1988-05-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, everybody here and all Members of this House will recall that the Conservative Government, and more specifically the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Labour at the time, cut unemployment insurance benefits for older workers who had lost their jobs and were receiving payments from their private pension plans.
Tomorrow, I will be visiting the area of Trois-Rivieres, where thousands of older workers are to hand us a petition to force the Government to change its discriminatory attitude to oldef workers. I hope all Conservative Members from the Trois-Rivieres region will be at this meeting tomorrow dhd that they will dig in their heels and force the Minister of Finance to treat older workers fairly and let them receive the unemployment insurance benefits they paid for throughout their working lives. And the same applies to members of our armed forces.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations made by the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Committee in its recent report, "Canada's Single Industry Communities: In Search of a New Partnership", is that a study should be undertaken to determine if "frontier development" presents a viable economic option for Canada.
This, Sir, is unrealistic. If this attitude had prevailed a couple of hundred years ago, Canada would still be no more than a scattering of villages around the Upper St. Lawrence.
The frontier regions are an integral part of Canada. The people who live there must be permitted the same rights to develop their resources as those who live in the more settled areas.
It makes sense to debate the best way in which to develop the North, but no sense whatsoever to debate whether or not this should be done. That is contrary to the Canadian spirit and to our concept of liberty.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Iain AngU§ (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr. Speaker, last week the mayors of the cities situated around the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River gathered in Duluth, Minnesota, for their second annual conference. I attended that meeting on behalf of my constituents, and also on behalf of the New Democratic caucus because we place a high priority on matters affecting the Seaway system.
The mayors dealt with many issues facing the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system. I would like to mention just a few of the initiatives they took.
They called for the establishment of a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence protection fund, and for the restoration of full federal funding from both countries for research and monitoring programs to help clean up this vital drinking water supply of more than 25 million people.
They called on both federal Governments to review formally all policies and legislation affecting the movement of grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway, to ensure that this system is allowed to compete on an equal basis with other grain export routes.
They called for new approaches to developing plans for waterfront use by Great Lakes-Seaway communities on a year round basis.
This kind of planning and co-operation by the mayors of our communities will go a long way to helping us resolve our
[Stage Direction]
May 25, 1988
common problems regardless of the difficulties our two federal Governments are getting us into.

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdaie):: Mr. Speaker, by 1992 the European Community will remove all the remaining physical, fiscal, and technical barriers to trade in goods and services between its members. This action will create one of the world's formidable trading blocs, which will make Canadian trade with Europe more difficult.
Fortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) anticipated this initiative, and protected Canada by concluding a free trade agreement with the United States. Free trade with the United States will allow Canadian companies access to a market roughly the size of the EEC.
With the removal of frontier controls Canadian industries will have bigger economies of scale, be more competitive, and have more access to capital, which in turn will make our products as competitive as those in Europe.
It is really unfortunate that the Opposition does not realize the importance of the agreement to Canada's future in light of the major economic developments taking place in the world today.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON CHICKEN INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House and of all Canadians the serious concerns the Canadian poultry producers and chicken farmers have with respect to the Mulroney trade deal.
Free trade will hurt the Canadian chicken industry. Canada had a healthy chicken industry in the past due to a strong chicken marketing board and a healthy attitude among government officials toward the benefits of this industry to Canada.
Due to the economics of scale it is just not reasonable to think that the Canadian chicken industry, which serves 25 million people in a 4,000-mile corridor, can fairly compete, as
it will be forced to do, with an American industry which has several 4,000-mile corridors serving, on average, 60 million people.
Most of the chicken which will flood the Canadian market, should this trade deal be implemented, will be processed chicken. The future of chicken lies in processed products. By the year 2000, 50 per cent of all chicken will be in processed products. A flooding of the Canadian market by American processed chicken producers will surely destroy our chicken industry.
Therefore, I urge the Government to give the Canadian marketing board the right to put any processed food containing 10 per cent or more chicken content on the import control list.


PACIFIC ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION CONFERENCE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour to participate in the Sixth Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference in Osaka, Japan, as part of Canada's delegation led by Dr. Bill Saywell of Vancouver.
Much was accomplished at this meeting to further understanding and co-operation among the 17 Pacific members represented, and between the private, government, and academic sectors which make up this tripartite organization.
The economic forecasts for the region were generally optimistic, but can only be realized if substantial progress can be made to strengthen an open world trading system. Certainly an essential priority in co-operation among developed and developing countries is to build consensus in macro-economic policies and to reject protectionist trade policies as remedies for economic problems.
[DOT] <1410)
PECC believes the Pacific region has a critical contribution to make to bring the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations to a successful conclusion, and particularly urges negotiators to achieve substantial progress on reducing agricultural subsidies.
I was pleased as well that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was cited by the conference as an example of a successful achievement of sub-regional co-operation, the negotiation and implementation experience of which could provide a basis for the general application of new techniques of trade liberalization in the Pacific region and beyond.
May 25, 1988


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Firefighters War Veterans Association has been making a reasonable request that Canadian fire-fighters who retired from fire-fighting on or before August 28, 1985, be given the right to be considered for the award of the Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal.
They do not feel their request has been given sympathetic consideration and this is why they have written to every Member of Parliament to solicit support. They have also widely circulated a petition to be presented to Members of Parliament to show support for their cause by their friends and neighbours.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, those veteran fire-fighters should not be forced into petitioning their Members of Parliament to have their service to Canada recognized. That service was appreciated and it should be recognized now by granting the award they should be entitled to receive without any further delay.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord and the free trade agreement respect and reflect the existing division of constitutional powers. Both initiatives reflect this Government's commitment to and its respect for a strong federal Government and strong provincial governments. Since 1984, federal-provincial relations have been marked by consultation and consensus, instead of the kind of confrontation we saw under the previous Government. The Meech Lake Accord continues this policy by establishing mechanisms to promote harmony between both levels of government.
On both the free trade agreement and the Meech Lake Accord, the provinces were frequently consulted and fully informed. The Bill does not impinge on areas of provincial jurisdiction, it amends relevant federal legislation and authorizes the Governor in Council to adopt any regulations it deems necessary to implement the agreement, to the extent that such regulations are essential to the application of the chapter on wines and spirits and are not provided under provincial legislation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Department of Employment and Immigration announced to the people of Southeast New Brunswick that from now on, they must have sixteen weeks of insurable employment instead of ten, to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, this will have a devastating effect on the economy of the districts of Westmorland, Kent and Albert, which largely depend on seasonal jobs that cover periods of not more than ten weeks.
Statistics Canada reports that the unemployment rate for Southeast New Brunswick, which includes the districts of Westmorland, Kent and Albert, averaged 13.4 per cent for February, March and April. These are the figures the Department uses to calculate the number of weeks of insurable employment. However, if we look at those districts without including the city of Moncton, the unemployment rate for the same months works out at about 26.4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is how people are being treated in rural areas!
Last week, I asked the responsible Minister to put the period of insurable employment back at ten weeks, but she refuses to do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, I repeat my request on behalf of the people of Southeast New Brunswick. The period of insurable employment must be put back at ten weeks.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last year warships carrying nuclear weapons, mostly from the United States, visited Canadian ports 63 times. A retired United States admiral has said that any vessel capable of carrying nuclear arms is, in fact, carrying them.
But Canada, while claiming to be a country that does not permit nuclear weapons on its territory, does not even ask visiting ships whether or not they carry them. We are like the legendary Sunday school teacher who had a Saturday night job playing the piano but said he did not understand what was going on in all those little rooms upstairs.
Canadians do not appreciate this kind of hypocrisy on a question so important to world peace and security. We want our Government to defend our policy of not allowing nuclear weapons.
We look at the example of New Zealand. If such a small country can show integrity and courage on this issue, why can't we? If the Conservatives are not willing to insist that

May 25, 1988
Oral Questions
visiting warships honour our no nuclear weapons policy, let us have an election and get a Government that will.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CALL FOR BAN ON EXPORT OF WATER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, repeatedly Canadians have been told that water exports to the United States are not in the trade deal. Last November the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said that water had never been negotiated in the free trade talks. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that water is not part of the trade deal.
Despite such denials, Article 22.01 of the Canadian tariff schedule specifically refers to: "waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavoured; ice and snow".
There is nothing in the trade deal preventing the export of water as was done with logs, unprocessed fish, and beer. The absence of a specific exclusion of water from the trade deal is dangerous. Further, it makes a mockery of the Minister of the Environment's water policy, with the promised legislation to ban water exports. We urge the Government to ban the export of water in the proposed trade legislation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. In the last several months we have heard repeatedly from the United States Government and from the U.S. Congress that they would only ratify the Canada-U.S. trade agreement on the grounds that the federal Government would intrude into provincial affairs and require full compliance by the provinces.
Yesterday we saw once again how the federal Government capitulates to those demands. The trade Bill tabled yesterday provides the federal Government with a loaded gun that will completely and totally intrude into a wide range of provincial jurisdictions to force compliance with the Canada-U.S. agreement.
Is it not true that the American Government is now becoming in effect a third party to federal-provincial relations
in Canada, and that the federal Government has decided to take the power of intrusion into key areas like energy, resource pricing and service management si-'ply in order to meet those American demands?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that that, of course, is entirely incorrect. He should also know that under the BN A Act the regulation of interprovincial trade and commerce and international trade and commerce is a jurisdiction given to the Government of Canada. Without that jurisdiction, Canada could not enter into an international agreement with any other nation in the world and enforce such an agreement. If that were the case, then Canada would be ignored by the world community because it would not have a federal Government that could agree to and enforce trade and commerce arrangements entered into.
Finally, I might remind the hon. gentleman when he talks about resource pricing that it was his Party that introduced the national energy policy, that attempted to crush the provinces and crush provincial rights to price their resources, and crush the provinces entirely.


Mr. Broadbent:: So why are you doing it?


John Carnell Crosbie: They were assisted by the hypocrite who leads the New Democratic Party who gave them full assistance in that object.


PROVISIONS OF BILL-FEDERAL POWERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg

Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I would say that the great strategy of reconciliation has become the great crusher of all times. We have seen in this Bill a major takeover of provincial jurisdictions, contrary to the interpretation that has been provided by the courts over the past half century.
Clause 8 of the Bill the Minister tabled yesterday also provides for a total override of the laws of this federal Parliament. The trade agreement supersedes and overtakes laws provided by this Parliament on affirmative action, on human rights, and on freedom of information. Is the Minister for International Trade aware that he has created this major imbalance, that the trade deal will now supersede federal law, and that the sovereignty of this Parliament has been undermined? At the same time the U.S. Congress has taken a totally opposite stand. Why has the Minister countenanced this total capitulation and undermining of the rights of this Parliament?
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to a clause which says that the provisions of the Bill implementing the free trade agreement will override any inconsistent provision of other federal legislation. That is all it says.


Some Hon. Members:: That's all!
May 25, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a rule of legislative draftsmanship. Any provisions of Canadian federal law inconsistent with the free trade agreement are amended by the agreement. That is all it says. There is no takeover of provincial powers. There is a most careful attempt to fail to intrude upon provincial powers except in one area with reference to wine and spirits. The Government takes to itself the authority to ensure that the FTA is observed and that provisions which discriminate against American wine and liquor sales in Canada cannot be put in place by the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not time. I am asked a question and I have to be allowed the time to answer it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily disappointing that a Minister of the Crown would treat in such a trifling manner the usurpation of the powers of this Parliament by the Act he tabled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT ELECTION BE HELD
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Bill the Minister has tabled undermines provincial jurisdiction and the sovereignty of this Parliament. In fact, it undermines the sovereignty of this country. Therefore, will he take the offer he made this morning to call an election by the end of the summer and advance it by two or three months? Considering the enormous and dramatic impact this Bill will have on the very structure of Canadian society, why not call the election now and let the Canadian people decide what should be done?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, an election will be called sometime between now and the end of 1989 when the Prime Minister decides to recommend to the Governor General that Parliament be dissolved. The free trade agreement will be a central part of that election, whether it has been implemented before or after the election call.
The hon. gentlemen opposite, if they continue with their pledge to oppose the free trade agreement, do not have to waste their energy trying to rip the agreement in half. If they are elected in our stead all they have to do is give six months' notice under the agreement and they can terminate it, if they dare. But they will never dare do that, Mr. Speaker!


Lloyd Axworthy: Watch us.


PROVINCES' RIGHTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. I would like to point out to him that Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130 on the trade agreement are the most blatant intrusion of
Oral Questions
the federal Government in fields of provincial jurisdiction in human memory. In electricity, gas, petroleum, wine, liquor, professional codes, wood-cutting fees, construction worker mobility, the federal Government is taking upon itself the power to intervene and go over the heads of the provinces to amend unilaterally laws that the federal Government or the government in Washington want changed.
Mr. Speaker, why has the federal Government decided to violate provincial rights to implement a trade agreement for which it has received no mandate from the Canadian people?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about mandates. It was his Party that was elected on a platform that they were totally against wage and price controls, got elected, and implemented them immediately thereafter. What a gigantic example of hypocrisy; the hon. gentleman promised one thing and delivered exactly the opposite.
Anyone who cares to examine our legislation will see that we only exercise our jurisdiction in areas given to the Government of Canada under the BN A Act, and which have been given to the Government of Canada since 1867. These are areas, of course, that predecessors of the hon. gentleman opposite observed in every particular.
By golly, what can Mr. Trudeau be thinking when he looks at this pusillanimous display opposite today?


NATIONAL RECONCILIATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister for International Trade takes such a tone to answer extremely serious questions. Tomorrow, we can begin a debate on ...

I will return to my question. I do not want to engage in that type of thing.

Mr. Speaker, not only Ontario objects to the federal Government's intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. The Government of Quebec, through its Minister for International Trade, said yesterday that it was unacceptable for the federal Government to proceed in this way.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that. It is in this morning's newspapers, he mentioned it on television yesterday when I was debating this question with him.
Is the Minister aware that if the provinces refuse, Clause 6 could give the federal Government the power to change the pricing policies of Crown corporations like Hydro-Quebec and if these policies are displeasing to the federal Government or the United States, the federal Government can act to change

May 25, 1988
Oral Questions
them? It will tell the provinces, "Change your laws, otherwise we will change them for you!"
Mr. Speaker, is that the policy of national reconciliation preached by the Prime Minister during the 1984 election campaign?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, thank heavens we know about some sane Liberals in this country, for example, Mr. Donald Macdonald who chaired the Royal Commission and recommended the action which we are now carrying out, and the Hon. Gerry Regan who was Minister of International Trade for several years who supports this authority.
The legislation introduced here yesterday does not intrude one jot or tittle upon provincial jurisdiction. We do not have the power to intrude upon provincial jurisdiction. We can only exercise federal jurisdiction.
Any Government or person who believes that we are going beyond our jurisdiction can go to the Canadian courts, free and independent, and ask them for a verdict or an opinion on whose jurisdiction is whose. We are confident that this Bill concerns only our jurisdiction in the area of international trade and commerce. Without that Canada is not a nation and Canada does not have a Government.


PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION-POSITION OF QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. We certainly heard the Minister's answer. If there had been as much light as there was sound we might have even been persuaded.
With reference to Clause 6 in the proposed Bill an important Minister in the Province of Quebec has said: "It's obvious this article is an interference in provincial jurisdiction".
Any number of lawyers who have since looked at the package, including some on the opposite side of the House, have said that Clause 6 is nothing other than an override of provincial jurisdictional authority.
Has the Minister been in touch with the Government of Quebec in the past 24 hours on this matter? The Quebec Minister said that this was unacceptable to the Government of Quebec and that it violated the constitutional division of powers. Has the Government of Canada done the correct and co-operative thing, consulted with the Government of Quebec and conveyed to it the federal Government's views on this matter?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I believe most Hon. Members of the House know, I had a consultation with all 10 Premiers of Canada before this Bill was introduced. I explained to them the various options that were available to the Government of Canada in
order to carry out the free trade agreement and to meet our commitment to carry out the obligations of the free trade arrangement. The Bill that we introduced yesterday contains the least obtrusive methods of carrying out the free trade agreement. There is no interference with provincial jurisdiction in the Bill.
All that the Bill states in Clause 6 is that this Parliament reserves to itself the right to introduce legislation in the future to carry out the obligations of the Free Trade Agreement undertaken by the Canadian Government if we feel any other legislation is necessary, a reserve power.
We cannot arrogate to ourselves any other jurisdiction than we have. The courts will see that we are kept to our own federal jurisdiction. Anyone who fears that we are going outside it can go to the courts. I plead with them to go to the courts and let the courts decide this issue.


Mr. Rodriguez:: How arrogant!


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure the Minister, who is well known for his thorough briefing sessions, has read the Bill with a great deal of care and will recall that Article 103 commits the federal Government to implementing the agreement with the United States, not only within traditional areas of federal jurisdictional authority but also in areas covered by provincial and local Governments.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, whatever the Minister may think, most Canadians understand that the Canadian Constitution states the provincial governments have authority within local or provincial domain, not the federal Conservative Government of Canada. That happens to be the reality.
The accord also commits the Government to negotiate over the next five to seven years what is to be deemed to be a subsidy, and the Americans have already made it clear that all kinds of our regional development and social programs, most of which are in the provincial domain-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister at least do service to the House by telling us frankly-


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Why do you not do service to the House and speak the truth?


John Edward Broadbent: If this Government allows Clause 6 to proceed, it will enable the Government to interfere directly in social and regional development programs in the provincial domain. Will he admit that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I say that that is entirely false, completely false, truly false, absolutely false. It is so false that it is the falsest statement I have ever heard falsely put.
May 25, 1988


John Edward Broadbent: You just convinced me that it is true.


John Carnell Crosbie: Clause 6 gives the Government of Canada no jurisdiction that the Government of Canada does not now have.


Mr. Cassidy:: Take it out.


John Carnell Crosbie: We can only exercise-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Take it out.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is so simple. We can only exercise the jurisdiction that the BN A Act gives us under Section 92 and the other powers of the BNA Act.
This House cannot exercise any other powers than those given it by the Constitution. Those are the only powers that we are exercising in this legislation. Anyone who has a different opinion can go to the courts, as has been done hundreds upon hundreds of times in our Confederation-


John R. Rodriguez: Arrogance of the Tories.


John Carnell Crosbie: -since 1867, and ask the courts to rule whether Clause 6 does anything other than that. Put your money where your mouth is and take a challenge to the courts once we enact this legislation.


John R. Rodriguez: Arrogance of the Tories.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I just say that all those wonderful denials coming from the Minister have absolutely convinced me that what I said was true. Three other Ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister, also said in 1983 that they would never negotiate such a deal. We know now how they deal with the truth on the other side of the House.


POSITION OF PREMIERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering what the Minister just said, could he explain to the House why the Premier of Prince Edward Island has said that it violates provincial jurisdictional authority? A key Minister in the Province of Quebec has now said it. The Premier of Nova Scotia recently raised a question, and the Premier of Ontario says that it violates provincial rights.


Mr. McDermid:: He is a great authority.


John Edward Broadbent: Why is it that everyone else is wrong and the Minister is right? That is what we want to know.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and his Party have said that they are going to prevent this legislation going through this House of Commons. They are going to obstruct at every point. They are going to disregard the rules-


John Edward Broadbent: No, no. Another lie. Another one.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are going to twist the rules.
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Your nose is growing, John.


Mr. Nystrom:: Pinocchio.


John Carnell Crosbie: On March 27, 1981-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: On March 27, 1981, who said this?
I am one who believes that the majority must have the right to decide at
some point, which is the essence of my question of privilege. At this point the
will of the majority is being frustrated by the irresponsibility of the minority.
It is the same Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party who, seven years later, says that he is going to use the rules to stop the majority, to stop Parliament from reaching a decision-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: What a hypocrite, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that the western drought situation is getting worse every day, that feed supplies and water supplies in the drought area are becoming desperate for many farmers and their herds. He knows that some herds are being dispersed and sold off because of lack of feed supplies.
Is the Minister willing to make a commitment today for funds to provide an emergency herd maintenance program so that feed supplies can be maintained for these herds and for the farmers concerned?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure whether the Hon. Member, by his question, is trying to indicate whether or not we knew we had a drought situation in western Canada.
The fact is that we have been working with the provinces and with the farm organizations on a day-to-day basis since February. As I indicated before, we are meeting with my provincial counterparts in Calgary next Tuesday where we will be receiving a series of recommendations that will include all of the suggested options that the Hon. Member has put forward today, plus many others I would expect.
If this develops into a full blown drought, then we see action being taken in about five different areas.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The farmers want to know when the Government is actually going to do something. We know he has been meeting, been considering, been studying, and has been

May 25, 1988
Oral Questions
thinking about it. Ele may actually do something, but they want to know when he is going to do something.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLIES-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL COMMITMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about the provincial Governments. The provincial Governments have already made a commitment of $28.5 million for emergency water supplies. Is the Minister prepared to stand in his place this afternoon and give a similar commitment of $28.5 million for emergency water supplies for the herds in these two provinces? Is he willing to do that?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, all of the requests that have been put to us by the provincial Governments to date have been met within the PFRA budget. I do not know why the Hon. Member gets so excited because when I talk to people in western Canada they simply look at our record, and look at yours which provides no satisfaction or comfort at all. When they look at our record they know very well that we were there in 1984, in 1985, and we will be there tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: You are not doing anything and you know it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I am holding a set of questions and answers on the subject of free trade which has been circulated to all Conservative Members of Parliament.
The first question which is set out asks why has the federal Government taken the decision to impinge on the domains of competence of the provincial governments with its legislation with respect to the free trade accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Read the answer!


Steven W. Langdon: The answer, since they want to hear it, is that Article 103 of the agreement obliges the American and Canadian Governments to take these measures and impose them on both states, provincial and local.
In view of the fact that these questions clearly indicate that the Conservative Party, and this Conservative Government, have made a decision to take these steps against the provincial
powers in our country, why will the Minister not in fact stand up in the House and frankly admit it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, apparently, from what the Member says, he has some suggested questions the Opposition might ask, and suggested answers. When these kinds of exercises are being done, the person drafting the questions puts himself into the mind-set of the Opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: What about the answer?


John Carnell Crosbie: Then he knows he has to think of something that is twisting, that is false, that is malicious, that is devious-


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then he puts the question and he asks how this is impinging, because that is the kind of question the hon. gentleman opposite asks day after day after day. So I congratulate the drafter. He has himself exactly in the mind-set of the hon. gentleman opposite and his paranoia that has existed here every day of the week.


John Edward Broadbent: What about the answer?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the intemperate and irrelevant response of the Minister shows how out of touch he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be observed that if we are going to get very many Members up, some of the rhetoric will have to be dropped on both sides. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor will put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Minister start-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


POWERS OF PROVINCES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: I would like to put this question to the Minister, considering the answer provided in his Conservative notes. The answer indicates that the agreement obliges the U.S. and Canadian governments to take all measures that are necessary for the provisions of the agreement to come into effect.
Considering his answer, why won't the Minister admit to the House that we are telling the truth and that the Government has decided to impinge on provincial powers across this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I notice the question is almost identical to the question that was asked in English.
The Chair's concern is very straightforward. This is certainly not customary practice in the House, and I would like all Members to be careful and refrain from repeating a
May 25, 1988

question, in English or in French. It is not customary practice in this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly agree with you that it is odd.
The situation is that there is nothing in the legislation before this House that intrudes upon or impinges upon the powers of the province. But it is a well known tenet of constitutional law that one jurisdiction exercising its authority can affect matters in another jurisdiction's authority in an incidental manner. And, of course, that occurs on all occasions. There is no hiatus between federal law and provincial law. There is no clearly demarked line that one is on one side and the other is on the other side.
In this particular legislation we exercise only the authority given to us by the Constitution of Canada necessary so that Canada can hold its head up in the community of nations and agree to treaties that affect trade and commerce and carry them out as any sovereign nation can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AEROSPACE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the contracts for space research. Last Friday, the Leader of the Parti Quebecois, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, stated that never before had Quebec been treated in such a miserly fashion by the federal Government.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why, despite the promise and commitment made on April 21 by the Conservative Government that as part of the Canadian Government's contribution to the U.S. Space Station, Quebec would receive a fair share of the research, that is, 35 per cent, just like Ontario, could he now explain why today, Quebec will get only 18 per cent, while Ontario is getting 78 per cent? Could he explain why Quebecers are once again being deceived?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The fact is that if he looks at the total expenditures when the program is said and done, he will find that 35 per cent will accrue to Quebec, 35 per cent to Ontario, 10 per cent to, generally, the West, 10 per cent to
Oral Questions
British Columbia, and 10 per cent to Atlantic Canada. That message was clearly conveyed, together with the supporting statistics, to that hon. gentleman by the Minister a few days ago.


SPACE AGENCY-IMMEDIATE ANNOUNCEMENT DEMANDED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, a similar message was sent to Quebecers about the shipyards. We were going to get everything. We got nothing. We were conned. Two shipyards were shut down in Quebec.
My supplementary to the Parliamentary Secretary is this: Wouldn't it be better for the Government to announce the space agency immediately, since at this rate, all the contracts will be gone, and the space agency will be nothing but an empty shell? Why not announce the location of the space agency right away and let this new group be responsible for contracts, since Quebec is being conned on this whole issue?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, of course, is speaking from a parameter and point of view that satisfy his political needs immediately. The fact remains, and I will repeat it to him, the balance is there. In the beginning the balance was not there and it was corrected by this Minister. The Minister and this Government will ensure that distribution does in fact take place.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION AMENDING 27 STATUTES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Bill introduced by himself yesterday, and I underline the word "himselF', amends some 27 statutes. I am sure the Minister also recalls that back in 1982 when the former Liberal Government introduced the energy Bill amending some 15 statutes, at that time the federal Tories said it was terrible, it was wrong, that it was an awful thing to do, and they rang the bells for almost two weeks in protest to have the Bill split.


John Horton McDermid: You are comparing apples to oranges.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the logic of splitting a Bill was right when it amended 15 statutes, why will the Government not do the same thing now when one amends some 27 statutes? Can we have a straight answer? Can the Minister stop playing court jester to the Prime Minister, stop being a buffoon and tell us why he will not split the Bill?

May 25, 1988
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Shirley Carr is certainly well served by the hon. gentleman-and he is just as curly as Shirley.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Bill introduced yesterday has only one object, and that is to implement the Canada-LJ.S. Free Trade Agreement. It has only one item, and that is the legislation that is necessary to implement the agreement.
There is no comparison to the energy Bill that the Official Opposition introduced. There were a whole host of disparate issues in that omnibus energy Bill; there were several unrelated new Acts, unrelated amendments. One could not vote on one principle in that Bill; it had to be divided. It was divided into eight separate pieces of legislation.
The principle of our Bill introduced yesterday is: do you favour the free trade agreement or not? Put up or shut up.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the energy Bill six years ago all those issues were either directly or indirectly related to energy. Inasmuch as all the issues in this Bill are directly or indirectly related toward economic union with the United States; why is the Conservative Party not using the same logic it used in 1982? Why is it afraid of democracy? Why is it afraid to face the Parliament of Canada and have a real debate?
What would John Diefenbaker say now if he were in the House?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, how the views of the New Democratic Members change with the circumstances. In 1982 they were there chin to chin, jowl to jowl with the Liberal Party, trying to cram the energy Bill down the throats of Canadians, eight separate pieces of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly quieter question on a different subject. It is directed to the Minister of Justice. Some months ago the House passed legislation to authorize the publication of a new set of Revised Statutes of Canada, the last set being of 1970 vintage and hopelessly out of date.
When will the new Revised Statutes of Canada be published?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the fact that the Revised Statutes of Canada are being eagerly anticipated.
The bound volumes of the new Revised Statutes are printed and ready for distribution. The loose-leaf version is also printed, but it is not yet ready for distribution due to technical delays.
Notwithstanding this fact I anticipate that both versions will be ready this summer, so that members of the Opposition will have something to do here in Ottawa during the evenings.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last August Remi Lahaie of lie Parrot, Quebec, was shot, strangled, stabbed 14 times, and had his throat slit by the operator of a survival-combat school in Quebec, as a result of an $1,800 contract with Lahaie's neighbours who disliked the noise of his automobile.
In rendering judgment in this case last week, Judge Martin of the Quebec Superior Court urged an investigation into and control over these academies of violence.
Would the Minister tell us what steps he has taken, or will take, to limit the activities of these private para-military schools? Has the Minister considered amendments to Article 71 of the Criminal Code?
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House very much regret the circumstances outlined by the Hon. Member.
I certainly have been in receipt of a number of representations with respect to this issue. It is one which is receiving attention. The Hon. Member will understand that there are very complex questions that have to be addressed with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code which might have the effect of putting limitations on the right of association, and the right of carrying out a variety of training academies.
The Hon. Member can rest assured that we are giving it the most serious attention. It is a matter that is very much on my mind and that of my Department.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this matter has been raised with the Minister.
May 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
On November 4 and 5, 1985, more than two years ago, I raised the case of the Eagle Combat School in British Columbia, which was allegedly linked to terrorist activities. At that time I asked the Minister to raise the subject with the provincial Attorneys General, and he said he would consider that.
I want to know what has been done in those two years about this. The Minister should know that there is a growing number of these schools in Canada and in the United States, and they are very dangerous.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member would want to wish me a long and extended career as Attorney General. I was appointed Attorney General in June, 1986. I know that the Hon. Minister for International Trade and myself are two look-alikes. Perhaps the Hon. Member confused us because of our good looks.
The reality is that we are considering these matters. I cannot accept, without question, the premise of the question, except to say that we are looking at the whole matter of federal jurisdiction with respect to these matters. There is also provincial jurisdiction, which the Hon. Member will understand is involved in the regulation of camps and other facilities across the country.
The Hon. Member can rest assured that the matter will receive attention, and it will be discussed between myself and my provincial colleagues tomorrow and Friday when we meet in Quebec City.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Is the Minister aware that Canada Post delayed Rural Dignity's mail for three days? And does he agree that such action is unacceptable and constitutes harassment due to this campaign to protect rural post offices?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the situation the Hon. Member talks about. I will convey his concerns to Canada Post Corporation which is responsible.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister confirms the facts as I have stated that Canada Post has held up the mail of Rural Dignity for three days, will
Oral Questions
he take action in order to tell Canada Post that it is unacceptable and it is wrong to interfere with the delivery of mail, just because that group is fighting against the government's policy of tearing apart rural post offices?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the facts. I have known from experience, and I hope that the Hon. Member will not take this unkindly, not to accept at face value the facts that he has laid out here.
As for Rural Dignity the Hon. Member knows, as I know, as the Post Office knows, that this is merely the Postmasters' Union going around the country making false accusations, false statements about the Government's intentions.
The number of postal outlets in rural Canada, which is currently 5,000, will rise to approximately 7,000 over the course of this corporate plan. There will be an increase in outlets in rural Canada, and an improvement in service as a result of what the Post Office is doing.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Clause 6 of Bill C-130, the trade Bill, is there to enable the federal Government to carry out its obligations to the United States under Section 103 of the trade deal.
Is it not true that Section 103 of the trade deal does not require the federal Government to ensure compliance of provincial and local governments only in areas of federal jurisdiction? If that is the case, is it not true that Clause 6 of the trade Bill is intended to give the federal Government the authority to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction as well as federal jurisdiction?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this and be as short as I can because I like to comply with your wishes. This Parliament cannot give any authority to the Government of Canada that this Parliament does not have under the Constitution of Canada. The only authority we can be given is the authority of the federal Government.
With respect to the regulation of trade and commerce, interprovincial trade and commerce and international trade and commerce, the founders of this country gave the Government of Canada, and there is only one Government of Canada-there are 10 provinces but one national Government-authority over trade and commerce. That is the authority that we purport to exercise in this legislation because

May 25, 1988
Oral Questions
we believe that Canada has to be represented in the international community and be in a position to enter into agreements, and carry them out, as our forefathers intended.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West. Keeping in mind the time I would appreciate a short question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister for International Trade. Is the Minister then not saying that at the present time provincial and local governments are acting in areas currently under federal jurisdiction, and that the federal Government is therefore going to use the authority of this trade deal to take away that jurisdiction from them? Is that not what he is saying?


John Carnell Crosbie: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. McDermid@: Be gentle with Herb.


John Carnell Crosbie: -I am going to be gentle, and I am going to be calm.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Why don't you be smart for a change?


John Carnell Crosbie: I will be reserved, polite, cool.
The Bill introduced yesterday takes no authority away from the provinces or municipalities of Canada. It does not add to the authority of the Government of Canada. It exercises the jurisdiction that we were given in 1867, in our opinion. Anyone with a different opinion can go to the Canadian judiciary and they will ultimately decide. I am satisfied that they will decide in our favour.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Chancellor Kohl puts Canada and the United States in the same basket in relation to subsidies in the grain trade. Will the Minister explain the difference between our position and that of the United States? Are we serious about reducing the subsidies, or is Chancellor Kohl correct?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the Hon.
Member is getting at. Chancellor Kohl is a fine one to talk about subsidies.
What the Hon. Member should know is that Canadian farmers are receiving about $65 or $70 per tonne for barley presently while European farmers are receiving approximately four times that amount. If one looks at subsidies then, obviously the Europeans in our opinion are way more guilty as far as subsidies are concerned.
Having said that, in order to protect our farmers the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has provided some financial support to get them through a difficult time. At the same time the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to pursue a solution internationally so that we can see Mr. Kohl back away from some of the ridiculous subsidies that are being provided to European farmers, which are one of the main reasons causing problems in international trade.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


AIDS DISEASE-RELEASE OF EXPERIMENTAL DRUGS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the number one health concern of Canadians- AIDS.
On October 6, 1986, the Minister pledged that he would do everything possible to release experimental drugs that might help fight the AIDS virus. Since that time his Department has released tens of thousands of drugs on an emergency basis. Yet during that time there has been only one drug related to the treatment of AIDS that has been released.
Can he explain to the House why on October 6, 1986, he said he was going to work quickly? Why, in reality, is his Department blocking the release of drugs to prolong potentially the lives of AIDS victims?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department and I are doing everything we can to release drugs, both on an emergency basis and to get notices of compliance done.
If one takes a look at the various drugs involved, whether we look at Pentamidine, AZT, or others, the Hon. Member should know very fully and completely that, for instance, with Pentamidine there was an explanation given as recently as this morning by the Director of the federal Centre for AIDS in respect to the clinical trials in Vancouver and Montreal, and also the ethical question that has been raised in Toronto.
May 25, 1988

I repeat to the Hon. Member, as well as to the House generally, that we are moving as quickly as we can on experimental drugs, as well as having released, as I said earlier in the House, information to doctors concerning how experimental drugs and emergency drugs in fact can be released.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 92 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4313, 3324314, 332-4331, 332-4333, 332-4334, 332-4337, 332-4341, 332-4352 to 332-4354 inclusive, 332-4361 to 332-4370 inclusive, 332-4372, 332-4376, 332-4386 to 332-4447 inclusive, 332-4464 to 332-4466 inclusive, 332-4471 to 332-4473 inclusive, 332-4477 and 332-4480.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANISATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
I take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to thank all the support staff, the researchers, the translators and especially our very devoted clerk, Christine Fisher, who helped make this committee one of the best that I have had the honour to chair.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[English\


PETITIONS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present from some residents of my riding who point out that the present Government has no
Petitions
mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canada's trading sovereignty would not be compromised. They believe it has been.
They believe that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and undermines our ability to build a society distinct from the United States.
They go on further to state that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective in these negotiations, but also threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. Therefore, they call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of constituents in the federal constituency of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who are calling upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to submit a duly certified petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The undersigned do, by this petition, give notice to the Government of Canada that they are of the opinion that unborn children should be included within and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call on the Parliament of Canada to enact such legislation.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto. They point out that last year the then Minister of State for Immigration promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as members of the family class of immigrants and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 when assessed for immigration to Canada. They also point out that the former Minister of Justice in 1986 promised to remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or so in order that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age. They point out that none of these important promises have yet been fulfilled by the Government and they call upon this House to ensure that the Government will fulfil its promises now.

May 25, 1988
Petitions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents in the City of Toronto who point out that the recent signing of a trade deal between the Conservative Government of Canada and the President of the United States has no mandate from the Canadian people based on the last election campaign. The petitioners point out that it will severely reduce Canada's political and economic sovereignty by interfering with our ability to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions of Canada. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, 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.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions here duly certified pursuant to Standing Order 106. The first is from residents of Ladysmith, British Columbia, concerning nuclear submarines. The petitioners point out that there is a great danger of accidents while nuclear armed or nuclear-powered ships are in Canadian ports. This is a threat to the environment and to Canadian citizens. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to ensure that the Government not purchase nuclear-powered submarines for Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the second petition relates to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, pointing out that in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) pointed out that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, that the Government had no mandate to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, that the trade agreement negotiated by the Conservative Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the powers of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities among the regions. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a group of citizens from the communities of Shellbrook and Holbein near Prince Albert to present to this House a petition which concerns itself with the free trade agreement.
These petitioners suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of these negotiations that
Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They feel that since it does affect the fabric of Canadian sovereignty that Parliament should dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by various residents of the City of Thunder Bay. They note that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunity between the regions. Given this impact on Canada's policy freedom to determine our own economic future, these petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to dissolve to give them the opportunity of rejecting the trade agreement in a national general election.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the responsibility on behalf of constituents from York West and constituents in various parts of Metro Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa to present to the House and to the Government petitions relating to the Government's Bill C-55 which will reform the country's refugee determination system and is pending a ministerial decision. These petitioners are asking the Government to re-evaluate the safe third country concept and the prescreening stage that has been adopted to go along with the new reforms. The petitioners are asking for the Government to reconsider those tenets as parts of a major overhaul to ensure that our system is expedient, fair and effective.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my pleasure to present a petition which has been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
This petition is from a number of residents of Canada in the Ottawa area. They point out that the free trade agreement which is the subject of legislation in the House was negotiated with no mandate from the Canadian people, that it calls into question the future sovereignty of Canada, that it compromises the ability of Canadians to ensure our economic future and it undermines our ability to produce a society distinct from the American society. Therefore, these 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 through a national general election.
May 25, 1988


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 281 and 288 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 281 and 288 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Malone: Since September, 1984, have any government departments or agencies spent
money or provided grants in the constituency of Crowfoot, and if so, in each
case (a) by which department or agency (b) in what amounts (c) under which
categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Riis: 1.	In the last four fiscal years, has the Government contributed moneys to any dredging operations in (a) British Columbia (b) the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap and, if so, what was the amount contributed in each year?
2.	Since September 4, 1984, has any government department or agency contributed money to projects in the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap and, if so, to what projects and, in each case (a) by what department or agency (6) in what amounts?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Government is willing to respond to Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-9 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). 1 do not see the Member in the House and I do not know if he has yet named an agent. I do not see any sign that he has. Therefore, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Air Canada


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-129 in the House today because Air Canada is a major employer in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. The international airport and terminal buildings are located within the riding. As well the overhaul maintenance base in Winnipeg is located in my riding, so many of my constituents are very interested in what happens and develops with Air Canada.
I have spoken with captains, first officers, flight attendants, ground crews, baggage handlers and so on from Air Canada. A total of some 2,100 people are employed by Air Canada in Winnipeg, the majority of whom are constituents of mine. As you realize, Madam Speaker, there is very keen interest on the part of residents in my riding in how this Bill develops and proceeds through the House of Commons.
I think it would be proper for me to give the House some background into the history of Air Canada in Winnipeg-St. James. Since the airline's inception in 1937, it has been located at the airport in St. James, and at that time, the airline was known as Trans-Canada Air Lines. Then, in 1966 to 1969, the then Liberal Government decided to move the Winnipeg overhaul base from Winnipeg. In December of 1968, Prime Minister Trudeau's office would not interfere with the decision of Air Canada to move the base, so the move proceeded to take place.
At that time, the lives of many of my friends and their families and relatives were disrupted for several years because of that decision. The people of Winnipeg have never forgotten that decision. There were families with the husband living in Montreal and the rest of the family living in Winnipeg, not seeing each other for weeks at a time or even for months on end. It disrupted many families.
Then, in 1975 or 1976, the Government decided, I believe under pressure from representatives of the Opposition of the time, the Progressive Conservatives from the Winnipeg area, to reinstate the overhaul base in the Winnipeg region. There is

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
now an overhaul base in the area, and it is doing very well, I might add.
The legislation that is before us states very clearly that the Government wants the maintenance base to remain in Winnipeg. It also wants the bases to remain in Toronto and in Montreal. That is in the legislation that we are dealing with today. Those maintenance bases will remain where they are and, I say, rightfully so. Not only that, but the locations of the maintenance bases in Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal will be in the Articles of Incorporation of the new company.
If in the future the company that operates Air Canada as a private corporation decides that it wants to move a maintenance base, it will have to come here, to the House of Commons, to get the legislation changed. I suggest that there could not be a better safeguard than that.
The PC Government wants to protect the jobs in Winnipeg, not like the Liberals of 1966 to 1969. The Liberals disrupted families and caused unknown hardships through separations, lay-offs and forced retirements because people did not want to relocate their families for whatever reasons. That is what happened under a Liberal Government, but our Government does not want that to happen and will not let that happen. It has made sure that it is in the legislation that that will not happen.
The Liberal Party was not satisfied with that. It even went so far as to use scare tactics during the provincial election campaign that just passed. Again, it had to scare the people who work for Air Canada by telling them that they would be out of work, laid off or moved. That is exactly what happened.
I would like to read into the record something that was left in prominent locations the night before the Manitoba election, just to give Hon. Members an idea of how the Liberal Party orchestrates things to scare people. I would imagine that this was orchestrated by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
This letter comes from the Campaign '88 election in Manitoba, the Sturgeon Creek Liberal campaign headquarters, No. 5, 2631 Portage Avenue, and the heading of this letter which, I might say, was signed by the Liberal candidate, reads: "Manitoba loses another multi-billion dollar aerospace contract!". That is an outright lie. An outright lie was used in an campaign to scare people about Air Canada.
The letter reads:
Dear Resident:
Brian Mulroney and his Conservative government made a decision on March 31st that will see another multi-billion dollar aerospace maintenance contract go to Montreal instead of Winnipeg.
According to the media, Provincial Conservative Leader Gary Filmon knew of this decision when it was made. Apparently, Mr. Filmon has chosen not to Fight the decision but rather to keep it from Manitobans until after the election.
What decision has been made? What multi-billion dollar contract has been lost to Manitoba? None, but that is the
approach the Liberal Party uses, scare tactics, when it comes to Air Canada. Air Canada employees are tired of that.
The Progressive Conservative Government does not want to see people lose jobs in Manitoba or any other place through the privatization of Air Canada. This letter, which I will not read in its entirety, was signed: "Yours truly, Iva J. Yeo, Liberal Candidate, Sturgeon Creek, Competence with Heart". Scare tactics, but competence with heart.
This Government of Canada is not prepared to do the same thing. We are protecting that maintenance base, and rightfully so. The people who are opposed to the privatization have asked what assurance there is that the base will stay in Winnipeg. Private industry is different from government operations. First off, the overhaul base makes a profit for Air Canada. Second, it does outside contractual work for other airlines. It does work for airlines from the United States, for airlines from the Caribbean and for the Department of National Defence. In fact, I was advised that almost 20 per cent of the air base's revenue comes from outside contracts.
There is the technology, the expertise, the capital assets, the reputation which is very important and the legislation to back this all up. If I were in private industry and I had something that was profitable, everything was there and I had the manpower, I would expand it, and I suggest that that is exactly what will happen to the overhaul base in the Winnipeg area.
I am sure you have travelled with Air Canada, Madam Speaker. I do not know about you, but I have found that the employees are very proud people. They are very proud of their airline, and rightfully so, because it is one of the top airlines in the world. They want to see it remain so.
The employees recognize, and I am sure members of the Opposition recognize, that Air Canada needs equity. The employees want to have the most modern, efficient and safe aircraft in their fleet. I am sure they will have them. They want that so that they can compete in this very competitive field and remain as one of the top airlines in Canada and in the world. They recognize that to have a healthy future for their airline, they need that infusion of equity right now.
The employees want to have an opportunity to invest in the airline and to have a say in its operations as well. These desires are safeguarded in the legislation. The employees will have the first opportunity to buy shares in the new company. They want to invest in their company. I have talked to people who work for Air Canada. As recently as about a half an hour ago, an individual said: "Please sell our airline because we know it is good for the airline". Those were the exact words.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), in his comments on this Bill yesterday, spoke about Crown corporations. I think he asked why we need to sell a Crown corporation, seeing as how we want to ensure that there are services to different parts of Canada. I think that the Conservative philosophy does not really vary that much from the
May 25, 1988

NDP philosophy when it comes to why Crown corporations are established.
A Crown corporation is established when there is a need in the community or in the country for a service, but private industry cannot supply that service for whatever reason. Perhaps the capital is not available or perhaps it would not be profitable, so private companies or individuals are not asked to subsidize communities. Then the Government sets up a Crown corporation. That is no different from our philosophy. Where it stops is over the question of how long you continue to have Crown corporations. Do you do it forever, particularly in the airline industry?
At present there are two other airlines operating in Canada, Wardair and Canadian Airlines. The situation is not what it was in 1937. This is 1988. These are quick changing times, and a highly competitive time for the airline industry. We no longer need a Crown corporation to provide this service to Canadians. That is the difference in philosophy between myself as a Conservative and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.
Why the need to privatize? As was indicated earlier in the debate by a Liberal Member, Air Canada received some equity funding in 1978 when it was separated from the CNR. Now it needs somewhere in the order of $3 billion over the next 10 years for aircraft purchases, $300 million of it right away. It would be nice to say that the Canadian taxpayers can give it to them. However, I know you have sat around the cabinet table and know what happens, Madam Speaker. I sat around a cabinet table in Manitoba when I was Minister of Community Services and Corrections. I had to compete for taxpayers' money with the Minister responsible for Crown corporations. Why take $3 billion of taxpayers' money and divert it to Air Canada when the airlines' own employees want to buy it and get the money from the private sector? We can then use that $3 billion over the next 10 years to deal with the elderly who need assistance, increasing health costs, and required social services. Instead of going to Air Canada the money will stay in the Treasury and decisions will be made by the Government in the role it should play, not that of an entrepreneur. We know what happens when Government tries to run a business.
I had the opportunity to speak in the debate on the privatization of de Havilland. Boeing bought it and Boeing has an operation in my riding. At that time the NDP and the Liberals stood up and said we were selling out de Havilland to the U.S. Jobs are going to go to the U.S. They will ignore us now that they have de Havilland. What happened? I know that in my riding there has been an increase in jobs since that privatization. Boeing expanded and brought technology to Winnipeg which we did not have before. You never hear about that anymore.
Air Canada
Yesterday an NDP Member said we should not sell Air Canada because we want service to every part of Canada. There will be service to every part of Canada whether Air Canada is a private or Crown corporation.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North talked about Crown corporations in Manitoba. He referred to the Manitoba Telephone System, a fine Crown corporation. No question about it. Many of the people that graduated with me in engineering worked for that company. It is a proud corporation. Yet the NDP Government of the day decided to play politics with it and tried to expand it. What happened? It lost something like $47 million invested in Saudi Arabian technology. Another $20 million was lost in foreign exchange transactions. The best example is Flyer Industries. That company was maintained for years by the Manitoba Government, ourselves and the NDP. It lost millions of dollars. There are a lot of buses operating in cities all over North America that were subsidized by Manitoba taxpayers. It was finally sold for $1 million. Then there was the famous aircraft industry for $40 million. They finally got three or four planes flying and then had to bring one back because it was sold to a banana republic which decided not to pay for it after it landed with its wheels up. That is the experience we have had in Manitoba with Crown corporations. Why should a Government continue a Crown corporation if the employees want to buy into it? Why would we stop them?
The next thing I am concerned about is how we protect the employees of Air Canada when it is privatized. It is in the legislation. The benefits they have now will be protected. The employee is protected whether the company is private or a Crown corporation. Those employees will have the first opportunity to buy the shares of Air Canada. We also want to make sure they have a strong voice, and they will have that because the way the legislation is written, no one can own more than 10 per cent of the shares. If 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the 20,000 employees are interested in seeing Air Canada sold and want to buy shares, all they have to do is get their proxies together, which they will do, and they will have members on the board. They will have a say in the operation of the airline.
What did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North say when he debated this yesterday? He said the unions are opposed to the sale of Air Canada. They do not want to buy shares in Air Canada. In yesterday's Toronto Star at page 88 there is an article headed "Dog Fight Shaping Up Over Sale of Air Canada". The article states:
MPs opposed to the Government selling most of Air Canada to private interests are going to find most employees support the sale, says a senior Air Canada pilot.
Ed Godin, spokesman for pilots who have been trying for several years to buy shares of the airline, said in a recent interview that up to 90 per cent of Air Canada's 22,000 employees will buy shares.
"There's nothing in the Bill that we didn't expect," Godin said. "Now the issue is what the price of shares is going to be."
It then goes on to state:

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
The unions representing company machinists, ticket agents and flight attendants have also vowed to fight the Bill, but Godin says they're not supported by their members.
"We find their members don't share the opinions of their union leaders," he says. "There's an effort within the unions to counter some of the statements of the union leaders.
"One flight attendant in Toronto has complained that her union is wasting its money to fight the deal while the pilots are using their money to get a good deal."
He said a meeting in Winnipeg to rally Air Canada employees against this sale attracted only 70 people.
That is 70 people out of 2,200 employees. The article continues:
From our poll of the employees, 80 per cent favour privatization, while 10 per cent say they don't know enough about it.
The Bill protects the employees. We need to protect Air Canada and we have. The Bill says that not more than 25 per cent of the shares can be owned by foreign investors. The employees are encouraged to buy shares and they have the pride in the company to do so. Let us go ahead and pass this Bill because all those concerns have been covered. It will be good for Canada and good for Winnipeg.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions. The first relates to a comment made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) about some Liberal campaign material. He referred to it as an outright lie. I would not want to get into that dispute. I certainly would not want to defend the Liberal campaign material. I have not seen it and so would not necessarily agree with the Member.
However, when he talked about outright lies it struck a chord with me. I thought of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in 1985 when he said very clearly that Air Canada was not for sale. Yet, here we are debating the sale of Air Canada. I do not know what the Hon. Member wants to call that statement by his leader. How can people believe in a government that says one thing in 1985 and does completely the opposite in 1988?
Another example is the trade agreement with the United States. In 1983 the Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the former Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, said that the trade agreement with the United States was a non-starter. There was no way they were going to get involved in something like that because it would be a disaster for Canada and would be rejected by the people of Canada. Yet today we have to deal with the Government trying to push through a trade agreement with the United States.
When the Prime Minister talked to the Canadian people in the 1984 election campaign, he talked about social security programs being a sacred trust. One of the first things he tried to do after he got elected was to cut the indexation of old age
security. He succeeded in cutting family allowances for young people.
Getting back to the question of outright lies, how can the Hon. Member campaign in the coming election-and it is coming sooner or later, thank goodness-on the question of credibility and trust when his leader says one thing and leads a Government which does the diametrically opposite thing?


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke gives half-truths. He left out what was actually said by the Prime Minister at that time. He made the statement that the Prime Minister said he was not going to sell Air Canada. I will quote exactly what the Prime Minister said and I hope the Hon. Member listens carefully this time. The Prime Minister's full statement was: "There may be some persuasive arguments in the case of Air Canada that some people can make in regard to the disposition of equity. I'll take a look at it, but Canada needs a national airline".
Three years later Canada has three national airlines. That is the result of deregulation and the passage of the National Transportation Act. They have created stable and viable airline services to the public of Canada. We can sell a portion of Air Canada at this time because we have three national airlines as a result of deregulation by the Government.
I suggest that the Hon. Member get the full facts before he gives half-true statements about credibility because his credibility suffers when he does that.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the address of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker). He made some reference to Crown corporations serving frontier regions. Some Crown corporations do serve frontier regions and that is a very worthy thing to do. However, I wonder how true that is in connection with Air Canada.
I noticed that the frontier regions of the Province of Alberta, the far northern areas including Fort McMurray, were not served by Air Canada. They were served by a private firm, PWA, which did the pioneering into the far north. Although there may have been a lot of jokes made about PWA in Fort McMurray, it was the only air service they had. It was not provided by a Crown corporation but by private people who had invested in an airline, who were willing to take a risk to bring that service to those people. I know that it was sometimes called "Please Wait Awhile" or "Pray While Aloft", but I do not know of an accident that PWA had while servicing that area.
Private industry has done much frontier work. As an example, the CBC has done some splendid work in the frontiers. Lake Louise, which is hardly a frontier region, but which is in the mountains, gets very little radio service. When they tried to get the CBC into the Lake Louise area, they were told that CBC does not have the money, yet it has thousands of dollars to spend on radio in places like Toronto. Perhaps the idea that Crown corporations serve frontier regions better than private industry is a myth, maybe it is only partly true.
May 25, 1988

Just because an apple tree is owned by the Government, or is a Crown corporation, will it produce more apples than a tree owned by John Jones operating as a free enterpriser?


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, in answer to that question, if the verbal "b.s." of some politicians had solidity, maybe it could grow trees a little better. However, it would make no difference if it was Crown owned or privately owned.
I thank the Hon. Member for reminding me about the services to northern Alberta. To a large degree the same company served northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. We had Lambair and other airways, but TransAir is the one I remember. TransAir flew to Thompson and up to Gillam. It was privately owned and served the North because at that time I do not think Air Canada was interested in going to the North.
Under the regulations at the time it had all the good spots, and I guess rightfully so, because we did not have two or three national airlines at that time. We had to ensure that we had one national airline. TransAir became Pacific Western Air and now Canadian Airlines.
The Western Aviation Museum is in my riding. It is one of the finest aviation museums on the North American continent, second not even to the one here in Ottawa. There is many a plane there from private airlines which opened the North for us.
The Hon. Member is completely correct, which really defeats the argument made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North yesterday that we need Air Canada as a Crown corporation in order to get service to all these remote areas.
In addition to the changes in regulations, the smaller airlines have teamed up with the three major airlines. I know that Canadian Airlines has different aircraft waiting in Toronto to take passengers to different spots in northern Ontario. The same is the case with Air Canada. I think it is affiliated with Air Ontario. We now have a unique situation of a Crown corporation working with private corporations and we also have private corporations working with other private corporations.
In the long run this has been very good for Canada and Canadians. There is now more competition, better service and, I might add, safe service because there are regulations which cover safety which will not allow any short-circuiting of safety when it comes to flying Canadians around Canada.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Air Canada
Government House Ottawa
May 25, 1988
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of May, 1988, at 4:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this Bill this afternoon, and I would like to be as optimistic as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) about the possibility of maintaining the same quality of service and number of jobs, even in his riding of Winnipeg-St. James, once the privatization of Air Canada takes effect.
Madam Speaker, a decision to privatize a company like Air Canada has some very serious implications for all regions served by this airline.
My colleague from Winnipeg-St. James said it would be possible to maintain the same quality of service and the same number of jobs, and that practically nothing would change, but I really wonder what will happen when the board of directors of the newly privatized corporation does its homework and looks at the viability of certain routes. I will bet you anything the corporation will decide to abandon certain services, certain routes, and this will have a direct impact, both on Winnipeg- St. James and on all other regions served by Air Canada, in terms of services, routes and the number of jobs there will be.
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Government is selling off Canada's identity, bit by bit.
It started its operation with a trade agreement that undermines our sovereignty, and it wants to continue by privatizing Air Canada.
Madam Speaker, Air Canada must remain fully owned by Canadians. The corporation is respected by everyone. It is a symbol, a tradition that goes back fifty-one years to when a

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
Liberal Government, at the instigation of C.D. Howe, Minister of Industry at the time, decided to create Trans-Canada Air Lines.
The reason for creating Trans-Canada Air Lines was a lack of initiative on the part of the private sector to take the risks involved in setting up a national airline. Canadians shouldered full responsibility for this undertaking.
In 1977, the Government adopted the legislation under which Air Canada is governed today. Although, there were financing problems at the time, the Government did not rush in to privatize the corporation but made the necessary changes in its corporate structure to provide for adequate financing. The present Government should do likewise.
Madam Speaker, the role of Air Canada is to operate in the interests of Canadians. The people of this country already own Air Canada. They don't have to buy it all over again. To Canadians, Air Canada is more than just another airline. It is a Canadian institution. This Bill leaves the door open to full privatization, and according to a number of polls, the majority of Canadians are opposed to the idea.
Air Canada provides a way to overcome the distances that separate Canada's various regions. Air Canada represents our Canadian community. Being subject to the Official Languages Act, Air Canada is an instrument for national unity. It is an integral part of our economy, in the same way as the railways and the CBC. It is part of that which helps Canada maintain its own identity. In the final instance, Canadians will have to pay the cost of privatization, because services and the safety of the travelling public would deteriorate, once profit becomes the sole incentive.
On January 15, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told the Canadian public that Air Canada was not for sale. This is just another of the hundreds of promises the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore since 1984, at the expense of the Canadian public.
The Conservatives, Madam Speaker, are dismantling the infrastructure that contributes to maintaining and holding together Canada a mari usque ad mare.
Let us look briefly at the effects of the privatization of British Airways, in Great Britain, by the Government of the "Iron Lady." More than 20,000 employees were laid off; that is 30 per cent of the workers of that corporation. It is quite likely that a private board of directors would decide to do the same with Air Canada's employees, which could result in 7,000 or 8,000, out of a total of 22,000, being laid off.
The safety aspect was just mentioned. Madam Speaker, I think that is extremely important. Should the company decide to cut some positions, unfortunately, it could cut heavily into the number of employees assigned to safety, so one would think. Considering the problems inherent to all transportation companies and the articles on air safety that appear regularly in newspapers, I think that it would be most unadvisable to reduce significantly the number of workers assigned to safety
or to the various other departments of the airline, for that matter.
Madam Speaker, I would not like to see Air Canada become another Eastern Airlines, which has had only problems since it was taken over by Texas Air. Closer to us, in Quebec, 372 jobs, of a total of less than 2,000, have disappeared at Quebecair.
Paragraph 6(1 )(c) provides for the continuance of the maintenance centres located in Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto. However, it does not provide for the volume of operations or the number of jobs at these centres. This means that the private board of directors could reduce operations and increase lay-offs as it saw fit. The same applies for the corporate head office in Montreal. The private board of directors would in no way be restrained if it decided to transfer a large number of employees from Montreal to Toronto or even to other centres in Canada.
According to the Pilots' Association, Montreal has already lost some 50 pilots, or 10 per cent, who were shifted to Toronto or Vancouver. Their number went from 488 in 1985 to 454 in 1988. With this bill, the drain will continue.
The Montreal head office, Madam Speaker, is in danger of becoming an "empty shell" under privatization. And it is a matter of concern that, as is often pointed out, airport activity is now highly concentrated in Toronto, which is steadily taking a larger share of air traffic in Canada, to the detriment of Montreal. This statement by the President of Air Canada speaks for itself, "That is normal; Toronto is the economic centre of Canada. We have to follow the market."
My fear, Madam Speaker, and it is a big one, is not so much for the future of the head office in Montreal, but rather on what it represents in the longer term. Montreal must remain the decision-making centre for Air Canada. Unfortunately, this Bill will centralize activities in Toronto.
Also, the dense fug of the Bill is hiding the Airbus A-320 project. A deal with Airbus requires capital, and to get it, the Government is dismantling and jeopardizing a corporation which has served as the perfect tool for regional and economic development. As usual, this Tory Government has made a complete about-turn.
Before the Government can privatize part of Air Canada, the 25 million Canadian men and women who are the present shareholders should speak out.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can sell a bill of goods to the Canadian public better than anybody else. During the last election, he never mentioned the privatization of Air Canada. Before selling the airline, he needs a mandate.
Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about the fact that together combination of deregulation and privatization will undoubtedly result in a mediocre service. Will Air Canada continue to serve the regions, when we know for instance that some regions are no longer served by Air Canada, because the routes apparently are no longer profitable? Studies will
May 25, 1988

certainly be made by the Government and the new board of directors in an effort to convince the corporation to check on the profitability of these routes. 1 feel that service by Air Canada will definitely stop in some regions. We did face a similar problem with a number of railway lines which had to be abandoned because they were no longer profitable. I should not like the same thing to happen following the privatization of Air Canada.
Madam Speaker, thousands of jobs are at stake. A private board of directors will not feel responsible for serving frontier regions or for regional development. Privatization will inevitably result in a major drop with level of service to our regional communities.
Has Air Canada really lost its public purpose to justify its privatization, or is it just an other one of this government's mischievous projects? The Government's only motive is profit. The Canadian people must be consulted on all these issues. The Tory Government is not concerned with providing the Canadian public with a fair and equitable air service from coast to coast.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from (Saint-Maurice) and although a newcomer in this House, or relatively so, since he has been here for nearly two years, unfortunately it hasn't taken him long-even if he does not run again-to acquire the same bad habit as his Liberal colleagues, of alarming Canadians with false information and unjustified fears. Where does the Hon. Member from Saint-Maurice get the notion that, by being partially privatized, Air Canada will abandon its lines? Where does he get the notion that 7,000 or 8,000 jobs will be lost?
Where does he get the notion that, if Air Canada is privatized, it will lose its identity and will no longer be identified as a Canadian airline? How can he say that the existing legislation guarantees that the operational and overhaul centres will be maintained in Dorval, Toronto and Winnipeg? Where is it written? Why does the Hon. Member resort to these fear-monger tactics when he states that the head office, even if it stays in Montreal, will lose its decision-making power? Has he no confidence in the ability of Air Canada's management? Is that what he is telling us? When he speaks of privatization and of its awful consequences, does he remember what happened with de Havilland? I want him to tell me how many jobs have been lost at de Havilland? How many jobs have been lost at Canadair since its takeover by Bombardier? Is he questioning the management of that company by Bombardier since it stopped to be a Crown Corporation? Is that what the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice is telling us?
Madam Speaker, does it mean that Teleglobe Canada no longer belongs to the Canadian public and no longer serves it? That is, Madam Speaker, the type of falsehood that have to be exposed. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice is making those false statements without reason. On what basis can he
Air Canada
maintain that the actual legislation protects the employees? On the contrary, it is the new Bill that confirms, that garantees that there will be headquarters in Montreal, and maintenance centres in Winnipeg, Toronto and Dorval. That is respected. It is clearly indicated in the Bill.
For once I would like to hear ... I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice who is not used to speak so many untruths. I am sure he did not write that speech.


Gilles Grondin: For your information, my dear colleague, I should like to say that I feel that we are sitting in this House to protect Canadians, rather like you are trying to do, but not in the way you intend to do it. Then, it is not a matter of saying that a text is relevant or not... I think that I respect you as much for your comments which were perhaps whispered to you by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski ) than for those which you could eventually made on the basis of my remarks which . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would appreciate it greatly if the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) directed his comments to the Chair rather than to his colleague.


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, it is probably due, as my colleague said earlier, to my lack of... I have been sitting in this House for only two years. It may be the reason, the lack of experience.
However, Madam Speaker, I should like merely to repeat what I said earlier. I will repeat the fact that to maximize profits a private company must definitely make some changes and I think that all privatized companies have always tried in the past to reap maximum profits. Unfortunately, such is the concern of Air Canada. I think that it is important for all Canadians to be aware of the problems due to privatization which even if it is not complete at present opens the door to complete privatization. I think that we are not being partisan when we mention in this House how important it is for Canadians to follow closely the debate on the privatization of Air Canada to avoid a brutal awakening following the privatization of that company.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He suggested deregulation and privatization would lead to reduced service. That was his conclusion. I would like to know if he is aware the Liberal Government started deregulation. That was the first step along the road to privatization, the first step along the road to service reduction. Is the Hon. Member now ready to recommend to his own party that they admit they made the first step along the road to service reduction?


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to assure the Hon. Member that we wanted to retain a degree of control, and at that time there was a will in Government to proceed,

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
not with the kind of privatization that is now proposed, but with a kind of privatization where the government would still exercise control as long as the company provided Canadians with adequate service.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for a very brief supplementary.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested it is Liberal policy to have that kind of privatization where Governement retains control. This Conservative Government said the same thing, namely that such is its policy. What is the difference between Conservative and Liberal policies? The conclusion is that they mean the same service reduction.


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, I will simply suggest to the Hon. Member that as far as we are concerned, normally, Liberal Party policy is the same in Quebec as anywhere else in Canada, as opposed to what we hear at times from the New Democratic Party. On the other hand-


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on a point of order.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member charged that our party has a policy for Canada and another for the Province of Quebec. That is false, and I ask that he withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member is certainly aware that is a matter for debate, rather than a point of order.
The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the partial privatization of Air Canada.
More than 100 years ago Sir John A. Macdonald recognized that Canada needed a uniting force, otherwise it would not be able to stand the pressures of proximity to the United States. Sir John A. Macdonald, unlike the present Conservatives, believed that Canada had the potential to become a great nation, and that Canada could do it on its own, but it needed some protection from the United States in developing that nation. Sir John A. Macdonald believed that we in Canada did not need to use the United States as a crutch.
In fact, quite often in Parliament he expressed the fear that we could easily become an extension of the economy of the United States. To counter that tendency and to ensure that Canada had continuing national status from sea to sea, the
then Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald began to build the unifying Canadian National Railway. The circumstances which led to building the national railway were circumstances of geography, distance and remoteness. In the basic sense, those circumstances have not changed. They have changed only in degree. They are still factors that must be dealt with in keeping Canada a viable economic unit and nation. The Government of Sir John A. Macdonald and succeeding Governments established a transportation policy based on that need, a policy which had as its aim a unified Canada.
Looking back in history with 20-20 vision, we recognize that there were many less lofty reasons for the railway policy. However, things like the supply of cheap raw materials from the West to manufacturers in central Canada was one of the policies of that day which still lives on today and is a thorn in the side of the West. Basically, the Government of the day and succeeding Governments decided that, to be part of a nation, one must have the best possible communication between each of the parts, and part of that communication had to be the railway. Further parts of that communication had to do with the telephone system and other systems which grew as Canada grew. As Canada and the transportation of communications technology grew so did the unification policy of the Government grow.
When the time came, Canada needed a national airline for exactly the same reason as Canada had developed a national railway 100 years before. If it had not been developed as a national airline, an airline which was directed by the Government of Canada within the policy of keeping a unified Canada, what would have naturally happened would have been the development of airlines which went the shorter and cheaper routes from north to south rather than from east to west.
One can easily imagine if we did not have an airline such as Air Canada. It would have been much easier for the coastal cities of Victoria and Vancouver to have attached themselves by air routes to the United States, down the coast. It would have been much easier for the central Prairies to have attached themselves naturally to the northern Prairies of the United States, and for Winnipeg to have joined Minneapolis, and for the joining of places such as Halifax to Boston. This happened to a certain extent. However, by establishing a Canadian national airline which had the type of policy direction which the Government put in place, we developed an airline which had an east-west flow rather than a north-south flow.
The question that we are being asked today is can that unifying movement, that east-west movement, survive without an airline whose policy is directed by the Parliament of Canada and which has as its basic policy unification? This particular Government has made several attacks on the ability of the country to survive under the present circumstances. The big attack with which we have a great deal of concern is of course the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal-
May 25, 1988


Mr. McMillan:: Order!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -which encourages a north-south flow rather than an east-west flow for the movement of goods. It will be much easier for goods to be moved into the United States in certain circumstances. That is probably the largest attack on Canadian unification and sovereignty.
What the Government is doing here today is changing Canada's transportation policy by eliminating this airline by privatization. It is another attack on the unification policy. We know, as Members of the Government know, that Crown corporations were put in place for public policy purposes. When the Minister responsible for privatization said that the Government was talking about selling Crown corporations, she gave several basic reasons under which circumstances Crown corporations could be sold. As it happens, the sale of Air Canada does not fulfil any of the requirements that were articulated by the Minister responsible for privatization. I would like to cover those arguments a little later in my remarks.
However, I know that members of the Government are going to tell us, or have told us already, that this will still be a national airline, whether it is privately owned or publicly owned. They will tell us that it does not make any difference. But for how long will it be a national airline? I know that members of the Government will tell us that the articles under which it will be incorporated will indicate that it must keep bases in places such as Winnipeg and Montreal. However, does anyone think that when the power of the shareholders of the airline move from Canada, or move to a different part of Canada, that there will be any reason to keep a maintenance station open in Winnipeg to service but one plane a year? That will not necessarily keep that place open or keep the people working in that particular community.
The philosophy and ideology of the Party in power at the present time, the Party which forms the Government, is aimed at integration with the United States. The trade deal acclaims that. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has been acclaiming that since he fought the joining of Newfoundland to Canada. He ran his campaign in Newfoundland at the time saying: "We should not join Canada, we should join the United States". He is still at it.
Deregulation gives American multinationals a definite edge in the Canadian economy. That has been part of the policy of this Government and the previous Government. These movements toward integration of the Canadian economy with that of the American economy seem to be part of a very deliberate move on the part of the Government. It includes deregulation, privatization and free trade. It includes a group of policies which will make Canada much more dependent upon the United States and much less effectively a solid unit that we are proud of today.
It is quite possible that the control of Air Canada will eventually go to organizations such as Eastern, Pan Am and so
Air Canada
on. Most of us are not ideologically attached to Crown corporations that do not serve a public interest, a public purpose. However, in the case of Air Canada and in the case of other transportation organizations that purpose is obvious. That purpose has not gone away. We would probably feel no different today than we would have back in John A. Macdonald's time when he established a Canadian national railway as a public service.
When the Minister responsible for privatization stated the Government would look at privatization she also stated that there were certain reasons for privatization. As I said before, those reasons are not applicable to Air Canada. First, the Minister said one reason would be if a corporation did not serve a public purpose, but Air Canada still serves a public policy purpose. She said that the Government would privatize a corporation if it were adding to the national debt. Air Canada has not added to the national debt. As well, she said, if a Crown corporation did not compete well in the private sector it would be privatized. Air Canada competes very well as a Crown corporation. Because of Canada's vast geography and sparse population it is vital that our east-west links be kept as a matter of public policy purpose. It is also important that marginal and uneconomic routes be kept in place by commercial carriers. We have examples of this in other transportation areas. If you have sparsely populated areas, eventually these areas lose service or the Government is required to subsidize a carrier that serves them. In the past it has been just as easy and almost as profitable in certain areas of transportation development to allow Crown corporations to pioneer the opening of certain lines and then to allow commercial companies to fulfil public policy requirements.
I have several other points I could make but I know my time is rapidly coming to an end. Let me summarize. The Government has said that the money it will get for Air Canada would be spent on social programs. We all know that this is a bit of a farce. One submarine less would cover the refurbishing of Air Canada entirely. I think the Government needs to take a good look at this program of privatization.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be not now read a second time but that the Order for second reading be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments?


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). Once again, I must ask what else is new.

May 25, 1988
Air Canada


Cyril Keeper: You are persuaded.


Richard Grisé: The Member was very persuasive, Madam Speaker, especially when he related the privatization of Air Canada to free trade and that it would have an impact on free trade. I doubt that. The Elon. Member said that the privatization of Air Canada would make our country more dependent on the United States of America. I do not know how he can relate the two.

Similarly, when he talks about deregulation in other sectors and affirms this has an exceedingly negative impact on Canadian unity and Canadian sovereignty, how is it, Madam Speaker, that we have not lost anything?

When we privatized Canadair we sold it to Bombardier, but I do not believe we lost our sovereignty then. The Hon. Member could ask the workforce of Bombardier in Montreal if they lost their sovereignty on the issue. I do not believe so. I am anxious to have the comments of the Hon. Member on that matter.
The Member said the national airline might phase out or give up service. He said it would not be a nationwide airline because of privatization. Let me ask the Hon. Member about Canadian Airlines International. As far as I am concerned that company is private. What about Wardair? The Hon. Member should know better than I about these things. He is from western Canada, and I understand that Wardair's head office is in western Canada. Are the people working for Wardair not Canadian any more? Are they losing their sovereignty? He said it is not good for the economy and people will lose their jobs. He said deregulation is very bad.


Mr. Belsher:: That is the rationale of the New Democratic Party.


Richard Grisé: Of course, it is the New Democratic Party's rationale. The New Democrats are so rational and are so democratic that, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, at a press conference at three o'clock this afternoon, imposed a candidate in the riding of Chambly which I represent and which I am very proud to represent, but the candidate does not even live in the riding. There was no consultation with the population of Chambly. The New Democrats decided this afternoon in the name of great democracy in Canada to impose on the great Canadians in my riding of Chambly a candidate from outside of the riding. The Hon. Member can tell his candidate and his Leader that we will have good news for them in the next election.
I will return, if I may, to the comments on the privatization of Air Canada. We hear the NDP saying that those people will lose their jobs. Where is the confidence of members of the NDP in those they call ordinary Canadians, those we call great
Canadians, the people who work for Air Canada? They are proud employees. They are proud to work for Air Canada and they welcome the privatization of Air Canada because it gives them more opportunity to have a better fleet and to have more access to more markets, and eventually, of course, more business and more jobs. I would like the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) to comment on what I have just said.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was a little confused and unable to counter the arguments I had put before him. He had to talk about his home riding to talk about democracy. I know that the New Democratic Party does not allow the placement of any candidate anywhere without the consent of the members of the Party in that community. There was an open convention.
The Hon. Member attempted to make a point about privatization, deregulation and sovereignty. The point I was making follows very closely on his remarks. In fact, his remarks point out the point I was trying to make.
We have a package here consisting of deregulation which allows privatization and Americanization, which is the alternative of free trade. Americanization, deregulation and privatization are one package which this Government is foisting on the people of Canada by the process it is going through. I recognize that it is doing it in little bits, and I recognize that the privatization of this particular corporation is just one item on the list.
Deregulation of transportation was another one. If the U.S. transportation industry had allowed it, there would have been deregulation of the movement of those corporations into Canada, but the American industry did not want to follow the regulations that presently exist in Canada. Therefore, the Government started a deregulation process which will eventually allow the intrusion of the American transportation industry into Canada.
Until the U.S. transportation industry backed off because it did not want to give up the Jones Act, it was ready to take over most of the Canadian transportation industry. I think that we were fortunate in that case. Though we cannot give the same advice to the Canadian negotiators, we were fortunate that the transportation industry of the United States was concerned about losing the Jones Act.
The Hon. Member spoke about the confidence of ordinary Canadians. We think that ordinary Canadians do have confidence. They do not need the United States as the crutch on which they will build the best economy in the world. They can do it themselves. We do not need the United States to help us build the best economy. We do not need a free trade agreement which will allow them to take over our industries and our production.


Richard Grisé: What about the Auto Pact?
May 25, 1988


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Auto Pact works very well because 60 per cent-


Richard Grisé: And what is it? Is it not free trade?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The free trade agreement is doing away with the Auto Pact. Sixty per cent of the cars made in Canada have to be made of Canadian components. That will be lost. After the free trade deal, cars can be made entirely in the United States and there will be no need for them to have any components made in Canada. That is part of the free trade deal.
All of these together make a package through which the Government is selling off the power we have to make a good living in Canada. We will be dependent upon the power of the United States to develop the kind of life we want in Canada, the kind of life we have been used to.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-129 designed to pave the way for public ownership of Air Canada, a crowning achievement in the history of Canada's commercial aviation.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, the period between the first Trans-Canada Airlines Vancouver-Seattle international flight and the thousands of Air Canada worldwide flights every year has been highlighted by the efforts and tenacity of thousands of people intent on making Canada one of the world's leading nations in the aviation industry.
Trans-Canada Airlines made its first flight in 1937. Yes, Madam Speaker, allow me to recall that TCA first took off in 1937 from the Saint-Hubert airport in the riding of Chambly which I have the honour to represent in the House. That same aircraft, a TCA DC-3, made the same flight in 1987 when it took off once again from Saint-Hubert in the riding of Chambly to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Air Canada, or Trans Canada Airlines as it was called at the time. Nobody could have predicted the huge success it would have. At the time Canada badly needed a national airline to serve a population scattered throughout our vast country.
The Government of the day had no other choice than to create a Crown corporation to undertake the development of the national air system on which we now rely. Since then, air transport has greatly changed. TCA has become, as I said a few moments ago, Air Canada and that corporation has developed at the same rate as the air industry to become a leading figure in the commercial and international air transport area.
Air Canada has now more than 22,000 employees. It carries 11 million passengers per year and its sales exceed $3 billion. Since its first flight in 1937, we have seen, Madam Speaker, a commercial revolution in the air industry. Today, we do not have one but two national airlines.
Air Canada
The deregulation implemented by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was a first-rate Minister of Transport now allows both airlines to compete with international air carriers. Such a competition has reduced fares, improved services provided to consumers and encouraged the growth of small airlines to meet regional needs.
The regulatory reform undertaken by our government has increased competition and improved services available to all Canadians. While trying to meet the needs of travellers rather than those of a regulatory body, the Canadian airlines are competing through innovation and efficiency. They are vying for more customers by improving their service and their fares everywhere in Canada. To face that competition, it is absolutely essential that Air Canada find new investments to develop new routes and improve its services. Above all, it needs new investments to buy new planes which will allow it to continue to represent proudly . ..


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Hon. the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendahee bf this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-67, an Act respecting Animal Pedigree Associations-Chapter 13.
Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter 14.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sales of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a
[Stage Direction]
May 25, 1988
Air Canada
legislative committee, and the amendment thereto by Mr. Hovdebo (p. 15767).
Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, would you indicate how much time I have left in debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member has 17 minutes left.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, to continue the debate on Bill C-129, the Air Canada Privatization Bill, because we went up to the Higher Chamber for the Royal Assent to certain bills... If I may refer in the first place to the regulatory reform introduced by this Government, which enhanced competition and resulted in better service to all Canadians. By striving to meet the needs of the travelling public rather than the regulatory body, Canadian airlines are competing through their innovative spirit and efficiency, they are striving to attract more customers by providing better service at a better price across Canada.
The Government feels that the time has come for Air Canada to fend for itself and make its own financing and capitalization decisions. It will remain a world class airline and continue to develop provided it has the same access as its competitors to investment necessary to its expansion.
The Bill wants to make it possible for Canadians generally and Air Canada employees in particular to participate directly in the ownership of that corporation. Air Canada is a flourishing company which has built quite an international image. From now on, it will enjoy the necessary freedom and financial options it needs to develop and continue to serve the Canadian poeple while remaining under their control. Madam Speaker, this decision to allow Canadians to participate in the ownership of Air Canada is consistent with the Government's philosophy concerning Crown corporations. This Government believes that, whenever possible, people should have access to the benefits of the free market.
After reviewing the case of several Crown corporations, the Government found that some of them were no longer justified and would benefit from a greater flexibility. Air Canada may achieve its growth and success potential if it is given the possibility to secure the necessary investments to continue to play its leadership role in the air transport industry. The best way to secure these investments is to allow direct participation of the Canadian public in Canadian ownership.
A while ago, Madam Speaker, I heard my colleagues of the Liberal and Socialist Parties mention that the privatization of a Crown corporation would jeopardize our sovereignty. If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote a statement made by the Leader of the Socialist Party as reported in a Journal de Montreal article, and I quote: Are such Crown corporations as de Havilland, Canadair and Teleglobe which have been privatized well administered, efficient and competitive? Yes, I think so. The NDP Leader of the Socialist Party had to admit it. In a reply to the Journal de Montreal, it is stated: Although he still opposes the partial privatization of Air Canada and
continues to promote the need to maintain Petro-Canada as a federal Crown corporation, Mr. Broadbent wants to be more flexible as to the regulatory function of the state. Madam Speaker, he continued by saying that he would hesitate to nationalize again everything that has been privatized so far- because privatized corporations are well administered.
As you can see again, Madam Speaker, the Socialists and their Leader are making contradictory statements, claiming on the one hand, when faced with reality, that privatization is acceptable, and on the other hand that privatizing Air Canada does not make sense, for it would jeopardize Canada's sovereignty.
Madam Speaker, throughout its fifty-one years, Air Canada has never had the benefit of the equity financing enjoyed by its competitors in the private sector. The sale of shares to the public, as proposed in this Bill, will obviate the need for taxpayers to provide the necessary funds for expanding and improving the corporation.
From now on, Air Canada will be able to compete with private sector airlines that never had access to public funds. More importantly, it will have the financial and corporate flexibility it needs to respond quickly and independently to the demands of regulatory reform.
This Bill will give the Government the authority to transform a Crown corporation into a private corporation. I will now explain the procedure. The Bill authorizes the transfer of Air Canada shares held by the Minister of Transport to the Deputy Prime Minister, who will hold them in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada.
The Bill provides for bringing Air Canada under the jurisdiction of the Canada Business Corporations Act. It also authorizes the Deputy Prime Minister to sell his shares in Air Canada and authorizes the corporation to issue and sell shares.
Over the years, Canadians have learned to identify with Air Canada, which has become our national airline. The Bill provides that Air Canada will continue, I repeat: continue, to remain Canadian-controlled. No major shareholder will be able to take control of the corporation.
Individual ownership of shares will be limited to 10 per cent of publicly issued shares, while foreign ownership will be limited to 25 per cent of said shares.
Madam Speaker, by permitting the public to participate directly in the ownership of Air Canada, the Government is taking special care to ensure that certain fundamental elements of the corporation are maintained. Thus, the Bill provides for maintaining the various locations of Air Canada's facilities which have contributed to its visibility and earned it the appreciation of Canadians. These locations were determined on the strength of decisions that reflected Air Canada's business acumen, and there is therefore no reason to make any changes in this respect. The Bill provides that Air Canada's national headquarters will remain in Montreal, its present
May 25, 1988

location, where it provides several hundred jobs for people in the Montreal region and the riding of Chambly.
Obviously, Air Canada will keep on serving the public in both official languages, thus continuing to recognize the essential duality of the country which colours it flies.
The major operating and maintenance centers that were established throughout the years in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg resulted from a decision based on sound business principles. They are cause for pride and form an integral part of the company's success, so they shall be maintained in operation.
As far as security is concerned, the 1985 Aeronautics Act gives the government full powers regarding passengers' security. This forms the basis of all our transportation policies.
Madam Speaker, for all those concerned with Air Canada being present regionally, nothing will be changed with public participation to state ownership, and along with regional carriers, Air Canada will maintain these passengers services.
Air Canada has always been keen on offering a good service to consumers at a good price. If the company keeps offering good services at a good price, it will attract consumers, making the operation profitable to investors.
Madam Speaker, the government's decision to give the public an opportunity to participate in the ownership of Air Canada is a pragmatic one, based on the realistic evaluation of the changes necessary to the company's prosperity in the future.
This decision is in keeping with the Government's vision of an economic renewal. Between 1984 and 1987, Canada's economic growth was the best of all OECD countries. More than 1.2 million jobs were created and unemployment is at its lowest level in seven years. This prosperity that Canada is enjoying is due to the vision, the initiative and the hard work of individuals and companies who know how to grasp the opportunities provided by our vast country.
The role of the Government is limited to encouraging entrepreneurship, to supporting it as required and to helping businesses compete in the difficult world economy.
Madam Speaker, despite the criticism and the loud cries from the Opposition, public participation in the ownership of Air Canada was favorably received throughout the country by Canadians, be they from the Consumers Association of Canada, Air Canada itself or the aviation industry in general. For the first time, Canadians will have the chance to own a share of Air Canada directly. The most eager and enthusiastic are the employees of Air Canada themselves. It is this kind of enthusiasm shown by the employees and the general public that will ensure Air Canada's strength and growth in future.
The spontaneous support for our initiative is based on two main reasons. First, the Bill meets the changing needs of the air transport industry. It provides the freedom and flexibility that will help Air Canada face the challenge of the future.
Air Canada
Second, the Bill ensures that the transition of Air Canada from a Crown corporation to a private company will occur without sacrificing continuity. It will let Air Canada capitalize on the high standards it has set over its 51-year history.
Madam Speaker, I trust that my colleagues will join me to ensure passage of this Bill, so that Canadians can share in our future as soon as possible.
This very important piece of legislation must have the support of all Members of the House. It is supported strongly by all sectors of the air industry, especially the employees of Air Canada.
Therefore, to help Members of the House speak on the issue, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of second reading of
Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the
Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares
thereof to the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: According to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), if 15 Members rise in their places to object, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. Shall the motion carry?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There not being 15 Members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b) the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that Bill C-129 provides for a system that is neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring. It is neither one nor the other. On the one hand it deals with privatization, but only 45 per cent privatization. The Government is supposedly retaining a majority of shares, but it does not really have control because it indicated that it will vote in accordance with the minority. That puts the Canadian people in the position of effectively owning nonvoting shares.
There are also guarantees that no individual can have more than 10 per cent of the shares, yet 10 per cent of the total is 22 per cent of 45 per cent so that a couple of people, each with 10

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
per cent of the shares, could have effective control. The Government has committed itself to voting in accordance with the majority of that 45 per cent minority.
Similarly, there is supposed to be provision that no more than 25 per cent of the total shares can be owned outside the country. However, 25 per cent is 55 per cent of the shares that will be privatized. Therefore, again, effective control can be outside Canada.
How does the Member square that with any kind of public interest in Air Canada? How does he square that with Canadian sovereignty?


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, once again Members of the New Democratic Party are distorting information. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is saying that we will allow outsiders to get a hold of 25 per cent of all shares. That is false! Totally false. They are allowed 25 per cent of the 45 per cent of shares which will be put on sale, period. No one will be able to hold more than 10 per cent of shares issued. The information and the bill must be interpreted in that context and should not be distorted.
Madam Speaker, once again, fear and uncertainty are being spread among Canadians. Air Canada employees themselves, yes, that is the case, Air Canada employees themselves accept this proposal and are interested in the privatization initiative. Being on the inside, one would presume that they have the right information. There is a board of directors, but as soon as the shares are sold, the shareholders will elect a new board. Decisions on the operations of Air Canada will no longer be taken by the Government. This is precisely the intent of the privatization bill: to make Air Canada a privately managed business, while retaining a certain percentage of share ownership by Government. But nobody can own more that 10 per cent of the shares issued, that is 10 per cent of the 45 per cent. The shares held by foreign interests cannot exceed 25 per cent of the shares issued, that is 25 per cent of the 45 per cent.

Is that clear enough? It is 25 per cent of what is issued. That means 25 per cent of 45 per cent that can be owned by people from out of the country. No individual can own more than 10 per cent of the shares issued, not the total. It is from the shares issued.
There will be 45 per cent of the total shares. It is 45 out of 100. Do you get that?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Are the shares issued or not?


Richard Grisé: There are 100 per cent of shares in a company.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But 10 per cent are to be sold to the public, am I right? These shares may well be owned by Americans!


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is the genius of the socialist party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think to keep sanity in the House I should call quorum at this time.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We now have quorum.


Mr. Lewis:: Question.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Question.


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I was on my feet to-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, you were not. You were not in your seat. No way. Question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moved:
That Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
In amendment thereto: Mr. Hovdebo, seconded by Mr. Keeper, moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be not now read a second time but that the Order for second reading be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport."
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay
May 25, 1988


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In accordance with Standing Order 13(4), at the request of the Chief Government Whip, the vote is deferred until 6 p.m. this evening, at which time the bells will be rung for at most 15 minutes.
The House will now continue with Orders of the Day. [Translation]
Therefore, the recorded vote now before the House is deferred to 6 p.m. tonight when the bells will ring no longer than 15 minutes. We will now proceed to government orders.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we left the House, we were told the vote would be held in half an hour. Now that the bells have stopped ringing, have the three parties agreed on that point?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) rose on a point of order. I can assure him that I don't have a hearing problem. He does not have to shout. The Government whip asked that the vote be deferred to 6 p.m. tonight when the bells will ring no longer than 15 minutes.
It being 17.35 p.m., we will now proceed to government orders.


BRETTON WOODS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-126, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is highly irregular procedure which is taking place in the House right now. It is highly irregular to call a Bill which was not called for today's business and then to expect the opposition Parties-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act


Michael Morris Cassidy: This Bill happens to deal with a question of international financial institutions-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: -my Party has a number of people who wish to speak on that particular measure. They are not here right now-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Government is deliberately abusing the rights of Parliament by the way it is proceeding at this time. It is deliberately abusing the rights of Parliament. If it wants to have a fuss in this House, we will have a fuss in the House of Commons.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, this is quite outrageous. I want to point out that this particular procedure-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: -by means of a vote called by the Chair without adequate notice when there were people who wished to question the Hon. Member who just finished speaking. Madam Speaker, that was a partisan act on your part and we intend to take it to the Speaker and to raise that question, and if this is part of a pattern that you have begun-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Get out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member was never given the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why should 1 take my seat when your Party is abusing Parliament? You are abusing Parliament with measures-


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: You come up with the most ridiculous kind of measures, and now, Madam Speaker, is this the way we are going to spend the summer?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Member will please sit down.


Mr. Skelly:: Withdraw the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will please sit down.


Mr. Orlikow:: I rise on another point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will please sit down.

May 25, 1988
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act Mr. Forrestall: And be respectful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will please sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: We need a parliamentary psychiatrist.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Your Party needs a parliamentary psychiatrist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: If you want to fight this way, we will fight this way.
You want the Speaker on your side, the way she was on your side. Is that what you want to do? Black Friday all over again, is that what you want to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Shame on you.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Shame on yourself. Repeat the words the Minister of Defence (Mr. Beatty) used the other day.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Standing Order 13(4) reads as follows:
When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, except as provided pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time, but, in any case, not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes ...
This is exactly what took place. As it was 5.35 p.m., we could simply go on with Government business. This is exactly what I did, as occupant of the Chair. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre may well disagree with this ruling, but it was made pursuant to our Standing Orders and I am sure the Hon. Member will want to reflect on the words he used which were heard by everyone in this Chamber, casting doubts about the impartiality of the Chair. As occupant of the Chair, I can only apply the procedural rules that were established in all fairness and without any prejudice.
Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. [Translation]


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, you have explained the way the Government is allowed to defer a vote according to our rules. But may I remind you that we, in the Opposition, believe that the Chair must maintain, broadly speaking, some sense of order, of fair play and of justice in our proceedings.
Now, Madam Speaker, you have called earlier a vote on the Bill before the House in a way that prevented the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and myself to ask any question. Honestly, we were truly disappointed!
I might not have been very warmly in my comments but I was very concerned because we thought that the Chair was prejudiced against one side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Secondly, Madam Speaker, you know that the situation will be critical should the Government decide, without notice, to call this Bill, in an orderless manner. This is what I objected to in the point of order I have just made.
Now, I could perhaps ask you, Madam Speaker, to take note of my comments, since I think that it is very clear that the House will not operate properly if there are constant changes to the order of business, the Standing Orders, from one bill to another . . .


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Morris Cassidy: You know that this will not work out and that the House must proceed in an orderly fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) referred as well to the time or the way in which the question was put regarding Bill C-129. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), rose on a point of order asking me to ensure that there was a quorum in the House, which as the Speaker I did promptly. Once a quorum was re-established in the House, once we proceeded again, I gave the floor to the Hon. Member who had been answering questions. Hon. Members at that point asked for the question to be put.
I must tell the Hon. Member that at that point neither he nor the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville were in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Speaker was asked to put the question. No one rose to ask for the floor. I was asked to put the question. It was the question which I put to the House.
During his recent intervention the Hon. Member accused the Chair-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: -of a lack of fairness and of fair play.


An Hon. Member:: Withdraw!
May 25, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think that the Hon. Member will want to read the "blues", think it over, reread the procedure book and he will realize that whatever has been done was done in all fairness and in accordance with all the rules of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is now seeking the floor. I will now listen to him.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I imagine that we have now moved on to discussion of the present proposition before us. I would assume that the term "all fairness" from the Chair certainly referred only to the rules and not to the kind of activity of the Conservative Government across the floor. The Bill-


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down, turkey!


Raymond John Skelly: -that is before us here is certainly a matter that is very characteristic of this organization. The organization that it is proposing to support in this legislation is one that has attempted to propose Conservative philosophy on developing nations. There are a great many people in the Opposition who would like to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If I may, there is also a second point which I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre was saying that I should not have allowed Bill C-126 to be brought forward at this time. When I look at the Projected Order of Business I see that Bill C-126 is listed as a possible Bill to be studied today.
Further, Standing Order 22(2) states:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the
government determines.
Therefore, this time-


Mr. Fulton:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Malone:: She is ruling on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: -resuming debate on Bill C-126.


James Ross Fulton: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Skeena on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I would like to seek some clarification. We were hearing witnesses at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when the first bell went. The Clerk of the committee phoned here to the Chamber and learned that it was simply a quorum bell. When the bell resumed ringing, a
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
second call was made from the committee. We were told that there would be a recorded vote taken at 5.45 p.m.
I seek clarification as to what went on with the second bell.


Mr. Mantha:: It's not true.


James Ross Fulton: If people from committees are going to phone and seek information from the Chamber on votes, then there has to be some clarification available to those committees that are hearing witnesses.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: I know Government Members do not particularly care about aboriginal people, or anything else, Madam Speaker.


Harvie Andre: It is you we do not care about.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will try very succinctly to tell the Hon. Member what happened, as the Hon. Member said that he was in committee.
There was a first bell for a quorum count. Once a quorum was re-established the Hon. Member who had the floor asked that the question be put. The question was put. The bell then rang to call in Hon. Members for a vote.
Subsequently, the Government Whip asked for the vote to be delayed until 6 p.m. We then called Government Orders, which is now the point that we are at.
Resuming debate on Bill C-126. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River on debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, when I thought I had been recognized to speak on the Bill I found that we had continued on into further justifications of the ruling on the point of order. What I would ask of the Chair is, since there was a bit of confusion on the part of my colleagues and other Members of the House, that my time in this particular debate would commence-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am now recognizing the Hon. Member for debate on Bill C-126. He will have all the time that is normally allotted to him.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, as the din begins to subside in here, the matter before the House is certainly an extremely important one. A number of members of the Opposition have spoken on this Bill from a very informed point of view about the damage that has been put in place in various developing nations by the operation of the International Monetary Fund. Some speakers on this side of the House have prepared long and hard for this particular piece of legislation, and the Government's attempt to ram the Bill through without allowing a fair hearing is grossly unfair and characteristic of the Government in this particular phase of the operation of Parliament. At any rate, it was brought out in debate that

May 25, 1988
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
enforcing on many developing nations some extremely harsh programs to ensure they attempted to pay off massive debts left them in a condition of great hardship. Social programs were cut.
Members talked in this House about education being diminished or demolished and the absolute lack of Third World country Governments to provide education for children because of what the IMF and the Bretton Woods Agreement imposed.
We have heard that health care in many countries has been demolished by the policies of the IMF, controlled by western nations and the United States which are far more interested in the debt being repaid than in protecting citizens. The illiteracy rate in many countries is running 70-odd per cent and infant mortality is 50 to 60 per cent. These points were carefully made by previous speakers. It was pointed out that many of the aid programs are being skimmed off by government officials, by relatives and friends of ruling oligarchies. As a result, aid never reached the poorer sections of society. Corruption has led to divisions in countries. People have risen up in revolt against systems and regimes that attempt to extract every last penny there is available, money that people require for health care, education, pure water, and sanitation systems. Lives are jeopardized and revolutions and insurrections arise. The policies of the IMF have led to a great deal of discontent in the Third World resulting in insurrections yet we see the United States and other world powers contributing arms and military aid to put down insurrections in an attempt to provide stability in a country so it can get on with the business of addressing debt. In the same process the citizens of countries, again the poorer segments of society, are even further oppressed by military actions. This is what we see from the International Monetary Fund.
Our contributions under the renewal of Bretton Woods Agreement lead to that type of activity in Third World nations. We see insufferable crushing debt, which destabilizes countries that originally obtained loans. Other nations wind up contributing military aid to put down insurrections in places where people are attempting to re-establish democratic regimes and fair play. Why should Canada be contributing to that kind of an international policy which attempts to extract every last penny to get rid of health and social programs so that payments can be made on international debt? The poorer people suffer. It is not something we would tolerate in Canada, and there is no reason for us to contribute to a fund whose policy is to inflict hardship on others.
I am amazed that this Government has not heard the informed discussion that has taken place in this House. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) have spoken in this regard. It is absolutely critical that the Government respond.
Before we contribute another penny to the International Monetary Fund we should insist that something be done to resolve the matter of Third World debt. Third World countries should be able to manage finances and provide some care and stability for their populations. They would then be able to begin looking at health care and building infrastructure to strengthen and develop economies.
On that basis I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-126, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and related Agreements
Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day
six months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions and comments?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, would the Hon. Member explain the purposes for the motion he has just moved?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: There are several important matters, Madam Speaker. It is not a laughing matter. The Conservatives are sitting over there giggling. This reminds me of the San Diego zoo. It is incredible the chatter and absolute nonsense that is going on. This is not a humorous motion.


Charles James Mayer: It is a joke.


Raymond John Skelly: I think the Hon. Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board, if he is looking at his repertoire of jokes, should not look at what is happening in Third World countries as a joke.


Charles James Mayer: You are a joke.


Raymond John Skelly: He should look at the Canadian contribution to suffering, to infant mortality and to the absolute destruction of economies. I know his heart is bigger than that. Maybe his head cannot understand the implications of this Bill. I moved the motion so the very succinct, salient, cogent points made by my colleagues about the nefarious aspects of this particular legislation of Canada going on year after year amending these agreements and allowing this kind of policy to continue can be made one more time more fully and simply so as to be comprehended by my colleagues across the floor. They have not grasped the situation from the broad brush strokes created by the Hon. Members from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and Spadina.
May 25, 1988


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and of the amendement of Mr. Hovdebo (p. 15767).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., under the provisions of Standing Order 13(4)a), the House will now proceed with the differed division vote on the amendement concerning Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Hovdebo), which was negativated on the following division.
(Division No. 367)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gauthier	NunziataAllhouse	Gray	OrlikowAngus	(Windsor West)	ParryAxworthy	Heap	PennerBlaikie	Henderson	RobichaudBoudria	Hopkins	RodriguezCaccia	Keeper	SkellyCopps	MacLellan	Tardifde Jong	Manly	(Richmond-Epp	McCurdy	Young-32(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Foster	Greenwood)	Fulton	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Comeau	GottseligBelsher	Cook	GrahamBertrand	Cossitt	GriseBlouin	Crofton	GustafsonBosley	Crosbie	HallidayBrightwell	(St. John's West)	HamelinBrowes	Darling	HamiltonCadieux	Domm	HawkesCardiff	Dor in	HockinChampagne	Epp	Horner(Champlain)	(Provencher)	JamesClinch	Fennell	JelinekCoates	Forrestall	JepsonCollins	Girard	Joncas
Kempling Kindy Ladouceur Landry Layton Lewis Mailly Malone Mantha Martin Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes McKenzie


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Resuming debate on the main motion, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion. Before speaking, I would like to point out to the House that this is a special day in that it is the birthday of our honourable House Leader, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: We want Herb.


Some Hon. Members:: Herb for Leader.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Em already a leader, I'm a House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: The enthusiasm for the birthday is getting in the way of the Hon. Member's remarks.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that this has very little to do with the main motion, but given that recently so many days around this place have been characterized by acrimony, I thought it would be a nice opportunity to recognize one of those who is never involved in acrimony. Plus, it will probably give me a few brownie points to enable me to get up in Question Period next time.
However, that is not the point of my intervention. My intervention deals with another chapter in the sequence of the "Sale of Canada Act". I am speaking specifically now to the heinous motion of the Government to privatize Air Canada.
Last night I was at the nomination meeting of an extremely able and long-standing Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Air Canada
McKinnon McKnight McLean McMillan Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nowlan O'Neil Pietz Ravis Redway Reid Reimer St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen
Shields
Siddon
Sparrow
Taylor
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vezina White Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-85

May 25, 1988
Air Canada


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was a great meeting, Mr. Speaker. In its usual entrepreneurial fashion, the Liberal Party was selling things. We will do anything to dig our way out of debt. Last night at the Liberal Party nomination meeting in Ottawa-Vanier the hottest button for sale was going for $2. It was available from Carleton and University of Ottawa students and read: "Privatize Mulroney". I think that speaks to the notion of what the Government has been doing to the country over the last number of years.
My Leader said that the recent free trade agreement, which was finally tabled in the House, could best be called the "Sale of Canada Act". The Act that we are currently discussing in the House tonight for the privatization of Air Canada is another example of how the Government does not understand that our country was built on an east-west axis. Our country was built on the notion that there is a role for the private sector to play but that there is also a role for the public sector to play.
What would have happened in 1867 if the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, said that we would not build a Canadian railway but would let the private sector do it? What if they believed that there was no role for the public sector in a national rail system?
What if successive Governments said that about building the Trans-Canada Highway, probably the longest unified highway in the world that is maintained by public funds? We believe in links both from the public sector and the private sector.
Unfortunately, the government is so driven by a need to privatize that it does not recognize that there are certain integral links that keep this country hooked together from East to West. They include the CBC, a national broadcasting system whose integrity the Government, with its backroom committee, has been trying to cut back.
The same is happening with this sale of Air Canada Act. That may not be so serious if it were not for the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave is own solemn oath. Do Members recall his sacred trust about senior citizens' pensions? The Prime Minister said about Air Canada: "Air Canada is not for sale. Canada needs a national airline".


Mr. Nunziata:: Who said that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: That was stated by the Prime Minister of Canada.
How can we believe a person who says one thing on the campaign trail but, immediately upon being elected, sets an agenda to do exactly the opposite? The Prime Minister said over and over again that universality was a sacred trust. He promised senior citizens that the Conservatives would not touch their pensions because seniors worked hard for those pensions. Now we see the same about face.

... the same about-turn, the same hypocrisy with regard to Air Canada. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, and neither did the Liberal Party say that Air Canada was not for sale. We need a national airline. Those are the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

What we are talking about tonight is a trend initiated by the Prime Minister, exacerbated by the free trade agreement, and increased by the Air Canada Bill which attempts to sell off the very nature and spirit of what we have developed as a sovereign nation. Our country has combined the best of the public and private sector. Unlike our friends to the south, we do not always believe that the private sector can do things better. We do not sell blood for profit in this country.
Frankly, I am glad that if I have to go to the hospital for an operation I do not have to check my credit card in to get blood for a transfusion. Yet, are you aware of the fact that blood banks are included as a potential service arrangement in the free trade agreement?
The Americans have always believed that one can make money from blood. If the poorest of the poor and those who need a dollar can be persuaded to stand in line in certain states to give their blood for money, they will sell it to the highest bidder.
However, we have created in Canada a society that has always believed in a primordial role for the public sector to play for the purposes of culture, broadcasting, and transportation.
That is why the first Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, pledged to the country that a railway to link East and West would be built at public expense. Similarly, when airlines became part of the technology, the Government and the nation decided to establish a national airline because we believed the public sector should be involved.
It may not be financially profitable to travel to Inuvik or Tuktoyaktuk. That may not be in the best interests of the bottom line on the balance sheet of a private corporation, but Canadians believe that there is a responsibility to service the far-flung corners of Canada by air, by rail, or by road. That is why successive Liberal governments endorsed the concept that a Crown corporation could play a role.
In one fell swoop, the Government is saying with this legislation that Air Canada is no longer a Crown corporation. However, in the typical Conservative Neanderthal way, the Government is trying to have it both ways. It is suggesting that it is only partly selling off Air Canada. That is like being partly pregnant. It is similar to the abortion resolution introduced by the Government in which one is for it, against it, or in the middle.
If the Government is intent upon privatizing a Crown corporation, it should come forward with specific legislation.
May 25, 1988

Instead, it is attempting to say that it is only partially privatizing Air Canada. The majority of shares, 55 per cent, will still be held by the Government, and 45 per cent by private shareholders.
However, when we listen to our very able critic on the Air Canada privatization, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), we learn that while the Government claims there will only be 45 per cent privatization, it has clearly indicated that it will proceed to instruct government shareholders to vote with the majority of the private shareholders. Therefore, the voting preference of the new Air Canada board will be specifically based on the bottom line.
I repeat that there may be instances when the bottom line will mitigate against travel to certain far-flung parts of this country.
What will happen to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and his constituents if Air Canada suddenly decides, in its so-called private sector wisdom, no longer to fly into his riding because it is no longer economically feasible? The Conservative Government may believe that in order to do business and live in this country one must live in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver, but history has dictated a different development for this country. History has said that the Government, in the form of Crown corporations, has an extremely specific role to play in ensuring that constituents like those of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), or the Hon. Member for Hamilton East should all have the same right to transportation services.
In its attempt to cease and desist public ownership of Air Canada, the Government is moving to destroy a nation-wide transportation network that was established on the notion that the public sector and private sector could play a role in moving Canadians from coast to coast.
There was a dream of a national railway because all Canadians should have an equal access to services. But that dream is being chipped away on a daily basis by a Prime Minister and a Government that do not understand that to be Canadian may mean paying a little more, but to be Canadian is a price worth paying.
This legislation is the thin edge of the wedge.

With the Bill tabled yesterday, we know for sure now that in the trade deal signed by Mr. Mulroney and the President of the United States, the Government reserved the power to amend any piece of legislation. It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to believe that the Americans specified in their own bill that American law prevails over any trade treaty between two countries, when we are doing it the other way around here in Canada and saying that the trade deal takes precedence over any piece of legislation, be it federal or provincial, in
Air Canada
matters concerning language, culture, way of life, or even municipal administration. So, Mr. Speaker, in a country that used to be called Canada and which is now disappearing with all those bills that are detrimental to our public policy, all future governments will have to ask Washington's approval before enacting any new legislation. Now, before introducing any legislation on transport, health or social services, before implementing a child care program in any province or before giving grants to mothers, as was proposed recently in Quebec, we will have to ask the United States for their permission, because if they claim that any federal or provincial law or municipal by-law goes against the Free Trade Agreement, it can be a problem. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that here, in Canada, the Government introduces a bill that gives the free trade agreement precedence over all other legislation and processes, while the United States do exactly the opposite?
Mr. Speaker, it is because the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government unfortunately never understood the message that was given to them first and foremost by the first Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. MacDonald, when he tried to build a country from the East Coast to the West Coast. I live in Hamilton, which is only 60 kilometers from Niagara Falls, in the United States. Had Canada been developed differently, it would have been easier for us to join New York. Why do we belong to a country that links British Columbia to the Maritimes? Why do we not associate ourselves with New York, Vermont or other places that are closer to us geographically? Why do I associate myself geographically and historically with people who live 2000, 3000 or 4000 kilometers from me? It is because the Prime Ministers of the first successive Governments, both Conservatives and Liberals, had decided that, in order to establish and strengthen Canada as we know it, the Government had to get directly involved in the transportation network, in the communication network, in the culture network-that was CBC-and also in the social services network, through the Canada Health Act.
That is not exactly the course followed by the United States. Their wisdom made them follow different paths and they always believed that money and the private sector could always do things better. Good for them. If they prefer to have private blood banks and to sell blood as they would any other commodity, it is their business but, personnally, I don't want to see Canada follow the same route. And I wonder why in the free trade agreement, which has been tabled in this House, they even agreed to include blood banks as a potential service arrangement in Canada, similar to those in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that for the first time in the history of Canada the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) approved two years ago the establishment of a profit-making blood bank located in Montreal. And we have now learned from the documents tabled with respect to the free trade agreement, that profit-making blood banks already existing in the United States will be allowed to come and do business in Canada.

May 25, 1988
Air Canada
We wondered, as the Deputy Prime Minister introduced in the House a Bill to abolish Air Canada as a Crown corporation, whether it was not the beginning of the end for Canada. We must recognize that in the case of Air Canada, we will have to make up deficits from time to time and pay more in order to provide service to all Canadian men and women because, whether they live in Hamilton, Paulatuk, Red Deer, Cold Lake or anywhere else, they should be entitled to the same services provided by a Crown corporation. Once Air Canada has been privatized under this legislation, why should it fly to Tuktoyaktuk or Inuvik? Why should it fly to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon if it is not profitable?
Mr. Speaker, I feel I have no choice but to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is a reasonable man, to accept the rationale I have put forward tonight. I have no alternative but to move the following amendment. Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words following the word "that" and substituting the following therefore:
Bill C-129, An Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be not now read a second time, but be read a second time six months hence".
Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable amendment and I know that the Government will accept this motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Continuing debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with reading the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the appropriate rule, the Whip of the Official Opposition has requested that the vote take place at 7.30 p.m.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I think my request to you under Section 13 (4) (a) was that you defer the vote until six o'clock tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The vote is so deferred.
It being past six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers