1988-06-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the legislative committee for Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Aet, and the Narcotic Control Act, I have the honour to present Bill C-61 to this House with amendments.


STRIKING COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF SIXTY-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixty-third report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to present a petition from Vancouver, British Columbia, with 10,000 signatures. The petitioners unanimously believe in the rights of all unborn children and vigorously oppose the killing of such innocent human life through abortion.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass immediately legislation that will protect the unborn child from the moment of conception. I agree wholeheartedly with this most humanitarian request.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, it is my bounden duty to table before this august Chamber a serious petition from some 2,000 citizens of LaSalle, Ville-Emard and Montreal who demand that our responsible government legislate as soon as possible to protect children's lives from the moment of conception.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106. The petitions are signed by residents of Winnipeg. The petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States; and whereas the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement in a national general election.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, through the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of more than 2,100 people from the Province of British Columbia. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass immediately legislation that will protect the unborn child from the moment of conception, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and, indeed, a duty and a privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of quite a host of constituents. They believe that the Conservative Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that in the course of the negotiations Canadian sovereignty has been compromised. They also believe that, essentially, we have lost our control as a country to build a society distinct from that of the United States of America.
June 7, 1988

Order Paper Questions
They believe it is only right and fair that the Government now dissolve Parliament and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election. My suspicion is that they would like it to occur sooner than later.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Gloucester County.

Therefore, the petitioners ask us to act immediately to protect, defend and respect the rights of unborn children.

These petitioners ask us to consider the tragic effects of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to Section 251 of the Criminal Code. They pray and beg that we will take immediate action to protect, defend and respect the right of unborn children.


Mr. John Oostrom (Wiliowdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of some 700 petitioners from Kingston, Glenburnie, Joyceville, Enterprise, Elginburg, Inverary, Orleans, Battersea, Smiths Falls, Cobourg, Pembroke and North Bay. They are disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law leaving unborn children without any protection of the basic right to life. Therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass immediately legislation to protect the unborn child from the moment of conception.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 7, 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 the motion of Mr. McDermid:
That this question be now put.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise in my place today to speak in support of Bill C-129, a Bill which will give Canadians an opportunity to share in the future of Air Canada.
This legislation has been welcomed by Canadians from across the country-by consumers, Air Canada employees, the airline industry, not to mention the Canadian public at large. The Canadian public has welcomed it because it means increased competition. Increased competition means better service for consumers. Air Canada employees have welcomed it because it means expanded opportunities for the company in the future, and an opportunity for them to share in the growth of their labours.
This legislation is fully consistent with the competitive environment created by the National Transportation Act, which Act was passed just last year. That Act replaced a 20-year old law and revamped the transportation sector. It permits greater reliance on market forces and less reliance on economic regulation. The results of this are beginning to be felt in more innovation and enterprise, as well as more competitive transportation services with reduced prices.
For the airlines this has meant that it will be much easier to adjust their services to meet the demands of the market-place and to tailor their fare structure to meet competitive conditions.
The short title of Bill C-129 is the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This is an apt description of what this legislation is all about.
The intent of the Bill is to provide all Canadians with the unique opportunity to become real and active partners in the ownership of one of the world's great airlines. Once the Bill is passed, Air Canada's 22,000 plus employees, all of whom have contributed to the airline's national and international success and achievements, will also be able to share directly in the company's ownership and success.
I would remind Hon. Members as well that the legislation before us limits the level of individual ownership and, in so doing, broadens the base of potential investors.
June 7, 1988

The Air Canada Public Participation Act will ensure that no more than 10 per cent of Air Canada can ever be owned or controlled by an individual or any associated interests. There need be no concern about Canadians ever losing control of Air Canada. The legislation parallels the National Transportation Act, 1987 in that regard by restricting non-resident ownership to no more than 25 per cent of publicly available voting shares.
Air Canada, I repeat, will remain Canadian-owned and controlled. The only difference will be that Canadians, including the airline's employees, will be able to share directly in a Canadian enterprise that has become a symbol of excellence world-wide.
Most things will not change. It will be business as usual. Air Canada will be continuing its current employment and safety practices and polices, after public participation. Legislation such as the Canada Labour Code, the National Transportation Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the Aeronautics Act will still apply to Air Canada, regardless of its ownership status.
The Government's commitment to maintaining a high level of safety in the Canadian transportation system will not be jeopardized. Safety has not been deregulated, and will likewise not be affected by public participation. This Government believes in regulating "smarter", and in some cases that means less regulation, in other cases more, but in all cases it means better regulation.
The Air Canada Public Participation Act will guarantee the continuance of the airline's operational and overhaul centres in Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal. Its head office will remain in Montreal.
In addition, the Official Languages Act continues to apply to Air Canada, thus ensuring service in both official languages.
When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) spoke during this debate, he referred to the support this legislation has elicited from all across the country and from all sectors and interests. They welcome it because they want to see Air Canada maintain its position of respect among the world's airlines. They welcome public participation because they know that a flexible, unfettered Air Canada will continue to prosper in the new environment that has resulted from the economic regulatory reform of the Canadian airline industry.
The Government's program of economic regulatory reform has meant that more people have been able to fly to more places at better prices than ever before. It means that Canadians have benefited from increased innovation, initiative, entrepreneurial spirit and competition in the air industry. Canada's airline industry has one of the world's best airline safety records.
Transport Canada's essential role will continue to be the regulatory and enforcement body of airline safety in the testing and licencing of flight and maintenance personnel and
Air Canada
the regulations regarding aircraft maintenance and operations including inspections. Air Canada and all other Canadian airlines must comply with these regulations irrespective of ownership, as is the case today. In the context of airline safety records, it seems very appropriate that it is the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) who has introduced this legislation. Members of this House will recall that in his former capacity as Transport Minister in 1979 he set in motion the reform of air safety standards in this country through the study undertaken by Mr. Justice Dubin. The Dubin report was the long overdue examination of air safety. Its recommendations were wide-ranging and comprehensive. They addressed air worthiness, accident and incident reporting, enforcement, navigational aids, uncontrolled airports and personnel.
For example, one of the key recommendations contained in the Dubin report called for the establishment of an independent Aviation Safety Board. This board became fully operational in October, 1984. Its objective is to advance aviation safety by conducting independent investigations into aviation occurrences, identifying safety deficiencies and making recommendations to eliminate or reduce those deficiencies.
The Canadian Aviation Safety Board accident investigation lab here in Ottawa is one of the most sophisticated facilities of its kind in the world. It is there that specialized laboratory testing and analysis of aircraft parts, structural components and wreckage from aviation occurrences is conducted. The engineering function also includes wreckage search and recovery, such as the recent recovery of literally thousands of pieces of aircraft wreckage from the bottom of Hamilton harbour. I think we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that these are not pleasant tasks but they are essential to ensuring the continued provision of safe air transportation.
Another Dubin recommendation that has since been implemented is the creation of the Civil Aviation Tribunal to hear and determine appeals from administrative decisions quickly and fairly. This tribunal is unique in the world and permits carriers or individuals to seek an independent review if, for example, they object to the imposition of a fine.
Finally, a discussion of the Dubin recommendations is not complete until we also address the amendments to the Aeronautics Act as amended in 1985. These amendments reflected a number of the Dubin recommendations and gave this country one of the most progressive aviation safety laws in existence. The Aeronautics Act, 1985, modernized and replaced safety legislation that had not been amended in any significant way since World War II. The amended legislation has strengthened the areas of airport security, government access to pilots and engineers' records, owner and operator insurance requirements, standards for air worthiness, air traffic services and navigational aids and medical check-ups for those holding licences. Most important, Transport Canada's enforcement powers have been increased and penalties for infractions have been strengthened. This involved amending the Criminal Code as well so that some aviation

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
safety infractions are now considered criminal rather than civil offences.
As a means of properly administering the new Aeronautics Act, Transport Canada has undertaken an assessment of how best to employ in its certification, surveillance, monitoring and enforcement resources. But these new safety measures do not stop with the Aeronautics Act, Mr. Speaker.
Since 1985, Transport Canada has directed an additional $70 million toward enhancements to security at Canada's airports. This includes better physical security, more security guards and a better security inspection program. Among the further measures aimed at making air travel safe for all Canadians is the Canadian air space systems plan. This program is part of the Government's continuing commitment to develop world class technology in this country. The air space systems plan helps Transport Canada to keep pace with the rapid technological improvements in aviation safety. One aspect of this plan that is well under way is the radar modernization project. At a total estimated cost of $810 million, approximately half of which has already been spent, this initiative will improve air traffic control across the country. The bottom line is increased safety for Canada's air travellers. This was all accomplished long before initiatives such as regulatory reform and now public participation of Air Canada. Canada is the only country in the world that undertook a comprehensive review of our air safety regulations before pursuing economic regulatory reform initiatives.
Indeed, these accomplishments in the area of transportation safety made regulatory reform possible. Today it is not necessary to regulate how much a carrier can charge for a fare. What really matters is whether that carrier can operate safely. Likewise, it is not necessary for the Government to own Air Canada to ensure that it will continue to operate safely. For two years now improved regulations have been in place to ensure the safe operation for every carrier in the airline industry, including Air Canada. The Government has no difficulty with the question of where to spend taxpayers' hard earned money. We believe in using tax dollars where they will best benefit the people of Canada as a whole.
An Air Canada with access to equity markets will be willing and able to purchase aircraft on its own. The people of Canada are eager to participate by investing their capital in the future of a well-run airline. We believe that government dollars are better spent regulating air safety. This is where tax money should be going rather than buying an aircraft for an airline that would prefer having the freedom to buy them on its own and without someone looking over its shoulder.
We have witnessed a rapid evolution in the air industry as both technology and service have kept pace with the travellers' demands. In the face of increased competition, it is absolutely essential that Air Canada have new capital to develop new routes and to provide new services. It needs to maintain a modern air fleet so that it can continue to serve Canadians proudly around the world. Public participation is essential for
a competitive, financially independent Air Canada, and a strong Air Canada is essential to Canada's competitive airline industry.
For the better part of this century, Canadians have relied upon air travel to span our great distances, open our remote areas and draw us all together as a nation. From its modest beginnings in 1937 Air Canada has grown to play an integral role in our nation building of this great Canada. Air Canada represents a network that has brought us closer together. It represents a network that has linked us with the larger global world, and Canadians are now looking forward to the day when they can share in the direct ownership of this great national enterprise.
Air Canada is a great national institution. I am proud to support this legislation that will allow us to participate in it, just as I am proud of the achievements of a Government that has made air travel safer, more reliable and more accessible for all Canadians.


Mr. Duguay:: Mr. Speaker, I want first to congratulate my colleague on his very fine speech on the need for this legislation.
George Orwell once defined "Doublespeak" as the ability to hold and express two conflicting points of view at the same time. I want to read for the benefit of my colleagues some comments made on Thursday, May 10, 1984, by the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He said:
-and 1 myself embarked on a series of personal discussions in Canada and the United States... There were times I had to take issue with those who predicted mass chaos in industry if we attempted reform.
Airline crashes, labour disputes, airline bankruptcies, loss of small community services, all of these were blamed on change, which I would say were properly and effectively disputed and debunked during the course of the hearings.
He went on to explain his view of policy:
The essence of this policy is less regulation and more competition. It is a significant departure from the status quo and reflects the first comprehensive reform of Canadian air policy. It demonstrates the government's confidence in the maturity of Canada's airline industry to respond to the challenges of increased competition.
This policy discards the concept that the airline industry is a public utility. Instead, it introduces the idea that commercial competition is the basis of a healthy air transport system.
It seems to me that the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, was an eloquent speaker for the privatization of Air Canada. I wonder if my hon. colleague from St. Catharines might have a comment about how the Hon. Member has perfected "Doublespeak" so that he can now oppose what he so fervently supported only a brief time ago.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has been said of Canadians that we are a pragmatic lot. There is a tremendous difference between 1937 and 1987. There has been a growth in the
June 7, 1988

airlines and in the maturity of this nation. Air Canada has matured as an airline. My friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry noted that change, and was in a position to do something about it. That was what he was doing, but he did not go far enough.
It became the opportunity of this Government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, who in 1979 indicated that safety would always be a priority concern of any Government to which he belonged and that transportation should be governed by the economic sector with a great role being played by the private sector.
A member of the Opposition who once held an important role sees the issue differently today. However, in 1988, the role of Air Canada can only be one in which it is given an opportunity to compete with other airlines without the regulations that encumbered the Air Canada of yesterday. That is what we are doing with this Bill.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that my hon. friend from St. Catharines is a good free enterpriser who is in favour of competition and private investment, I would assume as well that he believes that the investors in any profitable corporation should have an opportunity to make a return on those investments in the form of dividends, interest or both.
Why should Canadians or employees of Air Canada who are also Canadians buy shares in a company that had a $45-million net profit last year after taxes but paid no dividends? In 1986, it had a $40-million profit but paid no dividends. Does the Hon. Member think that that is proper? Do the taxpayers of Canada not have just as much right for an opportunity for return on their investment as any single private investor?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I can only ask my hon. friend to wait until 1990 to see what kind of dividend Air Canada will then pay. I recall that that question was raised by the Hon. Member himself at the Standing Committee on Transport. It was pointed out then that the Government of Canada did receive some return for the great service of Air Canada, but the point to be made now is that, yes, as a free enterpriser I agree that the people of Canada should be able to share in the growth and the wealth of an industry whose role is expanding and enlarging. We asked the employees themselves if they wanted to share in this, and of course they do. They want to be part of this growth. They want to be able to share in the profit of their labours. This is the opportunity we are giving them and the people of Canada. We are giving them an opportunity to share in that growth that is bound to take place in the future, just as it has in the past.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we intend to oppose the privatization of Air Canada today as we have on earlier occasions and as we will at every stage at which this Bill is discussed. We do that because we see this proposal being made not because there is any real economic or financial justification for the idea but simply because it is part of the
Air Canada
ideological baggage the Conservative Government carries with it. It is part of its belief that anything the private sector does is better and more efficient than what can be done by publicly-owned companies.
The facts and the record of Air Canada prove that to be completely false. After all, let us recall that Air Canada was established as a Crown corporation by a Liberal Government generations ago because the then Government and the people of Canada realized that an airline which flew regularly from the Atlantic to the Pacific was necessary for Canada and because the private investors were not interested in such an airline. They could not see that they would make a profit in the early years. Therefore, Air Canada was established.
Air Canada has been an efficient company. It has provided service and it is rated internationally as one of the best, most efficient airline companies in the world. It has been well managed and it has been efficient. It has provided service to most parts of Canada, not just to the major cities. To the best of its ability, it has met the needs of the Canadian people.
We are told that part of the reason for privatizing Air Canada is that Air Canada needs new aeroplanes, which it does, and that these new aeroplanes, needed to replace the aging aeroplanes it is now using, will cost billions of dollars. The sale of shares the Government is proposing will only bring in $300 million.
Analysts in the business of watching how money is raised have indicated that there are other ways to raise money. The Government could permit Air Canada to borrow the money. After all, that would not add to the real debt of Canada because Air Canada has been sufficiently profitable to pay the interest and eventually repay the loans.

The Canadian public supports the belief that Air Canada should remain public. Two polls done earlier this year, one by Gallup and one by Environics, show that by a two-to-one majority people believe that Air Canada should not be privatized. Economists in the business world, business analysts, and the head of British Air, all of whom believe in privatization, have said that partial privatization is a mistake, that partial privatization will not work.


Mr. McDermid:: They want the whole thing. Do you agree with them?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I guess the polls showing how low the Conservative Party is in public opinion-


John Horton McDermid: Come on down and run against me.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to listen to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) make his own speech, and I will not interrupt. However, if he is going to interrupt me I want to deal with his interruptions. The reason he is so nervous and so busy interrupting,

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
interjecting, and shouting, is that he knows he is not going to be here after the next election.
Ele asks me whether I agree with the people who are saying that the company should be 100 per cent privatized. I do not agree with them but they are saying, and I wish he would listen, that either the company should remain as a Crown corporation or it should be 100 per cent privatized. The Government does not have the guts to propose 100 per cent privatization because it knows the public is opposed to that. The Government has opened the door to 100 per cent privatization by bringing forth this proposal for partial privatization.
Those who believe in 100 per cent privatization say that partial privatization is a mistake and will not work. It will not work because there is a requirement in this Bill that the company retain its bilingual status. That is going to cost the company money. It requires that the head office remain in Montreal. That may not be the best business decision. It requires that the maintenance bases in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto be maintained. They say that that is not necessarily a good business decision. They say that we ought to go for 100 per cent privatization, which this Bill does not provide for.
I want to raise several other points which have not been dealt with. We are told that the Government wants to privatize because the private company will be able to operate much more efficiently because of deregulation. We copied our deregulation system from the United States. We now know that many of the people, groups, and organizations in the United States which believed that deregulation would bring benefits in the United States, having now had the experience of a number of years of deregulation, realize that deregulation in the United States was a mistake. We ought to learn from that.
For example, in a June 1988 issue of Consumer Reports magazine issued in the United States the serious problems facing the United States as a result of their 1978 deregulation policy are discussed. This is the same situation which a privatized Air Canada will face following deregulation in Canada which was begun by the then Minister of Transport in the Liberal Government, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and continued by the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) under the Conservative Government.
I want to put on the record the views of the American Consumers' Association because the Canadian Consumers' Association has been one of the biggest supporters of deregulation. The article reads in part as follows:
We recently surveyed more than 400 Consumer Reports readers who are fliers. Nearly half said that air travel is generally worse today than it was 10 years ago, before deregulation. Less than 20 percent said it was generally better. When we asked recent fliers if they had any specific complaints about their latest flight, we got an outpouring of grievances. Almost half reported their flight departed more than 15 minutes late; nearly one in five said it was more than an hour late. Half the readers called the seating "very crowded,"-
-anyone who has travelled on our planes recently knows how crowded they can be-
-and one-third said their food was "unappetizing."
That certainly sounds familiar.
They reported long lines at check-in (28 percent), overbooked planes (14 percent), and an unacceptably long wait for baggage (19 percent).
All this is a far cry from what was expected from deregulation. Deregulation held out to consumers the promise of low fares, better service, more competition, and a boom in travel.
That is just what we heard a few moment ago from the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). The article goes on:
Last year, names like Air Atlanta, Air South, Chicago Air, Gulf Air, McClain, Royale Airlines, Royal West, and TranStar vanished from terminals in airports around the nation. They join a raft of other more familiar names like Republic, Western, USA ... All of them have been merged, purged, or submerged, leaving behind an industry of eight major airlines, each enjoying local monopolies or shared monopolies, and each serviced by smaller commuter lines that have affiliations with one or more of the giants.
Well, Mr. Speaker, is that not precisely what has happened here? Have we not, despite deregulation, the situation of having two and a half giants; Air Canada and Canadian International, and, to a lesser extent but coming up quickly, Wardair? This is what has happened. The article continues:
Airfares, which dropped sharply because of aggressive competition from upstart airlines, have already started to rise-
That is in the United States and we are going to see that happen in Canada as well. The article continues:
"You ain't seen nothin' yet," says Julius Maldutis, vice president for aviation research at Salomon Brothers, Inc. He predicts that cheaper fares will be further encumbered by onerous restrictions. "You'll still have discount fares, but the availability will be restricted," he says.
I could continue to quote from that article but I think I have said enough to indicate what has happened in the United States and what is going to happen in Canada as deregulation continues to bite further and further.
There are other problems involved. We have heard strong rumours that Air Canada vice-presidents are already strongly lobbying the Government to remove the bilingualism guarantees in the legislation. Members from Quebec should be worried, particularly Members from Montreal, because we know that the main centre for travellers is not Montreal but Toronto. We had a bitter experience in Winnipeg. When Air Canada began, its head office was located in Winnipeg, along with the major maintenance base. When Air Canada officials decided that its operations should be in Montreal, they did not explain to the Government that they had legitimate reasons for moving its head office, maintenance base and other facilities from Winnipeg to Montreal. Instead, they moved in stages, first with the headquarters, then other facilities, and finally the maintenance base.
The Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) is not so old that he cannot remember the pain and unanimous hostility felt not only by the unions and workers involved but by the business community over this move and how Winnipeg was shafted.
June 7, 1988

I suggest to Members of Parliament from Montreal that they keep a very careful eye on Air Canada when it is privatized. I will not be surprised if Air Canada facilities, now mainly centered in Montreal, are eventually moved quietly and surreptitiously to Toronto. Members may suggest that the Bill does not permit this, but we know from experience how a company can get around promises and legislation when it is interested in making a profit.
There is no provision to ensure that when the privatized company purchases new aircraft part of the production of the new planes will be done in Canada. According to my information, until now the wings for McDonnell Douglas aircraft that have been purchased by Air Canada were produced in Toronto. I also believe that some of the work done on other planes was carried out by Canadair in Montreal.
We know that the Post Office, in its determination to make a profit, has taken the contract to move mail originating in Canada to destinations in Europe away from Canadian air carriers and given it to a United States firm. I am sure that this contract formed a substantial part of the business of Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.
The Post Office was given a directive by the Government to be as financially efficient as possible. Naturally, if it can get a better deal from a European carrier it will do so, ignoring the fact that it may lead to job loss in Canada.
Air Canada is looking at the purchase of new airplanes from Airbus. One must question whether any part of the Airbus aircraft will be built in Canada since it has no facilities here. Furthermore, if the purpose of privatization is to make a company as financially efficient as possible, why would it not buy airplanes as cheaply as possible unless otherwise directed by the Government?
Some government Members will suggest that the privatization still leaves the Government of Canada with a majority share of the company. However, the Government has already said that its share will be operated in a passive way, meaning that the private owners will make the decisions, including the decision to buy as cheaply as possible.
I ask Members from Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg, where there are sizeable aircraft industries employing thousands of people, what will be the effect on those cities, those workers and on the business community if Air Canada is permitted to buy aircraft from Airbus in Europe or anywhere else, simply because they are cheaper? We believe it is important to take into account the adverse effects of such a decision.
The privatization of Air Canada will mean that it will be primarily concerned with the major centres of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, where the most money will be made. We are opposed to that kind of division in Canada. It will result in three groups of Canadians, with Canadians living in the major cities getting first class service, those living in other centres like Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg and Halifax getting
Air Canada
second class service, while those in rural communities and in the North will get the worst service. That will be the inevitable result of the privatization of Air Canada.


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the ramblings on of the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who quite clearly substantially lacks knowledge of the airline industry, despite the fact that he has been around this place for quite some time.
He flies every week, like me, and we see each other from time to time. The NDP purport to be the only Party that represents union people. Has he asked whether they are really in favour of it?
I have discussed this with many stewardesses and pilots. The Hon. Member held up a piece of paper, citing it as a poll saying that up to a three-to-one majority of people in Canada oppose what the Government is doing. I defy the Hon. Member to pull out the exact poll and tell us when it was conducted. He should present more substantial statements. I also have a poll that I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It was published in the Financial Times and it was conducted by Decima. I suppose it is just as valid a poll as the one presented by the Hon. Member. On June 6, 1988, not very long ago, Canadians were asked: The federal Government recently announced that it will reduce its ownership in Air Canada, shares will be sold to Air Canada employees and Canadian investors first, and there will be limits on how many shares any one investor can have and how many of these shares can be owned by foreign investors. What is your view?
I hope the Hon. Member listens to the response, which was that 11 per cent were strongly supportive of this plan, 58 per cent supported it, 21 per cent opposed it, 7 per cent strongly opposed it, and 3 per cent did not know. That is hardly a two to one opposition to what the Government has done.
The next question asked was: How do you think this plan will affect the airline's ability to compete and grow? That is a fair question and it was asked of Canadians who, the Hon. Member purports, do not support this. Eight per cent said it will have a very positive effect, 64 per cent said it would have a positive effect, 20 per cent said it would have a negative effect, and 4 per cent said it would have a very negative effect. Do those figures back up the Hon. Member's statement that all Canadians believe that this is going to be very harmful to the industry?
I will read another question: How do you think it will affect the quality of service the airline offers to Canadian travellers? Nine per cent said it would have a positive effect, 65 per cent said it would have a very positive effect, 19 per cent said it would have a negative effect, and 4 per cent said it would have a very negative effect.
COMMONS DEBATES ___________________June 7, 1988
Air Canada
The Hon. Member threw some figures out in this House which distort what really is the case. This particular Decima poll indicates that basically 65 per cent of Canadians support the sale of Air Canada to the private sector. So the Hon. Member's argument requires perhaps some explanation.
The Hon. Member talked about deregulation. This has nothing to do with deregulation, so why bring the subject up? Does he mean that airlines should not continue to be regulated? We have private airlines right now. Are they not under the regulations that exist? Of course, they are. That is a different issue.
The Hon. Member talks about merging with U.S. airlines. What does the New Democratic Party know about business, anyway? When did those Members become the experts on corporations, how they operate and how they merge to become more effective and efficient?
Where is the NDP support for unions? People who work at the airlines are mostly quite in favour of purchasing parts of Air Canada. The Hon. Member uses an airline every week, as I do, and he should ask its employees what they think about it. I have done that. I think the Hon. Member would be quite surprised by the answers.
His point of view on behalf of his Party is obviously not the same as the opinion of some of his other colleagues. When we were debating the privatization of Teleglobe Canada, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said, and I quote from Hansard, February 13, 1987, at page 3426:
The Minister quite rightly said that we in the NDP are not against privatization-


David Orlikow: I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) has asked a number of questions. I hope he will leave me a few minutes to reply to most of his questions in which he has misrepresented many things.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has a good point. Could the Member conclude?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just wanted to point out that what the Member said this morning in the House is quite different from what his colleague said not too long ago. As I said, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway said:
The Minister quite rightly said that we in the NDP are not against privatization per se,-
They are in fact saying that in some cases they would consider privatization. He went on:
-but there must be a practical reason for selling a Crown corporation. For example, if there was bad management in the Crown corporation, it did not have sufficient money, or there was no public policy reason for keeping the corporation, then maybe it could be sold to the private sector.
One of the Member's colleagues is suggesting that some Crown corporations should be sold. That was stated right in
this very House. So I ask the Member to respond to some of the points I have made.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have much time, but let me just say that the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake began by saying that I have been here for a long time. Yes, I have been here for quite a long time. I was here before the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, and I will be here after the Member is gone, which will happen right after the next election.
There is no difference between my views and the views of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Of course, if a Crown corporation has outlived its usefulness, if it is not efficient or if it is not well run, we are not opposed to its sale, but Air Canada is efficient. It is well run and it provides a necessary, essential and worth-while service. That is why we are opposed to the sale. The Member questioned my statement about the polls.


Mr. Girard:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions Crown corporations could be sold. Could he tell us what Crown corporations he thinks should be sold?


Mr. Manly:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not exactly a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has the floor.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would do that but I have barely enough time to try to deal with the ridiculous questions asked by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake. The Member challenged my statement that the public was opposed to the sale. Let me put on the record part of the speech I made on April 12 which gives the facts. I hope the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake will listen. I said then:
On March 5, 1988, The Globe and Mail published an Environics poll concerning the selling of Crown corporations. The question was asked: Do you think the Government should or should not sell Air Canada? The response was: should, 31 per cent; should not, 51 per cent. It was the same in almost every region.
A similar poll appeared in the Toronto Star on March 31, 1981, conducted by Angus Reid.


Felix Holtmann: In 1981?


David Orlikow: In 1988. If the Hon. Member questions it, I will supply him with the actual report tomorrow. The poll asked whether or not the following corporations were well run. With respect to Air Canada, 63 per cent said it was well run and 20 per cent said it was not well run, 53 per cent said the Government should not sell Air Canada to the private sector, and 35 per cent said it should sell.
There is the answer, Mr. Speaker. There is no question in my mind that the public is opposed to the sale. With respect to talking to employees of Air Canada, asking a few employees does not give one the answers. They all belong to the unions. If they disagree with what their union is saying, it is very easy for
June 7, 1988

them to arrange to have a meeting and move a motion that the union change its policy. They have not done that because they essentially agree with the position as expressed by their unions.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on this very important Bill allowing for the participation of the Canadian public in the ownership of Air Canada. I would like to list some reasons why interest in participation and purchase has received such strong support from so many sources in Canada.
My colleagues, both on the government side and opposite, were talking about public reaction to the sale of Air Canada. The polling conducted by the Financial Times and Decima was mentioned. I would like to discuss the area of service and what is important in servicing Canadians. Air Canada has a long tradition of service and it is important that we mention that aspect. In a poll in relation to service the question was asked: "How do you think it will affect the quality of service that the airline offers to Canadian travellers?" It is noted that 74 per cent of those polled had a very positive reaction that it would maintain and enhance the type of service that Canadians are looking for from Air Canada. We should take heed of that.
It is also important that all Members have the opportunity of noting what was stated by Mr. Ed Godin, a spokesman for the pilots. As we all know, pilots have been very positive about the sale of Air Canada for a good number of years. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) noted earlier that he thought a number of employees were against the sale. Mr. Godin, when speaking about the other unions, stated: "We find their Members don't share the opinions of their union leaders", and that the union leaders are speaking out. That is quite common and it concerns me that the leadership do not take a plebiscite of their members or present to them the pluses and minuses of being able to purchase stock in Air Canada. They simply go out and make a statement. The same thing happens in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton in connection with free trade. There have been instances where leaders of unions have campaigned against the free trade initiative, whereas probably in the area of 80 per cent of the unionized members are very positive and understand the positive aspects that the free trade initiative will carry forth.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member could advise when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will take a poll of the Canadian people on trade issues?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may resume on debate.


Kenneth Albert James: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what type of point of order that was, but it was an interjection from my colleague opposite.
Air Canada
In addressing that very point, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government were elected to lead and show leadership in this country and maintain good government. Certainly, within that mandate international trade conditions have to be assessed. We would be a sorry lot if we did not adjust to the changing times and take into consideration having a treaty with our most important customer.
When talking about the union leaders Mr. Godin stated: "We find their members don't share the opinions of the union leaders. There's an effort within the unions to counter some of the statements of the union leaders". Mr. Godin further stated: "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". The pilots are putting it in the sock in order to save it and have a good deal! I thought that was a very interesting quote.
The legislation responds to the changing needs of Air Canada within an economically deregulated air transport industry. This Government has paved the way for that to be done, which is very good for the industry. It provides the freedom and flexibility that will enable Air Canada to meet the challenges of a competitive and global environment. The legislation provides for the orderly transition of Air Canada, as a mature and responsive Canadian company, from a Crown corporation to a publicly held Canadian corporation. It will enable Air Canada to build upon the high level of performance it has demonstrated over its 51 year history. It will support the high level of personal identification that Canadians have and feel for Air Canada as our national flag carrier. We all know there is a very strong feeling in Canada about Air Canada, and certainly among many people who never board an airplane.
They feel positive about the Air Canada name and the airline. It is important that that be maintained, and it certainly will be. It has had a long and illustrious experience in Canada of handling the travelling public. When looking at the polls, it is important to note that a number of people who do not travel, unlike most Members in the House, have perhaps an even more positive feeling about Air Canada.
A few years ago, Air Canada was our only national airline. Today, we have Canadian Airlines International and its partners challenging Air Canada and its partners in national and regional markets across the country. In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton we have Air Ontario, a partner of Air Canada. It is a regional airline. Five months ago Canadian partners started to fly out of Sarnia on a regular basis. Therefore, we have excellent service in a metro area of approximately 87,000 people, and a county city, urban area of approximately 120,000. Air Ontario provides an excellent and competitive service. If one flies out at 7 a.m. to Toronto and connects with Air Canada one can be in Ottawa by 9.15 a.m. The same applies to Canadian Airlines International. It flies out of Sarnia at 7.05 a.m. That example in my own area illustrates the type of service provided to the smaller urban areas in Canada.

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
Wardair is also competing with the two major domestic air carriers in the domestic areas as well as in the charter business. That adds another dimension to the domestic airline business and its competitiveness. The other day I had to have my flight changed and it was changed over to Wardair. That other dimension adds competition, which makes for good service.
One might mention Wardair and the type of private sector competitiveness that Air Canada was experiencing. I note here that in September, 1987, Wardair successfully raised $125 million in a public equity issue to buy more airplanes. That illustrates the competitiveness that Air Canada was experiencing from the private sector where companies could go out and raise moneys, whereas Air Canada was not in the position to do so.
The changes that have been brought about by increased competition in the airline industry have taken place as a result of economic regulatory reform that has been brought on by the Government. This has led to competition for consumer dollars which, in turn, has resulted in lower fares. It is important to the service of Canadians that we have competition and lower fares. Americans have expressed to me their amazement with respect to the fares that we pay to go from one part of Canada to another. We are also interested in increased service and the growth of many smaller airlines serving regional needs.
I found it interesting to read an article which appeared recently in the the Winnipeg Free Press written by Dian Cohen who stated:
The fundamental facts are these. Air Canada, as a creature of the federal government, is dependent on the government for its capital requirements. Air Canada operates as best it can as a private sector participant, in that it must endeavour to balance the books and make a profit. But it does not have the ability, as other private sector companies have, of going into the market place to invite equity participation when it needs a cash infusion.
She went on to state:
Air Canada desperately needs a cash infusion right now-it has made a few million dollars in profits in the past couple of years, but nowhere near the $350 million to $1 billion it needs to replace its aging fleet with newer, quieter and more comfortable airplanes.
It has to replace those planes. Who will do it? Will the federal Government come up with the money? It is for more than competitive reasons that the fleet has constantly been renewed. Planes have geriatric problems just as people do.
She goes on to deal with certain jets with which Air Canada has had problems. The author of this article is a reputable economist. She deals with the options that are available:
Option number one-that the Government will simply give Air Canada the money-is possible. It will mean, since the government of Canada is still spending about $25 billion more each year than it takes in in revenue that either taxes will have to go up, or the government will have to put Air Canada's needs above the needs of farmers, the oil patch, the unemployed, day care-
In order to come up with this amount of money something has to be sacrificed. That is of great concern to me, as it should be to everyone in the House.
In a recent article in the Vancouver Province of May 24, 1988, it is stated that if the Liberals and the New Democrats intend to do all they can to stymie the sale of shares in Air Canada, they had better spell out loud and clear how they expect the airline to raise the money to replace its aging aircraft.
The article goes on to state that the Liberals and New Democrats have offered no cogent reasons why Air Canada should remain as a Crown corporation, or solutions to its financing problems. "They should either put up or shut up and let the sale of these shares go on".
There are features of Air Canada as a Crown corporation that Canadians have valued in the past. Public participation will ensure that Air Canada does not lose sight of the values, and nor will public participation in any way detract from the high level of service Canadians have come to expect from Air Canada. The airline will continue its alliances with regional air carriers, which will provide air service to passengers from smaller centres. In a competitive market it makes sound commercial sense for Air Canada to maintain and improve upon joint scheduling with its regional carriers.
The airlines will still be working together to improve the industry generally. We believe Air Canada will continue to pursue opportunities to develop alliances and partnerships and to meet consumer demand. That is what the free enterprise spirit is all about.
In fact, Air Canada's commercial strategy has always been built upon good service and good value to customers. The interests of Air Canada's new shareholders will go hand in hand with those of the consumers. If Air Canada continues to provide good service and good value, it will continue to attract customers and will provide returns for the shareholders. When employees work for a company and are anxious to buy shares in the company they know the real potential of the company and are anxious to participate.
In the past few weeks I have heard criticism of the proposal to open Air Canada to public participation. It has been argued that Air Canada must remain a Crown corporation in order to serve a public policy role. What is the public policy role that Air Canada serves?
All airlines serve an important public service, providing access to regional, national and international destinations in a safe way, conveniently. We want it to be economical. Are Air Canada's routes and passengers more valuable than those of, say, Canadian Airlines? I believe not. It is very important that we have a deregulated and competitive situation.
Crown ownership of Air Canada is not required to ensure this service. What is required is healthy and open competition, exactly what this legislation will provide.
June 7, 1988

One major area of concern that does fall within the realm of public policy is the safety of the travelling public. Our Government has paid a lot of attention to safety issues in the airline industry. The Aeronautics Act of 1985 laid the foundation for a good, solid, regulatory framework. We have excellent enforcement by Transport Canada.
It is important that Canadians understand that when the Government came into office and took over the management of the company and was looking at privatization we developed some very sound ground rules. I have stated them a number of times before when I was very involved with legislation concerning Canadair, Teleglobe and de Havilland. There was a very sound basis for us to evaluate whether privatization should take place. Certainly, changing economic environment must be considered. We must look at effectiveness. There is abundant evidence to suggest that many Crown corporations are not as effective in serving their clients as the private sector can be. We must take that into consideration as we evaluate. Public ownership of Crown corporations places enormous demands on the Government. We have spoken about this a great deal today. Public institutions use taxpayers' money to operate. At times having Government involved even though just at arm's length tends to inhibit good, sound operation of companies. These facts were all taken into consideration when the Government moved into privatizing 13 different concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important legislation to explain why the Government moved toward its important decision on Air Canada. We are proud of Air Canada's achievement. As a member of the Government I am proud of this legislation that will enable Air Canada to grow and enable individual Canadians to share in its prosperity, its service to the country and to all Canadians.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that there is agreement to defer the vote on Bill C-129, which was to be called at 4.45 p.m. today, until 5.45 p.m.; to commence Private Members' Flour at 4.45 p.m. today and to suspend the adjournment proceedings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions. In an effort to facilitate the work of the standing committees of the House of Commons, we certainly agree to putting off the vote until a little later in the day.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, just to make things very clear, we are talking about the final vote on second reading of Bill C-129. Presently the House is studying the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) that this question be now put. The amendment before the House can be dealt with at some time during the day but, the final vote on second reading will take place at 5.45 p.m. tonight.
Air Canada


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal of the Deputy Government House Leader. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech. He keeps perpetuating sheer mythology. He was reading from a document of some kind about how public ownership of Air Canada inhibits its efficiency and ability to operate, or he said words to that effect.
First, I want to tell my hon. friend that Air Canada has received international gold medals and efficiency awards at least three times in the last seven or eight years. It is recognized around the world as one of the most efficient well-run airlines in the world. Where is this inhibition?
When the Hon. Member talks about Air Canada needing $300 million to purchase new aircraft, I do not know if the Member has ever read Air Canada's corporate plan from 1987 to 1991 but it says the funds required for this multimillion dollar investment will come from internally generated funds and borrowing. That is on the assumption of no privatization. Air Canada itself says it does not need funds from the sale of shares to purchase new aircraft. I also want to point out to my hon. friend that if he takes the trouble to read Air Canada's annual reports each year he knows that Air Canada has received no subsidy payments for 26 years, nor has it received equity capital investment for at least 15 years.


Mr. Tobin:: It has had profits in the last eight years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Air Canada during that period of time bought its fleet of 727s, 757s, 767s and half of its DC-9s without being privatized. It generated the funds internally.
Finally, if my hon. friend wants to look at what the present situation is with Air Canada, the Government of Canada, the taxpayers, have an equity of $329 million in a $3 billion corporation. Air Canada owes the Government $153 million in loans that it is paying back. In fact, it paid back $22 million of the loan in 1987. Where does my hon. friend get the mythology that Air Canada needs this money from the sale of shares to purchase new aircraft when it did not have to do it before? All its present fleet was purchased by selling bonds, by loans and by profits. None of it required the sale of shares. I want to remind my hon. friend that the share authorization for Air Canada is $750 million, and only $329 million worth of shares are held by the people of Canada, so the Government could buy another $421 million worth of shares and Air Canada would have more than enough money to start its purchase of a new fleet of aircraft.
I wish my hon. friend and his colleagues would quit peddling this mythology that Air Canada needs to sell shares to get money for aircraft when previously it bought all of its aircraft without doing that. The Hon. Member said Air Canada made a few million dollars profit last year and the year before. The amount was $85 million in those two years, for which the

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
shareholders received no dividends, not very good free enterprise under a Conservative Government. Why does my hon. friend continue to peddle this kind of mythology that Air Canada needs this money?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. I know he has a great long-standing interest and involvement in the transportation industry. 1 know he feels very strongly philosophically about maintaining state involvement in our country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sound business practice.


Kenneth Albert James: We better get the balance sheet out. The Elon. Member mentioned that 1 said Air Canada needs $350 million to $1 billion. I quoted Dian Cohen's article, which is where that information came from. He might have been behind the curtain when I mentioned that. It seems to me that I recall that not too many months ago Air Canada's officials presented themselves at the Transport Minister's door looking for funds and, in essence, pressuring the Government for money, indicating that Air Canada was looking for money for the purchase of aircraft. It certainly does not indicate the aging of the aircraft. I have not inspected them, but certainly there is a very strong indication to the Government that Air Canada will need substantial funds.
I know the Hon. Member is concerned about the public. We must talk about-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Question!


Kenneth Albert James: I am not sure what you are asking me. Are you telling me to sit down? I do not think I will.
What are we supposed to do, keep a national airline that is in competition with the other airlines that are privately owned and have to go to the well by themselves? As Hon. Members know, Air Canada does get preferential treatment when it goes on the market.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it doesn't, it does not.


Kenneth Albert James: It gets preferred rates. There is indication that it does.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It has to operate exactly the same as the privates.


Kenneth Albert James: Are we going to give it money? What are we going to do with the private sector people who are in the business while there is a government-owned Crown corporation? That is not very fair.
Air Canada employs thousands of employees, and the Hon. Member I am sure is very sincere about his concern for their jobs. So what are we to do, have the public sector airline in competition with two private sector airlines that are doing very well?
I agree that Air Canada is doing very well and has been profitable. In only two years in the last number of years, I don't know how many, it has lost money. Certainly it is the kind of company that will give us money back. Sorry, I have talked too long.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious when a Member has a poor case to make that he uses as much time as possible to avoid questions. The Hon. Member has said that he supports Bill C-129 because he read someone's column, but he obviously has not read Air Canada's annual reports, nor has he studied the situation with Air Canada.
We in this Party are not opposed to privatization. We do not have a philosophical objection to privatization. We do not have a belief that the Government must run each and every institution in the country, but we only support privatization when it makes sense and when it is in the interests of the taxpayers of Canada.
The Hon. Member is supporting a move to privatize Air Canada in the middle of deregulation, something that changes the ball game completely. We are hearing all kinds of horror stories from south of the border about airline companies operating in unsafe fashions, with money being diverted from maintenance and safety into profits. Deregulation has just been introduced in Canada. The experience of deregulation south of the border has been a mixed bag at the very best. Now Air Canada will be privatized, our only window left on the Canadian airline industry.
The day he announced this privatization, the Minister said that the Government of Canada will retain a majority shareholder position, 55 per cent of the shares, after the first initial privatization, and the Government will instruct the chairman of the board to vote the Government's shares with the minority shareholders. In other words, the 23 per cent or 24 per cent of the shareholders of Air Canada, private sector shareholders, will determine the fate of Air Canada because the Government will tell the person who is holding the Government's majority shares to vote with the minority.
Given that Canada is a huge nation of 25 million people only, and given that a small minority share-hold position may decide to cut routes all over the country in order to maximize profits because its bottom line is different from the public's bottom line, what will happen to Canadians who live in my riding, in places like Stephenville and Gander, people who live in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and western Canada? The service to those areas will be determined by someone who is looking at his pocketbook and at the bottom line. How would the Hon. Member explain to these people why suddenly the level of service has reverted to that of 15, 20 or 30 years ago? How does that serve the best interests of Canadians who already own Air Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why buy shares in something you already own? That's kind of dumb.
June 7, 1988


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I think we have noted in the past some scary people who have used that same argument, dictators and kings and the like, so the Hon. Member wants to be a little careful about asking why we want to fight for it, we already own it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer my question.


Kenneth Albert James: My dad always said that the best measure of what will happen in the future is what has happened in the past. Certainly Air Canada, like the private sector companies, is servicing smaller centres. It flies into Sarnia, using smaller aeroplanes-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Sarnia is a major centre compared to Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., northern Quebec, western Canada. Sarnia? Wake up.


Kenneth Albert James: With these-we have to remember that the times have changed.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary cannot possibly be expected to answer the question of the Hon. Member if the Hon. Member is going to shout out and cause such a commotion in the House. I wonder if you would direct the Hon. Member to be quiet and allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question calmly and coolly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order, I think that is an excellent piece of advice and I am quite prepared to follow it with good grace, provided the Parliamentary Secretary addresses the question I asked and does not meander again, as he is wont to do, lost in the haze, as he tries to figure out why he is supporting this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, thank you for all the assistance. The Hon. Member opposite and I have always had a good relationship. I cannot imagine how he would react to someone on this side he does not like. I am simply giving the Hon. Member an example of how the airlines now seem to be going through a lot of adjustments. Flying big aircraft into small centres is not economical. The partnership system seems to be using aircraft that are efficient and can handle the loads required. Both Canadian Airlines International and-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You're flying low.


Kenneth Albert James: I am not sure that the Hon. Member wants to listen to the answer. I listened very attentively all the while to his question. I think we have to keep in mind the changing times and the changing use of aircraft, the new aircraft that is provided, built and manufactured for regionalization into small centres.
Air Canada


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that as of now, speeches will be of of 10 minutes' duration with no questions or comments permitted afterwards.
The Hon. Member for Otttawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), for the first 10-minute speech.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I regret the fact that we are down to ten minutes, but I will do what I can to highlight my major concerns about the privatization of Air Canada, which is the purpose of Bill C-129.
Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly frank: I am against the Government's Bill. I am against the Tories' proposal for privatization, and I think the mechanism to bring this about was designed in haste and that the Government has given no serious consideration to the impact of its decision on the industry and Air Canada itself.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal for privatization that was drafted, as I said earlier, in haste, and which I think is surprisingly ill-prepared. Of course, we are used to that in the House by now. The Government always seems to be rushing in its legislation, and it is unable to manage the time of the House effectively.
Mr. Speaker, the Government decided to privatize Air Canada because the Corporation has to buy new aircraft. It needs a capital injection of about $300 million to renew its fleet. As we said earlier, these requirements are not new. In years gone by, the Corporation has been able to buy the replacement aircraft it needs, and I think it will still be able to do so if it remains in the public sector.
The Government tells us it is going to give Air Canada back to Canadians by letting them purchase shares in the company. Mr. Speaker, Air Canada already belongs to Canadians. It is a public corporation, a Crown corporation, 100 per cent owned by Canadians. What this Government is about to do is sell us something we already own. This isn't very logical, but that's Tory logic for you. We will make more money by investing in a company that no longer belongs to us. The purpose of Bill C-129 is to take Air Canada away from us. It's like selling the furniture to buy the House. It's like giving the lease to strangers, whose interests may be very different from the needs and interests of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, privatizing Air Canada does not make sense. We don't have to sell the pride and joy of Canadians that happens to be making a profit. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said during the last election campaign, and I repeat it here today: "Canada needs a national airline", said Mr. Mulroney, and "I agree that Canada must keep this national airline".
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister. With a lot of time and effort, energy and skill and capital investment, we

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
here in Canada have made Air Canada a going concern with an international reputation. Now the Government is getting ready to dismantle all that because the company needs airplanes.
Mr. Speaker, because I am short of time, in the few minutes available to us, I would like to touch on a most important subject related to my work as official languages critic, namely, clause 10 of Bill C-129, which reads, "The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation."
In the few moments at my disposal, I would share with the House my concerns on this obligation, this provision of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, as a federal institution, Air Canada has always been subject to the Official Languages Act since 1969. In an appearance before the Official Languages Committee on April 15, 1987, Mr. Pierre Jeanniot, President and Chief Executive Officer of Air Canada, said:
Air Canada, through its people, extends the reality of a bilingual Canada to every place we serve. I believe that these examples, only a few of many, also effectively demonstrate that bilingualism does work in a commercial environment. It takes a lot of effort and dedication and commitment, but it can and it is being accomplished.
Since the subject of privatization has been raised, increasing pressure has come from the company, which feels that clause 10 of Bill C-129 will put too heavy a burden on it compared to its competitors. I know that because I have met company representatives who told me of their fears. They raised a number of issues, including services provided by a third party; Bill C-72, the new Official Languages Act I hope will soon be passed by this House, and how it will apply; bilingual signage; supplementary audits by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Treasury Board and the Department of the Secretary of State; the possibility of court challenges; language of work, both with respect to documentation and computer systems; and the role of supervisors. The corporation is also concerned about the primacy of the Official Languages Act over the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportation Act, problems with personnel logistics and the interpretation of "significant demand", and finally, potential conflicts with provincial legislation such as Bill 101 in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed all these concerns with corporation representatives for some time. To hear these people talk, you would think they were headed for certain financial disaster if they ever had to comply with the Official Languages Act!
I listened very carefully to these people and I understand their concerns. Although I could take their fears one by one and put them to rest, I don't think this is either the time or the place to do so. However, one argument I utterly refuse to accept. According some Air Canada representatives, there is no way they can live with Bill C-72 in a commercial, profit-oriented environment. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I am supported and by the President of Air Canada himself, Mr. Pierre Jeanniot, who told the Committee about a year ago, and I quote:
In pragmatic terms, while our commitment is derived from a strong social belief in the equality of both languages and equal opportunities for all Canadians, we have also determined that bilingualism makes good commercial sense.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this statement makes eminent sense. In the case of Air Canada and Bill C-129, I think there is room for adjustments, for specific arrangements to accommodate the company which, I agree, operates in a very particular and very competitive environment. The Official Opposition intends to propose such arrangements when the Bill is considered in Committee.
However, although we are open to adjustments, these should not be allowed to alter the basic principle. Canadians need a national carrier, but they also need a carrier that, partly privatized or not, respects the basic characteristics of this country, and I am referring to the English-French linguistic duality, a carrier that is able to offer services at all times in either official language of this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, from Yellowknife to Chicoutimi. This is a sacred principle that must not be altered, with or without privatization.
Mr. Speaker, I raised this point because I think it is extremely important. I would like to see the Government maintain what Bill C-129 contains with respect to official languages. I don't want to see the Government's commitment watered down. However I would not want to see Air Canada obliged to work in a competitive climate where it is not playing on a level field. I think we can allay Air Canada's fears about the Official Languages Act and its application to Bill C-129, while maintaining a certain way of doing things here in Canada for corporations that are privatized. In other words, when we privatize a public service, especially in the transportation sector, the corporation that will be privatized-it will be, because the Government has an overwhelming majority and will probably win the vote-but in any case, if it is privatized Mr. Speaker, there must be a commitment that the future company will remain subject to the Official Languages Act and that ways will be found to deal with the problems of being competitive after privatization.
I do not want Air Canada to be forced to do things that might reduce its competitiveness and give it financial difficulties. But I think that if the Government requires a company to do more than another company in the market, this same Government must guarantee that the company will be compensated for the additional services that it must provide. I am thinking, for example, of the three main aspects: language of work, language of service and equitable representation. There is no doubt that if employees are to work in their own language, English or French, throughout the country, Air Canada will have problems, but there are solutions, in Quebec as in Winnipeg. I think that we can reasonably call upon the expertise of the House and Hon. Members to find a solution to
June 7, 1988

this problem of language of work that might cause major problems for Air Canada.
As for language of service, Mr. Speaker, I maintain today that Air Canada has been required to use both for almost 20 years. It has gained some experience. The President and CEO of the company, Mr. Jeanniot, said so in committee. It can be done very easily and with good will if the company just understands that it must serve the Canadian public in both official languages throughout its operations. I think that we already have good experience and some background in this.
I see no problems with equitable representation. It costs the company no more to hire competent people who reflect the country's demographic makeup. As I already said, I think that Air Canada already has some experience with all these questions. It is possible to do so and we must continue, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-72 to amend the Official Languages Act says that the federal Government should support the language minorities in Canada including the anglophone minority in Quebec. The Meech Accord says that the English community in Quebec is part of the fundamental character of Canada and that the federal and provincial Governments must preserve this fundamental character.
Why then is the Quebec Government now questioning certain provisions of Bill C-72? Bill C-72 is totally consistent with the Meech Accord which Quebec initiated. The Meech Accord does not give priority to Quebec in language matters. Certain language rights were entrenched in the Constitution in 1867 and once again in 1982, and the federal Official Languages Act was enacted in 1970.
The Quebec Government should stop confusing the public on these issues. Language rights in Canada are fundamental and the promotion of one language should never be done at the expense of the other.



ITALIAN WEEK


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion of Italy Week right here in Ottawa, it is a real pleasure and a great honour for me to respectfully salute all Italian Canadians, who have enriched our Canadian culture with their traditions that are so warm and colorful.
I wish to take this national opportunity to draw particular attention to the multicultural dimension of our wonderful constituency of LaSalle-Emard, which has two very active Italian parishes: Maria Madre Dei Christiani, ably led by Father Duchini, and San Giovanni Di Bosco, whose pastor is Father Piol.
Since we are not allowed to use the language of Dante, so rich as it is, in this House, I will simply use this expression known in all times and civilizations: "Bravo" to all Italian Canadians!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy, in a society committed to freedom of speech, to curb abuse of that freedom. A blow for truth was struck with the conviction, in 1985, of James Keegstra for teaching Alberta high school students about a Jewish conspiracy he thinks is at work in world affairs.
The decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal to quash Keegstra's conviction illustrates the difficulty Canadians face in curbing lies and deceit used for racist purposes. Mr. Justice R. P. Kerans and his two colleagues assert that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects such freedom of speech and that the charge of inciting hatred against an identifiable group must be corroborated by evidence of such hatred and those exposed to the incitement.
An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding this decision is urgently needed. I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to support the Attorney General of Alberta in obtaining an early hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Canadians want to know what the limits on freedom of speech are in our multicultural society. They need to be assured that incitement to hatred against identifiable groups will not flourish under Charter protection.



S'. O. 21 ABORTION COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1988

Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the womb is truly a dangerous place to live. Knowing the current madness prevalent in those who would do away with unborn children, none of us would ever choose to be there today.
The about-to-be-aborted unborn children would agree. Occasionally they do survive the abortion, but who is there to monitor what happens next? Absolutely no one except those who are intent on preventing and destroying life.
As Members of Parliament we must call for and support pro-life legislation. As Members of Parliament we must question whether a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy by ensuring the death of her child.
As Members of Parliament we must not condone the future destruction of our unborn children by handing them over to the canonized law breaker Elenry Morgantaler, who now views his mandate for nation-wide abortion clinics and schools, to teach other doctors his perfected death skills.
For us to accept wholesale abortion is to put future generations and ourselves in the hands of those who hold a philosophy of death. All arguments in favour of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, reveal that the humanitarian ethic wants to restrict the right to live and expand the right to die and to kill.

[ Translation]



BY-ELECTIONS LAC-SAINT-JEAN VOTERS

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the pleasure and the honour to go to the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean and I met working men and women who, it so happened, have the same opinion of the Conservative Government as those in my riding of Montreal- Sainte-Marie. I met old people. They too feel the same way as seniors in Montreal-Sainte-Marie. I met families in Lac-Saint-Jean. They too have the same opinion of the Conservative Government as families in Montreal-Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Speaker, the difference, I learned, is that the people of Lac-Saint-Jean ... no senior citizen there will vote for our national "Charlie Brown." And I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment... Mr. Bouchard was ahead in the race, but now, he is behind and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean will give a lesson to this Conservative Government, which has been incompetent for the past four years.



AEROSPACE


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed headquarters for the federal space agency must be in Ottawa because it would simply be the right thing to do. The federal Departments and foreign embassies with which it will continually liase are here. Thousands of person years in research and development and related scientific activities are within the National Capital Region and should not be disrupted or relocated. National headquarters, as in most other industrialized nations, should be in the National Capital.
In 1985-86, 44.1 per cent of federal government grants for R and D to industry went to Quebec, with only 5.7 per cent to the National Capital Region. Space plan targets for regional spending show Quebec to get 35 per cent and Ontario 35 per cent.
The space industry wants the agency in Ottawa and so do I. It is the logical decision.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the BBC has illuminated the tragedy behind the veil of secrecy designed by the South African Government to hide its torture and abuse of children. In Canada a lost child is often a victim of the criminal or the insane. In South Africa one seeks a missing black child in a government prison where the acts of the criminal and the insane are sanctioned by racist law.
Today three million black people are risking all to protest their continuing oppression. Under the leadership of COSATU and the churches of South Africa, in the face of uncivilized rejection of non violence by their oppressors, they themselves are trying non violent means of expression one more time. But perhaps the question must be asked: can they, or we who claim to be their supporters, really continue to believe that the violent oppressor will ever concede to a non violent plea? Will we instead find Frederick Douglas to be proven right, that we cannot hope to have the rain of freedom without the thunder and lightning of a liberating storm?
June 7, 1988



AIDS DISEASE-ONTARIO PREMIER'S ADVICE

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, David Peterson, Ontario's Premier, has bewildering advice for children and high school students. According to a story in the May 21 Globe and Mail, he told 420 young people that Governments are spending millions of dollars on public awareness, advertising, and medical research on the disease AIDS. Mr. Peterson informed them that it is acceptable to have safe sex with the use of condoms.
Mr. Peterson admits that there is no cure for the dreaded AIDS disease that causes suffering, misery, and heartbreak.
In view of the fact that he was speaking to children and youths, it would seem to me that the subject of safe sex could have been mentioned in a husband-wife context. He could have warned that promiscuity and homosexuality are probably the two greatest causes of AIDS. He could have warned them that the best way to play it safe is to wait for marriage, but he didn't.
Young people need better role models. As the Premier of Ontario, he has an obligation and responsibility to give healthy and intelligent answers to important questions.
Is David Peterson's advice the kind we want to give our children? Surely our children, our students, who will become the men and women of tomorrow, deserve better. Bewildering advice indeed!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last December 6, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Coast Guard seized the Canadian fishing boat Last Time in Canadian waters in Lake Superior.
The vessel, owned by Ferroclad Fisheries of Batchawana, was taken to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and had been in the possession of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources ever since. This has resulted in losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars of income to fishermen.
The captain and crew have been charged with a misdemeanour of fishing with an illegal device, a gillnet, which carries a maximum fine of $500. No conviction has been registered yet against the captain and crew. The fishing vessel which is worth some over $500,000 is still held by the State of Michigan.
The seizure of a Canadian fishing vessel in Canadian waters by the U.S. is illegal. I call on the Government of Canada to demand that this vessel be returned to the owners immediately
because it was seized illegally, that the misdemeanour charges against the fishermen be dropped, and that full restitution for the losses to these fishermen be made by the United States Government.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) that cruise ships of 250 or more berths would be allowed duty free entry into Canada on a long term basis was welcome news for the British Columbia cruise ship industry.
Certainly the concerns expressed about this issue over the past week from all quarters of the marine and tourism sectors have been listened to sympathetically by our colleagues in Cabinet. Now the work of the interdepartmental task force, which will look at all aspects of federal policy affecting the cruise industry, must be done thoroughly and urgently, particularly with respect to whether or not over the long term any taxes or tariffs should be charged on the goods consumed or sold aboard cruise ships after 1988, for which they have already been exempted.
Perhaps in all the flurry over this issue, someone missed the important announcement by the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) on May 25 when he unveiled an $80,000 study to examine the potential for expanding the cruise ship industry on the British Columbia coast. This study will look at port requirements, attractions and services for cruise ship passengers, as well as marketing strategies to attract even more customers to the B.C. west coast.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, modern industrial society does not know what to do with its garbage. Cities like Vancouver look for a dump site upcoast or in the interior. Large American cities tow their garbage out to sea or try to palm it off on poorer countries. The situation, however, becomes truly alarming when we deal with toxic waste. The experiences of the Love Canal and other dump sites have shown us that burying it is no solution.
We now hear of European countries that want to export the problem of toxic waste to Africa. A number of them plan to develop a toxic waste site in Benin. We read that Italy has dumped 1,200 tonnes of toxic waste in Nigeria and the

June 7, 1988
containers for this toxic waste were so hot they burned the hands of the workers who handled them despite the fact they were wearing rubber gloves.
We need to recognize that we live in one world, a shrinking world. We cannot store poison in one part of it without damaging all of it. We must learn to stop producing toxic waste rather than trying to bury it.

[ Translation]



ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Beauce and Quebec, I wish to pay tribute to a native son who is celebrating his fiftieth anniversary as a priest. I am referring to the illustrious prelate, His Eminence Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon, Archbishop of Quebec.
This man, devoid of any affectation, has made his mark in the Roman Catholic Church. We admire his tireless dedication to his brothers and sisters in Christ. Cardinal Vachon has always believed that the life and dignity of every human being was worthy of respect.
Mr. Speaker, what is truly remarkable about this man is his abiding sense of justice and equity. As the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "In our modern society, the role of the priest has become immeasurably more complex, reflecting the rapid changes in our society".
Wherever there is trouble and despair, a priest is there to bring words of consolation and hope. Your Eminence, I wish you a happy fiftieth anniversary, good health and a long life!



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there are many important issues facing the people of Central Nova in the next federal election, but none are as fundamentally important as the issues of honesty and credibility. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ran in Central Nova five years ago, he promised jobs, jobs, jobs. He bragged that when it came to government largess in Central Nova, he was going to make Allan J. look like a schoolboy. Well, we all know who the real schoolboy is. It is the Prime Minister.
In August of 1983, when the Prime Minister ran in Central Nova, there were 4,200 people dependent upon unemployment insurance. Today, four years and ten months later, there are over 6,600 people dependent upon unemployment insurance
benefits in this area. In April the unemployment insurance rate in Pictou County was 31 per cent. Where are the jobs?
The Prime Minister has proven to be a schoolboy who does not do his homework. He deserves a detention. Perhaps he should be made to stay after school and write "I will tell the truth" 6,000 times. Better still, since he is failing so badly, maybe he should just drop out altogether.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the western economy is currently facing the strain of a drought. The federal and provincial Governments are prepared to provide whatever assistance is needed to overcome this natural disaster, yet the man-made problem of high interest rates continues to hurt the prairie economy.
Interest rates are now the single highest expense of nonfarm origin faced by farmers. The rise in interest rates has been a major factor contributing to the decline of farm asset values, and what hurts the farmers hurts the whole prairie population.
The Bank of Canada interest rate policy is having a negative impact on new home construction, retail sales, manufacturing, and dampening the spirit of small business. This is all occurring at a time when the western economy is already in a depressed state.
I realize it is important to control inflation, but a policy which concentrates solely on inflation ignores the negative impact that high interest rates can have on important sectors in other regions of the country.
I call on the Bank of Canada to reassess its position.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's legal system has a long way to go before a court trial can be held in which the accused, and only the accused, is placed on trial. Recent trials have demonstrated, all too often, the licence given to unscrupulous defence counsel to place the victim or victims, almost always women and/or children, on trial, rather than the defendant.
The practice of harassment and intimidation of victim witnesses in Canadian court rooms is one that must be stopped. It degrades the quality of justice in Canada, demeans victims,
June 7, 1988

derogates from their human rights, and disgraces the legal profession by turning the courts into a media backdrop and defence counsel into mercenary actors.
If the legal profession cannot rectify this situation by discipline, then we shall have to by legislation. In either case, Canada's justice system must protect victims and witnesses and not expose them to a form of trial in many ways harsher than that which the defendant undergoes.



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House will recall the extreme bungling that surrounded the federal Government's handling of the mussel toxin case. This mismanagement reached its peak on December 11, 1987, and I quote from a press release from that day: "Health and Welfare Minister Jake Epp and Fisheries Minister Thomas Siddon announced today that an alert is in force on all shellfish from Atlantic Canada". Imagine the chaos and confusion created by that statement.
Protecting the safety and health of Canadians must come first, but surely the federal Government has to recognize that its handling of this problem only served to make a bad situation even worse. For instance, the federal Government ordered that oysters and quahogs already harvested and on their way to markets be destroyed. These producers and shippers are still looking for compensation for their products, which were totally free of toxin; no trace whatsoever was found in them either before they were harvested or in shipment.
I now urge the Ministers concerned to approve these funds as soon as possible.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis)t Mr. Speaker, the socialist leader has spoken out against nuclear submarines, thus taking the same position as the Liberal Leader. That is their political choice.
But it's a different story when Canada's ambassador to the United Nations and ex-socialist leader of Ontario endorses his former and future boss wholeheartedly.
Whether he is elected or appointed, an NDP'er will always thumb his nose at integrity. He takes the honours and the
Oral Questions
money, the benefits and the floor, but his philosophy never changes.
When dealing with a Member of the NDP, never forget the old French saying: "Donne a manger a un cochon, il va faire sur ton perron".


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my questions to the Prime Minister. In the last two or three days we have been greeted with the spectacle of our Ambassador to the United Nations totally contradicting government policy in the areas of nuclear disarmament, foreign aid, and defence. We have had the spectacle of the Minister of International Trade contradicting the Secretary of State for External Affairs about what to do about the Ambassador to the UN. We have had the Minister of Finance contradicting the Minister of Defence as to what the cost of this very expensive program will be. We have had nothing but a series of confusing and contradictory statements from Ministers of the Crown concerning the silly and ludicrous defence program put forward by the Government.
Under those circumstances, is it not time for the Prime Minister to exercise his responsibility and to ask for a basic review of a program which not only threatens to bankrupt the defence treasury, but also undermines Canada's commitment to the non-proliferation treaty and the commitment we have had to verification and nuclear disarmament?
Is it not time that the Prime Minister stepped into this mess and cleared it up?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as usual in his allegations the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is wrong on all counts.
In so far as a silly and ludicrous defence policy is concerned, no one could compete for that title with the practices of the former Liberal Government of Canada which, in effect, abandoned Canada's defence commitments not only to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization but to the principles of freedom which this country should be dedicated to maintaining.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now trying to recover lost ground because of the statements

June 7, 1988
Oral Questions
made by his own official, the Ambassador to the United Nations for whom he is responsible, and which have contradicted the statements and policies of the Minister himself, I would like to ask him this specific question.
It is very clear that the Government, by going ahead with its nuclear program, will be abandoning its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty, as well as its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Committee to offer full and open verification, and its commitments that it signed with the United States in 1980 which require that its own uranium be used for only peaceful purposes and not for military purposes. How in the face of all those major contradictions can the Secretary of State stand up with any kind of honour or dignity and say that he supports this policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member, in the allegations that he puts before the House, is wrong on every count. I have to admire his consistency.
With regard to one of the allegations that he made, let me simply restate the facts, facts which I believe he knows, even though he will not present them this way in the House of Commons. Everything that has been proposed with regard to a nuclear propelled submarine would be entirely consistent with our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister should know is that that treaty only covers the peaceful use of nuclear materials. Therefore the decision by his Government breaks the spirit of the agreement by not offering to verify its use for military purposes. That is the truth, and those are the facts that the Minister should recognize.


SPEECH MADE BY FORMER CHANCELLOR OF WEST GERMANY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. For the last two weeks he has spent a good deal of time preparing for the summit. Part of his message has been the need to deal with the serious problems of Third World poverty and Third World debt. I wish to read to him the statement made by Willy Brandt, the former Chancellor of West Germany, who said: "How can you morally justify a circumstance where the cost of one nuclear submarine would pay for the full educational cost of 130 developing countries, including 150 million children?"
In those circumstances, when he is dealing with the question of the summit and trying to come to grips with it, is it not hypocritical and charlatan of the Government to pretend it is interested in that problem when it is going ahead with an expenditure of extravagant amounts of money for a weapons system that will contradict our commitment to non-proliferation, and at the same time deny the opportunity to increase our foreign aid commitments to countries which desperately need them to pay for the education of their children?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have not read Mr. Brandt's speech. But if the Hon. Member's record is anything to go by, the Hon. Member is undoubtedly misquoting Mr. Brandt. Nonetheless I will take a look at his speech.
With regard to the opportunities for Canada to exercise real leadership in dealing with Third World debt, the initiatives that the Government has taken, particularly at international economic summits, have paved the way for very substantial action in relief of debt. That was the case with regard to Francophone Africa. It was the case with regard to African countries in the Commonwealth. Most recently, it has been as a result of a Canadian initiative that there has been a formula found among members of the Paris Club that will allow us to make even more progress with regard to the relief of debt in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Hon. Member stands in his place and talks. This Government has been acting to relieve the debt situation of countries in the Third World.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who knows perfectly well that the list of people who feel that Quebec is being unfairly treated by the Conservative Government as far as economic development is concerned is getting longer by the day.
On the weekend, the Premier of Quebec said that the Government was dragging its feet on the space agency and regional economic development. Yesterday, the Secretary of State, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, said that Quebec was not getting its fair share of federal research and development contracts. The Chamber of Commerce put in its two cents' worth when it said that the Government's high interest rate policy was harming economic development in Quebec. My question for the Prime Minister is this: Why is he letting this kind of situation continue, and when will he announce a firm decision with respect to the space agency, the Port of Quebec, the Port of Montreal, regional economic development and research and development contracts? When will the Government stop its unfair treatment of Quebec?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce may have put in its two cents' worth, but the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides just about filled the piggy bank! Without
June 7, 1988

quoting any figures, I would say that as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, he is standing up for Quebec's interests, which may not be customary in the Liberal Party. And when the Hon. Member asks us when we are going to make announcements, I suggest that he read the papers. It's all quite clear. An important announcement will be made Thursday morning.


APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN TWO MINISTERS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we have two Ministers of the Crown contradicting each other. The Secretary of State says that Quebec is not getting its share, and the Minister who just answered my question implied that Quebec was being treated generously. I want to ask the Prime Minister, who is telling the truth, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology or the Secretary of State?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, under the previous Government, outlying areas did not get their share, and that was what the Secretary of State was referring to. To correct this, we now have an economic development plan that will deal specifically with those areas.
If we look at Quebec as a whole and if we consider the allocation of DRIE funding, we see that during the past five years, 39.5 per cent of those funds were allocated to Quebec. When we look at how contracts are awarded, when we came to power 16.3 per cent of the contracts were given to Quebec. The next year, 22.5 per cent, the year after, 24.2 per cent and last year it was 32 per cent. If we consider science and technology, 40 per cent of the contracts awarded went to Quebec under the space program.
All you have to do is listen!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. At the very time that the Government is finding billions of dollars to spend recklessly on attack nuclear submarines, it is busy totally undermining postal service in both rural and urban Canada. The Minister has, of course, been busy denying this. Let me ask him about what has taken place in the last few weeks in Topley, British Columbia.
Is he aware that in Topley, British Columbia, in the last few weeks because Sandra Shelford refused to take a $1,100 cut
Oral Questions
per month in pay, postal service was reduced from a post office to green boxes placed in a motel parking lot? Will the Minister finally admit that this has been what he has denied has existed in rural Canada, a major reduction in service to this part of British Columbia?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, talking about accurate statements, I have here an article from the Tuesday, April 19, issue of the Financial Post. Its headline is "New NDP defence policy outlines costly increases". I wonder where an NDP Government would get the money from.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mazankowski:: You cannot have it both ways.


Harvie Andre: The reality is that under the corporate plan of Canada Post the number of rural postal outlets will increase by
2,000	over the next eight years and, in fact, service will be improved. For example, last year 119 rural post offices were converted to the private sector. The hours of operation went from an average of 24 hours a week when run by Canada Post to 62 hours a week when run by the private sector. The people served by those 119 post offices are getting better service today, and that situation will continue in the future.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada and especially rural Canada, and more particularly that part of British Columbia, will notice that the Minister did not answer the question because he did not have an answer to the question. That is what they will notice.


REQUEST THAT SUPERMAILBOXES BE ABOLISHED
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that supermailboxes have been put in the Minister's riding and that every Member of Parliament on the Conservative side of the House and on this side of the House has supermailboxes in his or her urban ridings, and considering that citizens pay the same taxes and the same amount for postage stamps and are entitled to fully equivalent service as citizens, will the Minister admit that he was wrong on supermailboxes, abolish them, and restore door-to-door delivery throughout urban Canada?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first let me say that door-to-door delivery has never been the exclusive way of delivering the mail in Canada for 120 years.


John Edward Broadbent: I mean urban Canada-listen!


Harvie Andre: Not even in urban Canada. Second, when Canada Post Corporation was created by an Act of Parliament, unanimously endorsed, including by the Hon. Member himself, the object was to avoid interference in the day-to-day business of the Post Office by the Minister. Now the Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me about a specific post

June 7, 1988
Oral Questions
office in a specific area without giving me a warning that he will ask the question, and then expresses indignation and outrage that I do not know the answer.
Third, the fact is that any level of service is possible if we are prepared to pay for it. To extend door-to-door delivery to every place that now does not receive it-and no one has had it taken away-in the way the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party has asked would require that we raise the price of a stamp to 60 cents. If that is the position of that Party, let it do it. The money has to come from somewhere, from some source. The Act of Parliament to which we all agreed requires that the Post Office run in the black and not in the red. That would require a raise in the price of stamps. How high is the Leader of the New Democratic Party prepared to see the price of a stamp increase?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that other people with expertise in the field by no means agree with the 60-cent figure. Much less than that has been estimated.
Will the Minister have a chat with his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and have him get rid of just one nuclear submarine? He would then have enough money to pay for that, and he knows that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: And I come to my last question. As Minister responsible for postal services, is he pleased that the Government has found enough money to buy nuclear submarines but no money at all, or not enough, for postal services? Is he pleased with that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the New Democratic Party's defence policy. We heard the Party's spokesman on defence saying that the New Democratic Party, while it will not go for submarines, will spend that much money and more on other defence-


John Edward Broadbent: He's denied it. He didn't say it.


Harvie Andre: That's what he said. If they are going to spend all this extra money on other means of defence than submarines, where will it come from to extend postal service?
Incidentally, to do what the Hon. Member is talking about in terms of delivery door-to-door, and forgetting about what he is talking in terms of rural Canada, would require an additional $500 million a year. Where do members of the New Democratic Party suggest we get that-from the day care program, perhaps?


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. For four years, we in the Official Opposition have been saying that Quebec is unfairly treated, and the list is getting longer today. You have Pierre MacDonald, Quebec's Minister for International Trade, Mr. Garcia, President of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Jean Dore, Mayor of Montreal, Jacques Parizeau, Leader of the Parti Quebecois, Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec, and then you have the Minister who is going to be defeated in Lac-Saint-Jean, Lucien Bouchard, who say that Quebec is being unfairly treated, on Quebec issues, by the Conservative Government. Since the Minister of State for Science and Technology has just lied by saying that his colleague, the Secretary of State, did not tell the truth in the televised debate, I would like the Prime Minister to answer the question; either let him come to the rescue of the Secretary of State or let him come to the rescue of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Given the list of Quebecers who say that Quebec has not received its fair share, can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not he shares these people's opinion?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, regarding science and technology, I think that the last time we heard a storm of protest from Quebec was when Quebecers realized the fierce opposition of the Liberal Party to Bill C-22, which would have created 1,300 new jobs in Quebec and brought in $800 million of investment. That was the last time we heard such an outcry because the betrayal of Quebec was so great.
Now my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie raises the matter of a four-year mandate for economic development. In a period of 55 months, in their last term, the Liberals created
40,000	jobs in Quebec. In less than four years, the Conservative Government has created 272,000 new jobs in Quebec!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CORRECT ALLEGED INJUSTICES
Jean-Claude Malépart: understand that the Prime Minister does not want to answer the question. All those people, who are honourable individuals in Quebec, from the Premier and Leader of the Opposition on down, say that the Conservative Government is dragging its feet on the following issues: Shipyards, space agency, rail transport, Montreal East, redevelopment of the Old Port of Montreal and development of the Port of Montreal. What I want to know and what these Quebecers want to know, Mr. Prime Minister, is not statistics from Statistics Canada. They want to know the truth! Will you correct the injustices now as the elections approach or will you simply maintain the status quo that we now have?
June 7, 1988


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite strange to hear the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie talk about his concern for the Premier of Quebec, considering he was in a party whose leader called Mr. Bourassa a "hot-dog eater" which is a most shameful, contemptible statement towards Quebec. That is the real attitude of the Liberal Party to the Premier of Quebec and Quebecers.
As regards the economic results, the facts, if my friend does not accept the statements of Statistics Canada, let him look again. When he was a Member of this House and was quiet as a mouse, interest rates were at 22 per cent, at 16 per cent, and Quebecers were going bankrupt. The Liberals created only
40,000	new jobs in 55 months, whereas almost 272,000 have been created by the Conservative Government. This is really a giant step for the Quebec economy, and the Hon. Member should point it out gladly instead of criticizing the Conservative Government.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post and concerns a rather bizarre incident which took place in my riding last Saturday.
Last Saturday afternoon, at my invitation, three members of Rural Dignity, two women and one man, came to my office to collect petitions which had been signed and deposited at my office. They came at my invitation. I welcomed them to my office. As we were entering the office, they told me that there was a car in which there were two Canada Post officials which had been following them all the way from Ironbridge, and which was parked in the parking lot watching them.
I went out and spoke to both occupants of the car. They told me that they were there by the orders of Don Lander, the President of Canada Post.
I wish to put my question to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Since this is not the Soviet Union, and since the Minister may have heard of glastnost, can the Minister responsible for Canada Post tell me and the Canadian people how he justifies this kind of watching, besetting, and harassing by the DonDon macoute of the Post Office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me what has been happening over the last couple of weeks is the postal union, disguised as Rural Dignity, is going across the country harassing the Post Office.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: It is interesting that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt petitioned the Post Office for a new postal outlet in one of his towns called Wanup, Ontario. The Post Office agreed and opened a new retail post office to serve the 450 people who did not have a post office there. The Hon. Member said he was delighted. This was done under the policy which the Hon. Member, along with his Leader, now stands up and condemns as shutting things down in rural Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister I am not going to be diverted from my course-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -by those kinds of shots.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question because the Minister has a hot potato on his plate and he does not want to answer the question.
How does he justify, in a democracy like ours, this following all the way from British Columbia, all the way from Newfoundland, of people who are not harassing the Post Office, who are not threatening the Post Office, on a Saturday when all the post offices are in fact closed? Can the Minister tell this House and Canadians how he justifies that kind of behaviour in a democracy such as ours?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): In his first question he suggested the Post Office employees had followed Rural Dignity from Ironbridge. Now he says they have done it from Vancouver or St. John's, Newfoundland. Perhaps the Hon. Member can tell this House where the dignity is in travelling the country, passing on a bunch of misinformation, making a lot of false statements about closings, scaring people unnecessarily and so on. Perhaps he could tell the House how it can be justified that a Member of Parliament, as I understand it, comes rushing across the street and berates a couple of employees of a Crown corporation, screams and yells at them, calls them names, abuses them viciously, and then stands up and say they were misbehaving?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware of the very serious drought in western Canada. Temperatures reached 42 degrees this past weekend. It is a crisis situation for

June 7, 1988
Oral Questions
livestock producers. There is no grass. Water-holes are drying up. Feed will be in very short supply. That means producers will be forced to sell up to one-half of their breeding herds.
I attended the seventy-fifth anniversary convention of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers in Moose Jaw this past weekend and many producers asked whether or not the Government would consider a deferral of income tax because of forced sales. They suggested a deferral of up to three years in order that they would have the funds to replenish their herds once the weather straightens out.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is very well aware of the sensitivity the Government has shown to the current very serious drought problem. The Minister of Agriculture was in the west just last week announcing a direct payment. It is our view right now that direct payments are a better way of targeting the assistance more precisely.
The Hon. Member is quite correct that there are some situations that arise right now where it is quite clear there are forced sales. However, there are also situations that are much greyer in interpretation and for that reason it is more difficult to deal with these through the tax system than it would be if the assistance is directly provided through a grant program.
I understand the concern expressed and I appreciate the representation that the Hon. Member has made.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Over the past year and a half, Mr. Speaker, I never missed an opportunity to ask questions concerning Canada Post. It was not like today when the NDP Members are rising one after another! We know this file inside out and I should like to put a very specific question to the Minister.
He stated earlier that it takes money to keep rural post offices open and provide home delivery. Considering the cost of a nuclear submarine, I wish he would tell me how many rural post offices we would be able to keep open and just how much mail we would deliver to homeowners in new residential developments. Could he tell us, for the cost of a single nuclear submarine?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party agreed unanimously, along with the unions, in 1981 when the Post Office Corporation Act was passed by this House. That Act states
explicitly that the Post Office shall run on a break-even basis. It shall pay for its operations through the sale of stamps. The proper question is therefore how much should the price of stamps be raised to meet the election promises that the Liberals and NDP are making? That is the proper question. To do otherwise would require the Post Office to break the law which was unanimously passed by this Parliament.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Minister forgets that the other two objectives of the corporation set in 1981 were to improve service and have better management relations. If the Government achieved better management relations it would have achieved the break-even point without cutting service and increasing the price of stamps.


DELIVERY OF SUPPLIES TO MEDICAL DOCTORS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, in rural Canada medical doctors receive their supplies by Canada Post. Is the new government policy, since it is turning the Post Office into a grocery store, that medical doctors will not be receiving their supplies any more through Canada Post?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I understand the question. The corporate plan calls for 2,000 additional rural post offices over the next eight years. That means that if there is a doctor in each one of these locations they will be able to receive their information and equipment, and whatever else, a little more effectively than previously. Service to rural Canada will continue to be improved under the current corporate plan.


BY-ELECTIONS CONSTITUENCY OF LAC-SAINT-JEAN-GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES-BILL C-79-DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to Lac-Saint-Jean Conservative candidate Lucien Bouchard, now Quebec's heavyweight Minister in this Government, reforming the election expenses of political parties is the number one priority, the most important priority.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the May 30 letter I got from the Government Deputy House Leader does not even list Bill C-79 among the federal Government's 30 or 40 priorities. It has been withdrawn from the priority list, Mr. Speaker.
So my question is this: Why was this Bill withdrawn? Why does the federal Government do one thing here in the House of Commons and why does Progressive Conservative Party candidate Lucien Bouchard say something different in his Lac-Saint-Jean by-election campaign?
June 7, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, whenever the opposition Parties are ready to sit down and work out an agreement in an intelligent and orderly fashion, we will be prepared to do so.


QUERY WHETHER ANOTHER BILL WILL BE INTRODUCED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree that the statement made by Mr. Bouchard, in Lac-Saint-Jean, for political reasons, is in conflict with the facts as stated here in the House by the Deputy House Leader, to whom we have made this proposal three times, but to no avail? Will another bill be submitted to the Opposition Parties by June 30?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister has already given an answer to the question concerning the tabling of a bill. As for the situation in Lac-Saint-Jean, I think that my friend will be interested to know that the Hon. Lucien Bouchard, the Conservative candidate in the Lac-Saint-Jean riding, is financing his election campaign in accordance with the formula accepted by the people and the Government of Quebec many years now, that is public financing. He does not accept contributions from corporations or labour unions.
The New Democrats might want to take note of that.
* *
*


FOOD IRRADIATION REGULATIONS-REVIEW PROCESS
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, new regulations regarding food irradiation were gazetted this week which will provide for applications to irradiate food to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
While a few of the recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs were included in the regulations, many were not.
Given the real public concern and scepticism about the whole issue of food irradiation, would the Minister once again consider a major recommendation of that report that a consultative panel, including scientists and consumer representatives as well as government officials, be established to review and advise the Minister on any submissions to irradiate food, so that the public will be more confident and assured of the openness and independence of the review process?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised this issue in the report. We looked at it seriously when we responded to the report. The Department of National Health and Welfare, specifically the Health Protection Branch division, has within it professional chemists, nutritionists, microbiologists, toxicologists, and other professionals, including the radiation group, to deal with these issues.
We regularly get advice from outside groups. I think it is important that the regulatory process within the Department of National Health and Welfare remain intact for the Minister and for the scientific advice from the Department.
Although I know it is a repeat of the points which the Hon. Member and her committee made, at the moment I believe that we have in place a consultative process without formalizing it beyond what we now have.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the administration of the Department of Public Works. Yesterday, on CJOH television here in Ottawa, a promoter of a $157 million Micott office building project in Hull, Mr. Glen Kealy, stated that "an important person in Public Works on the political side said that support for the project would only come once I give them a bribe or pay them some money."
Given the seriousness of these allegations made on television here in Ottawa yesterday, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to familiarize himself with this case? Can he respond to the House on it?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the person who made the allegation indicated that he had been speaking with the RCMP. The matter is under investigation.


RCMP INVESTIGATION-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question I would like to ask the Government is this: Is the Government in a position to tell us what will be the mandate and the parameters of this RCMP inquiry?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to observe that the employment of the person who made the allegation was terminated by the developers who made that proposal. We have made some

Oral Questions
preliminary inquiries about any involvement of Public Works. No one has any knowledge of that to which the Hon. Member refers. Again, I think is better left to the RCMP.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will know that Revenue Canada officials have violated a taxpayer's confidentiality by sending "requirement to pay" notices to the competitors and customers of Copy Choice Office Equipment of Mississauga.
One of these notices, dated June 2, 1988, was sent to a competitor, Doering & Brown of Scarborough, which is not even a creditor of the company.
Is it new government policy to send private tax information of businesses hither and yon? Does this situation not in fact jeopardize the future viability of Copy Choice and its 12 employees?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we are very aware that the principle of confidentiality is absolutely fundamental to our Canadian tax system.
I thank my colleague for raising this question. I have had a preliminary look at it. I have instructed my officials to look into it very carefully, to have a meeting with the taxpayer involved to hear his concerns, and to send out a statement of facts to the taxpayer.
As my colleague across the House knows, quite properly according to law I am precluded from putting the Department's side of the issue. We are sending the Department's side of the issue, as it were, in a statement of facts to the taxpayer. If he wishes to make it public he may. In the meantime I can assure the Member that I am taking the matter very seriously.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer and the recognition that what Revenue Canada has done has certainly infringed upon the declaration of taxpayers' rights with which his Government was so concerned.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the other point I want to make in putting my question to the Minister is that this taxpayer tried to get the co-operation of his office, the Prime Minister's Office, and the office of his Member of Parliament, who happens to be the Minister of Finance, and was not successful, in dealing with his concerns.
June 7, 1988
I want to get the assurance of the Minister, which I think he has already given me in part, that he will co-operate, that he will apologize to the taxpayer, and that he will intervene personally to resolve this tax matter quickly and fairly, particularly given the precarious financial position in which Revenue Canada has put Copy Choice.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have assured my colleague that we are taking this matter seriously. However, it would be unfair to ascribe any motives to the Department until the matter is more closely checked. That is the reason I have asked my Department to send a statement of facts to the taxpayer which the taxpayer may wish to make public. In the meantime I will continue to look into it.


REASSESSMENTS OF VALUE OF FARM EQUIPMENT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of National Revenue concerns the heavy equipment over-allowance special audit under which some 600 prairie farmers are in various stages of reassessment. The issue is whether Revenue Canada can substitute its opinion of fair market value of a piece of farm equipment traded in, for that freely arrived at in the market-place between the machine dealer and the farmer.
Is the Minister prepared to instruct his officials to abandon the arbitrary reassessment in these situations where the parties have acted in a bona fide, arm's length, reasonable, and equitable manner?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this issue. It has been raised before in this House. He knows that this special audit was cancelled over a year ago but that the Department has an obligation, indeed a duty, to check into various cases where it appears there may have been some abuse of this program.
In order to facilitate matters, I am seeking ways to have a representative case quickly brought into court so that some of the issues which the Member raises as to the acceptability of audit principles and jurisprudence can be dealt with quickly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last December 6 the United States Coastguard and Michigan Department of Natural Resources vessels illegally seized the Canadian fishing vessel Last Time in Lake Superior waters. The fishermen were charged with minor misdemeanors but the
#!
June 7, 1988

vessel was seized and is still held in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Last Friday a United States court determined that this vessel had been illegally seized in Canadian waters. What action is the Government of Canada prepared to take to make full restitution to these fishermen for the loss of their vessel and for this illegal action by United States officials?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, that court decision was rendered last Friday. It involved a finding that the vessel had in fact been in Canadian waters. This country does not accept that the United States can cross the international boundary in pursuit of alleged offenders. I have instructed my officials to protest this action-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: So that's what you need your submarines for.


Charles Joseph Clark: I'm not sure if the Hon. Member from the NDP is interested in the answer. I have instructed my officials to protest this action by the United States.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DEMAND RESTITUTION FROM UNITED STATES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister, in his protest, demand that the United States Government return the vessel immediately? It has put over six fishermen out of work for six months. Will he also ask that the United States Government drop the misdemeanor charges that have been laid against four fishermen and the captain? Will he demand that the United States Government make full financial restitution for the losses suffered by the fishermen in the last six months because of the United States' illegal action in seizing the vessel in Canadian waters?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look seriously at that. I am not sure whether the best means to communicate that wish by Canada would be by way of a diplomatic protest. However, we want this matter resolved as quickly as possible. I appreciate the interest that the Hon. Member has shown both in his question and in raising the matter with my office earlier today. I want to work with him to get it resolved quickly.


EDUCATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Both the Ontario Federation of Students and the Council of Ontario Universities have documented a financial situation in the
Oral Questions
universities that is so bad that the universities are reduced to using tax scams in order to make ends meet.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister because part of the problem is the failure of the provinces to pay their fair share. When and how will the Prime Minister keep his recent promise to British Columbia high school students that he will ensure that federal transfer of payments for post-secondary education are in fact used for that purpose?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is expressing the concern that the Right Hon. Prime Minister expressed, which is to ensure that we have a healthy and productive education system in this country.
We make available to the provinces a substantial amount of money, which has been increasing at a rate of approximately 6 per cent per annum. We are confident that the provinces will use that money effectively. These are questions that are the subject of discussions at federal-provincial meetings between those Ministers who are directly responsible.
I should point out that, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister in January, there will be a significant increase in scholarships provided to students in areas of research and high technology. I think it is in the order of $80 million.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance seems to be operating in an unreal world. We have been hearing these promises and statements of concern for three years now.
Will this be another of those promises the Prime Minister makes because he is full of himself, or will he do something because he is full of concern? The time for him to meet the promise he has made is long past due.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to promises. The Prime Minister has delivered on those promises as a result of the announcement he made back in January.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The increases in the granting councils' funding is another indication of where we have significantly increased the funds that are available to the granting councils to provide support to research.
The Hon. Member is referring to a concern here. If there is a concern, the Prime Minister indicated in British Columbia that that concern would be raised by the appropriate Minister with provincial counterparts.

June 7, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Grise


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) made some comments which, in retrospect, I am sure, were very hasty. He referred to my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) as having lied when he made certain references.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chair. I believe the Clerk heard what was said by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Why didn't the Chair ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to withdraw immediately, instead of giving him a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member of Chambly (Mr. Grise) have a complaint about what was said by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie or does he have a complaint about the Chair?


Richard Grisé: No, certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie withdraw what he said as soon as possible, and I am sorry he is not in the House at this time. I think he should immediately apologize to my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology.


Mr. Speaker:: We have a very comprehensive complaint about comments made by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) could respond.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the comments in question were made. I am not sure that the words spoken by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie were as harsh ...


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Guilbault: He will be able to speak in his own defence. Here he is now!


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said the Minister is a liar, that is of course a very serious mistake, but I would like to hear the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, that was not my intention. I certainly did not have the impression that I said the words "avoir menti". I said that the comments made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology contradicted what was said by the Secretary of State. Although I may have said the word "menti" in the heat of the
debate, I know perfectly well we are not supposed to use such language in the House, and I therefore withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker, but I maintain that the Minister for Science and Technology contradicted the Secretary of State in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.


ALLEGED SURVEILLANCE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which hinges on the matters that I raised this afternoon in a question to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the riding office of a Member of Parliament is a center where constituents come out of fear-not out of fear-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You can't blame them.


An Hon. Member:: Speak for your own office.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would want to correct any misunderstanding.


John R. Rodriguez: -fear of the Government's policies, Mr. Speaker.
It is a place where constituents can come without fear of being watched, where they can come with anonymity in many instances. The information they relay to their Member of Parliament or his staff is in confidence.
As a matter of fact, Beauchesne's Citation 16 states that:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their function and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
Last Saturday there was an unmarked car with two individuals whom, by my going over and harassing them-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You were harassing them?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, I did. I questioned them and discovered in fact that they were under orders from Canada Post. They were employees of Canada Post who had been instructed, they told me, to follow those who were my guests, those who had been invited into my office to collect petitions about rural post offices. These two gentlemen in this car were watching my office and, of course, they would be watching anyone who came into my office. In fact, one person who came to my office came in disguise.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I were going to your office, I would go in disguise too.


John R. Rodriguez: I would suggest that this is a democratic society, an open society. It is one which clearly recognizes that its citizens protest through petitions in a peaceful fashion.
June 7, 1988

These visitors were not harassing the post office. They were visiting an MP's office. In fact they came at my invitation to collect petitions which I had personally collected and which were sitting in my office, 2,000 of them.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, if he was really concerned, should look at Section 381.1 of the Criminal Code with respect to following people with intent to intimidate. When people come to an MP's office in disguise, fearful that the office is being watched, I would suggest that it is a breach of privilege of a Member of Parliament. By extension, it intimidates those whom the Member of Parliament serves in that community.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on the same point.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. There is no question that there is long standing precedent that nothing should be put between a Member of Parliament and his constituents, or no action should be taken that in anyway prohibits a Member of Parliament from carrying out his or her responsibilities, particularly any action which may be seen to originate directly or indirectly from a government decision.
While Members may choose today to find humour in the example brought to our attention by my colleague who has just spoken, the fact is that the kind of complaint the Member has brought to the attention of the House, affecting his privileges or the privileges of any Member, be it a Member on the government side or on the opposition side, is serious and ought to be treated seriously by all Members of the House of Commons. I know it will be treated seriously, as is always the case, by the Speaker.
I hope your decision today, Mr. Speaker, will be to investigate the facts to see if it can be established that there has been a systematic following of visitors or a systematic note-taking of visits or activities of any group of Canadians. Whether the Opposition agrees with that group or whether the Government agrees with that group, whether they espouse the views of some people in Parliament or the views of no one in Parliament, or if everyone in Parliament disagreed with the views of a particular group in this society who wanted to communicate with their Member of Parliament, we could still not condone anyone secretly watching this group, in effect providing an intimidation tactic which may dissuade that group from seeking to communicate with their Member of Parliament.
A serious question has been raised and I beseech the Speaker to investigate the facts. If there has been a systematic following or examination of any group in our Canadian society, if any group is interfering with the communication between any Member of Parliament on the side of Government or Opposition, and a constituent, I ask the Speaker to find that there has been a breach of privilege and take appropriate action.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in reply, I suggest it is quite obvious that there has been no interference with my hon. friend's privilege. There has been no interference with his ability to do his duties. If people were going to my hon. friend's office in disguise, we on this side can understand that. I think probably most people would prefer that. However, the real point of privilege here is a question that we on this side are asking ourselves, why has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) not been included in the argument on the question of privilege? He is the Canada Post critic for the New Democratic Party. We are all wondering whether he has been replaced.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was not his office.


John R. Rodriguez: Whose office was watched?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Why has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre not been included? Has he been thrown out of office by the New Democratic Party? Perhaps we can find out exactly who the postal critic is.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious point. What we have here is a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He is a Member of Parliament whose office was under surveillance, and I stress "under surveillance" by employees of the federal Government whose salaries are paid and whose expenses, I assume, are paid by the taxpayers of Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take a very serious look at whether or not is an infringement of the privileges of a Member of Parliament if one's office is under surveillance, a fact which can intimidate people from going to that office in a free and open manner. I think that is the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear from other Members, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has made the suggestion that certain employees of the Post Office who wished to see him were at least followed, or under some kind of surveillance, by other employees of the Post Office. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt says this is an interference with his privileges because this makes it more difficult for him to do his duty as a Member of the House of Commons. That is the point at issue.
Obviously, the Speaker, at least at this moment, has no means whatsoever of determining what the facts are except to accept with obvious generosity, at least, the side of the story the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt brings to the Speaker. Unless other Hon. Members in this Chamber also happened to be clustered around the Hon. Member's riding office at that particular moment, I do not need any more suggestions as to what happened. I certainly am prepared to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for a few minutes on the issue of privilege.

June 7, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
[ Translation]


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to intervene on this point of order because the case of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who has been under Canada Post surveillance, is not an isolated occurrence. I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) held a pro-Rural Dignity meeting in his riding, and that the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) made a speech in Vancouver where, as it happened, Post Canada employees had been sent to take notes and thus have an opportunity to intimidate people. I do not think the case of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is an isolated case, for the established policy-with the Minister's blessing, of course-is to create problems for people who are prepared to express their views at open meetings or in the offices of Hon. Members.
If Mr. Speaker would examine this case-and not only the case of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt but that of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou and of other Members-I think he will see that the privileges of each Member of the House are affected because of the fact that people who have genuine grievances concerning superboxes, including Rural Dignity representatives, will be afraid to visit their own Members lest they be reported to Canada Post by employees or other people. This kind of policy must not be endorsed by the Minister nor by Canada Post.
I would not want the Speaker of the House to handle this as an isolated case, because this policy has been established by the Canada Post president and endorsed by the Minister, a policy of harassment against people who do not like superboxes any more than the closing of rural post offices.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point raised by my hon. colleague for Nickel Belt has become a serious matter as of today when it became a public issue. People across Canada will now be aware of the fact that, on certain occasions, certain government employees, under the direction of their employer, are asked to spy or conduct surveillance tactics on various members of the public.
In this case it is an isolated situation that happened in the office of the Member of Parliament for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). It means that people across Canada will wonder if, when they go to visit their Member of Parliament, and many do it with some concern, by visiting the Member of Parliament they may be penalized, as my hon. colleague indicates. We want to take every precaution to ensure that a Canadian, no matter where he or she may live, would always feel free to visit the office of his or her duly elected Member of Parliament. With the reality of the situation, at least in one Member's office, where members of a Crown corporation, in this case the postal corporation, were conducting surveillance on people entering the office of the Member of Parliament,
this has become an extremely serious issue in a country that prides itself on being free and democratic.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I forgot to add the precedent, and I wish to do so now, when Warren Hart was hired by the RCMP to conduct surveillance on Mr. Rosie Douglas who was involved in the destruction of the centre at the University of Montreal. In Mr. Douglas' approach to the Solicitor General of the day, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and myself, Warren Hart ended up gathering information and watching that Hon. Member and me. At that time I raised the question of privilege. Speaker Jerome said there was prima facie evidence of privilege, that while I was not the subject of surveillance, and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East) was not the subject of surveillance, the fact of the matter is that we were caught in that web. Therefore, in his view, that constituted prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege. The question was put to the House that day, but unfortunately the Government of the day voted against the matter going to the appropriate committee.
If Your Honour would look at that precedent and find that there is a prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion, or Your Honour might direct it to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) may well have something to contribute, and I will give him an opportunity to do so on another occasion.
Under the circumstances, the Chair would be assisted if time were given as a consequence of what has been said here for a response from the Hon. Minister who is responsible for Canada Post, but who does not run it on a day-to-day basis. I think I understood clearly from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that he was not saying, even if all these allegations are substantially accurate, that the Minister ordered this surveillance. I want that clearly on the record. I did not take it that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt had stated that.
In fairness, I am going to adjourn the discussion at this point. I am not going to hear anybody else at the moment.


Mr. Prud'homme:: That is wise.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: My proposal was to suggest to Your Honour to do exactly that, that is, to take it under advisement and take all the time necessary. I am highly interested in this question, and I am sure Your Honour would prefer to have some time to reflect, and in due time to return to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
June 7, 1988

Perhaps the Hon. Member for Algoma could collect whatever it is he wishes to let me know about and bring it back a little later when I bring this matter back to the House.
In the meantime, the Chair is concerned about perhaps hearing too much of one side of the story without the opportunity of the other side of the story being heard. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that only one side is being heard in this matter.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Algoma has a comment.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this matter and support the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and his representations concerning his point of privilege. On the same day that the Rural Dignity group called at his office, earlier that day I met with Rural Dignity people and a large number of my constituents, some 60 or 70. I had thought that this was just a general public meeting of people from up and down the north shore of Lake Huron and all those communities because they were concerned.
As we left the meeting, we were told that officials from Canada Post were sitting across the road in their vehicle conducting surveillance on the group and keeping track of who was there and, I believe, intimidating many people who were associated with Canada Post from even attending-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair is in is that it is one thing to say that they were intimidating. I do not know all the evidence. It seems to me that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is putting forth a very sensible suggestion that this matter be adjourned, at least for now. I will bring it back to the Chamber. If there is hard evidence of the allegations that have been made, I want to know what that evidence is.
Hon. Members will know that there is a difference between attending a public meeting and some surreptitious exercise of surveillance, which may well go beyond just surveillance and become intimidation. Surveillance within itself could become intimidation.
The appropriate thing to do at the moment is to adjourn this matter. I have no doubt the Hon. Minister responsible for the Post Office (Mr. Andre) will hear about this discussion. I will bring it back to the Chamber in due course, and Hon. Members will have every chance to put to the Chair, as fully as they can, the story as they know it. That is the appropriate thing to do at the moment.
I see Hon. Members indicating some support for that. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
Point of Order-Mr. Riis POINT OF ORDER


APPROPRIATE LISTING OF MOTION ON ORDER PAPER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order unrelated to this matter to bring to your attention what I consider to be a serious breach of the rules, the customs and practices of this House.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday my colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), rose on a point of order to challenge the procedural acceptability of the motion currently standing on the notice paper in the name of the Government Deputy House Leader. You indicated yesterday that you would hear this point of order if and when the motion was called for debate.
I wish to raise a somewhat different point relating to the same motion. In yesterday's notice paper the motion to which I have referred was listed under Government Notices of Motion. As it was submitted last Friday, it has since been transferred to Government Orders pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). It is my contention that this motion, which deals with extending the sittings of the House past the normal date for summer adjournment, should be listed under Motions, not Government Notices of Motion. Because my point deals with the proper notice procedure and not the substance of the motion itself, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you should hear my point at this time rather than waiting until a later date when the motion is actually called.
It is my position that Government Notices of Motion are those that deal exclusively-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member may have a very serious and legitimate point, but again the Speaker is in the same situation that the Speaker was in earlier, and that is whether or not the point that the Hon. Member is making or wishes to make is premature. If it is, then it seems that it is not appropriate for the Chair to use up the time of the House in hearing this matter at this time. I certainly want to let the Hon. Member know that when it is appropriate to hear it the Hon. Member will have every chance to express his concerns, as will other Hon. Members. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to respond to my concern.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated your intervention. I would simply like to make the case that if Your Honour permits me just a few moments to proceed into the case that I wish to make, you will see that to hear my point of order at the time when you call for the motion would be inappropriate. The argument I want to put forward now is simply to indicate that the listing of the particular motion put forward by the Deputy House Leader is inappropriate in its particular positioning. Therefore it would be critical now, if you would, Mr. Speaker, at least be prepared to hear a few points. I will assure you-

June 7, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could hear a few points, as perhaps a caveat, on behalf of the Hon. Member so that I am somewhat prepared for what may or may not come. In any event, I will hear the Hon. Member briefly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to repeat once again that my point that I wish to raise at this stage deals with the proper notice of procedure and not the substance of the motion itself. Therefore I believe that it is appropriate that I put my point at this stage.
It is my position that Government Notices of Motions are those that deal exclusively with government business or government orders. I would submit that the motion standing in the name of the Government Deputy House Leader falls beyond these limits.
I would like to begin by drawing to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Citation 270(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads as follows:
Motions respecting changes in the time of meetings or adjournments deal with the business of the House rather than government affairs and are moved by the Government House Leader who is responsible for the arrangements of the business of the session and the order in which ministerial measures are introduced and debated.
This citation is listed in Beauchesne's under the rubric "Motions". Of course, there will be those who insist that Citation 268 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition clearly permits what the Government has done. It states:
The Government may, from time to time, put on the Notice Paper notices of
motions concerning the business of the House.
First, I would like to point out that Citation 270(1), which I have cited to support my case, is corroborated by a series of precedents whereas Citation 268 appears as a statement only. I want to emphasize that it appears as a statement only. The point that I wish to argue is not that Citation 268 and Citation 270(1) are in conflict but that the language of Citation 268 is insufficiently clear as to reveal its true meaning.
Both citations use the same phrase "the business of the House". Yet Citation 270(1) specifically states: "Motions respecting changes in the time of meetings or adjournments deal with the business of the House rather than government affairs..." Here we have an explicit recognition that the phrase "the business of the House" should be seen as comprising two elements. The first is those matters that affect the entire scope of the proceedings of the House, such as the time of meetings or adjournments. The second is those matters that deal exclusively with government affairs or government orders.
Citation 268 does not make this distinction but Citation 270(1) does. This is why I believe that the language of Citation 268 is imprecise. I am sure that Your Honour is aware that it has not always been the case that motions regulating the time of meetings or adjournments of the House have been moved under "Motions".
Prior to 1955 the Government regularly gave notice of such motions under Government Notices of Motions. However, in
many rulings on the procedural acceptability of this type of notice the Speaker implicitly recognized that these motions were not government motions in the sense of dealing exclusively with what Citation 270(1) of Beauchesne's refers to as "government affairs".
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Journals for December 10, 1951. On that day the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent moved a motion to change the sitting hours of the House. At page 290 of Journals for that day the following entry is made:
A point of order was raised by Mr. Drew as to whether the said proposed motion was in order under 'Routine Proceedings' as it appeared on the Order Paper under 'Government Notices of Motions'.
On the same page, Journals records the decision of the Speaker on this point of order. It states:
The Speaker ruled that as the proposed Motion dealt with the Business of the House and was not a Government Notice of Motion in the usual sense, it was in order at this time...
Here we have a Speaker's ruling that implicitly recognizes the distinctions between regular Government Notices of Motions and those motions dealing with the business of the House. Again, to emphasize, the ruling states:
-the proposed motion dealt with the Business of the House and was not a Government Notice of Motion in the usual sense ...
Speaker Lamoureux in a ruling on June 18, 1970, provides further support for my argument that motions to regulate the time of meetings and adjournments of the House are not government business in the strict sense. On this day the Government House Leader at the time, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, moved a motion to change the hours of sitting and daily adjournment of the House. I might add parenthetically that this motion was moved during Routine Proceedings under Motions and not Government Notices of Motions.
June 18, 1970, also happened to be an Opposition Day. When the Government House Leader moved this motion, the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, objected stating that such a motion could not be moved on an allotted day. In his ruling Speaker Lamoureux stated in part, and I quote from page 1030 of Journals for that day:
It seems to me that the motion should be put and honourable Members have brought argument against it to the effect that in their view this motion should not be put and that they would like to vote against it.
Speaker Lamoureux then continued on to make a point that is relevant to my argument today. He said:
Honourable Members suggest that this is Government Business. Obviously it is not government business.
That is my point. It is obviously not government business.
Here again we have a ruling suggesting that there is indeed a significant difference between a motion that deals with the business of the whole House, such as the times of its sittings, and a motion that deals simply with a government order.
June 7, 1988

Let me now come to a ruling that you will undoubtedly wish to consult before rendering your decision on my point of order. On May 15, 1985, my colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, rose on a point of order to argue that a government notice of time allocation was not in order as it had been listed under Government Notices of Motions and not Motions, where it had been the usual practice to move this motion orally and without notice. In his ruling, contained on pages 4821 and 4822 of Hansard for that day, Speaker Bosley made several comments that may influence your decision on my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
However, at the outset I want to state categorically that it is my view that a time allocation motion can indeed be listed under Government Notices of Motions because in most instances it deals exclusively with a government order which is strictly the business or affair of the Government. This position is logically consistent with the argument that I have advanced today.
As reported at page 4822 of Hansard, Speaker Bosley makes several points that I would like to deal with in order. First, Speaker Bosley begins by referring to Citation 268 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states, as I noted earlier, that the Government may put on the Notice Paper notices of motions dealing with the business of the House. I addressed that argument earlier when I indicated that if one considers Citation 270(1) of Beauchesne's, in addition to the precedents that I have cited, it becomes clear that Citation 268 is imprecise and that the phrase "business of the house" can be broken down into two quite different types of motions.
Speaker Bosley then quoted Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, at page 296 which attempts to define the types of motions that are considered to be government motions. It states:
Also classified under this heading are the motions regularly brought forward by the government for regulating the length of the Christmas, Easter, spring and summer adjournments of the House-another important example is that of allocation of time or 'guillotine' orders, which the government moves in order to hasten progress on one or more of its Bills...
I would like to suggest that taken out of context this excerpt may be very misleading. If we refer back to Citation 270(1) of the Canadian authority, Beauchesne, a new or different interpretation can be attached to this excerpt from Erskine May. Again, Citation 270(1) reads in part:
Motions respecting changes in the time of meeting or adjournments deal with the business of the House rather than government affairs-
The important part is this:
-and are moved by the Government House Leader who is responsible for the arrangements of the business of the session-
The point I wish to stress here is that Beauchesne clearly indicates that even though a motion deals with the business of the House, as distinguished from government business, only the Government House Leader can move this motion because only he or she is responsible for the arrangements of the
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
business for the session, not simply government business for the session, but all of the business. Thus, when Erskine May seems to suggest that a motion to change the ordinary days of adjournment is a government motion, it fails to recognize the distinction that our Canadian procedural authority, Beauchesne, makes clear. It is not, as the rulings that I have cited, a government notice of motion in the usual sense, but because only the Government House Leader can move it, it gets lumped in with everything else, like a motion for time allocation. A time allocation motion is almost invariably moved to limit debate on a government order. Surely we cannot lump such a motion together with a motion to change the date of adjournment. It is like comparing procedural apples with procedural oranges.
Speaker Bosley went on to state, as recorded on page 4822:
Once again, review of our recent practice relating to motions dealing with the sittings of the House and its adjournments show that they have been appearing under Motions on the Order Paper, but a review of the order papers of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s shows that such motions have most often appeared under Government Notices of Motions.
This is, indeed, correct but only in part. As I indicated earlier, prior to 1955 many such motions appeared on the Notice Paper under Government Notices of Motions. However, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders underwent a revision in 1955. The Standing Committee on Procedure, in its second report to the House on June 14, 1955, which was subsequently adopted unanimously by all Parties, recommended a number of changes to the Standing Orders and practices of the House as they then existed. These proposals are contained in Journals for that day.
One of the changes that the committee recommended, which was adopted when the report was concurred in, dealt with motions for changing the days or times of the sittings of the House. On page 746 of Journals for June 14, 1955 it states under "Other Proposals Relating to Procedures" at Section 2:
That motions for concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee, for the suspension of any Standing Order, or such other motions as may be required for the observances of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment shall be listed, where notice is required, called and disposed of under "Motions".
Therein lies the critical decision that what we have done ought to be called and disposed of under Motions. This was in 1955. Yet, if we return to Speaker Bosley's ruling on May 16, 1985, on the point of order of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), he states:
-a review of the Order Paper for the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s shows that such motions have most often appeared under Government Notices of Motions.
As I indicated earlier, I will concede that prior to 1955 this was the practice. However, I have had a chance in the last number of days to review some of the Order Papers for the late 1950s and 1960s on those days when such adjournment motions were moved-and I have them right here-but I could

June 7, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
not find a single example of when such a motion was not moved under Motions as opposed to Government Notices of Motions. Not a single example was uncovered.
On Thursday, October 17, 1973, the then Secretary of State moved, under Motions, a motion to extend the hours of sitting on a number of days. Similarly, the Order Paper for Monday, August 4, 1958, shows that the Prime Minister moved a motion to change the hours of sitting. Again this motion was moved during Routine Proceedings under Motions as had been ordered when the procedure committee's report on the Standing Orders was concurred in by the House in 1955. I have others, Mr. Speaker. I have the Order Paper for Monday, July 14, 1958; the Order Paper for Monday, February 20, 1956 and so on. At page 15723 of Hansard for May 24, 1988, you said:
I am reminded of Dean Swift when he said that lawyers are a race of men among us who believe that anything that has been done before may legally be done again. I think that it is always important not to get caught up in that adage too closely ... However, the difficulty of the Chair in a case such as this is that if a practice has so fallen into disuse that it is not in the minds and in the contemplation of Members on either side of the House when the particular form-and that is of course what Beauchesne says it is-is followed, then the question is whether it is a better course of wisdom for the Speaker to reach back too far to pick something out of the mists of time to say that suddenly without any particular expectation, it applies.
I must say that this is practice that I would not want to take part in unless I had some very clear direction from all sides of the House that, indeed, some ancient practice ought to be reinstituted and ought to be part of the consideration of the House at all times.
I would suggest that the principle you applied in your ruling of several weeks ago be applied here today. What the Government has done has not been done since the early 1950s. In 1955 there was a committee report adopted unanimously by the House of Commons specifying that motions which regulate the times of sitting or the date of adjournment had to be moved during Routine Proceedings under Motions. As I have said, I can find no precedent since the adoption of that committee report that would show that this motion has to be moved at any time except under Motions.
I suspect that some may argue that in extending the House past the normal date of adjournment, the Government if allowing for extra days to debate Government Orders or government affairs, as it is referred to in Citation 270(1) of Beauchesne, would not eliminate Question Period or Private Members' Hour. Are these two items government business? Of course not. Private Members' Hour, as you are well aware has, since parliamentary reform of the last several years, come to belong more than ever to the private Members on all sides of the House. In other words, it is ideally free from interference in any way by the Cabinet or executive. In no way could this valuable time be construed as belonging to the Government or being in any way government business.
What of Routine Proceedings, Mr. Speaker? I can refer back to Speaker Lamoureux's decision in 1970 that I quoted earlier to indicate that he clearly stated that Routine Proceedings were not government business. Routine Proceedings are when, for example, Members can present petitions, and belong
to the whole House. Therefore, it is my view that to argue that the Government can extend the sittings of the House for the purpose of dealing with Government Orders does not take into account that this House deals on a daily basis with items that are not government business. Any motion to extend the sittings of the House can, therefore, affect the initiatives of any Member of the House and must, therefore, be seen as affecting the whole House and not simply Government Orders.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I was disturbed, to say the least, when I saw the Government's motion on the Notice Paper yesterday. It is a testament to the legislative mismanagement of this Government that it has some 40 or so government initiatives that it wants passed before the summer adjournment. I hope you will consider the arguments that I have made here today to indicate the Government has shown a disturbing tendency in recent months to disregard the rules and practices of this place even when those rules are explicit and those practices longstanding. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that even a Government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority must respect the customs, traditions and practices of this place.
I thank you for your patience, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) may want to make a few remarks.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we saw the motion by the Government to suspend the rules and, as a result, to force the House to continue sitting through the summer with the additional requirement to sit without a break from two o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night, I raised the point of order that this was not a motion that could be made on a number of grounds, including the breach by this motion of the traditional practices of the House as well as various factors pertaining to the Standing Orders themselves. At that time, in view of what you said when I made a similar argument with respect to the motion by the Government to suspend the rules of the House when it attempted to table a motion contrary to our normal Standing Orders on abortion, I noted you said that such an argument should be made if and when the motion was called.
Yesterday I reserved my right to make an argument at some length about the impropriety of the action of the Government in attempting to suspend the rules, not just simply to help itself get out of a tight corner on one issue, namely, abortion, but to help itself get out of a tight corner with respect to the total mismanagement of its entire program.
I said yesterday and I repeat now that I have some arguments which I believe are well founded as to why the Government's motion to suspend the rules of the House should not be accepted by you, Mr. Speaker. However, I do not intend to offer these arguments at this time. I just want to make sure that the record shows that I have these points to make and that I also have points to make about whether the Government's
June 7, 1988

motion to suspend the rules with respect to the adjournment of the House on June 30 should be listed under Motions or under Government Orders.
I intend to argue that the Government erred in listing the motion in question under Government Orders, but I would offer that argument only if you should rule that the motion is receivable in the first place. If I am saying at this time that the motion should be listed under Motions rather than Government Orders, I am not in any way thereby admitting or agreeing that it is proper for the Government to present a motion which would have the effect of throwing the rules of this House out the window just because the Government finds itself unwilling or unable to work within our current rules, even though the Government has taken great credit and continues to take great credit for these rules as being an important achievement in parliamentary reform.
I would hope it would be noted that I intend to argue both these points in some detail and to present arguments which I think are well founded. However, I want to stress that I think it is very wrong for the Government to say that it cannot live or work within the present rules, due in effect to the mismanagement of its program, and therefore it wants to use its majority to force the House to in effect ignore the rules completely.


Mr. Speaker:: I have exercised considerable patience under the circumstances, but I think the comments of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) are helpful, as are those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
I repeat again what I said to the Hon. Member for Windsor West, which is that he will not be stopped from giving further argument at a more appropriate time. The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) may want to make a few short comments.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to seek direction from the Chair. I would suggest with all due respect that something cannot be half premature. If argument on a procedural basis is premature, it is premature. I do not mind for a minute taking time to argue procedure, not at all. It is healthy. However, surely the 25 minutes we have now taken from debate on Bill C-129 would have been better spent on debate on Bill C-129.
I suggest that there are other items on the Order Paper. For example, item No. 33 appears on the Order Paper. We could be proceeding now with a procedural debate on Bill C-33 which has not been proceeded with by the House.
Some two weeks ago, the abortion motion referred to by my hon. friends was put on the Order Paper by the Government and it was debated at length by opposition Members. We reserved our right to debate the procedural argument because we felt it was proper to debate the procedural argument when the Bill was called. We now have another motion placed on the Order Paper. I submit the appropriate time to argue the
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
procedure on that, and we are fully prepared to do it, is surely on the day it is called, not now.
My hon. friend has read into the record a very learned argument which we will review and respond to, but surely the time to argue procedure on that particular motion is the day on which the Government calls it. If we find ourselves arguing procedure willy-nilly on various items on the Order Paper, as it suits the purposes of my hon. friends, we will have chaos on the Order Paper. I seek direction from the Chair. When is premature premature? When should procedural debate on a matter take place?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) raises a point which I think has some merit. As I say, the Chair has been generous in hearing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). It may turn out that it in fact is helpful. I hope that it will be. I hope it will be helpful to the Hon. Minister of State as well and to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
As I indicated at the beginning of this, it is in my view probably premature. There may be some useful purpose served in having heard the very well prepared argument of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, and I have to say that frankly, I think it has helped the Chair. However, I think the Minister of State has a point and I think that it is appropriate now to put this matter off until such time, if it does happen at all, that the matter is called. I would ask Hon. Members to cooperate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question the decision you have just made, but I want to say that the point I was attempting to make was that I do not think we should ever get to Orders of the Day when this question is being called. The point is that it is coming up in the wrong place in Routine Proceedings of the day. When we get to Government Orders one day and then you call for procedural decisions, having arrived at that point, I submit that it would be too late. That is why I am saying that it is presently in the inappropriate location as it stands in the order of business before us, and it is for that reason that I would submit that some consideration at least ought to be given to rule on this prior to the Government actually calling the Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the point the Hon. Member has made. In the meantime, I think it is appropriate to adjourn the matter. I will give that particular point careful consideration. If the procedure that has been followed by the Government is found to be incorrect, it would be difficult for me to understand how the fact that that decision was made just before Orders of the Day started or at any other time would make any difference. However, I have the Hon. Member's point and I will take it into account. I would ask Hon. Members to cooperate in this.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the House adjourned Orders of the Day for Question Period earlier today, we were dealing with Bill C-129 which, as you

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
well know, is now before the House under time allocation. Without commenting one way or the other on the value of the procedural matters that were just raised in the last half hour, would the Speaker advise the House, given that we are dealing with Bill C-129 under time allocation and that this time allocation was imposed on two of the three Parties in the House, the opposition Parties, whether or not the half hour just spent on procedural matters is lost under time allocation or whether it will be added on.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), but I can answer that question, and I am afraid it is lost. That, of course, is just a procedural fact of life and I know Hon. Members will understand that. I thank the Hon. Member.



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, and on the motion of Mr. McDermid (p. 15859).
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been able to wait for half an hour of the valuable and short time left to be spent dealing with an important matter like Bill C-129. Time is limited and debate will end this afternoon. I am pleased to speak on the Bill.
In bringing in time allocation on Bill C-129, a Bill to authorize the privatization of Air Canada, the selling of a crown asset, a publicly owned asset, to the private sector, the Government has been attempting in the few remarks we have heard from Members on the government side to paint a rather over-simplified picture of the purpose of Bill C-129. We have heard government Members suggest that Air Canada should be privatized because there is no need to have the Government-that is, the taxpayers-engaged in activities that can be carried out by the private sector.
There is no question that most sensible-minded, reasonable Members of Parliament would agree that anything the private sector can do efficiently and properly ought to be done by the private sector. There is no compelling philosophical reason to have Government do something that the private sector can do. However, that is not the issue with Air Canada. The question is not: Are you for private sector activity versus public sector
activity? The question is: Should Air Canada be privatized at this time and in the manner the Government proposes?
Canadians should know, first, that they have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, after he was elected, when questioned about the privatization of Air Canada, said on January 15, 1985, in The Globe and Mail:
Air Canada is not for sale.
He made a commitment that Air Canada would not be sold. Air Canada would remain public property to serve the public good. Yet in this Bill now being debated in Parliament before the nation we have another major contradiction by the Prime Minister.
What kind of privatization is it? We are in a deregulated transportation environment which only began a year ago in Canada. There are no more regulations governing operations of airlines. The Government's continued ownership of Air Canada in that new environment, emulating what is happening in the U.S., gives us a window on the industry. It gives us an opportunity, without using regulations, to exercise a measure of control by having at least one of the players in the industry owned and controlled by the Government. That is why I am opposed to privatization of Air Canada for now.
I am also opposed to it because I want to see at least one airline continue to provide in this vast country, with a mere 25 million people, a level of service to Canadians no matter where they live. In a purely private sector industry, no carrier will provide that kind of commitment to Canadians living in rural Canada. It will not be there for people who live in rural ridings such as your own, Mr. Speaker, rural but nevertheless an important and dynamic part of Canada. It is purely the bottom line which decides where service should be provided.
What is wrong with this privatization measure the Government has proposed? I say that if you are going to privatize something, be it Air Canada or something else, then do it properly. If you are going to sell Air Canada off, then sell it off, lock, stock and barrel. Sell 100 per cent of the shares and be done with it. As bad a decision as that would be, selling it totally is a better decision than selling it partially.
What is the Government doing? The public does not realize what is happening. When they hear "privatization" they assume Air Canada is going to be sold. Yet the Government is making only 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada available to the private sector. It is going to retain 55 per cent of the shares on behalf of the Canadian people. The people of Canada will continue to be majority shareholders. Then the Government says it is going to tell the official, the bureaucrat, the government employee who holds that 55 per cent to vote those shares on any question before the board with the majority of private shareholders. Basic arithmetic. With 45 per cent in private hands, that means that if 23 per cent of the shares of Air Canada, which represents more than half of the 45 per cent, were to get together and make a decision, they will control Air Canada. The Government, which continues to hold
June 7, 1988

55 per cent of the shares, is going to vote with the majority of the minority shareholders.
What do you then have? You have the taxpayers paying the bill and maintaining an equity position in an airline that is going to be run by 23 per cent of the shareholders. That is the reality. It is like saying the House of Commons is going to be run by 23 per cent of the Members. Some 23 per cent of all the shares vested in one group that acts in concert will control Air Canada. They will take decisions contrary, if they want, to the public interest. They will be making decisions which reflect private interests, bigger dividends for shareholders, even though they are in a tiny minority position. The taxpayers, who retain 55 per cent of the shares, may be the recipients of decisions that are not in their best interests.
What kind of cooked-up scheme has the Government evolved? It is one thing to say you are going to offer 100 per cent of the shares, as bad a decision as that would be, to the private sector, and then tell the private sector that if they want to run Canada's biggest airline they are going to pay for it. Before you get to a position to make decisions to benefit your own pockets, you are going to pay for it. You are going to give the taxpayers of Canada their equity back before you sock them in the teeth. It is quite another to take this airline with 22,000 employees and 50 years of history as a nation builder and put it in the hands of a few private individuals. That is what is fundamentally wrong. The Government is preaching a private sector philosophy, that the private sector can do it best, expressing total confidence in the private sector to run a national airline, and giving it to the private sector for a minority position, yet having the taxpayers continue to hold 55 per cent of the shares. That is not privatization, that is a farce.
If you go to the market-place and ask someone if they would like to own Air Canada because we are privatizing it, but by the way we are going to retain 55 per cent in the hands of the Government, and everyone knows the Conservative Government is going to be defeated in the next election, which means a new Government is going to reverse this privatization trend, you have automatically driven down the value of the shares. Not only are you giving away the airline, you have depressed prices by making a minority share offering. We are getting zapped twice. We are not getting the value for our money and we are giving away the company to a minority. It is absolutely ridiculous.
We have heard Members opposite say this is necessary because the company has to renew its fleet. They do not know what they are talking about. They have no interest in Air Canada. They have no knowledge of Air Canada. They do not know its history or the kind of service it provides. They know nothing about its fleet structure. They are merely on their hands and knees before the altar of private enterprise at all costs, not before the altar of common sense and an intelligent mixed economy.
Air Canada is going to replace its fleet of Boeing 727s which is on average nine years old. They will probably be replaced by
Air Canada
the Airbus and they are only halfway through their useful life. Air Canada is going to keep the DC-9 which is 19 years old on average. It is not replacing its oldest aircraft. The DC-9 was built to fly 40,000 cycles. The DC-9s in that fleet, nearly 30 of them, have already flown 60,000 cycles and over the next 10 years they will fly 85,000 to 90,000 cycles. The 727s, which are only halfway through their useful life, are being sold off. Why? Because Frank Moores wants to sell the Airbus to Air Canada and they have to have the cash to buy it. This is a cooked-up scheme to put money in the pockets of those with Tory connections representing the Airbus consortium, and not a sale that makes sense for the people of Canada. It ought to be stopped in the name of fundamental justice and common sense and decency.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I just heard what the Opposition had to say, and incidently, for the past four years we have been hearing the same old speeches, without rhyme or reason. The same speeches that don't mean a thing. All they do is attack this Government's policies.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was right to leave after he said the Conservative Government would not be in power after the next election. I might as well tell him right away that the Conservative Government will win the next election and will continue what it was doing about interest rates, inflation, reducing unemployment, creating jobs and privatization.
If we consider Air Canada, privatization will give this Crown corporation easier access to new capital. It will enable Air Canada to go and get the funds it needs to be competitive within the provinces, at the national level and internationally. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may quote what Canadians generally think about the privatization of Air Canada, not the clouded perspective of the Opposition Parties. Canadians are in favour of privatizing Air Canada.
Last night I was in Montreal, and I was talking to an Air Canada employee who said: " Yes, I can't wait. I want to buy shares in the company". His position was based on the fact that it was a profitable company that over the years had acquired a national and international reputation.
His opinion was also based on the fact that many national and international investment dealers were prepared to sell and organize the sale of 45 per cent of Air Canada shares to the private sector. The same employee told me: "That's a good thing-everybody wants to buy. That's good, and I'm glad the Tories took this position. I'm glad the Government is sticking to what it said in 1984". In 1984, the Government said: We intend to put this country on a sound management basis, and this is one example of sound management. We could have taken the Opposition's position and made promises, with at the end of the line, an enormous annual deficit and national debt. Mr. Speaker, since 1984 the annual deficit has gone down. Since 1984 this country has been managed as it ought to be, and Canadians know that.

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
The polls asked the question: Do you think the Government is right to sell part of Air Canada's shares? Eleven per cent of Canadians firmly support the idea and 58 per cent are in favour. This adds up to 69 per cent of respondents in favour of this approach, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-one per cent are opposed and 10 per cent don't know.
And I look ... Do you think that this plan of the Conservative Government will hurt Air Canada's chances to grow and be more competitive? Eight per cent think it will have a very positive effect, 64 per cent think it will have a positive effect and 20 per cent, a negative effect. Mr. Speaker, look at the reaction of Canadians!
And on the subject of the quality of service provided by Air Canada as a result of the Government's decision to privatize it, 9 per cent think that service will improve, 65 per cent also think it will have a positive effect. And, Mr. Speaker, 19 per cent think that it will have a negative effect.
Canadians are favorable to this idea of owning Air Canada and being able as Canadians, as citizens, to buy shares in this company, to use this company ... The majority of Canadians are in favour.
Most business people, companies, stockbrokers are interested and think that it is good for their customers and most employees of Air Canada are in favour.
As usual, we notice one thing: That the opposition Parties are again the only ones opposed; they are out of step. That reminds me, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, of someone in my riding who watched an army march past. There were 1000 soldiers and he said to his neighbour, "It is too bad; there are 999 who are out of step and only my son is in step!"
So that is the way the opposition works now. Everyone is on one side and they, as usual, are on the other. In four years, not one policy of the Conservative Government was accepted by, or acceptable to, these two Opposition parties. After four years, let us look at the results from the other side. The economy has grown, unemployment has gone down, jobs have been created, inflation has stabilized, the deficit has been reduced four years in a row. In every way, the quality of life has improved for our fellow Canadians. Quality of life is important! We talk about it in terms of the environment; we also must talk about it in terms of the economy and social programs. In every way, the quality of life has improved since 1984 and every time, the Opposition was against it.
So, Mr. Speaker, my fondest wish, and I see that you are indicating to me that my time is up, is that the Opposition will continue to be against the Government; every time that it is, it is good for Canadians!
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential to pass this Bill as quickly as possible so that Canadians can express themselves not only in polls but in reality by buying the shares of Air Canada that will be put on sale.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a few minutes to make some comments on Bill C-129. We are not surprised, but very disappointed and angry, that the Government has seen fit to bring in closure on this Bill. This is the type of behaviour that I recall Members on the government side objecting to very strongly when they were in opposition. They seem to have forgotten that, and the rights of Members on this side to put forward our position on a Bill about which we feel very strongly and on the policy of privatization of the people's airline, as Stanley Knowles used to call it, with which we disagree profoundly.
It is not necessary to sell off Air Canada from a financial and economic point of view. There are other ways of financing the capital costs of this airline which has been making a profit and has been run efficiently. I will come back to that point later on. The privatization of Air Canada is symbolic of the Prime Minister's broken promises and a feeling that Canadians cannot trust his leadership.
In 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Canada needs a national airline. He said that he would not privatize Air Canada or the CBC. Air Canada is being privatized and I am sure the CBC will be next. It is another example of what happens to the sacred trust philosophy of the Prime Minister. It is no wonder that that Party is going down in the polls. It is led by a Prime Minister who says one thing but does the opposite. Not only is it unethical, the Government completely loses credibility.
Let us review some of the broken promises. The House will recall that the Prime Minister said the universality of social programs was a sacred trust. The first thing he tried to do was deindex old age pensions. Fortunately, grey power organized and older people fought back and won. The Government realized that pensioners would not stand for having the old age pension deindexed.
Despite having said that universality was a sacred trust, the Prime Minister decided to chop the family allowance and child tax credit. They are the only programs that provide family benefits in recognition of the next generation of Canadians and the expense that parents have in raising children, as well as giving an extra tax credit to low income Canadians who could certainly use an increase in that child tax credit.
He has not treated children the same. Of course, children do not vote or have the same political clout as pensioners, therefore, the Prime Minister proceeded to deindex the family allowance and child tax credit. Every year the value of those combined family benefits are declining, which means, in the case of the child tax credit, fewer people on marginal incomes are eligible for it.

June 7, 1988

The Prime Minister promised that the basic social policy of the Government would be to help those in greatest need. He said that while the Government may have to trim costs in the interests of the deficit, it would protect those in the greatest needed. He then proceeded to slap a sales tax on the poor in successive Budgets. A great number of people in the lower income bracket are still paying income tax.
The combined impact of these policies on low income people certainly did not help those in greatest need, it penalized them. The increase in taxes for low income people and families with children far exceed the token child tax credit which the Government deigned to give in its second Budget. Poverty among young families has increased and single families, particularly mothers raising children, are in a very bad situation. One in six children across Canada is poor.
Recently, I raised the question of the AIDS epidemic and the importance of having more resources to help toward education and the treatment of this dread disease. The Prime Minister told me in the House about a month ago: "We view this as a most important societal problem and one deserving of urgent action and urgent devotion of national resources". That sounds like a promise to do something immediately and urgently, with considerable investment of money to help the victims of AIDS and to help prevent the epidemic from spreading. However, one month later the funding that already exists in the Budget, much less increased funding, has not been provided.
The Prime Minister promised to help the women of Canada, 60 per cent of whom are working and have children at home who need child care. Four years later, he has yet to introduce a child care program. Free trade is another example. In 1983 the Prime Minister said that he was against free trade.
The Government's proposal to privatize Air Canada is as much a question of ideology as anything. It is not sound planning, it is not economically feasible, and it is certainly against the Canadian tradition of owning our national airline and national railway. These national institutions are fundamental to our geography and dispersed population.
Of course, the Government believes in the ideological trilogy of private enterprise policies: Deregulation, privatization, and free trade. One leads to the other. I remind my friends in the Liberal Party that they initiated deregulation. Shame on them for allowing it to get to this stage. The Government's policy follows the ideologies of Thatcher, Reagan and Vander Zalm. 1 know that in British Columbia the Fraser Institute only has to lay down the policies and the Premier will sell everything he can, with no regard to the real functions of national services.
Air Canada has been a profitable and well run airline. Why should it be privatized when it is working very well as a national airline of which we are proud? This airline is needed to service all areas of Canada, particularly rural and remote northern regions. Private enterprise will not be as concerned with the needs of all of Canada. As my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy), pointed out, it would have
Air Canada
been quite simple to obtain the required equity Air Canada needs for its new fleet. The Government could have followed other options.
We are extremely disappointed with this Bill and disagree profoundly both philosophically and from the point of view of economic feasibility.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, you will allow me, as representative of downtown Montreal or of the riding of Saint-Jacques, to make my contribution to this debate on Bill C-129 which, as we all know very well, is aimed at partially privatizing Air Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as spokesman for a Montreal riding where the Air Canada head offices are located I am very concerned, as are a number of my fellow Canadians, because the Bill before us will in fact signal the end of a national symbol which is dear to all Canadians.
As Hon. Members would know, this country came into being from east to west as a result of the construction of a great railroad, Canadian National. Other communication networks were added later on. One of them, air transport which featured Air Canada, is indeed the mainstay of Canada's transport system, a source of unifying strenght to all Canadians. I think it is regrettable that the Governement has chosen to break one of the solemn promises made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) who once said: Air Canada is not for sale. We are beginning to get used to promises made by the Government on the other side, promises made one day and utterly violated or broken a few months later. We on this side of the House did expect the Government to live up to its commitment not to sell our national air carrier, in part or in whole.
Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers threatening us, and one of the reasons why my Party and I are opposed to the privatization of Air Canada is that we are going to lose a regional development mechanism. The Government before us is so fully intent on privatizing a number of Crown corporations that our national Government will eventually find itself unable to even attempt to boost regional development in certain regions of our country, remote regions that need assistance. That has to be one of the distinctive characteristics of the Conservative Government for whom the only and best way to intervene in the economy is not to intervene at all and, on the contrary, to withdraw from those fields where the Government has the tools to intervene.
With maintenance bases in cities like Montreal, Winnipeg or Toronto, Air Canada is in a good position to buy local goods and services. That is one way the Government can get involved in the economic development of various regions of the country. By selling or turning over the control to the private sector, the Government is withdrawing from this field of activity, which is also something to be concerned about. I would be quite worried if I lived in a remote or outlying region of this country which are often served by Air Canada. The House is aware

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
that our Crown corporation is making money on the major East-West routes. Air Canada finds the flights between Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver most rewarding financially. If the Corporation is now to be managed in a business like fashion, meaning that management decisions from now on will be profit-oriented, it will not be long before the new management decide to abandon regional air transport routes which are losing propositions but nevertheless necessary for some communities wich are only served now by Air Canada.
Of course, a profit-oriented corporation will say: We are going to drop this route where we are losing money. We are going to keep only those where we are making money. The end result is clear. After a while, several remote and outlying communities of this country will be deprived of services. We cannot hope for other private corporations filling the gap and providing services to areas where customers are few and far between and on routes which are clearly not profitable. Those are services which the private sector cannot provide, which is one of the major arguments against the adoption by the House of Bill C-29. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are also a great many other reasons.
What about Air Canada employees who are rightly concerned about their jobs?
The House will recall that shortly after British Airways was privatized by Margaret Thatcher's Tory Government, over 20,000 employees were laid off in Great Britain. So, whoever is now working for Air Canada, for our national airline, is concerned and worried about what will happen to his or her job, a concern I can understand. Being my party's labour critic, I took the time to meet with three of the major union leaders representing 12,000 of the 22,000 Air Canada employees, something I am not sure other Members of the House did, and I can speak for them about their concerns. Take for instance the case of Mr. Val Udvarhley. He stated the views of the flight attendants.
Mr. Udvarhley was giving me the point of view of flight attendants who are now working for Air Canada. They are afraid that the flying will be restructered down from the present six bases Air Canada operates from. They fear that Air Canada, in trying to operate by the bottom line only, will rationalize and downsize the number of people working there. They are afraid in the Montreal area that this area in particular is more likely to be scaled down. I have been told they would not be surprised if the present strength of 900 in the Montreal area would be scaled down to 500.
They have pointed out to me, and they are right, that although Clause 6 of the Bill guarantees that, first, there will be maintenance in the Montreal area, that it will stay there, and that the headquarters of Air Canada will stay there, there are no specifics guaranteeing a number of jobs and, to use his
own words: "We may end up with a maintenance base staffed with three persons and a wrench". What good is the headquarters of a large national company if it is only an empty shell?

Mr. Speaker, I understand very well these employees who are concerned about their jobs, afraid that small communities now served by Air Canada will be deprived of all air services, that flight attendants for instance will be without job security, and who fear that Air Canada, once privatized, will tend increasingly to sub-contract part of the work to outside corporations. These are some of the reasons why I will personally vote against Bill C-129 and I will do everything I can to make the Government change its mind and abandon its decision to privatize part of our national transportation airline.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, just before beginning my remarks on Bill C-129, I would like to read some comments made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). On May 1, 1984, she said:
I think there should be a way of making evaluations. Most institutions are self-perpetuating, that is the nature of large institutions, but there should be times when some Crown corporations are terminated. What we would be most concerned about is whether they are of a value to the people of Canada, whether tax dollars are justified from that point of view-
May I just add, Mr. Speaker, that it is interesting to hear members of the New Democratic Party talking about tax dollars. They usually ignore that particular fact.
-and whether they are run efficiently. I think that would be the criteria at which we would look.
Therefore, the Member for Vancouver East has stated an approach or a concept with which we agree. The Hon. Member begins her remarks by breaking that promise of how she might look at things.
This Bill is a good one. Air Canada was a great idea. It was visionary when it was started some 50 years ago. Canada did indeed need the links to all the corners of this great country. But the world has changed. We should not accept the status quo as the other two opposition Parties would like to do, whether that concerns trade or any other issue. The world is changing and the Government and the Conservative Party recognize that.
The executive and the employees of Air Canada are 100 per cent behind this move. They realize what is out there in the market-place.


Ms. Dewar:: One hundred per cent? That's not true.


Bill Attewell: First, we think that Air Canada should be sold because it does not serve a public policy purpose. Second, we do care about the deficit in spending. This company should be on its own and free to go to the capital markets.
June 7, 1988


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It makes a profit. What's the matter with you?


Bill Attewell: The Hon. Member says Air Canada is making profits. That is good, it is. When does one sell a corporation? When it is on the ropes? No, when it is doing well and one receives a better price. In that manner, the taxpayers' money is not being given away.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: When it is doing what it is supposed to be doing for the people of Canada, you sell it.


Bill Attewell: The third reason we opt for this particular approach is our sense of the market-place.


An Hon. Member:: That's the number one and only reason.


Bill Attewell: Wardair is doing very well. Canadian Airlines International is doing very well. Air Canada is doing very well. We submit that they should all be on the same footing. Yes, we do differ with the other two Parties on our philosophy. I would remind them of the whining and wailing they did when we proposed to sell de Havilland. What a disaster that was supposed to be. There would be thousands of jobs lost. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member is doing his best to deliver a speech in the very few minutes that he has available, and I would very much appreciate it if I could hear him.


Bill Attewell: This whining and wailing is at the heart of the issue. The facts prove that a situation like de Havilland was a stroke of genius. The jobs are secure. As a matter of fact, more than 1,000 new jobs have been added. The marketing fit with Boeing was absolutely perfect. That company is on the rise. Let the record show what the two opposition Parties said about that.
In conclusion, I wish to read some quotes from an independent source. In an article by Dian Cohen she states:
It took Transport Minister Don Mazankowski 40 minutes to subdue a rowdy
Opposition in order to put on the House of Commons table the Bill which will
ultimately allow Air Canada to be sold to the private sector. Why the
Opposition opposes the question I can't answer, and I suspect they can't
answer either.
What a telling tale that is.
The world has changed. The Government has opted to let Air Canada become private and bid for money the same way Canadian and Wardair do. It has opted for this because it does not want to have to choose between farmers, day care, other issues, and Air Canada. It recognizes that the world has changed in the last 50 years, and that the need for a state run airline has diminished. All the airlines have shown their own understanding of the need to develop feeder lines running out from the hub airports. The Government can, and has, put restrictions in place regarding the maintenance of maintenance bases across the country.
Criminal Code
I consider almost insulting the insinuation from the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault), that the present executive and management of Air Canada would reduce their caution and care for safety. That is an insult to their professional competence.
In closing, this Party is for privatization when it does not serve a public policy purpose. We will continue to do that. Canadians want that. We said that during the election and we will stand by that. I am here in a very strong way to support this proposal. The airline will not be diminished in any way. As a matter of fact, I predict that it will be strengthened and jobs will grow. Air Canada is a class act, and it knows how it can get on in an even better way by increasing market share, and Canadians across the country, by and large, are for this. They will ignore the rhetoric, whining, complaining, and emotional pleas of both Parties to my right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It being four forty-five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day the putting of the question now before the House is deferred until 5.45 p.m. later this day.
It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: that Bill C-261, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to introduce this Bill at second reading stage. Bill C-261 was introduced and given first reading on June 22, 1987, almost one year ago. The purpose of the Bill would have been to close the loophole in the law that allows an abortion when the mother's life or health was, or was likely to be in danger.
On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the particular section in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional. In a five-two decision the court held that Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Here we are some four months later and we still have not dealt with the issue of abortion here in the House. To my understanding, this is the first time since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in late January that the House of Commons is considering the merits with regard to abortion. There have been procedural concerns raised about the issue and the introduction of a motion in the House, but this is the first time the issue is being considered on its merits.

June 7, 1988
Criminal Code
I would like to explain why over one year ago I introduced this particular piece of legislation. It may not technically be permitted to proceed in that it intends to amend a law that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Nonetheless, I wish to take this opportunity to express my point of view and explain the reasons why I introduced this legislation.
At the conclusion of this particular debate, I hope that the House will consider referring the subject matter, the issue of abortion, to a legislative committee in order that that committee can consider the issue. My good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) when given the opportunity to speak will move a motion accordingly.
I introduced this legislation because I believe very fundamentally that it is wrong to take human life. Abortion is the taking of human life. I oppose the taking of human life whether it is through capital punishment, through the authority of the state, of the Government of Canada, or through the taking of a life before birth.
On January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the abortion law in Canada was unconstitutional. I do not mean to be overly critical of the Supreme Court of Canada, but it seems to me that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was a cop-out. Based on certain legal principles the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Section 251 of the Criminal Code was in breach of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person ..." Based on its interpretation of "security of the person" it suggested that abortion was permissible in the early stages of pregnancy. The majority held that Section 251 was unconstitutional.
How can one decide on whether a law contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms before deciding when life begins? It seems logical that the first step one must take in this particular debate is to decide when human life begins. Once that decision is made, then one can look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One would be required to conclude, depending on what one decides when human life begins, that everyone has the right to life.
The right to life is the only absolute right we have as Canadians. It is indivisible. Every other right that exists in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be balanced, in my view, against other rights. For example, one's right to freedom of speech is limited by the laws on slander. One's freedom to assemble is limited by certain municipal by-laws. Every right that exists in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is limited. The only absolute right is the right to life.
When one considers this particular question one has to keep in mind that the right to life is paramount. Thus the Supreme Court of Canada decided it was not going to decide when it was deciding on the Morgentaler case. It was not going to rule
upon the question of when life begins. That was an abdication of the court's responsibility in my view.
When does life begin? In my view, and I challenge others in the House, to prove otherwise, human life begins at conception. If one concludes that human life begins at conception then, of course, that right has to be protected from that moment onward. For anyone to suggest that human life begins at some other point, I do not believe that that is an intellectually honest position to take. It cannot be justified by logic, law or medical evidence that life begins at some other point in time. It may be convenient for some who believe in freestanding abortion clinics or abortion on demand that life begins at some other point in time, but that cannot be established by logic, reason, medical evidence, laws or whatever.
Those who believe in abortion on demand refuse to answer that question because they know that they cannot in a reasonable way conclude when life begins, and then also argue that there should be abortion on demand.
Human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death. No person, no one individual, no state, no legislature, no House of Commons, ought to have the right to diminish life, to determine when human life should be taken and when and if human life should be given the opportunity to continue to live until natural death.
In my respectful submission, the issue is one of human rights and the balancing of human rights. As I indicated, the paramount human right that we have is the right to life. Any other right, whether it is the right to liberty or the right to the security of a person as indicated in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has to be balanced against the right to life; and the right to life must always be paramount.
There are those who argue that there should be no abortion law, that there should be free-standing abortion clinics, wherever, that the decision to terminate life, to terminate a pregnancy should be a decision of the woman in consultation with her doctor.
For a country, for any society, not to have a law to regulate abortion would be a society that is totally and absolutely morally corrupt. To put that price on human life, and very few civilized western nations have, is to diminish our very existence, the very integrity of life. Today, in Canada, with every passing moment pregnancies are terminated. Human life is being terminated. Just to put the matter into perspective as you know, Mr. Speaker, today there are over 60,000 abortions per year-60,000 per year. Let us put that into perspective. Over the last 16 years, from 1970 until 1986, there were a total of 907,351 abortions in Canada. That amounts to approximately the size of the population of the Province of Nova Scotia.
Just as a matter of interest, in 80 years of warfare, in the Boer War, World War I, World War II and the Korean War, a total of 99,449 people died. In 36 years of automobile accidents in Canada, from 1950 to 1986, a total of 173,620
June 7, 1988

Canadians died. In 36 years of drownings, from 1958 to 1986, 47,892 Canadians died as a result of accidental drowning. Yet in 16 years of abortions close to one million people, individuals, lost their lives, as a result of a law which has now been declared unconstitutional.
If one examines the statistics one can see that in 1985 there were 60,956 abortions. Abortions are on the rise, if one examines the statistics for 1970 to 1985. What is most disturbing is the statistics showing repeat abortions from 1974 to 1982. In 1982 there were 400 women in Canada who had their fourth or more abortion. There were 1,600 women in Canada who had their third abortion in 1982. There were 9,544 women who had their second abortion in 1982. If one examines the statistics from 1974 to 1982, one will find that the situation has not changed dramatically.
We have a situation in Canada today in which over 60,000 human lives are taken on an annual basis. It is incumbent upon Parliament to deal with this issue in an expeditious way at the earliest opportunity. I regret very much that the Government has chosen the method by which it has decided to bring this Bill forward.
Canadians want this Parliament to deal with the issue of abortion on the merits at a very early stage. Each and every Canadian of voting age will be asking candidates regardless of their political affiliation what their views are on this particular matter.
No longer can individual Members of Parliament or candidates in the next federal election campaign hide behind existing legislation. They must say in an unequivocal fashion where they stand on this fundamental and crucial issue, the most important issue which this Parliament will decide. Set aside the issue of Meech Lake, free trade and pornography. This is the most important issue because it is an issue dealing with life itself. We hear Members talk about apartheid in South Africa or abuses of human rights in Israel, South America, Nicaragua. We hear about the starving in Ethiopia. But here we have a situation in Canada in which 60,000 lives are taken on an annual basis. Yet at times this Parliament shies away from dealing with it.
I note that I have but a few minutes to conclude my remarks on the legislation I am introducing. I urge Hon. Members to recognize that we are dealing with an issue affecting life itself and to agree to a motion to refer the subject matter to a legislative committee. I do not know the timetable of the Government concerning the abortion issue. We have been told on occasion that the Government would like to see the issue dealt with before the next general election. This House at this moment in time can decide through the Private Members' procedure to allow the subject matter of this Bill to be referred to a committee in order for the legislative committee to begin consideration and to hear arguments on its merits. I am
Criminal Code
prepared to discuss and debate this issue with anyone at any time at any place in Canada.
Abortion is wrong. It is fundamentally and basically wrong for this Parliament, for the Government of Canada to take away human life. What about life out of the womb? We do not say because you are white, black, European, South American, handicapped, blind, crippled or deaf that your rights as a human being are somewhat less. No one can tell you that your life is any less important. Who are we as parliamentarians to tell anybody that the unborn foetus has rights less than we as breathing, walking, living human beings?
I urge Members to support the motion that will be presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to refer the subject matter to committee at the earliest opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: We are now at the
stage of having 10-minute speeches. The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer).


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) for the opportunity to second this motion and debate the issue. I am pleased to second the motion in that I agree with the Hon. Member that we have to close the loopholes that were contained in Section 251 of the Criminal Code. The Member knows that the offending sections of Section 251 were struck down by the Supreme Court ruling in the Morgentaler case. We are debating a motion put to us to amend the Criminal Code before the Supreme Court acted on January 28 with regard to Section 251.
As private Members we bring forward Bills and motions and put them into a hat, so to speak. They are then drawn and put in order of debate. We are now debating the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.
I said I am pleased to support the Hon. Member's motion to the degree that what it seeks to do is really face the question of abortion as I think it should be, namely, that it deals with the rights of at least two people. In fact, I believe there is a third and an obligation of a fourth group. There is the right of the woman to life and health. There is the right of the unborn child to life and health. There is also the right of the father. Then there is the fourth group, that of society to protect the life of both the mother and the child, in fact, to protect that child and to protect all life. To that degree, I think the intent of this Bill is a good one and I support it.
Because the Supreme Court decision has in a sense superseded what the Hon. Member wanted to do by striking down the offending parts of Section 251, Parliament now has to face this whole question of what to do with the issue of abortion. The Hon. Member said that this is the first time we have debated the topic of abortion since January 28. To the degree that we are committing one hour of House time to it is correct. By implication, the Hon. Member was expressing some frustration with the lack of action in coming to grips with

June 7, 1988
Criminal Code
what are we going to do with the question of abortion. We are now in Private Members' Hour and I know the Hon. Member does not want to be excessively partisan. There is time to look at the merits but we should not become excessively partisan on every issue.
The Government sought the co-operation of all Members of the House by going to each of the three Party Leaders to seek unanimous consent to bring forward four different options for debate. The House could grapple with the issue and give a sense of the direction of the House to the Government so it could bring in a Bill. The Government requested the setting aside of the rules which would not permit the bringing in of different substantive motions. Through unanimous consent it would seek the consent of the House to deal with the different positions which Members hold. To that degree I think the Government was doing exactly what it should be doing. Our Party has always said during elections that if we ever got into a debate on the abortion issue, it would be a free vote as far as we were concerned. What the other two Parties do is up to them.
On this side of the House both on capital punishment and on abortion we have always said-I have said it during the three elections in which I have run and I know the Party platform is the same-that there would be a free vote on issues of conscience. We had an excellent debate on capital punishment and had a truly free vote on it. The first time I am aware of in recent history of Canadian politics that a true free vote was held and the respect for the conscience of each individual Member was in that debate. Every Member had the freedom to speak his mind and stand in his place either for or against. Now we have the same situation on the abortion issue. This is the second issue which this side of the House calls an issue of conscience and, therefore, requires a free vote.
When we get into this debate on abortion, the Government has clearly spelled out the desire to allow Members to express their will in at least three different directions. One is a pro-life direction, though perhaps a moderate pro-life direction from my personal point of view, and I think the Hon. Member for York South-Weston would agree that it is not a pure pro-life option. Then there is a middle or gestational option and then there is a pro-choice option. As I indicated, I think there was a fourth option which was a pure pro-life option. The Government presented these options to the Opposition and asked for the unanimous consent that would allow us to set aside the rules to have these four options before us.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston expresses some frustration with the delay. I wish he would have succeeded with his Party and within the NDP in convincing them to follow the Government's suggestion so that we could truly have had unanimous consent. We would not have to go through the two stages that are now before us, first bringing in a notice of motion to get to the stage of debating the different positions.
That would have saved a lot of the time of the House and it would have permitted us to get at this issue sooner.
Although 1 agree with the thrust and intent of the Hon. Member's Bill, and to that degree I am pleased to second it, I do not agree that he should express so much frustration with the Government for not dealing with it. The Government gave that Hon. Member, his Party and the other Party a clear choice, through unanimous consent, to begin this debate on abortion. In fact, such a debate would have given us an excellent opportunity to deal with a pure pro-life option at one end to a pure pro-choice option at the other, with a moderate pro-life and a middle ground. I think the Hon. Member should calm down his partisanship and just deal with the issue at hand.
Further, the Hon. Member quoted some statistics. He is correct that the statistics he quoted are readily available to everyone. Statistics are very important in this debate so that we know exactly what we are talking about. One statistic shows that most abortions, 89 per cent of them, are carried out by the thirteenth week of pregnancy. We also find that in the last year for which complete statistics are available, 20.4 per cent of that 89 per cent were repeat abortions.
Some of my colleagues have said to me that as we get into this debate, they hope we can end up with a law that does at least two things: First, a law that is more restrictive than the old Section 251 was, and second, a law that does not allow abortion to be used for birth control purposes.
Let us look at those two points for a moment. If we want a law that is more restrictive than Section 251, then surely we have to start to have fewer than 89 per cent of abortions done by the thirteenth week. We have to move to abortions closer to conception. If my colleagues do not want the same rate of abortion, does that mean that they are willing to move abortion closer to conception?
They then ask how much closer it should be, and I tell them to look at the statistics. By what stage do we wish to cut it off, and what is our objective criteria for doing so? I notice that the objective criteria are lacking. Then I say that around the seventh week, one can at least measure brainwave activity. We use that as the sign of the cessation of life in the case of organ donors and the like. Why do we not use the beginning of brainwave activity as a sign of the beginning of life?
Some say then that seven weeks is far too early. I say that it is not too early. We should really be looking at all the facts involved in foetal development. We feally should go right back to conception, because at conception, we are dealing with a human being that is unique and will never be like any other. Its physical capacities are all there, all that is required is growth and development. All of the DNA and characteristics of a person exist at conception. The genetic code has already been determined. To that degree, we need not go past that into other stages because we are dealing with a life right from the beginning.
June 7, 1988

The other point that is often made is that abortion should not be used as birth control. We know that 20.4 per cent of abortions were repeat abortions in 1985. That figure is far too high. Therefore, I think the thrust of what the Hon. Member is trying to do is a good one-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What is going to stop that? How do you stop it?


John Henry Reimer: When we get into the debate on the different options-the NDP Member is going on with the Party line and trying to interrupt. I wish Members of the NDP would simply let a person finish his comments. When they speak, I will be quiet.
In conclusion, let me simply say that the thrust of the Hon. Member's motion is a good one. The Government has provided a means of dealing with this issue, and I hope that the other Parties will give us the consent to move quickly so that we may have a real debate that looks at protecting the child, something which we have not been doing, and also looks at protecting the life of the mother if necessary. All these side issues that used to exist in Section 251 must be done away with, and I think that if the Hon. Member were to look at amendment (a), he would see that it comes very close to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I intend to call on the speakers in the following order: the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) followed by the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) followed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. I believe that I am the only Member who has changed his mind on this issue since the repeal of Section 251 of the Criminal Code earlier this year. At least I think I am the only one who has admitted to doing so.
In speaking in favour of this private Member's Bill this afternoon, I should explain to the House the reasons that provoked me to change my mind on such a fundamental and important issue. I suppose the first reason is the fact that the previous position I had taken was wrong and, naturally, having taken a position that was wrong, I needed to correct it. The reason I am of the opinion and sincere belief that the previous position I had taken was wrong is what I would like to express to the House now.
Since last January, a number of Members of Parliament have been lobbied, and so have I, by people in favour of more restrictive laws, by people in favour of no laws at all and by people in favour of a so-called middle-of-the-road approach. One of the useful things about this lobby is the fact that it has provoked or at least encouraged me to obtain more information. When I say more information, I do not necessarily mean information that was provided to me by the various people who were lobbying. Of course, they too provided useful and
Criminal Code
valuable information, but I took it upon myself to obtain more and more of what I felt could be useful information for me.
Sometimes I wondered why I was doing this, because I thought I had made up my mind on the issue already. Nevertheless, I continued to accumulate and read various documents. For me, one of the things that provoked me into changing my mind, above many others, was the fact that 1 reread my own speech on capital punishment. I was the first Liberal Member to speak on capital punishment, aside from my Leader (Mr. Turner). I had indicated that life, all life, was worth preserving and that no life should be destroyed for any reason.
I am not saying that everyone who is against abortion should be against capital punishment. I would hope that to be the case, but it is not necessarily so. They are two different issues. For me, however, there was a parallel which was important in my own mind and in my own conscience in assisting me to make up my mind.
It got to a point at which I had difficulty living with myself with the position I had taken. I do not think I changed my position because of intense pressure from my electorate, although of course they too had a lot to say. I think I changed my mind because of that crisis of conscience when I came to realize that I had taken a position which was so much at odds with what I actually believed.
Some of the information I obtained does not necessarily come from pro-life groups. I have here a copy of The New England Journal of Medicine, hardly a pro-life propaganda tool, dated November 19, 1987. It contains an article "Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus". Written by two doctors, it says that the foetus can indeed feel pain as early as seven weeks in the pregnancy. It says:
Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area of the human fetus
in the 7th week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the palms of
the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11th week-
There is sensation in those parts of the body by the 11th week of the pregnancy. If there is such a thing as a feeling of pain at the 7th week on the part of the foetus, if there is a heartbeat as we know there is, if there is all the other development of that foetus which we know there is because of ultrasound and other electronic equipment which provides us with that information, then one has to conclude that there is life, at least at that point.
Does life begin at conception? Several theologians contemplated that issue many years ago. I do not know the answer anymore than anyone else. However, for the purposes of our discussion today, given what we know now medically and otherwise, I have to assume that life does begin at conception. If someone has a differing view, I am willing to listen to it and to the proof that it is otherwise. I do not think I should be proving that life begins at conception but I think the onus rests

June 7, 1988
Criminal Code
on those who believe otherwise to demonstrate to me that it does not, if that is their belief.
Philosophers and theologians have recognized for many years the sanctity of life. Hippocrates, a philosopher and physician who lived from 460 to 367 B.C. wrote what is now referred to as the Hippocratic Oath. It says:
I will give no deadly medicine to anyone even upon request, nor suggest any such counsel, and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce an abortion.
That was right 2,400 years ago, it is still right today.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In your view.


Don Boudria: I know some will disagree and that is their prerogative.
We as a nation have to face this issue and it is difficult. This Bill obviously will not be able to proceed because of the fact that the Criminal Code section it deals with has been overturned. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substitute the following therefor:
That Bill C-261, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion) be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter be therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
I move that motion with the full co-operation of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston who proposed this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The debate is now on the amendment.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with Bill C-261. I think that in this House and throughout the world including Canada, many individuals do not understand the very difficult problem of abortion. The problem is very difficult from a moral point of view and to my knowledge, no woman wants to be aborted but the problem lies with our society and not with women and men.
Abortion has always existed and, before 1969 in Canada, abortions were performed in unhygenic premises resulting in the death of many women and children. Those are not very pleasant conditions.
However, Mr. Speaker, if we want to reduce the number of abortions, our society will have to be fairer and more honest than at present Our society must love children, provide daycare services and also services for women. Moreover it should uphold values which do not consider women as sexual objects. It strikes me as really ironic that I am the only woman speaking this evening on this issue and the only one, 1 think, which is against the bill under consideration.

It is not because I think that anyone at any time ever wants to have an abortion. I know people who have made that
decision but they did not want to. I hear constantly in this Chamber that we have to protect the unborn. I agree, but I think we have to protect the born. The same people who talk about those conditions laugh about making women sexual objects. Yesterday I raised in this House the fact that advertising such as with Diet 7-Up makes a sexual object of women for the amusement of their male partners who impregnate them and then leave them in their anxiety and tension and frustration. To suggest that we are talking about using abortion as a form of birth control is a scandal. We must ask ourselves why this is happening. We must ask ourselves why the country of Brazil has millions of abortions. It has laws like this and is not reducing them.
The Province of Quebec, which has refused to implement the Criminal Code on this, is the only province in Canada which has been able to reduce the number of abortions. However, we have not been able to increase the birth rate in Quebec. In Sweden, however, where services are given, they have reduced the number of abortions and increased the birth rate.
The real question is whether we are willing to build a society which loves children. Will we sacrifice ourselves to show that children are the ones we really love? Will we give services to those children? Will we ensure that there are not children getting their meals in soup kitchens before they go to school? Everyone who is talking about this should go down to the soup kitchens and guarantee that these children have a life of dignity.
I am not even asking them to look after the women who have been so badly treated over the years. I am asking them to look after the children who are sexually abused today in our society. They are not sexually abused by women. Women have not declared war. Women are not the ones who have killed other human beings throughout history. And women will not have abortions if they have true choices because they will be able to build a society that loves.
I suggest to everyone who says that our society has no law that that is not true. We have laws, we have medical practitioner laws and medical ethics. It is in that area that we must deliver the necessary services to women. We do not want to go back to the back streets.
I am a public health nurse. I trained in a Catholic hospital and worked in a Catholic hospital. In the emergency room we saw some of the carnage which the butchers perpetrated on these youngsters, and sometimes on older women. When you see what that does to your society and values you ask yourself whether you treasure life or not. I treasure life very deeply. I treasure life so deeply that I believe we must look at the continuum of what is happening.
We are not doing that by implementing this kind of legislation. By implementing such legislation we are making the black market rich again. We are not putting in place
June 7, 1988

services to help people understand their own physiology, their own bodies, and what contraception is all about.
I can get into a heavy theological debate about when life begins. I think we all know that at the connection of two cells, whether vegetable, animal, or human, the potential for life is there. However, we also know that there is absolutely no dogma which sets out when human life begins.
One hundred years ago the Catholic church said that it was okay to abort a male baby after 40 days, but a female baby after 80 days. That shows how long we have been struggling with this. We have also struggled over the years with how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. However, the real issue is to reduce the number of abortions in our society. That is the one thread of consistency that I have heard in this House. We then ask how we are going to do that.
Please, Mr. Speaker, do not allow us to take the attitude and approach that we are going to do that by penalizing the victim as is so often done. That is being done within a patriarchal society. There was only one woman in this House in 1969 when that first law was passed. It was not a good law. I think everyone agrees with that. It was only the beginning of trying to ensure that there were good medical procedures in place. The Supreme Court has said that the committees did not make any sense. In practice they made no sense. I saw how they worked and they were totally nonsensical.
If Members of Parliament really want to build a compassionate, loving society, they have to start treating men and women with dignity, with a sense of a quality of life that is important. They must say that children in total are important and valuable to us and put services in place which count.
That is how we can reduce the number of abortions. That is how women can start to feel that they are not being looked down on by males as a result of some of the dreadful expressions which are being directed at them. I ask the people who are supporting this kind of law to consider what kind of value they are supporting.


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-261, introduced by the Hon. Member, deals with a very important and delicate subject. I cannot say I have no views on abortion. In fact, like so many fellow citizens, I was led by recent events such as the Morgentaler trial to think about the abortion issue. All Canadians know what my feelings are and what my position is, Mr. Speaker. I am not against anything. I am not against abortion. I am for the right to life.
Not long ago, on the Plains of Abraham, where a number of Members were invited to attend a meeting but many were afraid to go and talk to the thousands of people who organized this assembly... Mr. Speaker, since I am not afraid to say what I think, I told them I was not a fence sitter like most Members who are reluctant to get involved. It's a difficult issue politically, and sometimes they would rather not hurt the feelings of some of their constituents.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, there is a morality to the way we live, I think we all should be concerned about that morality. I come from a family of fifteen children, and I have said this before, and I will say it again: There were fifteen children at home and I can assure you that if my mother had decided to have an abortion, you would not have the honour and the pleasure to see me in this Chamber today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that Section 251 of the Criminal Code prohibits anyone from procuring a miscarriage. In fact, section 251 is very specific-listen to this " ... to procure the miscarriage of a female person". As far as I know, I never heard of a male person having or getting an abortion. But it's all there in Section 251, Mr. Speaker. It does sound rather bizarre, but what can you do?
The section provided for one exception, when the abortion is carried out by a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee from any hospital, in a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation, or in a hospital approved for the purposes of Section 251 by the Minister of Health of that province.
The hospital's therapeutic abortion committee had to consist of at least three members, all of whom are qualified medical practitioners, appointed by the hospital to examine and decide on requests for termination of pregnancy.
The majority of the members of the therapeutic abortion committee, at a meeting of the committee at which the case was examined, was to state by certificate, in writing, that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life or health of the woman. We must remember that "health " meant both the physical and mental health of the woman. The therapeutic abortion committee had to submit a copy of the certificate to the qualified physician performing this abortion.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, in the Morgentaler case, the main question before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to abortion, namely Section 251, infringed on the right to life and liberty and security of the person except in conformity with the principles of fundamental justice.
The three judges who rendered the majority decision agreed that Section 251 infringed on security of the person and violated the principles of fundamental justice under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be safeguarded within the reasonable limits specified in Section 1 of the Charter.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the judges in the majority agreed that the expression "security of the person" found in Section 7 of the Charter includes both security and physical and mental health.
So, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the Bill proposed by our distinguished colleague not only seeks to change a law that no

June 7, 1988
Air Canada
longer exists, or that at least is inoperative, but would also make an unconstitutional amendment.
Since abortion can become an explosive problem, it seems to me that the public has chosen to ignore it. It has not sought effective, direct solutions for these deep divergences. One of the attitudes taken has been, "Ignore it-it will go away eventually." Other people, with different points of view, have replied, "This is what goes on. This is what must be done."
Between these two positions, there is a range of deeply held opinions, not always easily expressed, found among people of every region, religion, political persuasion, language or other social category. These opinions range from an insistence on the preservation of the life and physical health of the mother to a concern for the woman's whole social environment and her family situation.
Each of these two attitudes is shared by many Canadians and is based on a different concept of the family and the changing role of women in Canadian society.
The abortion issue is a major challenge to normal principles and professional ethics and is therefore emotionally charged. Things will go on like this because, as in other life and death matters, there is no easy solution. Abortion disturbs many people who would have preferred to avoid it. It is one of those delicate choices which all women capable of bearing children may have to face.
The many women who have resorted to abortion have been ostracized and the subject of pressures which have left them permanently scarred. They worry about the long term effects of the surgical procedure on their health and still fear that their anonymity will not be respected.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, the merits of the bill moved by my hon. colleague, but I am convinced that the matter is too important to be settled in the course of this debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I think that my time has expired, I see that you are sending me desperate signals...
I only wanted to say that I am very proud to stand up for the pro-life option and I think that it is my moral duty to fight for this cause and our fellow Canadians, and I do it with fairness and equity.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the Notice of Motion on the Order Paper and the Government's clear commitment to have a clear and thorough debate on this topic, I think this amendment is both mischievous and unnecessary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Order. I do not consider that to be a point of order.
The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[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 the motion of Mr. McDermid (p. 15859).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to put the question on the motion for the previous question to the motion for 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.
Accordingly, the question is the following one: Mr. Mazankowski 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.


John Horton McDermid: That this question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
[ Translation]


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


@Acting Speaker: The Hon. Member from Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think that, if you sought unanimous consent, you could apply the results of this vote to the next in the same way, with the exception of a few latecomers, if there are any amongst us.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to be counted on the government side on this subsequent motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote that we have just taken on the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the main motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
It being 6.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 8, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers