breton is really no better off right now. In fact, the number of jobs in the coal industry has decreased since this Government took office. The Government has closed two heavy water plants, despite the assurance of the then Minister of Energy and now President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) that these heavy water plants would not be closed until alternate employment could be provided. However, these two plants were closed.
The Sydney steel plant in Cape Breton has reduced employment, and even though the Government seems to have approved the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel, this program is being delayed again and again, to the extent that one really wonders about the commitment of the Government to actually see this program brought forward.
There has been some encouragement with respect to the special investment tax credit and there has been an indication that certain industries will be locating in Cape Breton, but the actual number of jobs that have been committed to by industries starting in industrial Cape Breton has been a small fraction of the jobs that we lost. Not only have we lost jobs in the Crown corporations, but because of the downturn in the economy in industrial Cape Breton, an area with about 120,000 people, we lost other jobs as well as regional companies decided that they did not want to maintain offices in industrial Cape Breton and went to areas like Halifax. Jobs have been disappearing, to the detriment of the economy.
This Government has said that it will get the private sector to do it, that the private sector should be at the forefront of regional development. That has not been the case, however.
We have seen no evidence of that at all. In fact, in the recent annual report of the Small Businesses Loans Act, a report which was over a year late, we saw that all of Atlantic Canada, four of the 10 provinces of Canada, only received 6 per cent of the total business investment loan money available under the Small Businesses Loans Act which was passed by this Government.
The chartered banks are not allocating the money which the Government has guaranteed they will not lose. If these loans are not repaid, the chartered banks are guaranteed to receive 85 per cent of the money back from the federal Government. This is a good program for the banks. They can take this money and allocate it to areas that are in economic need, but that is not what is happening. This money is not going to Cape Breton or to northern Ontario, it is going to the areas which do not need it as much, the areas where there are more companies able to raise funds on their own.
The Government is saying on the one hand that the private sector should be investing in regional development, but on the other hand, we are seeing proof in documents from the government's own agencies that that is just not taking place. As a result, we arc not only losing jobs, but, because of the legislation put forward by this Government, we are losing the legislative infrastructure needed to be able to rebuild the economy.
The Government is saying that it will do away with the industrial development division of Cape Breton Development Corporation. What should have been done instead? Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill, should not have included the abolishment of the industrial development division.
That portion of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should have been put in Bill C-127 so that the whole question of DEVCO could have been dealt with in one Bill instead of forcing us in the Liberal Party to vote against a Bill that would give funding to Atlantic Canada. Although we find many faults with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, that was wrong. It was trying to place Members of Parliament in a position of acting against certain areas of Atlantic Canada. That is not the way industrial development is meant to be enacted.
That portion should be in this Bill so we could deal with the whole question. Nevertheless, what is being brought forward for the coal division is appropriate and much needed in view of the fact that the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act was initiated about 20 years ago. This increase from $25 million to $50 million is long overdue.
I ask the Government not to do away with the industrial development division. To do so would be to reduce DEVCO to a coal producing company, subjected to privatization which, of course, will be a consideration of the Government as all Crown corporations are, and thereby cause further unrest and concern
May 17, 1988

in Cape Breton. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this Government has caused enough economic difficulty in Cape Breton without bringing forward further uncertainty with respect to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. To do away with the industrial development division and replace it with Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will not anywhere near compensate Cape Breton for its loss. First, the industrial development division has its own budget.
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be another arm of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which already has Enterprise Cape Breton. We have Enterprise Cape Breton. Now we will have Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The Government is not even showing the originality of having a different name mainly because it hopes it can gradually merge the two without anyone really knowing. We feel that this is not the time to be doing away with an agency as important as the industrial development division of DEVCO.
I ask that the Government follow through in the spirit in which it is thinking with regard to Bill C-127 by increasing the allotment of the coal division, to consider further the industrial development division of DEVCO and to consider further the economic needs of industrial Cape Breton. By doing this, 1 am sure the Government will then rethink the position on the industrial development division and put a stop to that absolutely silly move it is making which will be very damaging to the economy of Cape Breton.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer)-Medical Research Council-Guidelines on ethical conduct of research involving human subjects; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Acid rain-Damage inflicted by emissions from United States/Acid Rain- Damages suffered by maple syrup producers-Possibility of compensation-Government position; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Consumer Affairs-Views of Ralph Nader/Minister's position.
Cape Breton Development Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed saddened that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), a colleague for whom I have great respect, would actually reflect on a vote of the NDP caucus on Bill C-103. He knows perfectly well why we voted for Bill C-103. It had nothing to do with taking moneys away from the people of Cape Breton or indeed from the people of Atlantic Canada. It saddens me because we all know the way things developed in Cape Breton came about not in the last four years of the Conservative Government but came about as a result of years of Liberal rule.
The Liberals were absolutely bankrupt of any ideas other than the patronage approach of Allan J. MacEachen who moved moneys into his riding. That was their big development project. The Liberals' only approach to development with respect to Cape Breton was the shipping out of Cape Breton-ers, people with fantastic capabilities and qualities. They tried to ship them out to other parts of Canada, it was an export of Cape Breton's human resources. When it comes to creative ideas for economic development in Cape Breton, in Atlantic Canada or in northern Ontario, do not look to the Liberals. It is like trying to find eggs in a cuckoo clock. You will not find any. That is why I was saddened by the comments of my colleague.
I just want to say a few words to wrap up Bill C-127. We support this capitalization program. I outlined at the second reading debate the kinds of concerns we had. We tried to reflect the concerns of the people of Cape Breton and the concerns workers of DEVCO had about its future. We tried to get some commitments. I wonder whether the Minister really knew what the Parliamentary Secretary was going to commit himself to. It is on the record. The Parliamentary Secretary was in a committing mood today. He committed everything and I must say what he committed were good things. These are not the kinds of commitments that would run him afoul of the Criminal Code or anything.
To what did he commit himself, Mr. Speaker? He committed himself that every effort would be made to reduce the level of coal dust. He said that if it meant we would have to come back, get more money and capitalization, that this Parliament-and he is quite confident-would not deny increased amounts if that is what it took to reduce the level of coal dust to the accepted two parts per million. He said that the future of DEVCO would continue. He committed himself to that. There was no plan or agenda to downsize DEVCO, to get rid

May 17, 1988
Railway Safety Act
of it or to close it. That was a commitment. He committed himself that nothing would be done to jeopardize the present DEVCO operation. He committed himself that greater employment opportunities would come as a result of the capitalization included in Bill C-127. He made the commitment that nothing would be done with respect to any other investment in Nova Scotia that would adversely affect DEVCO's operation. He was just a font of commitments.
I hope now that we have the Parliamentary Secretary on the record that he will remember what he said. I hope his Minister does not follow the practice of his Leader who was prepared to say that this is the way it is today but maybe six months later say no, this is not the way it is.
We will support Bill C-127 and the commitments which the Parliamentary Secretary has made on behalf of his Minister and on behalf of the Government. They are now part of the record. We will ensure that those commitments are distributed widely in Cape Breton. We have had the past history of the Liberals, their legacy of disaster in Atlantic Canada and in northern Ontario. Now we have the Conservative commitments. They are on paper. They have been in office for four years and the people of Cape Breton will judge them.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before the debate comes to a conclusion. I have to say at the outset that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), is distorting the facts and history when he makes reference to things that have occurred on the Island of Cape Breton about who was responsible and who was not responsible. I think he clearly and succinctly told us about the lack of appreciation and understanding that his particular Party has for the development of a successful and long-lasting regional economic development policy. In particular, we know what has happened in Cape Breton in the last number of days. The New Democratic Party is running for cover. They are hiding under the tables or in the bushes. They are scared because one of their candidates very clearly agreed with the position of the Liberal caucus concerning ACOA and the industrial development division of DEVCO. We can understand, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary can as well, the sensitivity to bruising of the intellectual ego of the NDP.


John R. Rodriguez: Who was the candidate?


David Charles Dingwall: We have to appreciate their sensitivity because we will run the hell out of them in the next federal election on that issue, not only in Cape Breton but in all of Atlantic Canada. They will have to tell us why they wholeheartedly concur with the philosophy of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is to rack in one agency their entire regional industrial development policy. That is the philosophy, that is the program, that is the intellectual bankruptcy of the NDP on regional economic development. They are sensitive and ought to be sensitive on this important issue.
Regarding Bill C-127 and its substantive provisions, let us not be drunk with delusion. Let us be very candid with one another. This does not provide new working capital, as the NDP and the Government would have you believe, to open up new coal mines in Cape Breton. It is simply a line of credit which has been increased from $25 million to $50 million. Let us not be under any illusions whatsoever that the Government is somehow kowtowing to the interests of the coal miners and the coal industry of Cape Breton. It is emphatically not.
Finally, I do not think any reasonable-and I underline that word reasonable-Member of Parliament could object to this legislation being passed. All it does is amend something that took place some 13 years ago, that being the extension of a credit line. Therefore, I give my concurrence, as does my Party and I believe other Members who have spoken about it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will in good faith take under active consideration the suggestions and concerns raised in this debate and try and provide at the soonest possible opportunity responses to the real human problems, real human tragedies, involving pensions, pension reform, definition of continuous service, pre-retirement leave, unemployment insurance, job losses, and the terrible insecurity and instability the people in Cape Breton feel over the prospects of the new coal mine in Pictou County. I hope he will give serious consideration to all those concerns as he indicated he would at the outset of the debate.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-105, An Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are seven motions on the Order Paper for amendments at the report stage of Bill C-105, An Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof,

All of the motions are in order and each will be debated and voted upon separately. I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 6 at page 12
and substituting the following therefor:
"not exceed eighty per cent of the construction or alteration cost of'.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
May 17, 1988

for a moment on Motion No. 1, but before I do I will just give a brief summary of where the Bill comes from.
At the committee stage, which was the Standing Committee on Transport rather than a special legislative committee, we heard over a dozen witnesses from across the country, from railways to unions to municipalities and special interest groups. There were some 40 plus amendments proposed, some 30 by the Government and some dozen by the opposition Parties, all of which were accepted. We are now at report stage with seven additional motions for change.
Motion No. 1 increases the maximum federal contribution towards grade separation projects from 50 per cent to 80 per cent. There was a good lobby by the municipalities which showed it should be left at 80 per cent and thus it will be. It also changes the words "capital cost" to "construction and alteration cost" pursuant to the change made to other clauses of the Bill. The reason the motion is before us is that it required Royal Recommendation and therefore had to come back at report stage.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are technical amendments picked up by the Clerk of the Committee and the Department of Justice and the drafters, and are moved by the Government. Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will require some debate and we will hear from that Hon. Member. Motion No. 7, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) flows out of an earlier Private Members' Bill and the Government is prepared to accept it.
I believe in general the Bill speaks to the good work done by Hon. Members.
I would certainly like to commend those Hon. Members, starting with the chairman, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), the vice-chairman, the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher), the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford), the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane), and the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) who always works hard at committee. He attends committee meetings faithfully and always has questions.
I would also like to commend the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) who had some very good amendments in the debate. I would also mention the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). All those Members did a magnificent job on the Bill and I think that explains why several dozen amendments were accepted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary his remarks
Railway Safety Act
about the members of the committee. We cannot help it if we are so good.


Mr. Robichaud:: It comes naturally.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my Party supports the Government's intention to amend the Royal Recommendation to restore the cost sharing formula under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act which the Bill was originally going to repeal. However, after representations from the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, members of the trade union movement and railway management, as well as members of the committee from all sides, the Government was wise to agree to restore the cost sharing formula for things like grade separation and rail line relocation.
I want to remind the House that, regardless which Party is in power, if we are going to do what needs to be done on grade separation alone we are looking at $200 million a year over the next five years. I know that sounds like a bundle, and it is. However, when we think of what it will save in terms of railway safety in particular and public safety in general and of the fact that we will have put that many more people to work who will pay taxes, we see that it is not all net cost by any means.
This is something which should have been started years ago. It remains to be done yet. The fact that the Government has agreed to retain the cost sharing formula from the old Railway Relocation and Crossing Act makes me a little bit optimistic. It has to do not only with the cost of safety but with the cost of roads and public safety as well.
This legislation also deals, in a somewhat indirect manner, with rail line abandonment as well as rail line relocation which also deals with maintaining maximum safety. Of all the modes of transportation railways are still the safest. When there is a train wreck it is in the headlines, but it is still the safest way to move goods and people.
The Canadian Federation of Municipalities was almost totally ignored on other pieces of legislation. I must be fair and say that the Federation of Municipalities was somewhat lax on other items of legislation. It was not before the Transport Committee when it should have been and it was left up to individual municipalities. However, on this legislation it showed up to represent all the municipalities of Canada.
The Federation made it extremely plain to the Government, through the committee, that it does not want any more transportation of goods transferred from movement by rail to movement by road. My hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, will verify that the Federation was very explicit that it is in no position to provide greater funding not only for maintenance and repair but for construction of additional roadways to handle an ever-increasing amount of truck traffic.
The CPR is presently attempting to abandon 100 miles of track in southern British Columbia, the boundary subdivision.

May 17, 1988
Railway Safety Act
Over 2,000 carloads a year move on that subdivision. The railroad claims it is losing money. Since a truck does not hold as much as a long railway flat car, if that rail line is abandoned it would be safe to say that 3,000 truckloads of traffic will be transferred from the rail on to Highway 3, a narrow, winding road, something which the municipalities of southern British Columbia neither need nor want.
Therefore, safety goes beyond how well railway cars are maintained and constructed and how well track is maintained. I am most pleased that the Government has acceded to the request of the municipalities and members of the committee to retain the cost sharing formula of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act and to consider rail safety as more than just how safe railway trains operate.
You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, what this has to do with Motion No. 1 changing the Royal Recommendation. Without changing the Royal Recommendation to restore the formula to up to 80 per cent of the cost paid by the federal Government, not a municipality in Canada would bother to put in a grade separation because they could not afford it. A small municipality could not pay 50 per cent of a grade separation which costs $5 million. It would have trouble paying 20 per cent. It would have to try to persuade the province to pay at least half of that.
A grade separation of eight lanes of traffic and a clover-leaf would cost $20 million, $30 million or $40 million. If this were required in a large municipality, the cost per taxpayer would be as great for a large municipality as for a small one. That is why I commend the Government for its wise decision to retain the cost sharing formula. I would have done more than that. The revolution has not yet arrived, but it will.
That is all I want to say on Motion No. 1. I hope that the Government will proceed to arm the respective Departments and agencies with a number of inspections and enforcement and will assist railways and railway unions to establish good functioning employee assistance programs. Members of the committee from all three Parties were not inclined to obstruct or hold up this Bill. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that as a result of the work done in the committee we have a better Bill. It is too bad we cannot do this on a few other Bills.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I support the comments of two of my colleagues who spoke earlier about the exercise we had on the Transport Committee when we were considering this Bill, and I must say it was a most positive experience. We had full co-operation from all Parties, which greatly simplified the Committee's work.
Regarding Motion No. I, to change the maximum grant level from 50 per cent to 80 per cent, I fully agree with this recommendation, especially since it applies to work on construction or alteration of grade separations. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that most railway accidents happen at grade crossings.
This measure is therefore a very positive one, and I support it wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Bouchard) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out line 28 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
'pesticides under subparagraphs (i) and (ii);'


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2 essentially involves two amendments. It changes the word "subsection" in the Bill to "subparagraphs", which is the proper technical wording that should have been used.
As well, in the French version, in reference to weeds, it adds the words: "along a line of railway", which is omitted in the Bill.


Fernand Robichaud: I quite agree. It just clarifies the terms of the clause.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Bouchard) agreed to.
Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Transport moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out, in the English version, line 37 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
'reasons therefor, after the physician or optometrist has'.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, this amendment just
May 17, 1988

adds the words "or optometrist" to the word "physician" pursuant to the evidence that was received.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Bouchard) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out, in the French
version, lines 15 and 16 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
'Code criminel s'applique, compte tenu des adapta-'


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, this amendment removes an incorrect reference to the Criminal Code which had previously been corrected in the English version.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Bouchard) agreed to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-105 be amended by adding immediately after line 38 at page 40
the following:
'44. No charge or complaint may be laid under sections 41,42, and/or 43, except with the consent of the Minister'.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I moved this amendment as a safeguard. Even though I have disagreed with several Ministers of Transport over the years, I have found that all of them would not allow precipitous frivolous action to be taken against a citizen. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I do not hesitate to say that this Bill is far from perfect, but no one is perfect. It does not do much about railway safety other than spell out the kind of regulations the Minister or Governor in Council will be able to enact.
I want to thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for their co-operation and willingness to be guided by a higher wisdom that came from the standing committee and a number of witnesses. The Government was most
Railway Safety Act
prepared to listen and accept reasonable proposals, and accepted some of our amendments during clause by clause study of the Bill.
It was wise to accept about a third of the 25 amendments that the Opposition Members proposed. The other amendments moved by the Government are acceptable, as we have already shown.
1 hope the Government will be equally wise in the consideration of the two amendments moved by myself and the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), an amendment which he has been trying to pass in the House for a number of years.
The purpose of my amendment is to serve as a safeguard, not only for employees but also lower level management in the railroad. I realize that there are concerns that governments and Parliament should be careful about how much authority under the law they give to Ministers. It has been my experience over the years, watching ministers at both federal and provincial levels, that whenever they abused their power they did not last long. They were either kicked out by their leader or the voters.
One has to trust that a Minister in any portfolio, at any level of government, will use those powers with great discretion. Sometimes they have used too much discretion in exercising their powers.
Clause 41 of the Bill states that anyone who, among other things, violates a rule in force under Clause 19 or 20 is guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction. That has never occurred before in transportation legislation. We know that the implementation of these provisions is an experiment.
There is nothing in the Bill in its present form to prevent middle or senior management in a railway company from charging their own employees with violation of company rules. Do not think they would not do it. That was always the case under railway rules before.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my colleague, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. It is approaching five o'clock and I believe you will find unanimous consent not to see the clock so that we can finish this Bill shortly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to that effect?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for a minute I thought the Parliamentary Secretary did not want me to finish my speech. But I know my colleagues opposite are dying to hear me.
Under the normal railway rules the railway could charge an employee, discipline him, suspend him and bar any raise. This action could only be taken under railway rules. The only other way a railway employee could be charged is pursuant to the

May 17, 1988
Railway Safety Act
Criminal Code. An employee who is proven negligent in a train wreck could be charged with anything from murder to manslaughter, to criminal negligence. I have attended such court cases as a witness.
The purpose of the amendment is to protect employees, not only union employees but lower and middle management employees, from frivolous or malicious prosecutions by overzealous employers.
The second major thrust of this Bill is to put responsibility for railway safety into the hands of the Minister. Railway safety is his first responsibility. The enforcement and application of the legislation is his second most important responsibility. Since the Minister is finally and totally responsible even with respect to something of which he is totally unaware, he is still responsible. If an employee was charged and taken out of service, if he lost pay and had to go to court on what was finally concluded to be a frivolous or malicious charge, then, of course, the court would find so and the employee would be reinstated with back pay and everything else. In the meantime there would have been months and months of grievance procedures, court cases and so on. All this amendment does is ask that the Minister in effect serve as a sort of final adviser to the Solicitor General as to whether or not a charge will be laid under the provisions of this Bill.
The Minister makes the final examination to ensure the change was not frivolous or malicious, and he could say so to the Department of Justice or to the Solicitor General, who would in turn pass it on to a Crown prosecutor. If a railway company on its own volition wanted to lay a charge, that is a different ball game. But under this Act, as it stands, someone in the railway itself could lay a charge. As a protection against frivolous and malicious charges, and also as a protection for whistleblowers, those who point out that such and such happened, I would ask that the Parliamentary Secretary agree with this amendment. It can not do any harm unless we have a bad Minister of Transport, and I do not think he is prepared to admit that. It cannot do any harm but it can do a great deal of good. I hope the Government will accept my amendment.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, when the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) lays an amendment down, it receives serious consideration because he has had many years of experience in transport, having worked for the railway himself, and he brings a great deal of expertise to this area. I have sympathy for his goal in the sense of him wanting to be able to block the railway companies from maliciously laying charges where he feels it is not appropriate. However, there are some problems with the motion which would state that no charge or complaint may be laid except with the consent of the Minister. Even as late as today I spoke again with the officials in the Department of Transport, who have given the matter a lot of thought. I spoke again personally with lawyers from the Department of Justice.
We believe on balance that the problems that would be created by this type of consent being required of the Minister before a charge could be laid overrules the interests the Hon. Member for Regina West is trying to cover.
There are, according to the officials, very few cases where a political screen is put in before a charge can be laid. That in a sense is what the amendment does. There is one, I gather, in the Official Secrets Act, but that is a matter of high state treason and high state policy under the Canadian Security Intelligence Act. Another example of where it is used is with hate literature under the Criminal Code of Canada. These are very major actions and processes involving the very essence of the state whereas this is a Railway Safety Act. Therefore, the feeling is that it would be unusual to add to this normal statute, if you will, a similar type of political screening.
The normal rule is that the matter would be investigated by the police and by the safety inspectors. Provincial attorneys general might play a role. The federal Attorney General might play a role. However, it is felt that to give that power to a line department Minister, on balance, would be unwise. I ask Members to vote against my friend's amendment even though we respect what he is trying to do. I think there would be other remedies, perhaps in the court itself. Malicious prosecution would be available, perhaps with the court costs.
There would certainly be a remedy through the collective bargaining agreement. If management were to abuse this privilege, there is no doubt there would be hundreds of grievances laid down in other areas. There are all sorts of remedies under the collective bargaining agreement. I think that would be sufficient and I am, therefore, asking Members to vote against the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.
May 17, 1988

Motion No. 5 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Efon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Transport) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 36 at page 42
and substituting the following therefor:
"Referred to in paragraphs (l)(a) to (g) or (i) shall".


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, briefly, this amendment corrects the reference in subsection 44(1) to enable the payment of remuneration and allowances to a representative of the public on the Railway Safety Consultative Committee. In the way it was drafted, the public members could not be paid and that is not what we had intended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard)?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Bouchard) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last question is on Motion No. 7.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre) moved:: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-105 be amended in Clause 106 by striking out line 4 at page 63
and substituting the following therefor:
"seventy-five thousand dollars.''"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the story behind this amendment began, I guess, in my experience five or six years ago when several of my constituents reported a problem with a fire that had occurred along the main line of the CPR. There were three farmyards that suffered fire damage as a result of a fire that had escaped from the property of the railway.
The farmers made inquiries about compensation. There were several outbuildings burned, one farm and some haystacks at another. The total damage was in the vicinity of $45,000 to $50,000 in terms of property and feed destroyed. They found the CPR very accommodating. They also found that no matter how accommodating everyone was to settle this matter, there was only $5,000 to distribute between the three people who had suffered losses. Thus they received approximately one-third of $5,000 each for an accumulated loss in the area of $50,000.
The problem I found when they complained to me about it was with respect to Section 338 of the old Railway Act. As a
Railway Safety Act
consequence I moved and prepared a motion which, luckily, was drawn and debated in this House which reads in part:
That this House recommend that the Government give serious consideration
to amending Section 338 of the Railway Act to provide for increased
compensation for victims of fire set by railway operations in order to reflect
current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
Subsequent to a short debate that motion was passed unanimously by the House. Since the Railway Act was recently opened up, I again approached the Government to remind it that it was the will of the House that that particular section be changed to reflect 1986 or 1987 costs. Since it is now 1988 we presume it would reflect 1988 costs, since this $5,000 limit has been in place in the Railway Act since 1903. As the House will know, one dollar in 1903 would buy at least 14 to 15 times more than it will buy today. As a consequence it was suggested that the $5,000 be raised to $75,000 as per this amendment.
There were some subsequent negotiations to attempt to provide an indexing component to this amendment. However, it was found to be very difficult to do something in that order. Thus I fear that subsequent Members of this House 40 or 50 years from now may find that they are having the same difficulty that my constituents had. However, at the moment we are bringing it up to debate with this amendment so that not only will justice be done for those people who have fires in the next year or two, but in fact we will be complying with the wishes of the House of Commons as declared in a motion some years ago.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Government is prepared to accept this amendment. This shows that once again Private Members of Parliament can be important in making public policy.
With respect to indexing in the future, it is also because of parliamentary reform that it is possible for a Member in a year or two to put forward an amending Bill that would increase this amount. It may well get on the votable list subject only to the financial restriction of the Royal Recommendation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Althouse) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 17, 1988
Railway Safety Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time-


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, now?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) rising on a point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my House Leader is not available. I do not think that I have any authorization or instruction to agree to complete third reading of this Bill. I am not sure if one of my colleagues knows either. We agreed to complete report stage-


John Horton McDermid: And third reading.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just said that I am not sure what the deal was among the House Leaders. I do not want to make a mistake and get shot down in the next caucus meeting.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I can assure my colleague that it is my clear understanding that there was an all-Party agreement to finish third reading today. 1 am taking the hook off the Hon. Member and putting it on myself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Bill be read a third time, by unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Epp (Provencher (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to thank members of the committee for the very good work that they put into this Bill. This is part of an overall reorganization of the Department of Transport. It started with Bill C-18, Bill C-19, Bill C-21, Bill C-52, and Bill C-105, which is the final step that will go before the Standing Committee on Transport. It is the Standing Committee that really has done yeoman's service on the part of all three Parties in getting this whole reorganization on transportation law through as public policy for the country.
I always feel that the back-benchers do not receive the credit that they deserve. In this Parliament alone there have been almost 200 bills passed. Yet none of those Bills can get through unless ordinary Members of Parliament sit for hours and hours in committees hearing hundreds of witnesses and then make recommendations to the House as a whole. Backbenchers do not receive enough credit from the public of Canada. I believe that they deserve it.
I am thanking the Members who have worked so hard and diligently on the Standing Committee on Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on Bill C-105. Again, there was full co-operation on both sides when this Bill was considered in committee. The measures proposed in this Bill are long overdue, and it is too bad the accident at Hinton happened before we started this exercise. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the inclusion in this Bill of many of the recommendations of the Foisy Report, such as providing for rest periods, which is already being done. The report's recommendation for a new safety mechanism instead of the dead man's brake has also been implemented. The new system requires some kind of activity in the locomotive compartment, and otherwise the train stops automatically. So this measure has already been put into effect.
Judge Foisy also recommended including a provision that already exists under the Aeronautics Act, namely that physicians disclose any potentially hazardous condition an employee may have. The Bill acts on this recommendation as well. This is a very important measure, Mr. Speaker. The legislation would apply to designated categories of employees. When the employees consult their family doctor, if according to the latter, the patient has a condition that would be a threat to safe operations, he will have to point this out to the medical authorities of the railway company.
We did have some reservations and we wanted to be sure that in this case, the employee would be the first to be notified.
During our discussions in committee, committee members agreed to amend the Bill to ensure that reasonable steps were taken to first inform the person concerned, the employee.
This Bill also tells us that inspection, compliance, and enforcement of railway safety standards will be improved by granting broader powers to inspectors. What the Government does not tell us is that the present number of inspectors is probably not quite adequate. To ensure that safety is taken seriously, the Government will have to provide the necessary funding to employ inspectors in sufficient numbers so that they can carry out their responsibilities. This is definitely a priority, Mr. Speaker.
The report published on the use of drugs by railway employees is a clear indication that we must proceed with certain measures, and everyone seems to agree, employers, unions and workers. I consider it essential that assistance programs be set up for employees who are addicted to drugs or alcohol. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I proposed an amendment to Section 18 of the Bill, which was intended to establish and finance such programs. After discussion in committee, the proposal was reformulated and accepted. I believe that this amendment, Mr. Speaker, was most positive.
The environment is also a subject of concern to everyone; it is of great concern to the members of my party, Mr. Speaker. This Bill may also have an impact on the environment and that
May 17, 1988

is why I have suggested some amendments. For example, paragraph 24(l)(e) of the Bill concerns the removal of trees, brush and weeds on railway lines. I have suggested that alternatives to chemicals be used for this purpose.
I consider this matter to be very important, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members of the Committee for having kindly accepted this recommendation.
1 also propose that Clause 41 of the Bill be amended in order that heavier fines would be levied in cases of contravention. This was also approved by the members of the committee.
Another matter the committee agreed upon was to ensure that there would be good representation of all concerned groups on the new railway safety consultative committee. This was also agreed to by all members of the committee.
The committee also agreed to retain Section 1 of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. Committee members have received numerous representations from municipalities across the country concerned about the loss of section 1. Again, the committee agreed to incorporate this Section in the present legislation.
Over-all the introduction of this legislation, including the measures relating to drug testing, have received widespread support from almost everyone concerned. The task force composed of government officials, the unions, and the railroads did a very good job collaborating with one another and coming out with fairly good proposals for change. All in all, outside of a few measures, the Liberal Party has no problem in supporting this legislation.
As I stated earlier, we will be keeping an eye open to ensure that the Government provides adequate funds to undertake the level of inspection necessary to police the various measures brought forward in this legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am inclined to say a few words. Initially, 1 planned on only three minutes, but the Parliamentary Secretary made the mistake of mentioning Bills C-18 and C-19. That revived some bitter memories. He should not have mentioned them. I will not dwell on those at any great length, I promise.
Under the current regime of privatization, deregulation, the trade deal, et cetera, whether it is in the private sector, the public sector, or the Government, everybody states that safety will not be compromised. We have heard that from day one. We heard it as far back as the days of the late unlamented Otto Lang when he was Minister of Transport.


John Horton McDermid: I hear he is coming back.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not if I can help it he is not. He is going to try in Saskatchewan, and that is NDP country now.
Railway Safety Act
In terms of rail safety or transportation safety, inspection, maintenance, enforcement, and all the aspects that go into safe public transportation, it does not matter whether it is privately owned, publicly owned, or a combination of both. It does not matter whether it is privately owned in a municipality, or by a municipality, or a provincial government, or a national government. All of them are a public utility, which everyone has to use directly and indirectly. Therefore, no matter what the regime, a national Government has a responsibility that is unavoidable and which it cannot evade.
There have been moves in good directions. This Bill is one of them. The Aviation Safety Board, Accident Investigation Board, is a good move, even though it might have some problems at the moment. There are other areas in which Government and Parliament have moved. But it is not enough to say in a law that there will be adequate inspection and enforcement, that safety will not be compromised unless the law is truly implemented.
I have seen no great moves by the Government or the previous one to increase the number of inspectors, or increase the training of inspectors. In the crucial area of aviation safety we are desperately short of air traffic controllers. It takes three to five years before they are competent to be a controller on their own. We are short of air traffic controllers. All the positions such as air traffic controllers, train dispatchers, locomotive engineers are high stress positions and have to do with safety. They do not have to do with competence. Yet we find a strange dragging of feet on employee assistance programs.
Before I leave the safety matter, I wish to mention that yesterday afternoon I received a long-distance phone call from a lady in Alabama. She is still trying to find out how and why her son was killed in the Gander crash. What does one say? The only thing I can send her at the moment is an article in today's Maclean's magazine. None of us on either side of the House have a darned thing yet that we can say. Her Congressman and Senator have been getting absolutely nowhere. They have been getting roadblocked in the U.S. administration because Canada is not yet ready to tell them anything. She has made appeals to the U.S. Army, and I understand that she may have written to the Government of Canada.
The Aviation Safety Board must conduct inquiries with complete freedom and independence. It must also set up separate inquiries within an over-all inquiry. 1 know that that is the case. There may be an inquiry into icing and de-icing with another inquiry going on about engine failure, and a third one going on about fire on board the aircraft if forensic evidence points to people being dead or unconscious before the crash occurred.
I understand that there is some kind of disagreement or fratricidal war going on about that particular inquiry with the Aviation Safety Board. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary

May 17, 1988
Railway Safety Act
will tell the Minister to sit down with those people and tell them to get their act together, complete the investigation and ensure that it is more than thorough.
1 want Hon. Members to remember and reflect upon the outfit that owned that particular DC-8 aircraft. It was a bad operator. Goodness knows how many times it was charged and fined by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States following the 1977 deregulation. Deregulation means that the most reputable, safe carrier in any mode, rail, air, or road, is forced to cut corners and to cheat in order to compete. That is why there must be an equity of treatment, enforcement and inspection in all modes of transportation. We cannot do it to one and not do it to the other. This means that the Government has to put in place, by my estimation, 300 to 400 more inspectors for rail, air, marine and road safety.
We have made some great advances in this area, but every year 1 look in the Estimates for an increase in inspectors. Every year I see that the number of inspectors will stay the same or will be decreased because of person-years or the amount of money available.
The proof is in the pudding. There has to be more bucks there. If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is having problems with the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I invite him to take not only his own colleagues but Members of the Opposition into his confidence and we will all kick them around.
If there is any one increase in taxes that taxpayers will not object to and will in fact applaud, it is an increase in taxes because of increased expenditures in transportation safety, inspection, enforcement and maintenance requirements. I have yet to find a taxpayer, even the most right-wing, wild-eyed Tory, who would object to a few bucks a year more in taxes to do that. The Government need have no qualms about increasing expenditures in that area because there will be no objection from the Canadian people. I said that transportation companies are public utilities, and they are, no matter who owns them.
I would like to say a word about employee assistance programs. During committee hearings, debate and when we discussed the Bill clause by clause, the discussions about the abilities of employees, competent, experienced, trained journeymen, in whatever capacity, got shifted to nothing but alcohol and drug abuse. That is the impression one got. However, there is more to it than that. I think the first priority should be to have employee assistance programs for stress.
If there is stress on the job or off the job which one cannot help but carry to work, it affects one's ability to carry out one's duties because other things are on one's mind and it can also lead to increased use of alcohol or drugs. I think that one is subsequent to the other. I would hope that the Minister would sit down with the railway management and the railway brotherhoods to help them reach a mutual agreement on an employee assistance program.
We can take as a model the program of the Chesapeake and Ohio. We heard a witness from St. Thomas, Ontario, and another from Cleveland, both involved in that railway operation, and we found that that operation has an excellent program which could be a model for our country, not only in the railway sector but in other modes of transportation.
The Minister needs to provide facilities, encouragement, persuasion, arm-twisting and anything else he has to do to have the railway management and the railway brotherhoods reach such a mutual agreement, whether it is a part of a collective agreement or is a separate document. However they want to do it is up to them, but it must be put in place. It can then serve as a model not only for rank and file employees but for management as well in a host of other industries.
Air Canada has in the main set the example for maintenance, safety, inspection and training. It has always been a leader. In fact, it has received international awards on two or three occasions, as I recall, because of that corporate leadership and its efficiency in its dealings with its employees, though there is the odd strike which will happen once in a while.
1 want to illustrate the danger the Government will have to face up to when it comes to deregulation. A reputable carrier, whether it be CNR, CPR, Air Canada or Canadian Air International, is faced with competing with other outfits.
Some new companies have just started up, fly-by-night operations. They face international competition. CP, CN, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines have always had a standard higher than the minimum required by the Government of Canada or the regulatory agency. What we have done now is forced them to bring their standards down to what the Government minimum is. These companies need to be applauded for maintaining standards which are higher than the minimum requirements. Under the kind of regime this Government wants and what is going on south of the 49th parallel, those days are numbered unless and until the Government shows with funding and by example that no carrier publicly or privately owned will be allowed or will be tolerated which does not maintain maximum standards of maintenance, repair, inspection and all the other things that go into the safety of public transportation.
Let me illustrate what position our railroads are now put in because of deregulation. The transportation annex to the trade agreement got dropped, thank goodness. But, under deregulation, Canada will now allow competitive line rates. They are against the law in the United States. An American railroad can then come into Canada, siphon off business from CP and CN under competitive line rates, but CP and CN are not allowed to do the same in the United States. What are those two Canadian railroads to do? They will cut costs. They have to. They have been left no other choice. Two reputable corporations have been left no other choice but to cut costs.
May 17, 1988

When they cut costs, they cut corners and when they cut corners they cut safety. That is the inevitable result with this ideological hysteria and hypnotism of the Tories about deregulation. We are going to go full circle. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker. I plan on being here for several more years. You will see the Government of the day whether it is Tory, Liberal or NDP go full circle and reinstate regulations to make these corporations do what they refuse to do under deregulation or were not allowed to do under deregulation.
Sometimes you need to have regulations, not to stop corporations from doing something, but to make them do something. There is a great deal of difference. I do not think that is Government on somebody's back by having regulations that make corporations do something. It makes them do something in the interests, not only of efficient and safe transportation, but in the interests of the travelling public and in the interests of safety.
1 hope the Government does not think that with this Bill it can rest on its laurels. We will be watching the Estimates very carefully. We will be rising to ask questions in Question Period when there is a shortage of inspectors. We will be raising Cain in the committee and in the House when it is obvious that safety, maintenance and inspection standards have not been complied with or are not at a level where the public can feel as safe as it is possible to feel.
We agree that this legislation should pass today. We hope the Government will proceed with total accident and safety regulations for all modes of transportation with an accident investigation board which covers rail, highway, marine-the whole ball of wax. On the committee I, for one, am prepared to work at this and to work hard. The quicker the better. Let us not rest on this Bill. There is a lot more to be done.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It being 14 minutes before the hour of six o'clock, I would like to call it six o'clock on the understanding that the Private Member's Motion to be introduced and debated later today by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) will remain in the same place and be discussed on Thursday of this week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the motion of the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) to keep its place in the order of precedence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the problem of those Members of Parliament who are speaking in the Adjournment Debate and who have 15 minutes to get here. I take it that the House will respect the order of those Members, namely, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He and I are here, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Minister is going to answer, then I will sit down. This is an exceptional circumstance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House agrees, we will proceed with the first Member listed for the Adjournment Debate and if the second Member is not here, we will adjourn for a few minutes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) some days back about the guidelines on research involving human subjects, because just at that time the Medical Research Council of Canada had adopted a report dealing with that subject. This document is extremely timely because it raises central issues respecting the protection of human life in society.
The Medical Research Council accepted the report which I hold here as the MRC's guidelines on research involving human subjects. It requires all research funds to be in compliance with these guidelines.
By way of introduction, let me briefly make a few comments about this report and the guidelines. First, it is very clear that this document, and the members of the Medical Research Council Standing Committee on Ethics in Experimentation who authored it are experts in the subject. They come from diverse backgrounds reflecting medical, legal, ethical, theolog-ic, and scientific backgrounds. No one can take lightly the conclusions they come to in the report. I would defer personally to any of them on this subject. I do not raise this subject in

May 17, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Parliament as an expert but simply as a concerned Canadian who sees many straws in the wind and an historic opportunity to weave those straws together into something new, a human life Act.
This document further sets out a fundamental principle on page 12:
The Standing Committee believes that the basic ethical principle in research, as in health care, is respect for life. From this principle flow others: the concept of autonomy, the duty to beneficence, and the duty to justice.
From the principles one quickly gets into the practicalities. We find, for example, on page 32, with regard to research with fetuses and embryos, the following:
At this time, the legal status of embryos and fetuses is not well-defined, nor is the social consensus. While issues of consent and autonomy may not therefore apply, clear ethical concerns arise from the inarguable fact that embryos and fetuses are human life forms.
Finally, I would refer to page 11 of this document which gave rise to my question to the Minister wherein the standing committee states its belief as follows:
... at this time the use of Guidelines within the current body of law is sufficient to reinforce the ethical conduct of research with human subjects.
The significant phrase there is "within the current body of law". It is at this juncture that I submit the Medical Research Council of Canada and those adopting this approach of guidelines only in this difficult area of human experimentation are perhaps pushing an empty wheelbarrow. To say that guidelines will suffice within the body of existing law is to refer to something that truly does not exist. The existing body of law in this area is clearly unsettled.
That is why I advocated on February 4 in this Flouse the formation of a new federal statute which 1 call the human life Act. It would draw together in a single statute all aspects of intentional intervention in the human life cycle.
It would deal not only with the question of abortion, which is so galvanizing this country and this Parliament these days, but with other questions such as genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, euthanasia, and on and on the list goes. The newspapers are full of it. The Toronto Star of March 29, 1988 had an article headlined "Genetic Tests Open Scary World of Super-Species". The subheading is "Gene-Splicing Promises Society Huge Pay-Offs, But Others Fear Biological Chaos".
We even have the religious press replete with concerns expressed on this subject. For example, the April issue of The United Church Observer had a series of articles under the general heading "Manufacturing a Miracle". One week after I called for a human life Act, the West German Government announced plans to ban research on human embryos, outlaw surrogacy, and curb artificial insemination. The new legislation will forbid surrogate motherhood, production of human embryos for research, measures allowing the choice of a child's sex in artificial insemination, and attempts to breed mixtures of humans and animals.
We have the Canadian Coalition for Reproductive Technologies seeking a royal commission on this subject. It states in its documents that as a society we are not ready to pass laws and that we need first to do the necessary research and engage in a broad, informed national debate. That debate is under way, and I want to see it brought to the floor of the House of Commons in new legislation that can encompass all these questions. The debate will take place this summer at the Fifty-Seventh Couchiching Conference, a well-known national forum for dialogue on public issues. That conference will deal with biological engineering, a blessing or curse.
I have been in touch with David Suzuki who popularizes questions of scientific research in this country. He has gone back to the whole question of genetic engineering and what the Nazis were busy with under the guise of science in Germany in the 1930s. That had as its dimension on one hand the elimination of millions of people, and on the other hand the biological efforts to create a master race. In a letter to me dated May 10, David Suzuki says:
I think you've raised a very important issue and I agree we must not get
bogged down on abortion alone. We have acquired great manipulative powers
that take us into completely uncharted territory. I believe we need a Royal
Commission to look at the issue.
Please press on with your efforts.
Be it a royal commission, be it Bill C-107 dealing with patenting forms of human life, be it the report of the Law Reform Commission, I have much more on this subject that 1 want to bring forward in the discussion. However, given my limited time, I call upon the Government to take a broader initiative at this time and set all this discussion in the framework of a new human life Act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is evident to the Hon. Member as well as others that one cannot address this issue in any depth in the three minutes I have, but I can make one or two points, and that is the purpose of my being here.
First, I want to commend the Hon. Member for his initiative and leadership, not only bringing this issue to the House but also for his efforts in the promotion of a human life Act.
Second, the MRC guidelines are not the first Canadian examination of these issues. It is important to note that this area is moving very quickly for us as a society and as members of the human race. Guidelines are important and they are a good piece of work; they flow from national agreements as well as the summit conference on bioethics which was held in April, 1987. The findings from that conference were taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the Venice Summit a month or two later. No matter the political, ethical, social, or religious make-up of nations, how do we deal with these issues is the question.
The Hon. Member made a very telling point, that the guidelines stress the fundamental importance of respect for human life as the key principle underlining the decisions by researchers and research ethic boards alike, and the difficult
May 17, 1988

ethical decisions intrinsic with human subjects. In conjunction with the guiding principles of justice and of beneficence, this principle, as implemented through the practices developed in these guidelines, ensures that priority in research ethics will be given to protection of human life.
While that assurance is there, I do not think that is a complete answer. The reason I say that that is for the last two years plus is that I have been meeting with groups and asking: "What do we do with respect to developing medical technology? Is our moral and ethical position keeping pace with technology?"
I have said for some time, quite apart from the abortion question and the January 28 decision of the Supreme Court, that I feel personally-and it is difficult for a Minister to put it in that context, but I know the Hon. Member will know what I mean-that we have to explore the possibility of either a royal commission or a ministerial task force to broaden the base and come together as Canadians with a medical system which is considered one of the best in the world, concerning the ethics regarding the preservation of life that are as important a factor as medical technology, experimentation, or the medical breakthroughs we all celebrate.
I cannot go much beyond that other than to commend the Hon. Member and others in this House who have similar viewpoints on the need to explore these questions over the broad range which the Member has brought forward, and I thank him for that.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ACID RAIN-DAMAGE INFLICTED
[Stage Direction]
BY EMISSIONS FROM UNITED STATES/ACID RAIN-DAMAGES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter is acid rain tonight and specifically concerns the ineptness of the present Government in dealing with Washington. On the one hand one must recognize that the Government of Canada, in the last four years, has completed in a satisfactory manner the negotiations with provincial Governments on the reduction of acid gas pollution. In that way it completed the work initiated by the Liberal Government in 1983-84.
One must conclude at the same time, with a sense of regret, that the foreign policy of the Government on acid rain has been a series of mistakes and failures. We will recall that in 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) raised the expectations of Canadians by emphasizing that he had a special relationship with President Reagan in Washington and that, on the basis of that special relationship, he would resolve the bilateral problem between Ottawa and Washington and obtain a commitment from the U.S.A. to cut its transboundary pollution.
In 1986 the Prime Minister made a fatal mistake by agreeing to and applauding the recommendation of the acid rain envoys to launch a clean coal technology program over the
Adjournment Debate
next five years in order to accelerate a process of research and demonstration projects south of the border.
I say that was a mistake. The Prime Minister's position on behalf of Canadians should have been that in the United States they should do what they want to do and what needs to be done, but that that which counts for us in Canada is the pollution which comes across the border, and that we want the Americans to join in the signing of the international protocol in Helsinki which requires signatories to cut S02 pollution by at least 30 per cent by 1993.
Having raised expectations in 1985 and given the wrong signal to Washington in 1986, we come to the 1988 Summit and the purpose of my question today. Why at this stage, on the eve of completing the fourth year in office, did the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) not prepare a bill for damages which we incur yearly as a result of this transboundary pollution?
We have now entered a new phase. We have evidently given up on the special relationship with Washington. We have seen very meagre, if any, results flowing from the clean coal technology program announced and endorsed in 1986. It is, therefore, only sensible to conclude that in the fourth year of the administration, having seen no results from the special relationship and the clean coal technology program, Ottawa would have to use language which is understood in Washington, that is, the yearly presentation of a bill which would indicate the damage caused to Canada by the million of tonnes of pollution which crosses the border into Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces.
It is for that reason, that 1 asked this question and prodded the Government. I asked it to prepare such a bill in anticipation of the summit to indicate the damage to our maple sugar producers, the damage to buildings and structures, and the damage to the Muskoka and other resorts, where the losses are reasonably easily quantifiable, where tourist traffic has been affected by the acidification of lakes which has killed the fish in those lakes. The bill should indicate the damage incurred in the growth of our forests, particularly in eastern Canada, as a result of this acidification of soil. It should indicate the damage caused to forestry, to fisheries, and, in some cases in southwestern Ontario, to agriculture.
I admit that in some cases the calculation of the damage may not be easy, while in some cases it may be readily available. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. In this respect we have not developed, even within Environment Canada, the necessary skills because of the cuts in person-years that have been applied as a result of the freeze on its budget. Environment Canada has not even kept up with inflation.
Tonight I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer in the House the question I asked the Prime Minister. Why is

May 17, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Canada not getting to the point of developing the necessary knowledge and preparing a yearly bill for the damage being caused to our natural resources, to our tourist industry, and to all other facets of Canadian economic and natural resource activities, which it can present to Washington so as to demonstrate to the Americans that we mean business, that we are suffering damage and want compensation. I believe that is a reasonable request, in the fourth year of this administration.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is committed to finding a real and lasting solution to the serious environmental and economic damage being caused by acid rain. That is why our Government, unlike the previous Government, has implemented major emission reductions in Canada and has pressed the United States for targeted, mandated emission reductions necessary to stop damage to the Canadian environment.
I want to remind Hon. Members that this Government has been very clear in identifying to United States decision makers and the American public the costs, both environmentally and economically, related to acid rain damage.
More than 350,000 lakes in eastern Canada are vulnerable. Approximately 150,000 lakes have acidity levels at which detrimental effects begin to occur. Some 14,000 have already been acidified, which means they are essentially devoid of normal aquatic life.
More than 50 per cent of eastern Canada's forests grow in areas where rainfall is acidic. More than 80 per cent of all Canadians live in areas where acidic deposits exceed acceptable levels.
In addition to these environmental costs, economically, acid rain is endangering the natural resource base in an area of eastern Canada that measures about 2.6 million square kilometres. This resource base sustains approximately 8 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product and some 250,000 jobs.
We estimate that the annual value of acid rain damage in Canada at approximately $1 billion.
We have told the Americans that we will accept nothing less than an agreement which includes specific emission reduction targets and timetables that will reduce the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the United States into eastern Canada to about two million tonnes in a time frame compatible with our own control program.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that Canada should be prepared to accept something other than the reductions required to protect our environment, that we might accept money rather than reductions, then I can only say to the Member that the Canadian environment is not for sale at any price. Submitting a bill implies that when it is paid the obligation has been met in full. This Government cannot and will not give the United States a way out of its internationally
recognized obligation not to dump its garbage in its neighbour's yard. This Government is not prepared to sell the Canadian environment, at any cost, as a toxic waste dump site for continuing U.S. acid rain emissions.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS-VIEWS OF RALPH NADER/MINISTER'S POSITION.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to a question I put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who is often referred to in this place as the Minister responsible for corporate affairs. On August 19, I asked the Minister a question about the high cost of prescription drugs. The Minister, in his wisdom or lack of it, responded in this way, and I quote from Hansard at page 8202:
In Canada we have medicare, and we have social safety nets. Eighty-five per cent of the population is covered by drug plans, including virtually 100 per cent of senior citizens. No one who receives welfare goes without drugs. We have a tremendously beneficial health care system to which Bill C-22 is a positive addition.
This was said by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the Government of Canada. I wish to read into the record a letter I recently received from an individual:
1 am writing you concerning the price of prescription drugs. I am a fifty-five year old woman with angina, my husband is a retired veteran on a fixed income, he cannot pay for my drugs on what he receives, and I'm not suppose to work; but had to take a part-time job to pay for my pills. When I started to take "Cardizen", the price was a little over $44.00; now the price is $93.89. The price goes up every two to three months, soon at this rate I won't be able to pay for them with what I make. I cannot get help for this as I'm not old enough.
I am including a copy of my prescriptions from April 4, 1987 to April 11, 1988. There is no reason in this world why the price should go up that much. As far as I'm concerned, it is out and out robbery. I'm bringing this to your attention in hopes that you can do something about it.
That is the kind of letter we in Parliament have been receiving since the Government passed Bill C-22. Both in substance and in its effects, the Bill is causing havoc among those Canadians who do not have the necessary funds to pay for prescription drugs. As was alluded to in previous debates in this House and in committee, the Government has been challenged very vigorously and enthusiastically by Canadians, such as those in the United Church, the Royal Canadian Legion, and six provincial Governments across country. Senior citizens en masse have challenged the Government of Canada that it ought not to proceed with this particular legislation and have indicated that Canadians from coast to coast would have to pay for higher drug prices.
The Government has refused to listen to the calls that have come from all corners of the country. It has reacted in great haste, notwithstanding the enthusiastic opposition we put up in this House, to facilitate multinational corporations in their profit margins while the health of Canadians has been jeopardized.
May 17, 1988

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to Canadian people the rationale for increasing the price of the drug a 55 old woman with angina takes from $44 to $93.89. That is not a 10 per cent increase, nor a 20 per cent increase; it is close to a 102 per cent increase. Is this the justice, the sacred trust, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about in July, 1984? Or, is this nothing more than a sham that is being put to Canadians by a Canadian Government which seems to be in bed with the multinational corporations?
I suggest, with great sincerity and great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have judged the Government and the actions and words of the Prime Minister. They will come to cast their final judgment in the next federal election. First and foremost on their minds will be the Government's attempt-in fact reality-to sock it to Canadians, to hose Canadians with higher drug prices.
1 would have thought that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would have regarded his responsibilities as being first and foremost to Canadian consumers. Obviously, that is not his intention. His intentions are to facilitate the profit margins of the multinational corporations, laying aside the health of Canadians and the costs that they will incur in the ensuing weeks, months, and years ahead.
It is unfortunate for a Member to rise in this House to condemn the Government of Canada and all its Members who have aided and abetted this particular process and who have done so without concern for the dignity of those individuals such as the ones I have referred to this afternoon. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can zero in and focus her attention on this very needy concern for those individuals in Canada who have to pay higher drug prices.
[Translation}


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague, especially since I would like to come back to the nub of his question to the Minister concerning Ralph Nader, who as you know is well known as an ardent consumer advocate in the United States.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) answered Mr. Nader's open letter and in his reply, he clearly
Adjournment Debate
stated that the Government of Canada does not set policy based on the recommendations or interests of Americans or of any other country. That is clear. The policy surrounding the drafting of Bill C-22 was made in Canada by Canadians. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this policy was made necessary as a result of a commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.
People tend to forget. The Hon. Member forgot to mention that his own party, the Government of which he was a distinguished member, had stated that the Drug Patent Act was obsolete and that it had to be changed even if, and I mean even if, it would be hard to get the legislation through.
Mr. Speaker, that is not hard to understand. The Liberals did not have the courage to make this amendment to the Drug Patent Act. They did nothing and we, the Conservative Government, were the ones who had the courage to bring in a bill meeting the needs of all, Canadians as well as drug consumers. The Hon. Member should keep in mind that 85 per cent of beneficiaries in Quebec, and in Canada, have part of their drug costs covered under Medicare and other programs.
The Bill also states that we have a board called ...

The changes to the Patent Act also created the Patented Medicine Price Review Board to ensure consumer protection during the period of market exclusivity given by Bill C-22, and indeed throughout the entire patent life of a drug.

Mr. Speaker, that is clear. The Minister answered the questions raised by our hon. colleague adequately, I think, as he always does, and we agree with him on one point, namely that consumers are entitled to protection and that we are protecting and will continue to protect them; that this party, this Government, is aware of this matter; that the Hon. Member who spoke has done nothing about it. He should congratulate us rather than raise such questions.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Danis):: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers