1988-03-25

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade and in other marine activities of a commercial nature, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to inform the House that there have been consultations among the three Parties. My understanding is that we will debate this Bill at third reading with the intention of completing it prior to eleven o'clock this morning.
If that happens, the House will be suspended until the normal time for Members' Statements, at eleven o'clock. Subsequent to the Question Period, as we go through Routine Proceedings it is our intention to move concurrence in the third report of the Transport Committee. We will debate that for however long, perhaps for the balance of the day. That is the understanding that exists among the three Parties.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the intention of the House to deal expeditiously with the Bill. It may well be that we will deal with it by eleven o'clock, but I just sound a cautionary note. With all speakers theoretically having unlimited time, it will depend on how much time each of the Parties has to make points on the Bill. We will certainly deal with this and finish with the Bill today.


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


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, there are 50 minutes left before eleven o'clock. I just wondered, since we have that agreement, whether the House would not give any speaker more than one-third of the time remaining so that we have equal time.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, our Party concurs with this arrangement.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-52. It is the coastal trade Act which is designed to encourage growth in the Canadian coasting trade and create new opportunities for this industry and offshore exploration and development. It completely removes the coasting trade provisions from the Canada Shipping Act and incorporates amendments to them into the new Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act. We are certain this new Act will give impetus to the marine tourism and shipbuilding industries. It will also create more jobs for seamen working in areas to be reserved for Canadians. These areas include commercial activities related to the exploration, development or production of mineral resources right up to the continental shelf.
Before I highlight some of the amendments adopted by our committee, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Members on their hard work. I believe Members put aside their political interests in favour of determining the best policy for our country. Members examined this Bill with vigour. We spent more than 10 days in committee hearings. Members heard from 23 witnesses and questioned in depth all aspects and implications of the Bill. I believe the Bill provides an appropriate balance among the various Canadian interests and reserves, to the degree possible, Canadian jobs for Canadians.
The committee recommended, and the Government accepted, certain amendments to the original draft Bill, four of which I would like to highlight for the Members here today.
First, the deletion of the exemption for hydrocarbon production platforms will require a licence to be obtained before a foreign production platform can be used in Canada. This means that a search will be made to determine if a suitable Canadian production platform is available before the licence is issued, and only if no such Canadian platform is available will it be issued. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will encourage Canadians to build platforms in

March 25, 1988
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
Canada thereby providing job opportunities and encouragement to our shipbuilding industry.
Second, foreign cargo ships wishing to do business in Canada must obtain a temporary coasting trade licence and give 14 days notice of the proposed activity. This will allow Canadian shipping companies to adjust their schedules to allow as many Canadian vessels as possible to be employed. I would draw to Members' attention Clause 6(2) where the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing special circumstances to be taken into account by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) for the purpose of subsection (1).
Third, Canadian cruise ships operating domestically in the trades using vessels with up to 250 overnight passenger accommodations are protected by this Bill. Members will recall that the first draft of the Bill had a 100 passenger limit. So-called foreign international cruise ships with much larger accommodation are encouraged to continue calling at Canadian ports and are exempt from this Bill.
Fourth, a provision has been inserted in the Bill permitting the Governor in Council to place a cap on the number of licences that may be issued. This provision is available to the Government in situations where it is in the public interest to do so.
Over-all, Mr. Speaker, the Bill enables the Canadian supply boat fleet to extend its range beyond the territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental shelf or 200 miles, whichever is the greatest. This area will be reserved for Canadian ships.
A waiver system that allows foreign flagships to enter the Canadian coasting trade and the offshore area when no suitable Canadian ship is available will remain. Since 99 per cent of the Canadian coasting trade is carried in Canadian ships, this is not expected to have much effect on the industry.
Exemptions to the legislation include fishing vessels, ships engaged in ocean research, including those operated or sponsored by foreign Governments, and ships assisting others in distress. These foreign vessels are controlled by other Canadian legislation or by international agreements. The Bill will also remove the historic anomaly in Canadian legislation that refers to British ships rather than Canadian ships. Currently, only three British ships remain in the coasting trade in Canada. It should also be noted that the thrust of the Bill is supported by Canada's provinces as well as many segments of the marine industry.
This Bill has been needed and has been in the mill for well over 20 years and I believe Members of Parliament will serve Canada well by its passage today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Mr. McDermid:: Here comes the pit bull.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who is referring to me as a pit bull and who is an ardent, pure and pristine adherent of the Conservative philosophy ought to be careful because I have a picture in my possession from some years ago when we travelled on a parliamentary committee of the Member gazing fondly at a Karl Marx statue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or was it the monument in the graveyard in London? Of course if I spread that around as true adherence to the Conservative philosophy, the Member could find himself with a cause but without a Party.


John Horton McDermid: Who was standing with me?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I took the picture.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support passage of Bill C-52. The Bill before us is by no means perfect. It by no means meets every concern of those involved in Canada's coastal trade, particularly those involved in Canada's shipbuilding industry, but it is a significant improvement over existing legislation.
The Bill as it stands before us today in the House has been, I think, in substantial and in important ways amended as a result, I have to say, of the non-partisan, urgent and serious all-Party consideration of the Bill through committee stage. When those of us who welcomed the notion of parliamentary reform, in particular committees becoming masters of their own fate rather than reflections of Party policy, when we look to the work of the legislative committee on Bill C-52, we see parliamentary reform truly at work. We have seen a significant number of important amendments to Bill C-52.
I am pleased to say as the Official Opposition critic that I was successful in committee, with the help on many occasions, and certainly with the concurrence, of the Parliamentary Secretary and members of the Conservative Party, in seeing amendments made by all of us to this Bill. It was a very enlightening and positive experience to see that that kind of work can be done.
I want to point out, as the Parliamentary Secretary has, a few of those amendments. Canadians who pay attention to the debates of the House of Commons should know that, first, Bill C-52 is a coastal trading Bill. It is designed to protect Canadian jobs, the Canadian shipping industry and Canada's coastal trade. It is to ensure that the ships that ply our waters and participate in the commerce of this nation by means of water transport are as much as possible Canadian ships crewed by Canadian men and women. It is to ensure that the jobs stay here at home.
March 25, 1988

As I said, we made some significant amendments to the Bill, the most important of which 1 believe was to the waiver system. The waiver system provides that those who cannot get access to an appropriate Canadian vessel may apply to the government regulator to be allowed to bring in a foreign vessel to work Canadian waters. That does not happen often. Ninety-nine per cent of the business in Canada today is done by Canadian ships, or Canadian bottoms, as they say in the trade, crewed by Canadian crews. To the extent that foreign vessels are allowed in under a waiver system, up until this Bill was dealt with in committee, a company could technically apply for a waiver on a Wednesday saying that it needed a ship on Friday, and there was no minimum requirement for advance notice to give Canadian shipping companies adequate time to compete for the job and indicate whether or not they could provide a Canadian ship rather than a foreign vessel to provide that service.
We have now put a clause in the Bill requiring a minimum of 14 days' notice on application of waiver. The Canadian industry, Canadian shippers and Canadian crewmen will now have at least two weeks when there is a request to bring in a foreign vessel to indicate whether or not there is available in Canada a suitable Canadian vessel so that Canadians will be employed. 1 believe this is a tremendous improvement over what had been the case in the past.
Some people might say that it is all well and good to have 14-day minimum requirement of notice, but what happens to a Canadian manufacturer or shipper who has an emergency and cannot wait 14 days to find out whether or not he can get a foreign vessel? He might have a tanker that is breaking up and he has to get the crude out of it quickly. The only thing available might be a foreign vessel.
We built provisions into the Bill, notwithstanding the 14-day minimum notice, that in the event of special circumstances or in the case of a genuine emergency as determined by regulation, the regulator would have the power to grant practically instantaneous permission for a foreign vessel to be used. Again, this will happen only when it is in Canada's interest and only to prevent a Canadian shipper or manufacturer from being hurt because of a genuine emergency.
It is my belief that those kinds of emergencies do not occur too often. We are talking about thousands of tonnes of cargo being moved, and I do not believe that in 99 per cent of the cases, shippers do not know weeks, indeed months, perhaps six months in advance what they are to move, when they are to move it, who it is to be sold to and what kind of vessel they will need. There is no reason why plenty of advance notice cannot be given so that Canadian shipping has the first opportunity to pick up work.
This is an improvement to the Bill. Some people said that we should have a 60-day minimum notice, some said 30 days, some said no notice at all. We came to a compromise with two weeks of minimum notice.
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
There was a clause in the Bill calling for automatic exemptions and listing a whole category of exemptions for which the strict requirement of Canadian vessels and Canadian crews would not automatically apply. One of the most significant exemptions proposed in the Bill was an exemption for offshore rigs, drilling platforms. The Bill provided in its original state that drilling platforms, offshore rigs, would not be subject to the criterion of having to be a Canadian rig, a Canadian platform, crewed by a Canadian crew. There was an automatic exemption. In fact, the Bill really proposed to leave the decision as to what kind of rigs operated on the offshore in the hands of the Department of Energy.
We are living in a time when the world price of oil is low. Notwithstanding all the world's best efforts, there still appears to be a surplus of oil available in the market-place. Offshore activity in Canada has slowed considerably in the Beaufort, off the shore of Newfoundland and North Labrador, off the shore of Sable Island, Nova Scotia, and indeed off the coast of British Columbia. However, when the day comes, and it will come because we are dealing with a non-renewable resource, that offshore activity picks up and picks up considerably, there will be a tremendous potential for industrial benefit for Canada, for jobs in Canada and for development of technology in Canada, by ensuring that literally billions of dollars worth of offshore drilling rigs and equipment be produced where possible in Canada and be manned by Canadians.
I am pleased to say that I moved an amendment to the Bill to drop that exemption and 1 am pleased to say that it was supported by government Members. We have provided that drilling rigs are to be treated exactly the same way as ships, and that is, if they want an exemption, they have to make and prove the case that a Canadian vessel or drilling rig cannot be used. There is to be no automatic exemption. The decision is not to be left in the hands of multinational oil companies and Governments which do deals behind closed doors on the top floors of steel, glass and concrete towers in the financial capitals of the world. We are ensuring a measure of protection in the principle that always, where possible, Canadian vessels and Canadian crews will be used first in Canadian waters. I think that is a significant improvement to the Bill.
There was a waiver provided in the Bill for vessels engaged in cruise activities, a waiver that provided that vessels with accommodation for 100 passengers or more would be automatically exempted. If someone wanted to run a cruise operation in Kingston and the Islands, off the coast of British Columbia or down through the Maritimes and had a vessel which could accommodate more than 100 passengers, there would be an automatic waiver. The ship would not have to be Canadian, it would not have to be crewed by Canadians and it could be operated in Canada's waters. We increased the number of 100 passengers or more to 250 passengers or more to ensure that a developing industry, particularly off the coast of British Columbia and in Kingston and the Islands, would be a Canadian industry. I regard that, as well, as being a significant improvement to the Bill.

March 25, 1988
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
There was one area where the committee was not successful in seeing change. It was not the fault of the committee. It was not the fault of any particular Party. It dealt more with the fact that the change we wanted to put in does not appropriately belong in Bill C-52.
We were contemplating putting a Canadian ownership requirement in the Bill. Canadians should know that when we drafted the deregulation Bill for the airline industry, we put a requirement in the Bill that a Canadian airline is an airline that is 75 per cent Canadian-owned. We put in a requirement that foreign investment in Canada's airlines could not exceed 25 per cent. That is the law of the land. We need to make that same requirement apply to Canada's shipping industry.
Why is it so urgent that we do that now? Bill C-52, designed to promote, enhance and protect Canada's shipping industry, is mild compared to the corresponding legislation in the United States, an Act called the Jones Act. Under Bill C-52, a Canadian ship is defined as a ship that was built in Canada and flagged in Canada or a ship that was built somewhere else in the world but upon which all duties, taxes and customs have been paid. We are reasonable.
In the United States, under the Jones Act, an American ship is a ship that was built in the United States, with all parts provided from the United States and crewed by U.S. companies. Nothing but American-made and crewed ships can operate in U.S. waters, and there are no exemptions. It is an absolute government dictated monopoly under the Jones Act. This Bill nowhere near approaches that kind of rigid regime, nor do I suggest we repeat the Jones Act because there are down sides as well.
The American Act closes the door on anything but an American-built and crewed vessel, so we have to look at the impact of the transportation annex in the free trade agreement on our country. We do not have a Jones Act and we do not want one.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Do not be too sure about that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: All Parties agree that we do not want to go the way of the Jones Act. We want protection but not the Jones Act.
Under the investment provisions of free trade, foreign investment of up to $150 million is allowed without review. The Americans have a monopoly in their own backyard, by law. As a result, their costs are higher than ours. Canada is more competitive than the U.S. We get the bulk of the crosslakes trade because we run leaner and more efficient than the Americans. Part of having a monopoly is that they have an inefficient fleet and system. It is not as efficient and productive as Canada's fleet. However, they want to participate in the cross-lakes trade. Under the free trade investment provisions all they have to do is come North, buy a share in an existing Canadian company or hang up a shingle in Canada and call it
a shipping office, and they can compete for Canadian traffic. They can take a share of the pie here, but back home they have slammed the door. No one but U.S. entrepreneurs can play the game.
The Americans are in a position to have it both ways: Absolute protection in their own backyard; and, through the investment provisions of free trade, they can come into Canada and play in our backyard as well. Canadian companies enjoy no such reciprocal rights in the U.S. Therefore, it is imperative, in order to maintain control of shipping in Canada and keep the profits flowing into the coffers of this nation, that there be a 75 per cent Canadian investment requirement. That is still far below the 100 per cent requirement in the U.S. and it does not slam the door on foreign investment, nor on foreign-built vessels, provided the duty and taxes are paid.
This cannot be done properly under Bill C-52. We tried. It should have been done when we amended the Canada Shipping Act two years ago. Of course, at that time we did not have a free trade deal which gave Americans wide open access to our market. Two years ago no one could have anticipated that it would be a problem today. Therefore, I have an offer to make to the Government. I have discussed this with my counterpart in the NDP.
The Government says it is prepared to look at amendments to the Canada Shipping Act but it is afraid if it brings it back into the House it is going to be a Pandora's box. The Government says we are going to want to make all kinds of changes and amendments with a long drawn-out debate. It says it agrees that we have to have a 75 per cent Canadian ownership requirement but it is terrified of bringing this Bill back and opening it up a second time because it is afraid the Bill will never get out of the House again.
I know my colleagues in the NDP agree when I say that we in the Opposition would be prepared, if the Government brings in the appropriate amendment which defines a Canadian ship as one being 75 per cent owned by Canadians, to pass that amendment through this House in all stages, one, two, three, in less than an hour. We will bring the Bill in, skip committee stage, do first, second and third readings, and pass the Bill out of the House. The Government cannot get a better deal than that. If the Government is serious when it says that it understands and is supportive of the concept of a 75 per cent Canadian content requirement for Canadian shipping, it has just been made an offer it cannot refuse.
I would add that my NDP counterpart, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), at least in discussions with me, is prepared to make the same offer to the Government. It is almost unprecedented that opposition Parties are prepared to give up the right to examine a Bill, propose amendments, call witnesses and so on. However, I believe that the requirement for a Canadian content law is now so critical in the free trade environment that we have to be prepared to make unprecedented offers. We have to be prepared to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
March 25, 1988

of Transport (Mr. Thacker): Bring in the appropriate Canadian content amendment to the Canada Shipping Act and we will pass it in all stages in less than an hour. I hope we will have a formal response from the Parliamentary Secretary to that offer.
1 would be remiss if I did not make another comment about this Bill. It seeks, as I said, to enhance and protect the Canadian coastal trade. Yet it does nothing, and can do nothing because it is not the appropriate place to address this matter, for the sad and sorry plight of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. All of those who live in regions or communities where shipbuilding is an important part of their economic fabric have come to the conclusion that the Government's policy on shipbuilding is that there are too many shipyards and we have to close a bunch down. We have had no policy statement, no document, no pronouncement from on high. We assume there is a policy, but the Government will not tell us what it is. Shipyards being closed down is exactly what is happening through benign neglect. Canadians should recall that this nation, through two world wars, was one of the greatest producers of shipping. In a time of need and crisis Canada came through.
Canadians should remember that this is a marine nation. Next to Russia, we have more coastline than any other nation of the world. We have a great Atlantic and Pacific tradition, and now we have the North, the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic Passage. Our heritage is rooted in the sea and in shipping. Yet in 1988, despite that heritage and tradition, that historical fact, that evolution of this nation based upon the great role played by Canadian shipping, we have no shipbuilding policy. No policy at all.
We have a Government that says our shipyards are not competitive. We cannot compete with the Japanese or the Koreans or other Asian or European nations. What it does not tell Canadians is that each and every one of those other nations have shipbuilding policies and subsidies, anywhere from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, to ensure that the industry stays alive because it is a national priority. In Canada today there is absolutely no government support or subsidy to keep the shipbuilding industry alive. Twenty years ago 80 per cent of the work done by our shipyards came from the private sector. As a result of a rapid increase in the last half a dozen years, today 90 per cent of the work in Canada's shipyards is government work. That is all that is keeping them alive. The Government has responded to that crisis, to the increased threat of competition from other nations which are subsidizing their industries in an attempt to displace the Canadian industry, by turning on its heels, wringing its hands, and walking quietly away while this industry fades into the night.
Bill C-52 cannot address that problem, but surely it is the responsibility of Parliament and the Government, in appropriate pieces of legislation from other government departments, to address the problem which is the reality of the Canadian
Coasting Trade and Commercial Marine Activities Act
shipbuilding industry. I can see Canada in the year 2000 and beyond opening up the vast northern resource, a warehouse of untold potential, and doing it with foreign-built technology. Canada, with the second greatest coastline in the world and a rich heritage in the marine side, will have to turn to Japan to develop our northern resources. That is the future in store for Canada if Governments continue to turn on their heels quietly and turn a deaf ear to the shipbuilding industry which was one of the building blocks of this nation.
I use this opportunity to remind the Government of its responsibility and to congratulate it on work well done in Bill C-52. We worked well together. Members on the government side showed a desire to improve this Bill. I ask them to bring that same desire for reform in the operation of this Parliament and that same desire to want to work together across Party lines to the table when we are given the opportunity, which I hope we will be given soon, in a legislative committee or the Transport Committee to address the very real problems of the Canadian shipbuilding industry.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise with pride to speak on this Bill in the name of my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), who has done a lot of work on the committee. As has been said, all three Parties have worked hard to bring about some amendments and produce a Bill with which we are reasonably pleased. On this morning we can take some hope that the reports of committees are heeded by the Government, which does at times look at the amendments and sees that they are reasonable.
This update in the shipping industry was long overdue. It reflects the national identity of the shipping industry in Canada, which we can all celebrate. Most important, some of the amendments made to the Bill moved by Members on all sides which were supported are very important. As has been said earlier, the removal of the exemption for the oil rigs and an increase in the number of berths of cruise ships is very important. The requirement for 14 days' notice to be given before any foreign ship can get a license is necessary and reasonable. It is sufficiently flexible in that 14 days will give Canadian shippers the opportunity to find a ship.
However, one of the amendments which we believe was important which the Government did not see as a priority was the change of the definition of a Canadian ship to ensure that these ships would be built in Canada and owned and crewed by Canadians. If we do not identify what a Canadian ship is and ensure that it is built in Canada, we are not giving much respect to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
This industry borders on being a part of our culture. It is certainly a part of our legacy because we were second to none in the world in shipbuilding. That industry has been slipping and the Government should see that it needs protection from the Jones Act which implements a total monopoly south of the border in American shipbuilding. It is very important that a

March 25, 1988
Canadian ship be defined as one which is owned and built in Canada.
We would also like to see a provision to allow a license to be given to a foreign ship for only one trip. We need such a restriction to assist the development of the Canadian shipbuilding industry and support as much work as possible for Canadian seafarers. This will not happen if those restrictions are not in the Bill. I do not understand why those amendments were not allowed when there was so much co-operation and agreement on the goals and objectives of the Bill.
With regard to the limit on the number of licenses we also tried to ensure through amendment that if a viable route is developed for a foreign ship it should be serviced on an ongoing basis by a Canadian ship. That only makes sense. It asserts that our avenues of transportation are ours and that we will not allow foreign control of them.
We have no objection to shippers using a foreign vessel if there is no Canadian vessel which meets the requirement. It is important that they be able to do this to complete one trip in order to establish a particular route or service. However, if they are allowed to continue and no Canadian vessel is available, a Canadian vessel should be built to meet those needs rather than continuing to use foreign ships. In that way we can give impetus to the industry and it makes a lot of sense.
Similarly, we do not want several different shippers all using a foreign ship on a one-time basis. Collectively, this could amount to less full-time use of the vessels. Again, a Canadian vessel should be built to meet this need. We must accept the fact that we are quite capable of meeting the technical needs of the shipping industry. It is very important that we restrict the number of licenses in order that that can happen.
There is a link between this Bill and the trade agreement with the United States. We know that the Americans refused to give up anything with regard to shipping and hold a very strong monopoly with the Jones Act. Once again we got no benefit from that trade deal. If the Americans had been persuaded to allow us to have that same kind of trade, our shipping industry and our seafarers would have benefited greatly. We are very disappointed with this result, but it is consistent with the trade deal in which Canada gives everything and gets nothing.
However, on this Bill in particular I do want to compliment the Government for bringing forward a Bill which was long overdue. In committee the Government was quite willing to listen to the amendments and did try to improve the Bill before it came to the House. We certainly appreciate and respect that.
Also, the Government initiated an amendment to allow reciprocation for American or any other foreign discrimination. I would like to commend the Government for that, recognizing that this is a means of retaining Canadian control of this industry and that it at least goes against one of the
principles of the trade deal which seems to give Canadian control away all the time.
I would like to compliment all of the members of the committee for this Bill. I was not a member but I know how hard my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan worked on it. This is the kind of committee work which can give us all little hope that the hard work is not always lost, that it does eventually get incorporated into Bills.
Therefore, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to give my support to the passage of this legislation. At least there is one area and one industry in which we now have more assured Canadian control than before today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the agreement made earlier today, we shall suspend the sitting until eleven o'clock.
At 10.52 a.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 11 a.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 25 last, the Supreme Court rendered a historic decision stating that Alberta and Saskatchewan are still subject to Northwest Territories Act section 110. As a result, the two provinces have to pass their legislation in both official languages, and French may be used in the debates of the legislative assemblies and before the courts.
The two provinces must translate all their English statutes, or pass legislation to cancel enforcement of section 110. The choice is theirs.
March 25, 1988

Mr. Speaker, these two provinces endorsed the Meech Lake Accord, thereby committing themselves to protect Canada's linguistic duality.
I sincerely hope that all my colleagues will join me in urging the two provinces not to hold up to ridicule the ancestral rights of their francophone residents by enacting regressive legislation, but that they will seek to reach a cordial and generous agreement with the minority groups with a view to making it possible for the latter to expect additional and basic services in their legislative assemblies and before the courts.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is one Member in this House who would not want to do everything possible to help veterans who find themselves in dire straits. We have shown that where veterans are concerned all of us have worked together without any partisan overtones to better their lot and their standard of living.
There are now some 500 Canadian veterans and their dependants living in the United Kingdom who are existing on social security payments, and who cannot become eligible for the War Veterans Allowance because they cannot afford to come back to Canada and undertake a year of Canadian residence before qualifying for the allowance.
Those unfortunate veterans are already facing a difficult time, and we should not make their lot any more difficult than it is. Therefore, I ask the Government to really show some compassion, to show some generosity, and to show understanding to help those veterans. In this respect I am happy to say that, on discussing this matter with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) this morning, he has assured me that this matter is now receiving top priority from himself and his Department.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT EFFECT ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRIES
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Archie McLean describes these pamphlets on free trade as moral fraud. An avowed Tory, this McCain's Foods official told Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency delegates that
100,000	jobs would be lost in the agri-food sector in the next 15 years under the free trade agreement.
I wish to quote two phrases used by Mr. McLean in his speech. He said: "If there are no changes, we'll see farms, factories, and chickens flying to the U.S.", and:"My competitors say that free trade is the end of the supply management system".
Mr. McLean said that the deal was bad for the dairy industry, horticulture, poultry, beer, and wine. He described how much cheaper and easier it would be to buy potatoes and vegetables from the South and, using poultry as an example, he said that it was impossible to protect farm income while at the same time give processors access to cheaper product.
I agreed with Mr. McLean when he said: "We have to say Canadian agriculture and the Canadian food industry is not for sale".


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the example of good corporate citizenship exhibited by Esso Resources of Canada Limited. That corporation has committed to construction of a new research facility at the University of Calgary Research Park at an estimated cost of $46 million, with a completion date of late 1989.
The work in the new facility will put further emphasis on oil sands bitumen research and development, a facet of the Alberta petroleum industry in which Esso has already invested over $1.7 billion. The company currently has a staff of 124 at its old research centre in southeast Calgary.
The new research facility, designed by architects Cohos Evamy of Calgary, involves the awarding of a major construction contract for $46 million at its peak, and the project will create 200 much needed construction jobs. This initiative is consistent with our Government's expressed desire to apply technology and innovation in sustaining Canada's future.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Federation of CEGEPs adopted a resolution seeking a reversal of the budgetary cutbacks at regional Canada Employment and Immigration Centre and more specifically as they affect human resources assigned to on-campus employment centres.

March 25, 1988
The Federation made strong representations to the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest), criticizing the reduction in resources at on-campus Canada Employment Centres which may soon lead to the centres being closed altogether
The Federation objects to the status quo and even more to the sparse appearances of itinerant counsellors. The Federation demands a review of the federal policy on resources allocated to on-campus placement centres and it also demands sufficient funding to maintain the presence of placement counsellors on campus.
What is the Minister of State (Youth) doing about these pressing demands, Mr. Speaker? Will he finally intervene on behalf of the students? The Federation is right to protest the way this is being handled. I support them totally.


THE ELDERLY
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minsiter of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of State (Senior Citizens) (Mr. Hees) have announced the federal Government will spend on average of $30 million more annually to implement a program aimed at improving the quality of life of senior citizens in Canada.
This initiative consists of four parts: A new program to help senior citizens remain independent; a research fund to which $4 million will be allocated annually mainly to examine the various factors undermine the independence of senior citizens; additional funding for the New Horizons Program; and an increase in the operation budget of the National Advisory Board on Senior Citizens.
A senior citizens secreariat will be set up at the Department of National Health and Welfare, to serve as a focus and assist the Minister of State (Senior Citizens).


AIDS DISEASE-ACCESS TO DRUGS TO EXTEND LIFE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, people who are dying of AIDS should have ready access to AZT and other drugs that help to extend life. Questions have been raised about the relative claim of scientific research versus the compassionate treatment of individuals who have AIDS and are faced with certain death while new drugs are being tested.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has endorsed the concept of "catastrophic rights" of people with AIDS. It states:
An adult person confronting the catastrophe of proximate certain death has a right to elect, for themself, any medical treatment whatsoever that does not cause direct harm to others.
In the case of a person with AIDS, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has declared:
We regard it as nonsensical for catastrophic patients to cede their rights to self-determination in their treatment because of what can be seen to be little more than an institutional affection for the ideology of research rather than its vigorous pursuit.
I urge the Government to adopt the approach taken by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in its dealings with people with AIDS. Human beings faced with certain death should not be treated as guinea pigs. They must have access to information and to necessary drugs.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the difference between the prices of leaded and unleaded gasoline in the Ottawa area is approximately one cent at the wholesale level, while at the retail level the differential can be up to four cents. As we know, lead added to fuel is one of the greatest pollutants and causes of lead in our atmosphere which result in problems with acid rain and problems concerning the health of children.
I wonder, Sir, when we will monitor this more carefully, and when the retailers and the marketers of gasoline will be more responsible in the pricing of their product at the retail level.


ISOLATED COMMUNITIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my dissatisfaction with the Conservative Government, because it discriminates against communities in New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the arbitrary way in which the Government selected certain communities that will be eligible for the special tax deduction for isolated communities, since it did not give the same benefits to communities in New Brunswick.
Although dozens of communities in Nova Scotia and hundreds in Quebec and Newfoundland were designated, only the communities on Miscou Island in New Brunswick were
March, 25, 1988

given this privilege, and only after pressure had been put on the Ministers concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I want to explain how unfair the system is. If you look at Chaleurs Bay, all communities on the Gaspe coast were designated. A few kilometres south on the New Brunswick coast, none of the communities were designated. That is unfair, and the people of New Brunswick certainly deserve better than that. Where are the Ministers from New Brunswick? Why aren't they doing something about this? How long will it take for them to speak up? Mr. Speaker, please wake them up!


COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly has just censured unanimously a statement made by Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, a high official of the Canadian Parliament. The Canadian Official Languages Commissioner, an official appointed under a House resolution to act as the Federal Government guardian of the linguistic rights on behalf of Canadian parliamentarians, has taken upon himself to criticize and cast aspersions on a province and its linguistic policies.
As a career diplomat, Mr. D'Iberville Fortier has no doubt gone beyond the bounds of decency when he described the problems associated with the advancement of French and English in Quebec. A high official of this House should avoid any deviation from Parliamentary traditions.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot excuse Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, and his disrespect for ethics deserve more than a censure motion from the Sovereign Quebec National Assembly. Well done Mr. Robert Bourassa and the Quebec Opposition!
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation. Mr. D'Iberville Fortier's thoughtless remarks are unacceptable coming from a servant of the Canadian Parliament.
We shall have to reconsider Mr. D'Iberville Fortier's future as quickly as possible. I expect to meet Mr. Robert Bourassa within the next few hours to take stock of the situation. Mr. Speaker, I will certainly return to the House on Monday to get to the bottom of this.



Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the hysterical reaction to the comments of the Official Languages Commissioner is both undemocratic and childish.
Those who are blaming him should try instead to understand his motives, ask him for explanations in an effort to initiate a rational debate.
I should like to remind those who feel in possession of the absolute truth this comment made by Paul Claudel and quoted a few days ago by New Brunswick Senator Romeo LeBlanc before the Senate Committee who was considering the Meech Lake Accord.
Claudel said and I quote:
Truth has nothing to do with the number of its believers.
If we take this reality into account, Mr. Speaker, we are likely to raise the level of the somewhat uncivilized debate of these past few days.

[DOT] (i no)


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Diversification Initiative, with offices in the four western provinces, will spend $1.2 billion on western diversification.
In debate on March 1 the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) talked about the good old Liberal days when, according to him, all regions were treated fairly and equitably. This was from a member of a former Liberal Government which promised $4 billion to western development-$4 billion that never materialized; a Liberal Government that forced an unfair capital gains tax on western farmers; and a Liberal Government which imposed the national energy policy on the West, thereby ruining the western Canadian economy overnight.
The Liberal Member went on to suggest that moving the WDO out of Ottawa would make it less effective. It is an incredible statement that Ottawa based bureaucrats are somehow better able to serve the needs and aspirations of western Canada than are westerners themselves. These are the same bureaucrats who conjured up the SRTC, who brought to us the on-highway off-highway fuel definitions, and who botched the regulations on isolated communities qualifying for northern allowances.
I say let us get more regional programs out of Ottawa and into the areas of the country where they properly belong, and where there can be some understanding and commonsense applied.
14132________________________________
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


NICARAGUA-CEASE-FIRE WELCOMED-POSSIBLE UNITED STATES REACTION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House will join with me in celebrating the fact that a cease-fire was reached between the Nicaraguan Government and the Contras this week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The House gave expression to that unanimity yesterday when it passed without debate the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), seconded by myself and other members of the Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America.
At this point my only concern is that the unanimity with which Canadian Members of Parliament and Canadians in general greet this cease-fire may not be 100 per cent shared in the White House.
I say to President Reagan and to his colleagues that the time has come to realize that Central Americans are taking their own destiny into their own hands. The Arias Plan itself was the first sign of that collective ambition to determine their own regional destiny. The way in which the Sandinistas and the Contras themselves have been able to reach a cease-fire is also a sign of that.
The day must come in Washington when they realize that Central Americans must be given the freedom to make their own peace, to make their own arrangements in their own region. The time has come for America to take more of a hands-off attitude toward Central America and let people in that region determine their own future.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the great challenge facing the new Government in September, 1984, was to get Canadians back to work. This has now largely been accomplished.
However, many people who are now working efficiently and diligently and who are earning what, on the face of it, appears to be quite handsome wages and salaries, just do not seem to be able to get ahead of the game financially. Their pay cheques are squeezed by high taxes and high prices.
In the Government's next term of office our emphasis will have to include allowing the more hard-working and productive members of our society to keep more of that which is rightfully theirs.
March 25, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were horrified by this week's tragic incidents in Mozambique and Iraq.
My first question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday we saw shocking examples of famine in Mozambique, and in spite of the bilateral Canada-Mozambique assistance program unveiled last January and of increased funding for the South African development cooperation conference, it is obvious that these efforts are woefully inadequate.
Is the Minister aware that the assistance program announced by his colleague the Minister for External Relations will not begin before late 1989 or early 1990? Is the Minister prepared to take immediate action by launching a Mozambique assistance program within a few months?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Given these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to consider any means likely to help us provide assistance as soon as possible. We were struck by the extent of the famine in Mozambique. As the Hon. Member knows, I was there in person last August. Since then I have had an opportunity to raise the matter with the leaders of the country and non-governmental organizations.

There is another aspect of this which has to do with the security situation in the region of the front line States. At the Vancouver Commonwealth meeting, presided over by the Prime Minister, there was an agreement made that there had to be an assessment of the security needs of the front line States. As a result of the initiatives taken under the Prime Minister's chairmanship there has been a request sent forward by the Commonwealth to General Obasanjo, the former Head of State of Nigeria, to undertake an assessment of security needs in Mozambique and in other front line States. General Obasanjo began his mission this week.


ACTIONS OF SOUTH AFRICAN BACKED REBELS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that leads me to my next question. The Minister must realize that the problems in Mozambique are grossly exacerbated by the continued attempt by the South African Government to destabilize the Mozambique Government.
Does the Minister realize that the hardships experienced in the Mozambique famine are in large part caused by the actions of the South African backed rebel group RENAMO? What specific step is Canada ready to take to counterbalance these aggressive acts?

March 25, 1988


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we require is as clear an assessment as is possible of what the security needs are. It was with that in mind that the Prime Minister and other Heads of Government initiated the suggestion of a mission by General Obasanjo.
I discussed that with my Commonwealth Foreign Minister colleagues in Lusaka, took the proposal to launch something of that kind to the leaders of the front line States, President Kaunda and others, and there has now been agreement.
That is one of the things that is required, and that is proceeding. There then needs to be, once that information is in hand, a decision on what role different countries can play.
At the Prime Minister's request I invited the Foreign Minister of Mozambique to be in Canada at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We had useful discussions with him then, and those will continue.
When we have the report of General Obasanjo, we will have to take a look at ways in which we can contribute to the security situation in the front line States.
There are some limitations upon us that do not exist upon other countries. Nonetheless, there are things that we can do. Certainly I take it as the view of the House that we should do everything we can consistent with our traditions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
André Ouellet: Earlier this week the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed concern over the use of chemical weapons in the war between Iraq and Iran. I would like to know what the Minister has done to convey Canada's disapproval. Did he send a note of protest to Iraq, or did he take steps to have the question brought before the United Nations Security Council?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we called the Iraqi ambassador to express serious concern and disapproval with respect to action related to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. We also told the Iranian Government about our contact with Iraq. We did raise the issue at the United Nations. The Iraqi signed the United Nations protocol and can be expected to honour their commitment.
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Ministers of Immigration, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the mad confusion which is gripping his Government over the issue of Turkish refugee status claimants.
Now that his Immigration Minister is escalating his public feud with the Province of Quebec and that federal immigration officials do not know what to do because they do not know what is the federal position, it is high time that the Government got its act together.
Therefore, will the Prime Minister clear the confusion by precisely outlining his Government's action and position on the entire Turkish issue? Could he explain or outline to the House if this action will be applied equally to Turkish claimants living outside the Province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration may I point out to the Hon. Member that the Government's position is quite clear. The policy is being followed. Existing legislation is being followed. The rules and regulations are being followed, and due process is being followed.
I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that under the provisions of the agreement reached in February, 1978, between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, known as the Cullen-Couture agreement, Quebec has certain privileges and prerogatives in terms of the selection of immigrants and refugees.
Just to put the issue in perspective, the contents of the Cullen-Couture agreement are that Quebec has full power over selection of independents abroad, full power over selection of refugees abroad, and a predominant role for guarantor of family class and assisted relatives, as well as a predominant role in the selection of students. I should also say that it has a shared responsibility for temporary worker validation.
What has happened is that the Government of Quebec has exercised its right under the Cullen-Couture agreement, and that is being followed.
When the Hon. Member talks about confusion, it is time that the Liberal Party exercised its leadership in influencing the members of the Senate who have held up Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 for days and days.
Bill C-55 has been before the Senate for 156 days. Bill C-84 has been before the Senate for 193 days.
That is what is creating the confusion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 25, 1988
Oral Questions


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Government's position is as clear as mud in cloudy weather. He should stop blaming everybody else, pull up his shirt-sleeves, and get to work, because the problems are here whether we have Bill C-55 or Bill C-84.


CLAIMANTS FOR REFUGEE STATUS OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since the Government was fortunate and took full advantage of the leadership offered by the Minister of Immigration for the Province of Quebec, will the Government offer the same leadership to those applicants outside the Province of Quebec who cannot expect a provincial solution, or must applicants travel to Quebec to get justice, or, worse still, must applicants in Toronto await a Toronto visit by the Prime Minister in order to get some leadership and action as was taken for his visit to Montreal this weekend?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is somewhat confused. The Cullen-Couture agreement was an agreement-


Sergio Marchi: Get the Prime Minister up to answer; he is responsible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which was signed by the previous Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. If he has any objections to that agreement, perhaps he could address his questions to him.
In the absence of Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, what is happening is that there is an influx of something like 2,000 people per month who claim to be refugees, refugee claimants coming into the country, an influx which we cannot control.
Until such time as we get Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 passed-


Sergio Marchi: Your own government Senators are against it, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Until such time as that happens, that chaos will continue.
I call upon members of the Liberal Party to prevail upon members of the Senate to get the Bills passed so that we can restore legitimate refugee processing, so that we can control it in an orderly manner, and so that we can pull the whole thing together. That is what is happening, and I call upon the Hon. Member to use his good offices to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It also concerns the appalling reports of the use of chemical weapons in the Kurdistan area.
I am somewhat disappointed by the measured tones in which the Minister responded to a previous question. Obviously what is happening here sets a very dangerous moral precedent for the whole world. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for Canada to provide some leadership in solidifying and activating the international community to bring an end to this madness between Iran and Iraq.
The Minister appeared to entertain some doubt about whether or not Iraq was responsible for this when it seems that it clearly is. What has the Government clearly said to the Iraqi Government in respect of the use of chemical weapons? What is the Government planning to do to give leadership in the U.N. and in the international community in general to censure Iraq, to censure the use of chemical weapons, and finally to bring about the cease-fire which the United Nations requested many months ago in respect of this ugly conflict?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we consider the use of chemical weapons in these circumstances or in others, certainly in the proportions that have been reported to us, to be atrocious and to be inhuman.
We have made the strongest possible representations to the Ambassador of Iraq and will be following these up through other channels.
The reason I made reference to the United Nations in answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Papineau was that there is established in the United Nations secretary-generalship a requirement and a capacity to seek expert confirmation of the facts.
That should be done, and then the problem arises-and my hon. friend appreciates it-to find ways in which international opinion, apart from simply being expressed in the strongest possible terms, can be made effective against Iran and against Iraq; in this case, against Iraq and against Iran. That is the challenge. If there is some way in which Canada can move that process forward, I am certainly eager to find and follow that way.


ARMS EMBARGO PROPOSAL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that one of the suggestions made a long time ago concerning this war was that if there was not an adherence to the ceasefire request made at the U.N. there would be a total arms embargo on both Iran and Iraq.
March 25, 1988

It seems to me that one of the things the world could do would be to suffocate the ability of these two countries to wage the kind of war they are waging on each other.
I think Canada has a special role to play in calling the world community to account, the superpowers and everyone involved. It is in everyone's interest that these two nations be made to stop doing what they are doing. One of the opportunities the Minister has, it seems to me, is to take a leading role in getting the world community to put that kind of arms embargo on both those nations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I accept and I agree with that. The problem is not to advocate an arms embargo that would, to use the Hon. Member's term, suffocate. Advocacy is not an issue. The problem is how do we do it.
There has been some movement on this question in the Security Council, some movement that one would have to characterize as encouraging, although that is not a word to use in these circumstances.
We are seeking more unanimity by more countries, and we want to make it clear that not only are we prepared to be a part of an embargo, an absolute suffocating embargo, but that we will be actively urging others to seek that, or to follow that or other procedures that can bring an end to a conflict which is more and more gruesome every day.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO AROUSE WORLD OPINION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Just on that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right, of course, that advocacy is not everything. We certainly have not had an abundance of advocacy from anywhere in the world with respect to this war. The world has been kind of indifferent to what has been going on between Iran and Iraq in the hope that some day the war might come to an end. But it is not going to come to an end until the world awakens to the fact that horrible precedents are being set with respect to chemical weapons, and horrible precedents are being set with respect to the pollution of oceans and the sinking of tankers, and everything else. It is about time the world woke up.
I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be a prominent agent in awakening the world to the need for an end to this conflict.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly, and Canada will certainly do what we can, everything we can, to be both a more effective advocate, if that is what is required, and to be more effective in achieving a result.
I take the Hon. Member's comment in the spirit in which I believe it was offered. We will certainly respond in that spirit. If Canadian advocacy, more vigorous Canadian advocacy will help, then certainly that will occur.
_______________________________14135
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance but perhaps someone on the government side could answer it.
I am worried, like others, that high interest rates will hamper the growth and development of our regions. The Canadian dollar is being artificially maintained at about 80 cents, which is damaging our exports. The inflation rate now at 4 per cent certainly cannot any more be called Canada's main economic problem; and short-term interest rates are almost 3 per cent above those in the United States.
Are not some of these indicators sufficient to convince the Government that interest rates should be lowered, unless it is a definite policy of the Government-


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about the 22 per cent interest rates when you were in power.


Jacques Guilbault: -to keep interest rates high in order to please the Americans so that they will adopt the trade deal in the U.S. Congress?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very welcome question. I take myself back to August, 1981. The interest rate then was 22.75 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Mayer:: And we are still paying for that.


Thomas Hockin: Today we have a prime rate of 9.75 per cent. We have five-year mortgage rates at 11 per cent. The way the Government has been able to bring down interest rates is a tremendous boom for the Canadian consumer.
The Hon. Member asks about exports. In the last quarter of 1987 our export performance was excellent and it continues further into the first quarter of this year. Because of that, and because of the almost historic proportions of the investment intentions of the Canadian business community in the Canadian economy, 17.3 per cent over last year, which is two and a half times the ordinary increase, there is, of course, a bit of pressure on the Canadian dollar and on interest rates. That is only because more people are searching for the Canadian dollar, which puts pressure on the rates. This is all the result of the confidence that Canadians and non-residents have in the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE REDUCED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister should talk to Mr. Adam Zimmerman of Noranda Forest Products-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 25, 1988
Oral Questions


Jacques Guilbault: -who said:
Only an added penny in the value of the Canadian dollar means $15 million in lost revenue.

Mr. Speaker, we aren't the only ones to ask for lower interest rates and stabilizing the value of the dollar. The Premier of Quebec, the Premier of Ontario, the Canadian Export Association, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturing Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have all demanded a reduction in interest rates. My question to the Minister is this: Why does the Government refuse to listen to all these national organizations, with their enviable expertise on economic issues? Or does the Minister of Finance prefer to go it alone with his inflated interest rates?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, all I can do in answer to that supplementary question is to quote the Minister of Finance who said yesterday:
The facts are that when an economy is strong the interest rates in the country go up because of pressure on money and because people are looking for money to invest in new things.
With an increase in investment spending per cent this year which is up two and a half times over last year there is bound to be this slight pressure on the dollar and on interest rates.


CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the experimental production of chemical weapons and antidotes to those weapons in Alberta.
Since consideration is now being given to production contracts for the antidote drug HI-6 for use in chemical warfare to a firm in downtown Edmonton, will the Deputy Prime Minister give his assurance that, before any further production of any amounts of chemical or biological weapons or potential antidotes to those is contracted in Canada, the Government will produce for the public a position paper on how such production by Canada will affect the potential for progress toward a world-wide production ban on chemical and biological weapons?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been a Member of the House for some time. He knows that if he is genuinely interested in answers relating to specific developments of that kind, it is helpful to the Ministry to give notice.
I cannot accept the premises of his question without looking into all the circumstances, and I cannot answer him without
doing that. But I undertake to look into to give him a response.
the circumstances and


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a supplementary question to which the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs can give a commitment. Millions of dollars are being spent by government Ministers on the production of chemical and biological defensive materials.


Mr. Andre:: Not true.


James Ross Fulton: I have the contract from you, Harvie,
Some of the key studies on the medical effects of HI-6 are being withheld from the Health Protection Branch. Since this drug would be directly injected into Canadian troops as the next stage of testing, will the Deputy Prime Minister give his assurance that all the HI-6 studies will be reviewed publicly prior to its use on any Canadian soldier?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the answer, if I may. I repeat the observation that if Members are interested in answers to these questions and not simply in creating a scare headline somewhere, then some notice should be given. I do not often ask for notice of questions, but in a circumstance of this kind I think the House would agree it is appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Have the problems with the Native Economic Development Program, NEDP, now been ironed out, and are applications being processed in a timely fashion?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that enormous progress has been made in the administration of the Native Economic Development Program. Up to now we have received over 1,500 applications from throughout Canada. We have approved 420 projects and committed in excess of $200 million under that program. It is working well, but we still have improvements to make and that is why we have engaged in this consultation process. We should be about to receive that report in the next few weeks.

March 25, 1988


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Correctional officers, the ones who work with prison inmates, have been promised similar retirement opportunities to those for members of the RCMP and the Armed Forces. We in the Official Opposition support this proposition which would allow Correctional Services people to exercise the option for early retirement if they so wish.
The President of the Treasury Board has told the unions representing these prison guards that the amendments needed to fulfil the promise are tied to the condition that the union accept Bill C-33, an Act to remove the full indexing guarantee from pensions for public servants. Why is the Government again breaking a promise to public servants? Why is the Government using blackmail to intimidate a group of public servants into submission?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has had an ongoing interest in this matter, and I regret that he has used the words "blackmail" and "intimidation", because that is not the case and he knows that. The fact is that my predecessor, my colleague who is now the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, indeed gave a commitment to introduce a special early retirement program for Correctional Services employees, recognizing the unique nature of their work. That commitment remains.
It had been hoped that we could have incorporated this into Bill C-33 because there was an agreement with the Public Service with regard to the provisions contained in Bill C-33. I hope that we can proceed with this initiative as soon as possible. There have been ongoing discussions. The commitment has been made, the commitment remains, and we will find a way to do it.


APPLICATION OF BILL C-33 PROVISIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister that there is no relationship between indexing, deindexing and non-indexing of pensions and the age requirement for early retirement that can be taken by members of the Armed Forces or the RCMP. Again, why is the Minister tying Bill C-33 to this amendment allowing correctional officers to take early retirement? These people work under stress and are entitled to some consideration. They have asked for it and the Government has promised it. Why does the Minister not keep his promise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I tried to make it clear. Bill C-
Oral Questions
33 provided a vehicle within which this could be done. To my knowledge, the Correctional Services employees had no difficulty with that. I understand that there were some negotiations with opposition Parties. They were not prepared to accept that, and we are trying to find another vehicle in which to proceed with it. I repeat, the commitment has been made, the commitment will be maintained, and we will deliver.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the current news about the guarantees of investments for investor immigrants, will the Prime Minister confirm that as of April 1 this year the Government will be allowing investor immigrants to have their investments as the basis of their visas guaranteed by Canadian taxpayers through provincial Governments?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this is an issue which was brought forth by some provinces and the Minister has considered this issue. Discussions have been taking place. Officials have been meeting. I am not in a position at this time to report just precisely what action will be taken but I can say to the Hon. Member that those discussions are continuing, and I presume a conclusion will be reached very soon.


GOVERNMENT IMMIGRATION POLICY
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, again to the Prime Minister, given that the Government has not said whether it has made up its mind about this reported decision and reported regulation, I would ask the Prime Minister how he can justify or how he would justify giving visas to rich foreigners at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers, that is for guaranteeing their loans, while the same Government is pushing legislation to shut out refugees and is delaying its promise to enlarge the family immigration class.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that, on the one hand, we get criticized by the Opposition for the disorder and confusion which exist within the immigration system, and we now hear from the New Democrats that they want that confusion and disorder to be elevated. Quite frankly, these are the kinds of signals that come from opposite that really cause Members and the Canadian public, I am sure, to wonder sometime. As I said before, this is an initiative-

March 25, 1988
Oral Questions


David Berger: Do your homework next time you get up in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will do my homework as long as the Hon. Member asks some important questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the program had started, as I understand it, with representations from the provinces. There have been discussions going on to determine whether a consensus could be reached. That process is continuing. I am sure the Minister will be in a position to make an announcement very soon.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but it might be answered by the Minister of Labour or by the Acting Minister of Health. Yesterday we were once again reminded of the unfair working conditions of nurses in many parts of Canada with examples of low pay and deplorable working conditions, with the result that they are now being recruited in large numbers to work in the United States and in Switzerland. Yesterday in Montreal over
1,000	nurses attended a recruiting meeting in this regard.
I would ask the Minister responsible if, in these circumstances, the Government will approach its provincial counterparts to work out solutions for nurses in Canada, solutions which are just and fair for this honourable profession, and make sure in addition that there is equity in working conditions for nurses in all the provinces of Canada.
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly discuss this question with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and report back to the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF FEDERALLY EMPLOYED NURSES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is the proper Minister to address this to, but I would also like to know whether the Government would set a better example at the federal level by assuring better pay and conditions for nurses working for the federal Government in its own clinics and hospitals. As the Government knows, federal nurses are now earning less than other health care workers who have lesser education and responsibility. They do not object to the other health care workers getting raises, but they do want fairness and justice for themselves. I wish the federal Government would take
action to do something about that. I would like to hear an answer.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is somewhat behind the times because there have been a number of representations from Members on this side and from members of the New Democratic Party about this very important issue. About a month or so ago, I announced that a satisfactory settlement had been reached with the nurses and they are all happy. What is wrong with the Hon. Member?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Norman Melvin Warner: Mr. Speaker, excluding taxes, the difference between the price of gasoline at the refinery and the price of gasoline to the consumer is already near historic highs and most retailers are not getting rich. Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs assure me that when tax increases are introduced, the major oil companies will act responsibly on April Fool's Day?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can give that kind of assurance because we do not have a centrally based price control system in Canada, and indeed, if there were to be price controls on gasoline, they would have to be at the provincial level since that is where the constitutional authority lies.
However, within my Department there is certainly the capability of taking action when there is unfair or collusive marketing practices by the oil companies. The situation is being monitored almost on a continuous basis, and I would invite the Hon. Member or any members of the Canadian public, if they become aware of improper or illegal activities, to let me know and we will certainly take action.


WELFARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the special Workfare Program which was arranged under the Canada-Saskatchewan Accord compels people to work for welfare, a mere $370 a month? If they refuse, they are cut off welfare completely.
March 25, 1988

Is the Minister aware that this kind of forced labour is contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan and the Canada-Saskatchewan Accord, both of which require work activities to be voluntary? If he is, what is the Government going to do about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations of the Hon. Member. My sense is that this is largely a provincial issue. Nonetheless, I will ensure that the matter is looked into to try and get back to the Hon. Member early next week.


ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Saskatchewan Accord was signed by two Ministers of the Government, and the Canada Assistance Plan is a federal plan. How can it be called provincial?
Why is the federal Government not doing its job to inform the Saskatchewan Government that it is in violation of both these agreements and must stop exploiting people, particularly those least able to defend themselves?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is being somewhat unfair because this Government has undertaken a number of initiatives with respect to job training, the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and a host of similar programs which have assisted people in getting off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls.
As I said earlier, I will undertake to look into the Member's grievance and report to her fully next week.
V *	*


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated that the American conglomerate Gulf and Western had not respected its March 12 commitment to divest itself of control of Ginn Book Publishing to Canadian investors as it agreed to under the Government's book publishing policy of July 6, 1985, enunciated in Baie Comeau. Now our Government, at the eleventh hour, has been forced to step in and exercise its option.
Why did the Prime Minister agree to allow the spending of $4.5 million under the pretext of achieving Canadian control while leaving significant operating decisions by the company subject to veto power by New York? Could he tell us what the
Oral Questions
Government expects from this Canadian book publishing policy made in the U.S.A?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the Liberal Party is not in agreement with the Association of Canadian Book Publishers who applauded the Government's decision to make the offer to Gulf and Western. These discussions continue, and I think it would be premature at this stage to try to foresee the result of those discussions taking place with the company in question.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, what kind of a deal is it when you have to pay 51 per cent of the shot and you do not get full control? Why does the Government not stand up and support the Canadian book publishing industry?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I said, discussions between Gulf and Western and the Government are continuing. It would not be appropriate at this time to comment on the specifics of this matter until it has been completed, at which time we can probably talk about it in more intelligent terms.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The extremely important and hope inspiring truce in Nicaragua, as the Minister knows, is extremely fragile and needs to be given every encouragement by countries like Canada which recognize that the root cause of violence in Central America is poverty.
Would Canada be willing, as part of our contribution to the peace process in Central America, to mount an extraordinary program of development assistance for Nicaragua, helping it to implement its program of reintegrating the Contras into local communities, and helping that country rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during eight years of war?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me very quickly make three points. The first is that the genius and strength of the Arias Plan is that it applies to the five countries in the region. Recognizing that while the conflict in Nicaragua is dominating attention, it

March 25, 1988
Oral Questions
is also important that other conflicts in the region be addressed and resolved.
Second, and in that spirit, Canada would certainly be prepared to act in ways that would move forward the process of development. Our preference would be to do that in the region as a whole as a result of the Arias Plan. If something develops that would require and make useful an intervention by Canada in one country, then we would certainly look at doing that. We would want to do it in the context of other countries as well.
Finally, with regard to the role that Canada and the Prime Minister have been able to play in this matter, I think it would be appropriate for the House to know that the Prime Minister of Canada will, on Monday, be the first Canadian Prime Minister in our history to be honoured with the presentation of the Gold Insigne Award presented by the Pan American Society, in New York.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we all wish to join in congratulating the Prime Minister.


REQUEST THAT PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE BE EXPEDITED
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the Minister's officials have said that Nicaragua is the key. Considering that now is the time when the peace process has made an unexpected breakthrough and help is urgently needed, will the Minister expedite the process, which I presume was moved forward when a CIDA task force visited Nicaragua earlier this month, so that help can get there now when it can do the most good in pushing the peace process forward?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a serious representation which I will take seriously. I will see if there is anything we can do to expedite arrangements.
I would like, if I may, to take the opportunity to make the following point. None of us know precisely the reasons which led to the recent very positive development in the negotiations in Nicaragua. There are a multitude of reasons which could have led to that situation. It is very important that no country take actions which could upset that balance.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He knows that the Canadian Wheat Board subcommittee on quota review recommended that the
Board consider moving away from quota acres toward a supply contract system for producers. Given that some producers have expressed concerns about this, does the Minister know what the attitude of the Wheat Board is, and will there be further opportunities for consultations with producers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board looks at the quota policy on a regular basis with the idea of maximizing delivery opportunities and, therefore, exports. The Wheat Board asked the advisory committee to do a study of this, which it did. It has reported to the Board. Any changes will not happen until August 1, 1989. In the interim there will be ample opportunity for people with concerns to express those concerns to the Wheat Board.
1 can simply say that we are constantly looking for ways to improve the delivery system to help producers, and any changes will be made with full consultation so that everyone has a chance to express their concerns about those changes which the Board might adopt.


DEVELOPMENT OF LOWER CHURCHILL RIVER
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind him that six times over the past three years he promised to intervene between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland with regard to the development of the Lower Churchill River. Nothing has happened. In the meantime, Hydro Quebec announced a $50 billion development at James Bay to export power to the U.S.
My question once again is very simple. Why has the Prime Minister not kept his commitment to develop that hydro power, and why is he allowing 10,000 megawatts of electricity to flow to the sea every day in a province which will run out of power in 1992?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is, of course, quite wrong. He says that I gave an undertaking and nothing has happened. This, of course, is false.
I met with Premier Bourassa directly. I met with Premier Peckford, and have been in communication with both with a view to trying to be helpful, as the federal Government, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to working out an historic difficulty with the Province of Quebec.
My hon. friend will want to withdraw, I am sure, any suggestion that the Government has not fulfilled its obligation. On the contrary, I have had formal and personal meetings with both Premiers in this regard.
March 25, 1988


NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR-PROJECTED ELECTRICITY SHORTAGE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the Prime Minister's words they were "to use the full force of his office" to do something about the impasse. That is the most powerful office in the land. It can do more than simply negotiate. It can offer finance. It has mechanisms at its disposal to do something.
That is what I mean by the fact that nothing has been done. Talk is not enough. In a province that will run out of electricity in 1992 it is urgent that something be done to develop that hydro potential now.


Jacques Guilbault: The political will is missing.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some bizarre comments from a Liberal Member from Montreal who says: "The political will is missing". Is he trying to suggest, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, that we should intervene in a matter that comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, that the federal Government should intervene in an issue of this kind? That is what he just suggested. Now please, make up your minds!
Either, you want federal intervention, which is hardly likely, or you favour the approach I just mentioned to my hon. friend from Labrador, which is to engage in serious dialogue with the Premier of Newfoundland and the Premier of Quebec, and help Newfoundland find a solution to a problem that has existed for several decades. I agree Newfoundland needs help. I agree Newfoundland is a disadvantaged province. I agree there is an energy problem, and I also think I am the first Canadian Prime Minister to have personal meetings with the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Newfoundland with a view to solving this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but we are overtime. That will end Question Period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 (8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-3872, 332-3938, 332-3941, 332-3942 and 332-4115 to 332-4126 inclusive.
Motions


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
[Editors note: see todays Votes and Proceedings]



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT


Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented to the House on Monday, December 14, 1987.
I rise, Mr. Speaker-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ensure that my friend was recognized, but I understand that some Members of the House have petitions to present. We are entering into a debate which will take some time. I wonder whether there might be a predisposition in the House to proceed to petitions at this time and then revert to the debate in order to allow Members with petitions to present them to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?

March 25, 1988
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but I am surprised at the nice disposition of the Parliamentary Secretary today with regard to petitions. He is usually very aggressive and negative about petitions, but today he wants them. That is fine. He is learning.


PETITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present two petitions under the provisions of Standing Order 106.
The first petition is signed by a number of citizens of Winnipeg who say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions. Therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
The other petition which 1 have says that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to U.S. markets, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions on two different topics.
The first is from a number of residents of Frontier, Saskatchewan, who are concerned about the recent Supreme Court decision. They feel that it has created and imposed a right to abortion which is without basis in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the country. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose this decision to save the lives of Frontier's innocent unborn.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number or residents of the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan who express concerns about the eligibility list for tax deduction for northern residents in isolated posts.
They feel that in its present form it is discriminatory in that many communities not on the list are adjacent to listed communities. They feel that the tax deduction was designed to assist in alleviating the added costs of living in isolated communities and that the commission of inquiry to be established later this year to study the current criteria will not be in a position to make necessary changes to the 1987 tax filing year. The petitioners suggest that a practical solution to the problem would be for the Government to declare all communities adjacent to the corporate limits of Climax and Consul, Saskatchewan, as eligible for the isolated posts residents' reduction. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to declare those communities adjoining Climax and Consul which share the same criteria to be eligible for the isolated posts and northern residents reduction.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions concerning the high incidents of crime, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, that are committed with knives. This type of activity is on the increase in all major cities across Canada.
Whereas the law, through federal Criminal Code and court decisions, allow citizens to carry knives for self-defence and whereas the carrying of knives by persons in public places is directly responsible for knives then being used in a variety of crimes, as well as altercations where self-defence is claimed, these petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the federal Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places. The only exception is to be for those who carry knives for legitimate work activities or for religious reasons, such as the Sikhs.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting today, on behalf of the group Objectif-Survie Quebec, about ten petitions including almost 100 names. Those people have asked me to present and table those petitions on their behalf, because they are concerned about the protection of unborn children. According to them, the unborn child is a human being and consequently he is entitled to live and to be protected and the Supreme Court of Canada, by declaring unconstitutional the federal legislation on abortion, has left, according to them, the unborn child without legal protection; however, the Supreme
March 25, 1988

Court did point out that Parliament is empowered to pass legislation protecting the life of unborn children.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from a number of residents of Alberta who are concerned that Bill C-72 will set a dangerous precedent by banning unilingual anglophones and other cultures. They call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that the unilingual people have a chance for a position in Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions dealing with the so-called free trade agreement. Whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return; Whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws; Whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment; Whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers;
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall 1 proceed to Questions on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benjamin that the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport be concurred in.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since there was agreement that up to two hours could be taken to debate this motion and we have used some of that time for other items ahead of Motions during Routine Proceedings, would it be possible for the Chair not to see the clock until 2.15, if it is the desire of Members to use the full two hours?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member should raise that at two o'clock. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary agree?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, an important principle agreed to under the reform is that we try to end by three o'clock, and I think Private Members' hour between two o'clock and three o'clock is important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If we do not get on
with the debate we may have to extend it for a few extra hours. Let us carry on. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on my motion of concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport which was tabled in the House on December 4.
That report is a result of a trip the Transport Committee took to Europe, where we looked into the operations of airports, airlines and the question of privatization. We looked into airport ownership and management. We studied rail passenger services. We also examined some impressive sites at two major ports in western Europe.
There are some 13 recommendations in this report to which the committee agreed unanimously.
The issue of airport security has been raised repeatedly in the last three years in this House in Question Period and during debates, and in the committee itself. Yet we still see incidents which indicate some very disturbing inadequacies in airport security measures.
The committee visited Heathrow, Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle Airports. We were impressed with the way they operated their airport security services. They are entirely under the management and control of the Government, an agent of the Government, or the airport management itself. Rather than so-called private enterprise tendering for security services, it is carried on by well trained airport personnel, local or regional police, or a combination of both. The airlines are billed for the cost of these services in direct proportion to the number of flights and passengers they use, or they are paid for from airport user fees, general taxation or a combination of all

March 25, 1988
Motions
three so that the costs are almost fully recovered one way or another.
In Canada, the airlines are responsible for security. Let us use as an example the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, the largest airport in Canada. The 24 airlines that use that airport make up a committee which is chaired by Air Canada, since it is the largest operator at the airport. This committee calls for tenders for airport security services. The contract for these services invariably goes to the lowest bidder because under deregulation the airlines must cut costs and hold the line in order to compete with one another and with other countries. As a result, we see jerkwater, fly-by-night security companies that tender for these contracts. Most of the contracts are held by Metropol, of which there are some eight subsidiaries registered in several provinces.
Particularly over the past three years when airport security had to be strengthened and enlarged the experience has been that those security companies pay cheap. We get cheap work and cheap results. The employees earn the minimum wage or a little better than the minimum wage. The turn-over rates are 10, 15, 17 per cent per month. At any given airport in Canada it is not unusual to find that there has been 100 per cent turnover or more in the course of a year. Thus new people have to be continually trained.
The other thing that is found, Mr. Speaker, is that they receive as much as, would you believe it, three hours of training. The Minister states that there is a plan being implemented to make that three days. We have been hearing that for some time. It is still not in place in Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, or Vancouver. As was shown on television the other night, there was an instance where a young lad who received three hours of training was put to work and in the next day or two he was training other beginners. To put it nicely, that is a woefully inadequate type of airport security service.
The committee recommended unanimously that the Government, the Department of Transport, take over all the operations of airport security services, and that the screening, inspections and so forth be carried out by fully trained employees of either the airport which, in most cases, would be the employees of the Department of Transport, the regional police, the RCMP, or a combination of department employees and the RCMP. The RCMP presently have officers stationed at most airports in Canada, certainly in all of the larger ones. It should be under their aegis and supervision. There could even be special constables in the RCMP to do this.
I estimate that that would double the cost of airport screening, inspections, and searches. But there would be quality airport security. We all know it can never be perfect, there will never be complete and total security, there will always be a breakdown or someone will figure out some way to get through on one occasion. But we should not make it so
easy. We were impressed by the manner in which it is conducted in Europe and I suspect in many other countries. Only in Canada and the U.S. is this screwball private enterprise syndrome applied to something in which there should not be any profit-making or profit-taking. It is an essential public service, a public need, and a public demand. It is one thing that the travelling public in Canada would be willing to do. If it cost them $2 or $3 more on each plane ticket for that type of high-level quality airport security service, they would willingly and happily pay for it.
The Government remains stubborn, as did this Minister and at least three of his predecessors every time this was proposed to them. It is a move that is long overdue. I for one, and my colleagues on the Transport Committee, hoped and felt that we had achieved a goal that all of us wanted in our report that the Government would move quickly to meet. Several months have gone by since we submitted the report. The Minister states that he has written to the airlines, called in the presidents, and is going to read the riot act to them about the security services, about the low pay, the inadequate training, and the turn-over rates. This has been going on for years. Everyone knows it, including the Minister. It has never been changed and it will not be changed as long as it is left under the control of the airlines themselves. They will get by on the cheap, and cheapskate companies will carry out the security services.
That is just not good enough. We can argue and kick the airline presidents around all we like, they are not about to do it. If they do do it, one will be surprised how fast it will deteriorate again in order to save some bucks. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us today that the Minister intends to implement that recommendation.
The airlines have repeatedly complained, even to the committee, that security procedures cause slow-downs of passenger boarding and cause delays. I submit that some of this is the fault of the airlines. They all want to arrive and leave town at the same time within a two hour time frame, three times a day. It seems to me that someone has to kick them around about that. There are only so many runways, air traffic controllers, and unloading and loading docks. Something has to be done about that nonsense. Many of the things that the airlines complain about are their own fault which they have brought on themselves.
As important is the fact that at Pearson International Airport there are two screening positions to handle passengers for domestic flights in Terminal 2. Those positions handle passengers for some 20 departure locations. There are 15 domestic departure docks attached to Terminal 2, and there are 4 or 5 other loading places out on the tarmac for propeller-driven aircraft. At airports in Europe there is a screening position for every one, two, or at the most three, loading docks.
I want to urge upon the Government that it immediately locate two more screening positions for boarding passengers on domestic flights at Terminal 2 at Pearson International Airport. At the peak periods if three or four positions were
March 25, 1988

operating instead of one or two, there would not be 200 and 300 feet long line-ups. Some people are frantic in the lineups because they are afraid that they may miss their flight and still have to walk up to a half mile length in Terminal 2.
It is bad enough that Terminal 2 is about one mile long, but it is going to be made longer. Tenders have already been called to make Terminal 2 longer. I hope that on the extension some moving walkways are put in. It is incredible to watch women, children, and elderly people struggling on foot from Gate 70 to the baggage area among mobs of people going in both directions to get on or off an airplane. Every airport that we were in in Europe with long terminal buildings had moving walkways. Every 100 feet there would be a break to get off and go to loading docks. It could still be installed in the rest of the old Terminal 2 building. It is long overdue. The little train and carts to move elderly or handicapped people, or people with children have been removed. Why? To save money. Those people are willing to pay through their taxes or in any other way necessary. The airport tax is now $50 per ticket. That should be sufficient for paying for them.
That type of thing needs to be done at several other airports in Canada, for example, at Dorval and Vancouver. I have been in line-ups to board a plane at almost every airport in this country of any significant size. Often there is only one screening position, and sometimes only one or two people working it. I remember one morning boarding a plane in an airport in this country together with approximately 60 passengers. There was one person on duty in the screening process who first ran the luggage through the x-ray machine, then ran the passenger through the walk through x-ray machine, then wanded the passenger, and then went back around and did it all again. Again, this is an illustration of a security company getting by on the cheap to satisfy the airlines.
I am sure my other colleagues will have more to say about these security services. I want to say that I am still not satisfied with the handling of baggage sequencing and baggage matching for international flights or flights that are domestic to international. The process is still not good enough. I am prepared to provide the Minister with some affidavits which outline some breakdowns in two different airlines in the country with respect to what is going on there.
Another matter we considered in Europe was the operation of passenger train services. I am not for one minute suggesting we could have passenger train services of the volume and frequency of western Europe. In that part of the world there is a population of some 200 million living in an area that is less than half the size of Canada. There is also a much milder climate and not nearly as harsh a geography. There is a volume of people in that smaller geography. Naturally, there are thousands of trains a day running in a dozen different countries. The one thing that we found was that the performances in terms of the speed of the schedules, the frequency and
Motions
the length of stops, boarding procedures and facilities for passengers at railway stations were far superior to ours.
I have a copy of the CPR Transcontinental schedule for Montreal to Vancouver for 1892. The average speed was 33 miles per hour. That was with little steam engines which had to stop to get coal and water every 50 or 100 miles and change crews every 100 miles. Do you know what the average speed is today, Mr. Speaker? It is 36 or 37 miles per hour. The average speed for the Supercontinental or the Canadian is about 36 miles per hour. That is not much progress in almost 100 years.
One of the problems with this is that the Government refuses to order, purchase and get on stream new rail passenger equipment. I am amazed that VIA Rail employees and VIA Rail management have run the railway as well as they have when we consider the handicaps with which they have been working since 1976.
We are now into the third round of refurbishing old passenger cars. Half money again will have been spent on refurbishing old passenger cars since 1976, more than the cost of 230 new cars. VIA Rail must have 230 to 250 new passenger railway cars, including sleeping-cars, coaches, dining-cars and dome-cars. The Government keeps putting it off. It is not just this Government or just this Minister. Three predecessors kept putting it off.
We will now have to start refurbishing cars again and converting them from steam heat to electric heat. That will give them another 10 years in service, or 15 years at the most. Why do we continue to throw good money away after bad? Three years lead time is needed to get the cars built and on stream. I think the Government and the Minister ought to take the two companies in the country which build those cars and start kicking them around. I feel that in their joint tender submission proposal to the Government they are holding us up for ransom with respect to the price of those cars.
I think the Government will have to say to them, "Look, either sharpen your pencils or we will talk to some other countries which make great, beautiful passenger railway cars such as Great Britain, Sweden, West Germany, France, the United States and Japan". We could get prices from them and see how these two Canadian companies would like it. Even in Britain one can take an overnight passenger train from Inverness to London in a brand new sleeping-car, which is marvellous, for just 11 pounds for a lower berth, which is very reasonable.
I urge the Government to move quickly to adopt these recommendations passed unanimously by the all-Party committee. We do not like being ignored. We feel that we have done good work. We believe that we made an extra effort. The trip to Europe was not any holiday. We were on our feet and in meetings for 10 hours and 12 hours a day. We met with a great many experts and people who gave us a great deal of worth-while information. We tried to condense that into a report that would be useful not only to Parliament but to the

March 25, 1988
Motions
Government and to the Ministry of Transport and the transportation industry as a whole.
Darn it, I resent the foot-dragging that is going on with respect to things that so obviously need to be done. Again, as I said yesterday to the Minister, it seems a brick wall has to fall on him, and it is about time one did.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions I would like to put to my colleague. Before I do that I would like to comment vis-a-vis the good work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Transport.
I have been exposed to many committees on the Hill. I must say that I do not think there is another standing committee which has worked any harder than the Standing Committee on Transport, including the work it did on its trip to Europe. In Europe the committee members had a chance to look at airport security and railway systems.
It should also be noted that the standing committee and the members of that committee have played an active role in reforming the entire transportation sector of the country. This morning we passed another Bill dealing with coasting trades which involves transportation issues.
Bill C-18 went through the House with many amendments and was accepted by the Government as a result of the good work of members of all three Parties. The same applies to Bills C-19, C-21 and now Bill C-52. The legislation dealing with railway safety is now before the standing committee. It looks as if that Bill with a few modest amendments can go through and be passed by all three Parties.
With respect to the Government's response to the report of the standing committee concerning its trip, 1 agree with my colleague that when we say the word "trip" some people in the public tend to think that these parliamentary trips are like holidays. They simply are not. I did not have the privilege of going on this one but I looked at the agenda and after hearing from its members since their return I know that they worked very hard.
In the many years that the Hon. Member has spent in the House and in the many reports that have been put forward has he ever seen a situation in which out of 13 recommendations put forward by the standing committee the Government instantly accepted 10? There are only three which are contentious. I think the Hon. Member would agree that concerning the three in contention the Government has indicated that there are some problems and that more work is being done on those. Has he ever in his entire experience here seen a Government respond so quickly in terms of accepting amendments to a Bill at the committee and legislative stage as well as respond to the report of the standing committee?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my good friend is looking for a pat on the back for himself and the Government. I will be glad to give it.
I can remember reports from the Standing Committee on Transport submitted which were totally ignored, going back as far as 1970. I will be quite generous and compliment the Government on accepting thus far 10 of the 13 recommendations.
There is a great deal of difference between accepting recommendations and implementing them. Some of them can be implemented almost immediately. I think that VIA Rail has already started to implement the ones that we made about baggage carts and letting people get on the train whenever they like instead of making them stand in the darn station for an hour before getting on. I think that VIA Rail has already implemented those minor recommendations. That is nice.
With respect to the most important ones, in particular the one regarding airport security, it seemed to the committee from our conversations while we were travelling that there really is no other way of doing it other than the Government take it over. The Government has no choice but to take over and operate airport security services. I know that it is not an easy decision for the Government to make, but it is an area in which private enterprise has no business. There should be no profit-making or profit taking; it should be done at cost, and only the actual costs should be recovered. This would provide a much better environment for the employees doing the work and would certainly provide more peace of mind for the travelling public.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member opposite to respond to a question about aviation security enhancement and the steps taken to enhance aviation security immediately after the Air-India and CP incidents on June 23,
1985.
In terms of factual matter, nine things were done. I will quickly review them, and perhaps my hon. friend could respond by indicating whether he thinks that more should be done.
First, more stringent security controls on passengers, carry-on baggage, checked baggage, and cargo were introduced. Second, additional x-ray detection equipment and newly developed explosive vapours detectors were put into service, and acquisition of additional equipment was accelerated. Third, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) directed the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence to study and report on airport and airline security in Canada. Fourth, monitoring and inspection of airport and air carrier security measures were increased, and a comprehensive program of airport security audits was undertaken. Fifth, key aviation security research and development projects were identified and undertaken. Sixth, additional commissionaires and security guards were employed. Seventh, the decision to terminate RCMP policing services at eight domestic airports was reversed. Eighth, a public security awareness program was initiated and security training videos for aviation personnel
March 25, 1988

were produced. Ninth, arrangements were made with local police forces for trained dogs to ensure availability at all major airports.
I wonder whether my hon. friend would comment on whether in principle there are other major areas in which he thinks the Government should be responding.
I remember a number of occasions in Question Period when his Party was pretty critical of the security access program. Somehow there seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand he wants everything to be tightened up, yet I can recall many occasions in the House when his Party has been quite critical of the security access program, where people obtain clearance certificates and must be accompanied by a member of the staff, and of the time required to get the security clearances through.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member never heard any complaints by me or my colleagues on the measures taken since the Air-India disaster. However, one problem with increasing the number of guards and with increasing the number of screening locations and the amount of equipment is that the system breaks down when we have a 10 per cent to 20 per cent turn-over rate of people who do the work every month. It breaks down when people have to pay for their own uniforms and they are receiving only $6 or $7 per hour, which is not a living wage, and there is inadequate supervision. There can be the best equipment and the best intentions in the world, but with that kind of situation I am sorry, I must say to my hon. friend that it is breaking down every now and again.
When there is a mishap or a tragedy somewhere in the world, security services are tightened up. It goes on like that for two or three or four weeks, but suddenly it drifts back to the way it was before. It is a case of the barn door syndrome taking over again. After there has been a disaster, everyone rushes to close the barn door, and it is a little late.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the reversal of the removal of the RCMP from eight airports in Canada. I should like to tell him that under the previous Government the RCMP was removed from 12 other airports in Canada. I am still hoping-and I am afraid it is a fond hope- that RCMP services will be restored at those 12 airports as well. That would cover the 20 busiest airports in Canada, and that would be the minimum number of airports where the RCMP would be in place.
With regard to the security access program, I do not recall our complaining about it. The Minister in good faith told the airlines that they could get security passes for personnel within 30 days, and it has taken up to four months. Even the Minister has said publicly that the airlines have a good case. Again the system has broken down. It should not be necessary to take four months to get a security pass for a full-time employee of an airline, a refuelling company, or a firm bringing in the meals, the booze, or whatever else is delivered on to the airport tarmac.
Motions
It is not that we should not have a security access program. It is that we need one which moves quicker and is monitored more closely. If CSIS cannot do it, 1 think we ought to turn it back over to the RCMP.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members of the standing committee for their insightful report.
I know that a great deal of serious consideration went into the writing of the report and that the members spent a great deal of time preparing for their tour of Europe. Their examination of the operations of airports and railways was detailed and exhaustive. We can only thank them at this time for their effort and contribution to the massive and complex public policy questions of transportation. A tremendous contribution was made to Canada by members of that standing committee, for they have been very active during the last three years and some months.
The committee made 13 recommendations in total. I want the committee to know now that, while the report is still under consideration by the Government, action has already been taken on 10 of the recommendations. In effect there is acceptance of the majority of the recommendations, and they already form part of government policy or programs. The Government accepts all the recommendations on Terminal 3, rail passengers, and privatization made by the committee.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said on March 23 that he had asked the presidents of major airlines to meet with him-and this will occur next week-in order to review with him the situation on wages, contract duration of security companies, performance pay, turn-over rates, and other matters.
The discussions will explore how the airlines could better operate under the present system and whether it is necessary for the Government, and I quote the Minister, "to expand its tentacles to take over this service or not".
The third report of the Standing Committee on Transport recommends that the Minister of Transport take full responsibility for passenger and carry-on baggage screening at major Canadian airports and ensure that it is done by airport employees and/or regional police or RCMP. In adopting this recommendation the committee has drawn attention to the procedures adopted at many European airports. I wish to inform the House that the recommendation remains under consideration at this time.
The Minister is concerned that Canada has the best airport security program possible. Since 1985 the Government has significantly enhanced all aspects of its security program. It has done so in the realization that no amount of resources and no law or procedure will guarantee that no criminal or terrorist act will take place or be attempted. No security system is foolproof. That being said, the airport security program in Canada is and will remain one of the best in the world. Dr. Assad Kotaite, President of the Council of the International

March 25, 1988
Motions
Civil Aviation Organization, has acknowledged Canada's leading role in airport security matters.
The Canadian Airport Security Program consists of many facets, only one of which relates to passenger pre-board screening. The security program in total is based on shared responsibilities between the Government, air carriers and airport operators. A key policy in all these aviation security programs, and for that matter for safety programs as well, is that the carrier takes responsibility at the first level for the protection of its own equipment and passengers in the same way that carriers are responsible for ensuring that their aircraft are mechanically sound and fit for service. The Government comes in at the next level and, by means of inspection, regulation and enforcement ensures that they do so.
Air carriers and airport operators are required to submit to Transport Canada detailed security programs outlining how prescribed security measures will be implemented. In addition, the Canadian Airport Security Program is continually under review by Transport Canada in terms of how it can be improved.
Since June, 1985, the security program has been significantly expanded. Transport Canada has instituted enhanced checked baggage security requirements, the focus being on international flights since those are subject to the greatest risk. Additional x-ray detection equipment and newly developed explosive vapour detectors were put into service and acquisition of additional equipment has been accelerated. RCMP services at domestic airports have been doubled.
Since October, 1986, on international flights, Transport Canada has required in lieu of x-ray, the internationally recommended system of checked baggage security which entails the removal of the bags of persons not on board the aircraft. There are specific waivers to this security requirement which allow the bags of certain categories of passengers to remain on board in situations where they could not have engineered the conditions. For example, where the person is an employee of an air carrier and has been denied boarding by virtue of his or her stand-by status.
Over and above the passenger baggage match requirement on international flights identified as high risk, it is incumbent upon the air carrier to x-ray or physically search checked baggage. Currently, Transport Canada requires El A1 to x-ray or physically search all checked baggage accepted for transportation and also requires the same procedures for baggage interlined to Air India flights.
On domestic flights, there are very strict procedures in place for the control of checked baggage. However, and until the system can be computerized, there is no requirement for either passenger baggage match and/or x-ray at normal threat levels since the current threat on domestic flights is assessed as very low. Passenger baggage match or x-ray or a combination of
these and other measures are required where a specific threat exists in respect of domestic operations.
International experts agree that a passenger baggage match system is preferable to x-ray for the screening of checked baggage. The International Civil Aviation Organization recommends a system of checked baggage aboard commercial air carriers without the attendance of its owner. ICAO has recommended that baggage matching on international flights be implemented in all countries by December, 1987 but Canada already had such a system in place since October,
1986.	In addition, Transport Canada is working on a computerized system that would match passengers and baggage on domestic flights, the same practice used successfully daily on all international flights out of Canada.
The actual conducting of pre-board screening is a responsibility put on air carriers by the air carriers security regulations. It is the general practice that carriers contract out screening to private security guard companies. There are approximately 1,400 personnel currently employed at Canadian airports to screen passengers and their carry-on baggage. Transport Canada certifies guards who are qualified to conduct screening based on successfully passing theoretical and practical tests. Transport Canada also provides and maintains the equipment used at the pre-board screening check points and is responsible for developing training programs for screening guards, supervisors and trainers.
Screening personnel are retested annually and are supervised on the job by the security guard company supervisors and air carriers supervisors. In the major airports, the RCMP conducts regular patrols of pre-board screening area and provides police response to incidents. In 1986, 986 real and simulated weapons were discovered by screening personnel at the screening check points of Canadian airports.
With regard to training, Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada implemented in 1987 an enhanced training program for screening supervisors and trainers. This programs deals with powers and responsibilities of pre-board screening personnel; the detection and handling of weapons, explosives and other dangerous items; what to do in emergency situations; the operation and use of electronic and x-ray detection equipment; how to conduct a hand search of baggage and passengers; special screening situations; supervisory skills and training methods; and an overview of terrorism and terrorist tactics.
To date, 115 supervisors and trainers have completed the program. An enhanced training program for screening guards is being implemented. The following procedure is presently in place at Pearson Airport for all individuals hired to perform pre-board security functions. The employee is hired and shown the five- part Transport Canada pre-board screening training package at the Metropol Base-Fort office in Toronto. Following the review, a written examination, consisting of 40 multiple choice questions is administered by a Transport Canada security and emergency planning representative. The minimum passing mark is 75 per cent. Candidates having a mark below
March 25, 1988

75 per cent but over 70 per cent are given a second opportunity to write the test. If the candidate fails on the second attempt, he or she is dismissed. Those individuals who successfully pass the test, are referred to the Ontario Provincial Police for a security check. If there is no problem with the check, they are subsequently licensed as a security guard. The individual is sent to a screening point and shown by a supervisor or a senior employee how to use the hand-held metal detector and trained on the use of the x-ray and hand-search techniques. This hands-on training goes on for several weeks, always under supervision. Once the supervisor determines that the employee is conversant with the job, he notifies the company, who in turn advises Transport Canada security and emergency planning for practical testing.
Practical testing is administered by Transport Canada security and emergency planning inspectors in the following fashion. An inspector monitors the wanding technique to ensure it is done according to standards. An inspector monitors the hand-search technique to ensure it is done according to standards. An inspector monitors the performance of the individual to assess his or her ability to interpret images on the x-ray machine. If the individual fails the practical test, he or she is given a second chance only after he or she has undergone training. If the individual fails the second time, he or she is dismissed. Those individuals who successfully pass the practical examination are then designated as security officers under Section 3.7 of the Aeronautics Act. It is to be noted that security screening points at Pearson International Airport are constantly monitored by DGSEP security inspectors, RCMP and air carrier representatives.
The Government also recognizes that the wages and working conditions of security guards impact on the effectiveness of pre-board screening. As I stated earlier, the Minister will be meeting with the presidents of the major airlines to address this issue next week. I want to reinforce the idea that security is a shared responsibility. The Minister will ensure that the airlines take whatever further measures may be necessary.
I turn now to the committee's recommendation that Transport Canada, in co-operation with air carriers, develop a procedure to ensure that all domestic passengers are informed of the requirement to reclaim their luggage when transferring from a domestic to an international flight. Since October 1986, Transport Canada has had a system in place on international flights whereby passengers are matched with their baggage. Baggage is not transported unless its owner is on board the aircraft.
Over and above the passenger-baggage matching, baggage on select international flights is x-rayed. Canada is a world leader in ensuring the security of checked baggage. The result of these security requirements is that baggage carried on domestic flights must often be reclaimed by the passenger before it can be processed for an international flight.
Motions
Air carrier procedures are already in place to ensure that passengers are informed whether their baggage is being checked through or whether they must reclaim it at an intermediate stop, thus any further action by Transport Canada would seem to be superfluous. Therefore, I cannot lend support to the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for concurrence in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
I would hasten to add again that the Government has accepted 10 of 13 recommendations. The three recommendations that were not accepted are always under review and will continue to be under review. As times and circumstances change, they may well at some point come to fruition as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is very well read. I heard the Hon. Member's remarks about the tests given by the Department and the training of the people who do the screening. I would like to ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary his view of the adequacy of the training program and the tests and examinations that must be taken.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, just the other night on television, a young lady who was a screener said, when asked if she had ever detected anything, that she did not know what a pipe bomb looked like or what any bomb looked like. The average passenger is not expected to know what one looks like, but one would think that people who are doing the screening, watching the x-ray machines and running the wands over passengers would know because they have been shown and have memorized all the various kinds of devices that are known. That requires a lot more training.
Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary really think that what has been put in place so far is adequate and sufficient in light of what we all know about the people who work the job? They get a few hours or at best, two or three days of training. They stay on the job for two or three months and then they quit. Someone else takes the job and it is a never-ending cycle of inadequately trained and poorly paid people who simply will not stay.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, given the complicated language of the issue, I am happy to be charged with being a good reader. Looking at the terms used in the industry, I find amazing the bureaucratese that takes over. One must read to even keep up.
My friend opposite has said that he does not believe that what is being done is adequate. I would not stand, on the part of the Government or myself, to say that anything is adequate when it comes to international security and security against terrorism. There is always the possibility of a very clever terrorist, supported by unscrupulous Governments with enormous funds and resources to train terrorists. On occasion, even the diplomatic pouch is used to transport new types of guns that are made out of plastics and cannot be detected by metal detectors. When the resources of Governments with lots of money go into the creation of terrorist equipment and

March 25, 1988
Motions
techniques, I suppose that for those of us in a democracy, it is never possible to say that it is adequate.
We want to use the security access program, but contrary to what my friend has said, his Party has taken a stand on the issue. Quite properly, his Party has raised the question of the invasion of privacy of the employees who will be inspected by CSIS. Members of the NDP on the one hand are objecting to that invasion of privacy, but on the other hand, it is those employees who, if taken over by a foreign Government or an agent of a foreign Government, would permit highly trained and sophisticated terrorists to get through.
There is a conflict here. In a democracy where we try to be open, there are always problems when it comes to security checks because they involve the invasion of the privacy of the employees as well as the flying public. The flying public wants to have quick access. They want to come to airports 20 minutes before their planes take off, and they become very annoyed when they find what they feel are overly zealous guards poking them and checking into every piece of baggage they carry. There is always a balance to be maintained and there always will be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 was not talking about terrorists, international terrorism or those aspects of airport security. I was asking the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary about the training that is provided to the people who do the screening.
By the way, the only objection I ever made to the airport security access program was made when airlines were getting passes for scabs to strike-break on a number of occasions. They were getting passes and escorts very quickly. It is hardly the way to have a good security system to give an advantage to airlines that are involved in strikes. That is certainly something about which I complained.
Again, this young woman who appeared on television the other night said that she would not feel secure if she was boarding an aircraft because she knows what is going on. These people get no training at all in crowd control. They have little or no training in first aid. They have little or no training in dealing with the massive numbers of people that can be at airports.
We all know what happens when there are a few obstreperous passengers in a lineup. It can cause a problem and quite often, the RCMP are 10 gates away. Some of these people are elderly and some of them are very young. They are not really capable of dealing with those situations. Even if they were capable, they do not get any training in dealing with them.
There is more to security than just watching an x-ray machine. Again, I ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary what he thinks about the adequacy of the actual training program given to the people who work for these security companies.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, again I would not want to go on record as saying that it is adequate because if there were to be
a terrorist attack, I suppose that a 10-year course would not be adequate.
The fact is that when the tests first started some years ago, the training lasted about two and a half hours. It is now up to some three days for screeners. Over a period of three days, they can learn about a lot of different aspects of security. As well, on the job they should grow and mature into the job so it is a continuing process.
I think Canadians would like to know of the additional resources to enhance security at Canadian airports which the Government has put in. In May of 1986 Treasury Board approved $33.6 million and 74 person-years for immediate enhancement of Transport Canada's Civil Aviation Security Program. Those resources are allocated as follows: Airport policing and security services, $7.5 million; physical security, $20.4 million; training, $2.1 million; research and development, $700,000; security organization, $2.9 million; for a total in 1986-87 of $33.6 million. Approval was also given for $13 million to be spent on operating and maintenance in subsequent years, for a total of approximately $60 million through 1988-89.
In June of last year Treasury Board again approved the following additional resources for the long-term enhancement of Transport Canada's Civil Aviation Security Program: Commissioners and security guards, $4 million; physical security, $800,000; emergency response, $100,000; security organization, $3 million; training, $500,000; for a total in 1988-89 of $8.4 million and an additional 37 person-years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on Monday, December 14, 1987, be concurred in.
It is a real pleasure indeed, Mr. Speaker, because I was and still am a member of the standing Committee on Transport, and I had the opportunity to travel to Europe.
During that trip we met a number of people who were quite knowledgeable in the area of transportation. In a number of countries we visited airports, harbour facilities, rail facilities. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that most of the time I was very much impressed.
Of course, in some cases it would be difficult to compare European facilities with what we have in Canada for the simple reason of sheer size. The European geography of course and population centres in Europe are quite different from what we have here in Canada.
March 25, 1988

When we were over there we heard about privatization, something that is dealt with in our report in the first place. We heard about privatizating airline companies and even air terminals.
In each case, it should be noted that the Government always retained the right to step in, or if you prefer to get out, and kept a preferential share that gave it a right above all other shares. I think in Canada we should keep that approach in mind if we ever consider privatizing some of our Crown Corporations.
We also heard about the free port concept. In particular, some air terminals were designated free ports, and in one case only out of six, one air terminal met with some success. This is a recommandation we made our report, Mirabel being possibly designated a free port. Certainly this is something that should be considered.
As the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, we made 13 recommendations, and the Government stated it had already accepted around ten. I am pleased with that, but I would still like to see the Government take much faster action not only in accepting those recommendations but in taking action. When we were over there, Mr. Speaker, we heard about safety and security on the ground and in the air, in baggage inspection, and in every aspect of air transport. This is one of the most important recommendations in our report, at least in my view.
We were told about ground security, and I think we could consider that when we take a look at the way we operate our security program in this country.
Speaking of ground security, I imagine the House will recall the incident that occurred recently at the airport here in Ottawa when they had a bomb scare, and we saw how our system operates. In fact, we saw it did not work as far as ground security is concerned, because no one knew what to do. Mr. Speaker, you probably saw some clips on television, where airline ticket agents left their posts to go to a safe area. The public, the people who were standing in line to get their tickets, simply stayed put without being warned about what was going on.
RCMP officers on the premises were asked what was happening and they answered: Well we don't know, all we know is we have our orders.
I mentioned this incident, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to the deficiencies in our security system. Imagine if the bomb scare had been real! Many people might have been hurt and even have lost their lives, and it was lucky the scare was a hoax.
We also talked abour air safety. In Europe-at least that is what we were told-they don't have the same problem we have in North America with near misses, but I think we should discuss this problem.
Motions
In the report by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, it says that in Canada, accidents due to lack of spacing have increased by 100 per cent, and that is a serious matter. This means that planes are flying too close together, which could be disastrous.
When we asked the Minister about this situation, he said there was no cause for alarm. However, Mr. Speaker, we now have 200 fewer air traffic controllers than we had two years ago. The Government says it is going to hire 250 controllers, but the Government will have to hurry up so it can assure Canadians they are perfectly safe in the air.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the subject of ground security, when they check passengers and baggage. We asked the Minister several times whether he was going to do something and whether he was aware of the problem. Of course, the Minister kept saying there was no problem, that everything was okay, and that people were perfectly safe. We have the best system. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary told us earlier about various steps that had been taken by the Minister, and I could read from the same press release.
The press release of December 1 states that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) dismissed as totally untrue the statement on CBC that tighter security measures following the Air-India crash two and a half years ago had been relaxed.
He went on to enumerate a few security measures which had been improved upon. Additional x-ray detection equipment and newly developed explosive vapour detectors were put into service and acquisition of additional equipment was accelerated.

The only thing wrong with these machines, Mr. Speaker, is that they cannot operate on their own. They absolutely need operators who know how to handle them and who understand what they can do. As recently as last week, we watched a television program devoted to the inspection system. Although we had directed several questions to the Minister to make sure that he was dealing with this problem, he had insisted that no such problem existed. Now, thanks to a television reporting crew which visited our airports, we know just how the system works.
Let us go back to my X-ray machine. Some have been bought and others are being installed. But I wish to zero in on the machine operator. When interviewed, Mr. Speaker, the young man stated that having applied for a job, he had received a few hours training viewing a video. Immediately afterwards he was put in charge of security checking passengers before boarding planes to make absolutely sure they did not carry any weapon, bomb or detonating device which could jeopardize the security of other passengers.

March 25, 1988
Motions
According to this young man, he was put in charge of this machine. As he did not even know how to operate it they gave him a different job, that of checking passengers with a magic stick, a job for which he had no more training than with the x-ray machine.
Then we heard a young woman explain that she was supposed to x-ray all pieces of luggage and keep her eyes open to discover bombs, except that she did not know at all what a bomb looked like and what shape she was supposed to watch for on the screen. Mr. Speaker, I don't know any better. I have no idea what a bomb looks like or what shape I would have to watch for on the screen. But I do know that certain Canadian authorities could show these young people what a bomb looks like and how one goes about hiding these devices in luggage. But it has never been done, or at least not in this case. And these happen to be the people who are responsible for doing the checking. Why? Quite simply because the Government told the airline companies: Security is your business, you look after that. And of course they take the same approach: security being their business, they ask for tenders from private companies, and naturally the lowest bidder gets the contract because that is the way they have to operate.
That is how come young people find themselves responsible for the entire security check process. I think we have to wonder about all this. The equipment does the work, the equipment is dependable, it can be adjusted, it can spot what it is supposed to spot, but it would be nice if only the individual who operates the equipment knew what he or she is looking for, or how the equipment will identify whatever it is designed to find.
Mr. Speaker, the Government simply must take action as soon as possible, and if it were to accept all the recommendations the committee made in its report to the House, at the earliest opportunity the Minister ought to give priority to the recommendation concerning security, which reads as follows: That the Minister of Transport take full responsibility for checking passengers and hand luggage in major Canadian airports, and make sure that security checks are done by airport staff and/or by local or provincial police, or by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, 1 must compliment the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on his address. He was a member of the standing committee that travelled to Europe to study this very important issue.
I listened with interest to his concern about safety and security, which I share. I might add that the Minister responded to questions about airport security which were raised in the House in light of a program that was aired in the media. He said that he will watch the situation very closely and will act accordingly if he is not satisfied. I do not want anyone to think that the Minister is not conscious of airport security or that he has taken no action. That is not the case.
The Member wants the Government to react positively to all the recommendations that have been put forward in this report. The Government has already made some response, particularly with regard to Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport. I remind the Hon. Member of the recommendation that in the planning and construction of the departure level of Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport, the highest priority be given to check-in facilities and for the comfort and convenience of departing passengers.
He will know that the Government considers that the development of the third terminal at Pearson International Airport be a prime example of private sector and Government co-operation in developing this major airport facility. He will know that all the proposals have been carefully considered and a lease is in the final stages of preparation, with emphasis on ensuring a world class facility for Canadians.
He knows that the passenger areas in Terminal 3 will be larger than those in other terminal buildings. He will also know that state of the art flow-through counters will be installed in the domestic check-in area. The international area will have specialized facilities for high risk flights. Moving sidewalks will be provided throughout the terminal for passenger convenience.
The committee also asked that where existing and future demands warrant, to ensure the continuing economic viability and development of our major airports, we should include giving the highest priority to intermodal planning and facilities, more particularly with regard to frequent and rapid train or subway links. We saw a number of those in Europe. The Member knows that the design of Terminal 3 will include a right-of-way for an automated rapid transit link to the centre of the terminal building. Transport Canada recognizes that only a multi modal approach to transportation planning will ensure the most expedient traffic flow.
A third recommendation was for an immediate review of strategy and treatment of the facilities for in-transit passengers at our major international airports, with special attention given to this type of lucrative traffic in the planning and construction of Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport. The Member knows that this is not the sole responsibility of Transport Canada. While Transport Canada strives to provide the best facilities, it must do so by observing stringent security regulations and other legislative constraints outside its mandate. This includes respect for the enforcement mandate of those who organize and are responsible for the inspection of the terminal passengers.
It has already recognized the importance of in-transit traffic to the airlines of Canada and its economic benefits to Canada. The department has been working with the airlines and the departments of Immigration and Customs in the past year in studying the implications of adopting a more European style of operation.
Does the Member not agree that the Government is already working very strenuously toward adopting the majority of
March 25, 1988

these recommendations? I draw to his attention the first part of our recommendations dealing with terminal No. 3.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). He has five minutes to reply.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me know how much time I have left to answer the Hon. Member who took advantage of the period set aside for questions to make his own speech.
When I started my speech, I said I was glad the Government had accepted ten of our recommendations for action. I am of course pleased the Government acted on recommendations for terminal 3 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, and I hope the Government will do the same in all future planning for airports in this country.
In fact, we went to visit various airports and we noticed various construction details for separating the passengers and improving ground security, and our recommendation was to ensure that the people who plan our airports are aware of the facilities they have in Europe and apply the same standards here in Canada.
So I am delighted with the Government's decision, and I hope it will keep up the good work. However, even with the best facilities in the world, we still need a security system that offers better protection to Canadians and to passengers than the one we have at the present time.
I think the Government should take action on security as soon as possible.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was not prepared to speak to this motion this afternoon. However, I will take this opportunity to speak, having just recently received a letter dated March 22 from the Mayor of Vancouver which raises a number of issues and concerns about railway safety and the Railway Safety Act in particular.
I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate a number of my concerns about the Port of Vancouver and other transportation problems in the Vancouver region.
The major concern expressed in this letter from the Mayor of Vancouver is with regard to Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. The city is very concerned that this Bill does not provide for municipalities to be allowed any kind of involvement in regulations that are put into effect under Section 24. Apparently this means that municipalities will not have opportunities to effectively develop land in the vicinity of railway lines.
Many cities in western Canada evolved around the railways, and urban renewal and development of the massive amount of land around those railways, which was given to CPR in the early days, is vitally important to the development of our cities and the transportation within them.
Motions
The city manager for Vancouver was somewhat more specific. He wrote to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about this concern and said that the City of Vancouver is very concerned about the proposals in Bill C-105 to eliminate the provision of railway relocation orders which assist urban redevelopment. He said that the city strongly supports the position of FCM on this matter.
Throughout the city's history, the relocation of railways has been a vital tool for redevelopment of the city. For example, the very dense housing developments now on the south shore of False Creek could not have happened without such relocation. We anticipate an equal need for this tool in the future. For example, the city will be negotiating with the Burlington Northern Railway, which is an American railway, for the joint use of the Grandview cut by both the railway and a major roadway which will link the Trans-Canada Highway with the centre core of Vancouver.
I am particularly concerned about this, because it goes right through my riding. Those negotiations on the part of the city are apt to be very difficult. The very existence of the powers now in the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act help the bargaining process. They want some of the present provisions in the Act to be maintained, as I understand it. I would ask the transport committee to look into this matter, because it does seem to be a very important and serious complaint. I am sure there would be similar concerns in other cities. I do not mention it only from the point of view of the City of Vancouver.
Another interesting issue in this letter concerning the Mayor of Vancouver is that under Bill C-105, Part V, Clause 44, the Minister may establish a railway safety consultative committee having between 9 and 11 members representing various interests. But a member to represent municipalities is not specified. As municipalities will obviously be much affected by the recommendations made by the committee, we recommend that a member be established to represent municipalities. That is tremendously important. It seems to me it is an omission that the federal Government also makes in other structures.
I recall when there was a complete reorganization of the port authority that the structures allowed for government appointees, which we know will be political appointees to an advisory committee or board in the case of the corporation, but did not allow for any input from the communities that surround the port. Many of them are affected by port developments, and can be extremely helpful in co-ordinating planning.
I wish to give one example of why it is important to have municipalities represented on railway consultative committees, particularly regarding safety. In Vancouver, two years prior to Expo the powers that be, certainly over the objections of residents in my community, decided to move the transfer point for dangerous goods from the central core of downtown Vancouver a few blocks east outside the Expo area into east

March 25, 1988
Motions
Vancouver, an area equally densely populated, but populated by poor people, immigrants, and by the working class. In the riding of Vancouver East we now have the transfer point for dangerous goods. In the view of many workers on the waterfront, the manner in which it was transferred was not well done. It is still an extremely explosive situation, which I mean literally, because it is the place where dangerous cargo comes in on the railways, and by trucks. There have been some very bad chemical spills in that area. The chemicals are transferred to plane to go to Vancouver Island, they are transferred on to barges and boats in the Port of Vancouver.
It is critical that this planning go forward. At the time the Minister indicated the federal Government would assist with this, to ensure that there is logical planning for the transfer point, and certainly it should be in a less densely populated area. Where municipalities are not represented on those consultative bodies, how are things like that achieved?
If I may be so bold, it is also very important that the transport committee take another look at the development of our ports. I noticed in the report that there is a small section on ports. The committee was impressed with developments in the Port of London where all the lands are being redeveloped around the port. I remember seeing that myself, and it is most impressive. The committee was also impressed with Amsterdam, which has a very effective port. There was a port manager in Vancouver who had formerly been at the Amsterdam port. That port has a very aggressive marketing procedure which is very much needed. I tend to think that sometimes the container clause was the scapegoat for everything that the port was not doing in trying to promote marketing itself. In Amsterdam there has been noted growth and commercial success. There were also some interesting comments on compulsory pilotage services.
The reason I ask if the transport committee would consider looking at the whole port development is because it has been a number of years, probably four or five, since the harbours board went out of existence and Transport Canada was born with its children that were supposed to be autonomous, namely, the local port corporations. I would like to know if the original goal of autonomy is being achieved effectively. I sometimes wonder about it. On a number of matters in which I have been involved, it is very difficult to get local decisions. What progress has this meant to the operation of the port itself?
I would particularly like to raise the question of the responsibility of a federal Government Crown corporation, in this case the Vancouver Port Corporation, to the surrounding municipalities and communities. There is an extremely arrogant attitude. One does not even receive answers to letters when one represents constituents on matters of concern. We have a right to expect answers and some response from the port authorities.
I can think of an example in Vancouver East which involved MLAs, myself as the MP, and a senior cabinet Minister, the
Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). It involved the incidence of a large garbage scow which serves the cruise ships that operate in that port, incidentally as a result of federal developments and the new cruise ship facilities. Why on earth do the large garbage scows need to be located below a residential area, causing very bad pollution for the neighbourhood both from smells and air pollution? It is scandalous that a port manager who is a Crown corporation employee has paid absolutely no attention to submissions by the community. The City of Vancouver cannot organize a meeting or receive a response from him. MPs, and indeed the senior Member from B.C., seem to have no influence for co-ordination in solving this problem.
My final point, on which I do not have a lot of information, and perhaps my hon. colleague who is on the transport committee may have some information, is that I recall the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who is very interested in transportation matters, being concerned about the Vancouver airport and the need for another runway there. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is a pilot and flies into Vancouver airport. I mention that again because it is something of local concern.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise those somewhat parochial concerns but concerns which also have relevance to our country.


Ross Belsher: I listened attentively to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) speaking to the motion about adopting the report of the transport committee tabled in the House on December 4. While the Hon. Member raised some very interesting points, perhaps she strayed somewhat from the subject at hand. Nevertheless the Hon. Member did raise some very important points on which I would like to respond. When she talked about the letter from Vancouver which was in support of the Federation of Municipalities to the standing committee on Bill C-105 which is dealing with safety within rail transportation, she did raise a very important point.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that we are listening very carefully and with a sympathetic ear to what the municipalities are saying to us. I do not know whether she is aware of the fact that the representatives of the City of New Westminster came to make a presentation to the committee, as did representatives of the City of Regina and a number of other municipalities such as Chilliwack, Abbotsford, and Hope. Other areas in the Fraser Valley have lent their support to the submissions that have come before us.
The Hon. Member raises a point about dangerous goods. A great many people are thinking that they should be moved out to the Fraser Valley. I want to be very careful as to where the dangerous goods should be handled. Whether or not they should be handled out in Matsqui or down in Fraser Valley East will have to be looked at carefully. It is easier for me to
March 25, 1988

deal with it right now where it is than what the Hon. Member is suggesting, that it be done away with.
The Hon. Member brings an interesting point forward about the Port of Vancouver and that there should be local membership running it. The membership of the Port of Vancouver is made up of local residents.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not municipal.


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member says that they are not municipal. We want to ensure that the person has been voted on to that board. The head of Ports Canada is from the north shore of Vancouver. He is a very respected member of the community and is very familiar with the operations of Transport Canada.
With respect to what the Hon. Member has raised today, yes, the standing committee is listening, and it is listening very carefully. It has also prompted various municipalities to come in to see it. It has invited them to appear before us whenever we have been told that there were concerns. When it comes to the relocation of railways and the fact that Bill C-105 will repeal the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, the municipalities have suggested that Part I should be retained. I know that serious consideration will be given to that recommendation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How serious?


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wants to know how serious is serious. At this point in time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to interrupt the Hon. Member at this time. I wish that he would address his remarks to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). There is only a very short period of time left.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East this. In light of the fact that municipalities have appeared before the standing committee and have put on the record recommendations, is that not sufficient to address the concerns that she now raises?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at how naive the Hon. Member is. There is quite a difference between hearing something at committee and having some government action to change a Bill. So of course it is not enough. We want to see the changes which the municipalities have been asking for.
I would like to comment quickly on the Hon. Member's point about the structure of the Port of Vancouver. He does not seem to realize that there are two structures, as I recall. There is the official board, which is an appointed board, usually made up of a fair degree of political patronage appointments, first by Liberals and now by Conservatives. There is also a place for an advisory committee. That is what I am referring to.
Motions
I think that there should be consultative advisory committees which are concerned with planning issues. We did a great deal of work on a master plan for the Port of Vancouver and it has been shelved. Nothing has been done about it. There should be people who have the appropriate connections with municipalities, as well as the expertise that is needed, to process this type of thing. The port should welcome that type of input.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for making a wonderful speech on Bill C-105, which has nothing to do at all with the recommendations of the standing committee, and which in its own right is before committee. All these points are being covered exhaustively by witnesses and by the members of the standing committee. I thought about raising a point of order with respect to relevancy, but I realized that the fact that the Hon. Member was speaking on entirely different issues spoke to how well the Government has responded in positive terms to 10 of 13 recommendations with the other three still being examined on an ongoing basis. That has told me that the Government is responding very well indeed, something which is unparalleled in the history of this Parliament.
I can remember sitting for four years in opposition and having made some very sensible recommendations. Let us face it, we all come here elected by our constituents. We all believe that we have something to contribute to the national welfare of Canada. For years we could not get a Government to accept even the commas we might want to put into a sentence. But the Government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has accepted hundreds and hundreds of recommendations. We deserve credit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I knew that the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) was well aware that Bill C-105 is in committee. However, she did get back to the various points in the debate today.
There are still a couple of minutes left in the time allotted for questions and comments.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I would like to ask if at the Vancouver airport she has run into any problems with respect to the airport restricted area access clearance program. Under the question of privacy the Hon. Member's Party has raised intrusions on the rights of existing employees to be examined by CSIS and to be asked certain questions. I would like to refer to a letter addressed to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) from the Minister. It is in reference to his letter of December 2, 1987, which enclosed a number of petitions signed by individuals protesting the requirements of the airport restricted area access clearance program.

March 25, 1988
Cruise Missile Testing
I would like to have the Hon. Member explain to the House how she thinks the Government should balance this matter. It does not matter which Government is in. How do we balance the rights of the privacy of individuals with the rights of the rest of us to ensure that those employees are examined by CSIS so that they cannot be part of any so-called international terrorist plot?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not really feel that this is one of the areas of my expertise. I do not want to take the time of the House to filibuster when I really do not have enough information.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question to ask of the Hon. Member. It has been very obvious to everyone that I really wanted to have an opportunity to speak on this issue. The reality is that the Government has a wonderful record on this matter. We have a wonderful Minister who has done a marvellous job. The Parliamentary Secretary from Alberta has done a tremendous job in representing my province in this issue. There are people such as Lynda Chapin in the Minister's office who are just incredible. Even the Hon. Members on the transport committee deserve to be recognized.
I put a lot of work into the remarks that I wanted to make. It is unfortunate that I have run out of time. I want to say that the Government's record is one that we can all be proud of when it comes to VIA Rail.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS CRUISE MISSILE TESTING

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of giving notice, under the terms of the weapons testing umbrella agreement with the United States, for the termination of cruise missile testing in Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the motion to which I am speaking today advocating the termination of cruise missile testing was originally introduced a couple of years ago in its present form, although we have been arguing for the termination of cruise missile testing for over five years. Even though this particular motion was introduced in 1986, it is even more relevant today than it was then.
One need only look at the headline in today's edition of The Globe and Mail entitled "U.S., Soviets raise stakes in vast northern arena" and at the subheading "Bear Bombers keep interceptor planes busy" to realize that the momentum of cruise missile development, and indeed bomber and interceptor development, has picked up enormously and tragically in the last two years.
The article is in one way somewhat misleading because it does not address one of the main reasons for the accelerated activity of both the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly with bombers capable of carrying cruise missiles, in the last two years. As everyone in the House knows, the air leg of the Soviet triad is the weakest, whereas it is close to the strongest, if not the strongest, in the American nuclear arsenal. Undoubtedly attempts are being made by the Soviets to increase their bomber-cruise missile leg of what is usually referred to as the triad.
However, what has undoubtedly given them and indeed a great many Canadians cause for alarm in the past two years has been the development of ADI, the U.S. Air Defence Initiative. It is this Air Defence Initiative which was mandated by President Reagan in July, 1985, to which Canada has signed on, that is developing very advanced technologies both to knock down Soviet air-launched cruise missiles in Canada's northern air space and to advance the first strike cruise missile capabilities of the U.S. in the far North. The Air Defence Initiative is seen by many observers, if not most observers, as not simply a retaliatory instrument but, rather, as a first strike device.
A very good article written by a Canadian, David Katten-burg, appeared in the February 27, 1988 issue of The Nation on Canada's intimate involvement in the offensive air initiative being pursued by the Pentagon and to which, undoubtedly, the Soviets have been responding since 1985 by increasing their overflights in the North.
It is unfortunate that the article this morning did not go into the historical development of the increased momentum generated by the Pentagon's Air Defence Initiative and by the modernization of the cruise missile and of cruise missile technology involved in these developments.
A few years ago when we were first objecting to Canada testing nuclear weapons capable cruise missiles, some of those who were not concerned about the testing argued that at that stage the air-launched cruise missile could not possibly be used in a surprise attack, that it was too slow, too short-ranged, and too susceptible to radar. They argued that it would be purely an instrument to maintain stable deterrence, that it would not be and could not be used for first strike purposes.
That argument, in so far as it applied at all, simply no longer applies with the development of what is called the advanced cruise missile, the ACM, or what is generally often spoken of as cruise missile modernization.
March 25, 1988

The developing technologies on the cruise which are taking place in the United States today are making for much greater speed, much longer range, and a more accurate guidance system. Above all and most important, the advance cruise missile will embody a radar evading stealth technology that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to detect cruise missiles. Some 2,300 of these ACMs will be, it is expected, produced and deployed by the early 1990s.
Also in the works now and expected to be deployed by the mid to late 1990s is the ultimate sophistication in cruise missile development, namely, the supersonic cruise missile which is absolutely impossible, one would think, to detect, a cruise missile which will also incorporate even more enhanced stealth technology, even greater speed, and even greater range.
When we read about these developments, which are fully known, we think of the constant build-up and the modernization that have taken place, going right through to the late 1990s, and we wonder whatever has happened to arms control. We wonder what the Government is thinking about. So far at least it has given only a military response to the modernization of the cruise. It has signed on to the U.S. Air Defence Initiative which is supporting the development of a supersonic cruise of a first strike capability. We have apparently gladly signed on, Mr. Speaker. We will, therefore, undoubtedly be testing the advance cruise missiles.
Last year the Minister said we had not yet been requested to test the missile with stealth technology, but left the clear implication that Canada wanted to be in on everything related to these U.S. developments and that we would get involved by implication in the cruise missile modernization program by testing the advanced cruise missile. That has been our response. The Government has not even tried to argue that this would enhance stable deterrence because it knows perfectly well it will not. It is really incredible that the Government has not at least paid lip service to another response to this modernization program, namely, an arms control response.
The Canadian Government said it places arms control and disarmament high on its agenda and strongly supports the INF agreements recently reached between Secretary General Gorbachev and President Reagan. Yet is is literally saying nothing about cut-backs in cruise missiles in our cruise missile arsenal. It has said nothing at all about the importance of pursuing negotiated cuts in cruise missile arsenals rather than the superpowers engaging in activities that encourage enhancement and modernization of cruise missile arsenals. As far as I can determine, the Government has not pressed upon the superpowers the absolute necessity of including cuts on both sides in cruise missile arsenals at the START talks in Geneva.
I asked in the House whether or not we had made written representations, and got a very wishy-washy answer from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the effect that he often writes President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev.
Cruise Missile Testing
Obviously, Canada, even more than in relation to INF in Europe-in relation to both air and sea-launched cruise missiles-should have been aggressively pursuing negotiated cuts. It would appear at the moment from what I have read that there are not in the present START negotiations, that is to say, the negotiations to cut back on strategic nuclear arsenals any provisions restricting the modernization of cruise missiles, let alone the arsenals themselves. I specifically mention the modernization and, above all, the enormous increase in the speed of the missiles and the radar avoiding technology, the stealth technology, as being of the utmost importance in negotiations to reduce arsenals. It is very often the case that simply reducing arsenals only gives more room for modernization, as it is called, of other arsenals. One feels one almost has a free hand to take all the research moneys, skills and defence dollars and put them into the development, including the testing in which Canada is complicit and the ultimate deployment of such modernized weapons. I am speaking again of the cruise missile particularly, that we are really undoing the steps that have been taken. For example, in the elimination of intermediate nuclear forces, we are simply transferring the problem.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Canada has not said anything about this. Canadian public opinion wants Canada to be out of the testing of cruise missiles. Today, 54 per cent of the population, up from 45 per cent a few years ago, say that tests should not be allowed, that we should, as this motion suggests, give notice now. Canadian public opinion wants to see all the response to the modernization of the cruise missile, not the testing of it, not the testing of the new radar avoiding cruise missiles but rather the pressing on the superpowers, in all fora for cuts in cruise missile arsenals and the elimination of cruise missile modernization. The Canadian public wants to see the end of cruise missile testing.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us requests the Government of Canada to consider the advisability of terminating U.S.A. cruise missile testing in Canada. I would like to explain why the Government does not view the termination of cruise missile testing as advisable and why such a termination would actually work against the mutual reinforcing nature of defence and arms control policies. While we will spare no effort to promote practical arms control and disarmament measures, we will be equally vigilant in maintaining a defence commitment that will serve as an effective deterrent to aggression. Let us not live under any illusion. To abandon our contribution to a viable nuclear and conventional deterrent on the part of the West would not improve the prospects for equitable arms control and disarmament measures.


Pauline Jewett: It has nothing to do with deterrents.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: What incentive would the East have to reduce its nuclear or conventional forces if the West were

March 25, 1988
Cruise Missile Testing
prepared to eliminate its weapons without the reciprocal obligations of arms control or disarmament agreement?


Pauline Jewett: That is what START is all about.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Do Members of this Elouse really believe that the Soviet Union would have agreed to eliminate its entire intermediate-range missile forces if the alliance had refused to deploy its own INF forces in the mid-1980s?
It was the unbreakable unity of the NATO allies in supporting the maintenance of an effective nuclear deterrent that compelled the Soviet Union to return to the negotiating table and continue the process which culminated in the historic INF treaty signed in Washington last December. This treaty is an historic arms control and disarmament agreement in the sense that it represents the first time that an entire category of nuclear arms has been eliminated.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in his statement issued at the time of the Washington Summit, President Reagan can justifiably claim great success. It was he who provided the vision in his zero option proposal of 1981. It was he who held firm against those who wanted to freeze these weapons at levels still threatening to the West. It was he who had the courage to distinguish between firmness and intransigence.
We must show equal firmness and resolve in the future. I think it clearly follows from the INF experience that if we wish to see similar progress made in the strategic arms control negotiations, the U.S.A. and its allies must display the same political solidarity. The maintenance of an effective strategic deterrent must be supported in the same manner the allies supported a credible theatre nuclear deterrent throughout the U.S.-U.S.S.R. arms control negotiation process.
For Canada, the most tangible expression of this support has been its involvement in the co-operative testing of the U.S.A. air launched cruise missile, a crucial element of the strategic bomber forces that helps provide a nuclear deterrent for NATO as a whole. This is our concrete contribution to ensuring the credibility of the alliance's nuclear deterrent. It is a modest one at that compared to those of our allies who actually have nuclear weapons deployed on their territory.
Some have claimed wrongly that Canada's testing of the air launched cruise missile was to cease once an INF Accord had been reached. The reason this Government, and for that matter its predecessor, has never established a rigid linkage between the outcome of INF negotiations in Europe and the continuation of the co-operative testing program for the air launched cruise missile is relatively straightforward. The cruise missiles that are affected by the INF agreement are ground launched cruise missiles deployed as part of a European theatre nuclear deterrent. In contrast, the cruise missiles that are being tested here in Canada under our arrangement with the U.S.A. are air launched cruise missiles that form part
of the U.S.A. strategic deterrent forces and constitute the alliance's ultimate nuclear deterrent against attack.
The relative importance of these U.S.A.-based strategic deterrent forces in maintaining the over-all balance of nuclear deterrence will increase in the wake of an INF agreement eliminating United States missiles in Europe. In this connection, ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of the air launched cruise missile through the co-operative testing program with the U.S.A. becomes more rather than less compelling in the context of an INF agreement, and I mean compelling from an arms control as much as from a defence perspective.
One of the Government's priority objectives in its arms control and disarmament policy is the enhancement of strategic stability. The air launched cruise missile with its long flight time and its relatively slow, recallable carrier is currently among the most stabilizing elements of nuclear deterrent forces. It does not pose, for example, the first strike capacity of the fast flying, invulnerable to attack intercontinental ballistic missile.
We believe nonetheless that cruise missiles too should be subject to arms control restraints and have supported the inclusion of air launched cruise missiles in the limits on strategic nuclear arms currently being negotiated at the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. Geneva talks. By giving air launched cruise missiles a greater role in the nuclear force structure of each superpower at the expense of ballistic missiles, the first strike potential of the respective forces will be reduced. In this way, air launched cruise missiles can actually contribute to enhancing strategic stability in the context of the 50 per cent reduction of strategic arms envisaged by a strategic arms control agreement.
Canada has consistently supported the agreed U.S.A. and Soviet objective of a 50 per cent cut in their strategic arsenals. We have also advocated the negotiation of effective limits on long range air and sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, we have regularly conveyed our views to both negotiating parties on how this joint aim of radical reductions in strategic weaponry can best be realized.
Canada's commitment to arms control and disarmament and the maintenance of a stable and agreed arms control regime is well known. Our work in verification research is a practical contribution second to none. This is important work and work we intend to vigorously pursue.
It is through informed allied solidarity and a constructive negotiating approach rather than by means of unbalanced and self-denying actions that progress in arms control is best assured. That is why I cannot support the motion before us today.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on the subject of cruise missiles
March 25, 1988

and the destabilizing impact of cruise missile technology on the international strategic balance of power.
In the few minutes I have, I would like to review two aspects of this question. First, the Liberal position on cruise missiles and the Government's position, described just now by the Hon. Member who spoke previously, and I think our conclusion must be that the Conservative Government's view is at odds with the movement toward international peace that prevails at the present time. I find it hard to believe that the Government, despite its success on the international scene, should insist on taking the hard line.
Second, I would like to stress the importance of another aspect of the same question, and I am referring to the advance cruise missiles, the so-called ACMs, which may persuade the Government that the time has come to take a close look at arms proliferation and that, if they miss this opportunity, the new class of cruise missiles will certainly create a far more destabilizing situation than we have today.
In the fall of 1987, the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Turner) asked the Canadian Government, in accordance with the provisions of the Canada-U.S. agreement on nuclear arms testing, to submit a notice of termination of cruise missile testing in Canada, and I would like to quote what he said:
I have always believed in honouring the Cruise missile commitment made by the Government of Canada to the United States and to our other allies, and we have honoured that commitment. I have always believed in honouring the commitments that previous Governments made.
As I said in my speech to the House of Commons when the issue was debated on March 6, we should test the Cruise missile until such time as there are concrete results in the negotiations between the two super powers on intermediate range nuclear weapons. There have been concrete results, much to the relief of the world, and I say the time has arrived to move forward in the world search for peace and for Canada to suspend Cruise missile testing in Canada.
It is clear, as the Leader of the Opposition said on October 1, that the time has come to reconsider the wisdom of continuing this agreement between Canada and the United States. I must say that the Government is playing a rather curious role in this matter. First of all, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has refused to either confirm or deny if there had been a request for tests of this new class of cruise missiles, when the question was put to him in the House. And the Government continues to play a kind of wait-and-see game in this respect.
In a statement to the House in March 1987, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said, and I quote:
"At the present time in Geneva, it seems that negotiations that apparently had been terminated have now been resumed. We will determine the policy of the Government of Canada in terms of what is decided in Geneva".
Cruise Missile Testing
In October, as I indicated, progress was indeed made, and the Government refuses to face the fact that to pursue cruise missile testing is destabilizing. The Government had the chance to review its position and come clean on this question, but it still argues that its decision to continue testing the cruise is based on the rationale that the testing under the umbrella agreement contributes to stable nuclear deterrence.
1 have serious concerns about that. How can a policy that creates the conditions for arms proliferation contribute to stable deterrence? It is clear, in the context of the information negotiations signed in Washington in December, 1987, the Government's policy is most definitely not in keeping with the atmosphere.

As was mentioned earlier this afternoon, a poll published recently indicated a significant shift in the position of Canadians on cruise missile testing. Fifty per cent of those surveyed are now opposed to the testing, 38 per cent are for it and 8 per cent are undecided. What is even more interesting is that when asked by pollsters whether they were aware cruise missiles were tested over Canadian territory, many people replied they did not know.
Of those 17 per cent of the Canadian people who were not aware of the test, 68 per cent said no when they were asked: "Do you want such testing to be done over Canadian territory, yes or no?" It is a cry from the heart, the immediate and spontaneous reaction of people to a factual situation that should be terminated as soon as possible.
In conclude with the opinion that a consensus seems to be emerging on that isssue in Canada, and that Canadians are no longer in favour of cruise missile testing.

In the face of this the Government persists in playing hide and seek on its policy concerning testing of the advanced cruise missile, a truly dangerous cousin to the air launched cruise missile because of its improved speed and stealth technology. Testing of such weapons in Canada's North would up the ante.
I want to quote Mr. John Barrett, Deputy Director of the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, who said that the ACM may pose a greater threat to the strategic balance than the version tested because it will be faster and harder to detect. That statement was made on January 20 after the last cruise missile test on Canadian soil. He went on to say that the Soviet Union might view deployment of the ACM as a U.S. attempt to develop a clear capability to carry out a first strike nuclear attack.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when we questioned him on this and asked him to review the Government's position, said that he was reaffirming the Canadian goal of

March 25, 1988
Cruise Missile Testing
vigorously promoting progress in arms control and disarmament. He went on to say that the goal in all these areas is stability, stability in a lower level of arms and stability in the relationship between offence and defence.
Clearly, as the situation has evolved, there is no reason for the Canadian Government to continue to pursue the same position in regard to cruise missile testing. It is clear that the recent agreement between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev has changed the situation and does not force the Canadian Government to continue to allow this testing to take place on our soil.
I want to say that I have grave doubts about the Government's clear intentions of trying to bring stability to the situation, particularly when we look at what it has been doing in relation to its position in NATO and its decision to buy nuclear submarines. It is, as my Leader said when he was speaking in Vancouver recently-
[ Translation]
While superpowers are talking about weapons reductions, our Conservative Government decides that Canada will build ten or twelve nuclear attack submarines, which could cost as much as $16 billion. The construction and deployment of attack submarines signal a radical departure from the deterrence role our armed forces have played traditionally. In my opinion, the Government is wrong to seek to equip Canada with nuclear attack submarines in the Arctic. The Government says those ships will be used for the surveillance and defence of our waters in the North. If so, there are less expensive, safer and more efficient means of doing the job.
I say in conclusion it seems obvious to me the Conservative Government, far from seizing the opportunities it has to contribute to disarmement, has chosen to follow the armament and global destabilization route.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it also gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on motion No. 67 related to the termination of cruise missile testing in Canada.
I have just heard the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) conclude on a note which I find somewhat inappropriate in view of the criticisms which the Official Opposition has addressed to us in the past about the ability of Canada to defend its territorial zone in the Arctic. We can tell him that we are taking the appropriate means to provide this defence and that, in our opinion, nuclear submarines are the best way to defend our territory and to prevent the Americans from violating the sovereignty of our territorial waters whenever they wish, as the Opposition said earlier.
Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps examine more closely the purpose of this motion. It seems to presume that cruise missile testing in Canada goes against our arms control and security objectives. In my opinion, such a presumption is false. The
maintenance of a strong and effective defence is not inconsistent with the objectives of arms control and disarmement. On the contrary, the will to maintain a credible nuclear deterrence can make it easier to come to an agreement, as evidenced by the signing of the historical treaty on intermediate nuclear forces.
In spite of the success of the INF treaty, and perhaps because of the hopes it has raised, mistaken notions still persist about the air-launched cruise missiles, their relation to the US-USSR negotiations in Geneva on strategic weapons reduction and the importance of continued testing of these missiles. I would like to take this opportunity to correct these mistakes.
The US-USSR INF agreement applies to the middle-range missiles deployed in Europe. It does not apply to long-range strategic systems, which include the air-launched cruise missiles. The signing of this treaty never involved the termination of testing for these missiles.
The only link between the deployment of the INF's and the testing of air-launched cruise missiles is that of NATO solidarity. By deploying the INF's and other nuclear weapons on their territory, the Europeans have shown their political support for the nuclear deterrence force of NATO. Canada is doing nothing else by allowing the testing on its territory of the cruise missiles which are essential to deterrence. These tests are part of our contribution to our collective security, which is based on modern and effective weapons. And it is because we have maintained this power of deterrence unfailingly that we have had over forty years of peace and security.
The strategic systems, both the long-range balistic missiles and the cruise missiles, are under the START negotiations. Within this framework, the United States and the USSR have agreed in principle to reduce by 50 per cent the number of their nuclear warheads. The number of airborne cruise missiles will be subjected to the limits established under the START negotiations. Canada, for one, has indicated that it is in favour of reducing by 50 per cent these warheads and limiting the number of cruise missiles.
Without the Alliance's solidarity and determination to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent force, it is doubtful that the Soviet Union would have accepted to resume the Geneva negotiations, negotiations which have finally resulted in the elimination of a whole class of middle range weapons. The same solidarity and determination will be necessary to achieve any progress in the reduction of strategic systems.
A unilateral decision by Canada to terminate airborne cruise missile testing in Canada would have detrimental effects on the Alliance's strategic deterrent force and would jeopardize the solidarity which has proven so efficient in the FNI area. This testing is Canada's contribution to the maintenance of NATO's strategic nuclear deterrent force. It is a rather modest contribution compared with that of our European allies who, even with the elimination of the INFs, will bravely continue to deploy on their territories the nuclear weapons essential to peace.
March 25, 1988

I must take exception to another aspect of the motion which implies that any progress in the area of arms control could be achieved through declaratory and unilateral action, rather than through negotiable and enforceable treaties.
In the area of arms control as in any other, the first stage, often the easiest, consists in setting up the objectives which we want to achieve. In such a vital and complex area, we must have long term objectives, for I do not think it would be realistic to expect to achieve them overnight.
We might even seriously jeopardize the arms control process by not setting this issue in its proper context.
When we examine the arms control process objectives, it is important to remember that weapons are the result and not the primary cause of international distrust. Arms control could limit, and even eliminate, some manifestations of this distrust, but it would not get to the heart of the problem.
We have to take arm control for what it really is, that is a management tool in the East-West competition and a contribution to our security. It is not, as some are led to believe, an end in itself.
Arm control plays a central role in the reduction of tensions, in the reinforcement of trust and consequently of security. We often say that increased confidence on all sides is necessary to conclude those agreements. However we must take care not to interpret those agreements as being a clear indication of a lack of distrust. To the extent that they are verified and complied with, arm control agreements can restrict and focus competition. They cannot remove it.
Indeed, it would be interesting to ask ourselves what the world would be if we agreed to radical proposals for arms control. Some say that it would lead to quick progress in some areas such as development. Others contend that the reduction of nuclear arms would give rise to other problems and that issues such as the unbalance of conventional arms between the Eastern and Western countries, the Middle East and Southern Africa as well as human rights would be even more burning.
Consequently, I think that if we have to assess more carefully the arms control process, it is also essential to consider critically the various proposals made in that respect.
It is important in that respect to consider a wide variety of factors, the first one being the global dimension of the East-West rivalry. That global aspect implies that solutions to international relations as well as arms control problems must have a wide support and a wide application.
Any serious approach to arms control, and Canada's approach is serious, Mr. Speaker, must bear the stamp of caution. Proposals that do not produce the expected effects, that are easily bypassed or that do not take into account the complicated relationships which I just mentionned, must be avoided. They are useless if not misleading, and maybe even dangerous.
Cruise Missile Testing
It is the very complexity of the arms control issue, and the interdependence of its technical, political and military aspects that explain the protracted negotiation process and our reluctance towards declamatory statements. Public discussions are full of statements of good intentions and miraculous solutions. However, we know from experience that no effective and rational initiative can ever be elaborated and applied if it has not first been negociated.
Since we have the United States as neighbours and we are partners with other democratic countries, we inevitably share the threat that hangs over the West. Our geographic position, the powerfulness of nuclear arms, their terrible effects and the way those arms could be used make it impossible for a nation gathered along the U.S. border to escape that threat. Any claim to the contrary would be delusive.
We share the threat, thus we must also share the responsibility to protect ourselves against it. By helping the United States ensure the reliability of the cruise missile, which is an important element of the strategic arms deterrent, we fulfill a responsible task for a country that benefits from the protection of these deterrent forces.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a motion suggesting that we escape our utmost responsibilities.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity today to speak in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of giving notice, under the terms of the weapons testing umbrella
agreement with the United States, for the termination of cruise missile testing
in Canada.
To put it mildly, that is an idea whose time has come. It came before, but the majority of this Parliament missed it. It has come again with changed circumstances that are even more favourable now than they were before.
One of the changed circumstances of course has been what has already been mentioned by several Members, the INF agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States to eliminate a number of intermediate ranged weapons. However, another changed circumstance which I wish to speak about is the change in the outlook of the Canadian people. I am referring in part to an extensive survey done with a large number of questions by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. About half a year ago, in their survey, they found these opinions, among others, among the Canadian people. One is on a simple question: "Do you agree or disagree that there can be no winners in a global nuclear war?"
Ninety-six per cent of Canadians agreed. The large majority, 81 per cent, strongly agreed and another 15 per cent agreed. This means that 96 per cent of Canadians have come to understand that there can be no winners in a nuclear war.

March 25, 1988
Cruise Missile Testing
There are other questions. Some people say that the maintenance of a strong deterrence force can be guaranteed only by regular testing of existing and experimental nuclear weapons. That is the view that has been expressed by both the Government speakers. They are against 81 per cent of Canadian people, who are of the opinion that we should totally ban nuclear weapons testing.
The Government has claimed that by doing this we would weaken the western alliance and the Russians would come rolling in with their bombs, tanks, secret police and the rest. They are out of step with the majority of Canadians. Another question is whether such a policy would weaken the western alliance and cause serious problems with Canada's allies, especially the United States. Fifty-seven per cent think that on the other hand Canada should become a nuclear weapons free-zone. They are not worried about weakening the western alliance and causing serious problems.
Specifically on cruise, the question was: "Given that Ottawa has allowed testing of cruise missiles in Canada on the understanding that the United States would continue to pursue arms reductions with the Soviet Union, should the Canadian Government now refuse permission for further such tests or not?" Sixty-eight per cent said yes, Canada should refuse to allow further cruise testing.
Remember, we heard a lot about the two-track system, that we would go on with the cruise until the Russians agreed to INF arms reductions. The Russians agreed. Why go on with the cruise missile? I will come to that answer in a minute, but I want simply to add further, because one previous speaker seemed to get the figure a little wrong, that according to The Toronto Star on March 21, the Gallup Poll found that 54 per cent say Canada should not permit the tests and only 38 per cent said they should be allowed. That is quite a growth of public opinion against the testing.
The core of the Government's argument is that we need the cruise as part of the bargaining for Russian arms reductions. In fact, we are not using them that way. The public does not believe in it. The public does not believe in the nuclear deterrent any more because they are convinced that a nuclear war will simply end everything. The Government does not believe in it either. It does not use it that way.
Last year before the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) pointed out that to his knowledge there had been no public or private attempts to push for controls on the sea launched cruise missile.
The sea launched cruise missile is more dangerous to Canada than the air launched cruise missile. It is much more available if the Russians start lobbing them from their submarines than if they have to lob them over the North Pole. The submarines are less subject to central control than are air launched cruise missiles, yet the Government has not even attempted to negotiate a limitation or control of sea-launched cruise missiles. Therefore, our Government does not believe
the argument it uses, that this is a deterrent and should be used to bargain with the Russians. Rather, it looks as though the Government simply wants to get in on every bit of new technology so that it can get arms contracts and higher profits for Canadian military producers. The fact is that the new stealth or advanced cruise missile, is clearly becoming a first strike weapon, the most destabilizing thing we could have.
The American Air Defence Initiative has two prongs. One prong is a better system for knocking down Soviet missiles if they come over Canadian territory. Whether air launched or sea launched, as many as possible will be dumped on Canada. Thank you very much, Mr. Reagan. The other prong is to improve the American cruise missiles so that they will be faster, supersonic, be able to evade radar as much as possible and therefore be used to launch a first strike.
The American plan for the use of cruise missiles is very dangerously destabilizing. Why do we hear reports about the Russians increasing their air patrols over the Arctic waters with their Bear bombers and other airplanes? Obviously they are afraid of the destabilizing effort.
Therefore, since there is one minute left in the debate, I believe we should have a vote on this matter. It is a good resolution and I would urge that this House vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper).


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). I was intrigued by two things in the debate.


George Albert Proud: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


James Douglas Manly: There is one minute left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not by my watch. The Hon. Member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, it is too late now, but the purpose of my point of order was to ask the Member if he would like to proceed with a vote. I would have liked to vote for this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
March 25, 1988

It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).	Cruise Missile Testing The House adjourned at 3 p.m.

Monday, March 28, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers