1988-09-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, nearly half a century ago, in the crisis of wartime, the Government of Canada wrongfully incarcerated, seized the property, and disenfranchised thousands of citizens of Japanese ancestry. We cannot change the past. But we must, as a nation, have the courage to face up to these historical facts.
The issue of Japanese-Canadian redress is one which I raised in the House of Commons more than four years ago with the Prime Minister of the day when I was Leader of the Opposition. I said then in this House:
There is a world of difference between regret and a formal apology. Canadians of Japanese origin had their rights trampled upon. The reputation of this country was besmirched.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, the present Government has sought a settlement with the Japanese-Canadian community to put things right between them and their country; to put things right with the surviving members of the Japanese-Canadian wartime community of 22,000 persons; to put things right with their children, and ours, so that they can walk together in this country, burdened neither by the wrongs nor the grievances of previous generations.
It is fitting that representatives of the National Association of Japanese Canadians are present in the visitors' gallery on this solemn occasion because today I have the honour to announce, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that a comprehensive redress settlement has been reached with the National Association of Japanese Canadians on behalf of their community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps the most important element of this redress is the official acknowledgement of the wrongs of the 1940s. But redress must go beyond words and laws-important as they are for our present understanding and our future actions. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism and
Citizenship (Mr. Weiner) will be announcing the details of the settlement, and I pay special tribute today to his skill and resolve in this matter, and to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) who, immediately after his swearing in as a Minister of the Crown, made the resolution of this important moral issue a matter of the highest priority for him and his colleagues. In a special way, I readily acknowledge the strong moral leadership on this particular question and, indeed, others, that has long been provided by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the very distinguished Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think all Members of the House know that no amount of money can right the wrong, undo the harm, and heal the wounds. But it is symbolic of our determination to address this issue, not only in the moral sense but also in a tangible way. In that spirit, we will accept applications for the granting of Canadian citizenship to eligible persons of Japanese ancestry who were expelled from Canada or had their citizenship revoked during these years. We will also accept requests for the clearing of names of eligible persons of Japanese ancestry who were convicted of violations under the War Measures Act-thankfully now gone from our texts of law in Canada-and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act.
As well, in commemoration of all who suffered these injustices, we will establish a Canadian Race Relations Foundation to foster racial harmony and cross-cultural understanding in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, not only was the treatment inflicted on Japanese-Canadians during the War both morally and legally unjustified, it went against the very nature of our country, of Canada. We are a pluralistic society. We each respect the language, opinions and religious convictions of our neighbour. We celebrate our linguistic duality and our cultural diversity. We know that the strength of our country lies in the collective energies of its regions. We are tolerant people who live in freedom in a land of abundance. That is the Canada of our ancestors. That is the Canada our ancestors worked to build. That is the kind of country we want to leave our children, the Canada of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

September 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers
the new Official Languages Act and the Canadian Multicul-turalism Act. A Canada that at all times and in all circumstances works hard to eliminate racial discrimination at home and abroad.

A Canada, Mr. Speaker, that is able to face up to the mistakes of the past, and so become better prepared to face the challenges of the future.
1 am tabling at this time the specific terms of the Government's historic agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. 1 will meet later this morning with the President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians and some of his colleagues who are with him today to formalize this special agreement.
Most of us in our own lives have had occasion to regret certain things that we have done. Error is an ingredient of humanity, so too is apology and forgiveness. We all have learned from personal experience that as inadequate as apologies are they are the only way we can cleanse the past so that we may, as best we can, in good conscience face the future.
1 know that I speak for Members on all sides of the House today in offering to Japanese Canadians the formal and sincere apology of this Parliament for those past injustices against them, against their families, and against their heritage, and our solemn commitment and undertaking to Canadians of every origin that such violations will never again in this country be countenanced or repeated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: It is an honour for me to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party caucus in response to the very historic announcement made only moments ago by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). My Leader finds himself in Vancouver this morning and, unfortunately, will not be in a position to respond in kind on the floor of the House of Commons. However, he will be making a statement from Vancouver on this very historic announcement later in the day.
As the Prime Minister indicated, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner) will be revealing the details of this redress package later today. 1 have yet to see those details, but 1 trust that they will be in keeping with the aspirations articulated so well for so long by the National Association of Japanese Canadians, and agreeable to the Japanese Canadian citizens and residents in that very proud community.
Towards that end, I am pleased today that the federal Government and this Parliament has moved to redress the injustices that were inflicted against an important and integral part of our Canadian society, Canadian citizens who happen to be of Japanese ancestry. In doing so, it closes the chapter of what was a very sad and sensitive memory in our history.
While one's home, land, and business once lost can never be replaced, and while being evicted from one's own community and separated from one's own family and friends leaves a deep and emotional scar that can never be completely erased from the soul of those Canadian citizens, today's commitment by Government and by Parliament will serve as best as possible to heal those very deep wounds and concerns.
Moreover, today's actions are underlined by an important and symbolic message, a message of fairness and justice for all, that this nation stands for equality for all Canadians, and that there can only be, and must only be, one first-class citizenship for all Canadians.
It is with a great sense of pride and history, therefore, that I am able to speak on behalf of my Party and join the Prime Minister in issuing this most important apology to the Japanese Canadian community of Canada.
It is not a sign of weakness for a country to render this apology. Instead, it is a sure sign of strength and a sign of reflection of our country's commitment to try wherever and however to right our wrongs, not merely for the sake of correcting the history books but, more important perhaps, to establish important standards that will serve Canadians today and future generations of Canadians tomorrow. In addition, today's actions are not so much about a multicultural issue as much as about an issue of Canadian justice.
In closing, I wish to pay a special tribute and commend Mr. Art Miki, his colleagues from the National Association of Japanese Canadians, and its members and friends in the Japanese Canadian community at large, for their never ending determination and deep belief in the cause that they carried so well for so long. Today's resolution, no doubt, is a tribute to their sense of purpose, but it is also an appropriate response to those who continue to question the legitimacy and motivation of the leadership of the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
It is also fitting that the Prime Minister pointed out the pivotal role played behind the scenes by our Hon. Speaker who, to 1 can say publicly to him, offered us a sense of encouragement in the day-to-day questions that we posed on the floor of the House of Commons over the last four years. I join in saluting our Hon. Speaker, and indeed the other Members of Parliament who may not be making a statement this morning but who nevertheless played a significant role.
Finally, on this historic day, we cannot forget the many Japanese Canadians who were interned but who are no longer with us, unfortunately. Their children refuse to forget the hardships of their forefathers. It would have been my hope, indeed it would have been our collective hope, that they too could be with us today to witness and be part of the day that they had dearly longed for.
September 22, 1988

However, I say today, and I believe all Members share this, that their struggles were not in vain for their efforts kept that flame of hope alive and bright. It was the strength of that flame that provided the foundation for today's resolution. This agreement, in large part, is their agreement as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the Prime Minister's speech today. Forty-six years ago, the Government of Canada took measures against Japanese-Canadians that were unjust and unacceptable. Today, at last, we have started to make amends.

In the 1940s our Government, a democratically elected Government, did a great injustice to some 22,000 of our citizens, a permanent injustice to those who are no longer living. This was done, not because of what they had done, but because of who they were. These Japanese Canadians had their families broken up, their property confiscated, their businesses destroyed. They were forced to abandon their homes on the coast of British Columbia and they were forced to move to the interior and to elsewhere in Canada.
They, as Canadian citizens, had done no wrong. They were the victims of intolerance and racism brought about, not because we were at war with them but because we were at war with the land of their ancestors. They had done no wrong to any of their fellow citizens. It was an inglorious moment in our, on the whole, proud history.
Today we are formally acknowledging this wrong, and I am pleased that today's representatives of Canadians of Japanese ancestry have been able to reach an agreement with the Government of Canada. On behalf of all members of my Party and, I am sure in a sense I speak for everyone in the House of Commons and Canadians wherever they may live, I bid a special welcome to those Canadians of Japanese ancestry who are with us today in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to stress that when we talk about the grievous injustice that was inflicted, we are not talking about an abstract breaking of an abstract right. We are talking about profound, serious human suffering. As an example, 1 would like to cite a quotation from an extremely moving Canadian novel by a Canadian of Japanese ancestry. It is called Obasan, and it is written by Joy Kogawa. It is a story of the life experience of families at this time. It is noted that the families are fictional but all experiences are very real. At one point the heroine of the novel, who is in her thirties,
Statements by Ministers
describes the impact this has had on her life. I know it is a true story. She says:
The fact is I never got used to it and I cannot, I cannot bear the memory. There are some nightmares from which there is no waking, only deeper and deeper sleep.
There is a word for it. Hardship. The hardship is so pervasive, so inescapable, so thorough, it's a noose around my chest and I cannot move anymore.
1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, these have been real experiences in real lives for which our parliamentary ancestors have to assume responsibility because they made those decisions that led to that experience. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, we all make errors. Our predecessors in this great Chamber of ours made errors. One of the important and fundamental ways of addressing these errors is at least to apologize publicly and acknowledge the serious wrong that was done, and that we are doing. However, in so doing, we must keep in mind that it does not mitigate at all the horrible experience that has been inflicted upon those victims.
The Prime Minister quite appropriately alluded to the work that has been done by present generations in redressing this wrong here in the House. I think it might have been appropriate to cite those people who stood up at the time because they were present. They were Canadians who said it was wrong, who went against the force of public opinion, who fought for civil liberties at a time when it was important to do the fighting and not talk about redressing wrongs that were done by others. It is easy for us in one sense, although appropriate, to do that. I would like to cite a few words of a distinguished Member of Parliament at that time. He had this to say, clearly in the face of public opinion:
If we are to have harmonious and friendly relations between the oriental population and the rest of our British Columbia citizens, we must stop discriminating against and abusing the orientals. We must find some common ground on which we can work, and I think it can be found ... I am satisfied that if we treat the Japanese and our other oriental citizens right, we shall get their loyalty,.. .
He went on to say:
I know them, speak to them; I visit them and have them in my home, and I have not the slightest doubt that what I say is correct. If we are to avoid the troubles that other countries have had with racial minorities, then we must take a realistic view of the situation in British Columbia and attempt to make these people feel at home among us. We will secure their loyalty by fairness and kindness and by the practice of those other attributes which we exercise in our relations with other people.
He was speaking of fellow Canadians citizens. That speech was given in this House on February 25, 1941, by Angus Maclnnis, the then Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I want simply to conclude by complimenting the Government of the day on behalf of my Party in reaching this agreement and by saying, as one politician: 1 hope this kind of experience for us as a nation will never ever be repeated.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!

September 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, i have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the final report of the Toronto Area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Task Force.
This report was commissioned by the Government in March, 1986, to investigate the feasibility of rerouting or relocating the movement of dangerous goods around Metropolitan Toronto. The task force was also requested to investigate and make recommendations on the relationship between train speed and safety.
This report finds rail movement of dangerous goods in Metro Toronto safe, not only related to other modes but compared to other countries as well. CP Rail is the safest railway in North America; CN currently ranks fifth. This is a tribute, not only to the employees of each railway but also to the commitment the Government has to ensuring safe transportation systems for all Canadians.
When I received the report last night from task force Chairman Harold Gilbert, we had the opportunity to discuss its consultations, findings, and recommendations.

Although the task force submitted 130 recommendations, my comments today will be limited to the two most important aspects of its mandate: train speed and rerouting of traffic.
The task force asked a consulting firm to investigate the relationship between train speed and safety. Although the report is technical in nature, it implies that from the safety point of view, speed reduction might not be necessary. The task force recommends further studies in this area.

I have considered carefully the representations made by citizens, municipal Governments, and Members of this House. Further, I note that three members of the task force expressed the view that lower speed limits were desirable on the tracks identified as high risk.
I have considered these matters in light of my primary concern, which is safety. I think that the best course is to lower the speed limits on the high-risk routes. I shall immediately take the necessary steps to set and enforce the lower speed limits on the following rail lines: from Weston Road on Canadian National's Weston Subdivision and from Starview Drive on the Canadian Pacific's McTier Subdivision to the West Toronto Diamond, from Kipling Avenue on Canadian Pacific's Galt Subdivision to the West Toronto Diamond, from the West Toronto Diamond along the Canadian Pacific's North Toronto Subdivision to their Agincourt Yard in Scarborough, and from Canadian National's McMillan Yard along their York Subdivision eastward to Doncaster.
The task force recommends that all levels of Government collaborate in approaching the issues of rerouting and relocation. The task force does not see this as an issue solely of safety. It states that relocation has an economic effect, and it has a primary effect on land use and zoning policies on the provincial and municipal Governments.
I could not agree more, and since this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction 1 would like to inform Hon. Members that I will be writing today to the Hon. Ed Fulton, Ontario Minister of Transportation, seeking the province's position.

During the last four years, the Government's commitment to safety has lead to a number of initiatives, including the regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials, adopted in 1985; the Railway Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on July 28 this year; and the Bill to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, tabled in the House not long ago.

The Standing Committee on Transport has played a vital role in all these matters, many of which bear on the task force's recommendations. With its knowledge, expertise, and accessibility to the public and industry, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the standing committee can best advance the work of the task force. Therefore, 1 am referring this report to the standing committee.
The report 1 have received includes all public submissions made to the task force. I shall provide these to the standing committee along with a minority report prepared by a member of the task force. As well, 1 would advise the House that the report of the Vancouver Task Force on Dangerous Goods is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. It is my intention to refer that report to the standing committee.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Harold Gilbert for his excellent work and dedication to this project. This has been a very intensive and demanding study, and all task force members are to be congratulated for their commitment of time and expertise.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we received the report today with a sense of happiness because the process has been completed. Having listened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), 1 think there are a few remarks that have to be made from this side of the House.
The report is finished. The process was a lengthy one but was very thorough. It had to delve into very complex and difficult issues. Out of that process, 130 recommendations have emerged. Now the Minister must act. We have mixed feelings because this report is vague and in some respects requires further studies. Here is where the political crunch comes. The Minister of Transport must make certain difficult decisions very soon because the process has now come to an end and further studies are not desirable.
September 22, 1988

It is curious that out of 130 recommendations the Minister has pulled out two to comment upon today. They are, of course, very political and very urgent. These are issues which have been the object of engagement, attention, and battles by individuals and organizations in Metro Toronto over several years in this decade. They have initiated this process and participated in it. 1 refer in particular to the Metro-Toronto Residents' Action Committee.
The question of speed leaves a lot to be desired in this report. It is true that on page 61 the report focuses on the importance of looking at other factors and urges that attention be given to addressing and removing, on an utmost priority basis, the track, equipment, operational, and track defect causes of accidents. That is good stuff and we concur with that. Those would be, in other words, preventive measures and good and intensive maintenance for every train entering the Metro Toronto area. I suppose that applies to any urban centre across the country.
We agree with that, but why has the speed limit not been spelled out, both in the report and in the statement by the Minister here today? They only refer to lower speed limits, leaving us, the organizations, and the citizens in the dark as to what the speed limit will be. Will it be one kilometer per hour, or will it be 30 kilometers per hour? Will it be 40 kilometers per hour, as suggested by M-TRAC in a number of submissions even before this commission, or is the Minister's limit a faster one? In other words, this vague commitment is not enough and it is not worth very much.
Let me deal with relocation. In this case we see the Meech Lake values emerging again. The Minister will write a letter to the Minister of Transport of the province today, and that is all. The Minister said in his statement that transportation of this kind and relocation has an economic effect and a primary effect on land use and zoning policies of the provincial and municipal Governments. What about the federal Government? Does the federal Government not exist as well? Does it not have an interest as well in this debate and therefore require the leadership of the Minister of Transport of the day rather than a letter to the Minister of Transport of the Province of Ontario? That is not good enough.
I doubt very much that Toronto residents will sleep any easier because the Minister has written a letter. It is a pathetic response to such an important issue that affects millions of people in the Metropolitan Toronto area.
Instead, the Minister should convene a meeting and discuss this with his provincial colleague and municipal authorities in such a fashion as to take leadership on a very complex matter. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific would not have been built if the attitude of the Government of the day were such as the Minister put forward today in the House, saying that it is a provincial and municipal responsibility. It is a federal responsibility as well.
Statements by Ministers
I referred to M-TRAC for a very good reason. It has long been involved in the issue of transportation of dangerous goods. In a way, this report is a result of the efforts of the citizens' organization. These efforts have been persistent and have made the question of public safety the first priority in the transportation of dangerous goods. Progress has been made over the years as a result of that.
Of the recommendations that M-TRAC has made, four were ignored. One recommendation is to treat empty railcars that have carried dangerous goods as full for the purposes of safety restrictions. That has not been dealt with yet.
The second recommendation was to limit the number of hazardous goods cars to 20 per train. I know that the report takes a different position on that, but it remains extremely vague as to what is the optimal length of trains transporting dangerous goods. Again, the Minister must give leadership on this question and come up with an answer that will strike a balance that will give priority to safety.
The third recommendation was that the length of trains with hazardous goods cars that are full should be limited. The report does not seem to deal with this question. The recommendation was that it should not be longer than 1,600 metres, which is more than one and a half kilometers.
Finally, the recommendation to ensure that there are enough inspectors to monitor and enforce safety standards is a crucial issue. It is a preventive measure and a recommendation I would particularly stress to the Minister so that he has in his budget the means to hire the inspectors for trains entering metropolitan areas across the nation. That is where the entrance of the train becomes crucial. That is partially dealt with, although not in a conclusive manner, when talking about train gateways inspections at page 58. However, we must ask whether the inspectors are there and whether the number is adequate. Is the quality of the inspection sufficient?
In conclusion, the Minister has only addressed the first two of many issues. The speed of trains remains unclear. 1 hope the Minister will soon make a statement as to the speed he envisages when talking about lower speed.
We want the Minister to address the other substantive issues in this report, in particular, the issue that M-TRAC has persistently raised over the years and which, in a way, triggered the process that led to the writing and tabling of this report today.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, of course I have not had time to examine the report. I will keep my remarks general in nature and begin by saying that railways are still the safest form of transport for the handling of dangerous goods.
I know that railways receive many headlines and much coverage when there is a train mishap because it is more spectacular. There is little or no reporting and little public knowledge about the thousands of mishaps in the trucking industry that occur on our highways every year.

September 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers
I suggest to the Minister and the Government that the continued acceptance of rail line abandonment means an ever greater shift of the amounts of traffic of dangerous goods to our already congested urban streets and main highways.
Both railways want to abandon another 15,000 miles of track over the next seven years. They have already abandoned several thousand miles of track in western Canada. Now it is occurring in central and eastern Canada. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that one of the railways wants to abandon the line from Montreal to North Bay through Ottawa?
The continuing trend to allow the elimination of siding and spur tracks in our industrial and warehouse areas in cities all over Canada, not only Toronto, increases the concentration of truck movement of all those commodities, including dangerous goods, on our urban roads system and our main highways. That increases the number of accidents and risks involving trucks.
Many people may not realize in our society that thousands of truckloads or partial truckloads of dangerous commodities move on our streets every day out of sheer necessity. Trucks haul explosives like gunpowder and ammunition to hardware stores. They haul various kinds of solvents and cleaning fluids to stores all over our cities. This occurs every day with thousands of vehicles everywhere in Canada. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that by doing something about the movement of dangerous goods on railways through our urban centres we will suddenly reduce the risk. Frankly, I do not think it will.
We can handle much of this with present infrastructure along with some modifications, better operating rules, a better system of inspection and better enforcement by the Government of Canada over the maintenance of railway rolling stock and all transportation vehicles, including the trucking industry. [DOT]
[DOT] (M50)
When one sees the railroads reducing their track forces, reducing the number of inspectors and carmen they have at many locations across Canada, one would think that the Government and the National Transportation Agency would show some alarm. But it is always the bottom-line syndrome that takes over. The trucking industry is in regulatory shambles. We were promised, with the introduction of Bill C-19, that there would be an agreement reached among the 13 jurisdictions-the two Territories, the 10 provinces and the federal Government-on a standardized regulatory regime across Canada, whether it was with respect to licensing, load limits, speed limits, handling of dangerous goods, or whatever. The agreement still has not been arrived at. In that respect one of my colleagues mentioned the Meech Lake Accord again.
The federal Government has complete and total jurisdiction and legal authority, constitutional authority, on all trucking
that moves inter-provincially and internationally. If the provinces do not want to or refuse to co-operate with respect to a standard set of rules, regulations and practices, then it seems to me that the federal Government must exercise its responsibility and do it.
I want to mention another item about the whole matter of safety. I want you, Mr. Speaker, to visualize something that has occurred and can occur again. In Canada there are thousands and thousands of vehicles carrying dangerous goods which travel our roads and which go over something in the order of 100,000 level crossings. If a locomotive hits one of those vehicles on the Prairies-the thousands of farm fuel vehicles-travelling over all our roads, or in the cities, and a truck bursts into flames with an entire crew in the locomotive, and with them are all the documents that say what are the contents of that train, including which cars have dangerous goods and what kind of dangerous goods, and that locomotive also bursts into flames, who is going to notify whom about what? There is nobody in the caboose because there is no caboose to put up a phone and call the fire department, the police and the ambulances, and to notify the nearest Dangerous Goods Directorate. Mr. Speaker, they would not listen, and the Government has authorized this high risk and unsafe practice.
I want to say one final thing, Mr. Speaker, about rail line relocation, which is fine when you get it in the right location. My own City of Regina is a classic case of approval being given by Government to relocate track and rail yards in the wrong place, and at a cost beyond the financial capacity of the city. 1 hope the Minister will review and overturn the CTC decision and make that city and the railroads go back to the drawing board. Unless there is a fully informed and consulted public on rail line relocation, then the NIMBY, "not in my back yard", syndrome takes over, similar to what happens with waste disposal sites.
I think the standing committee will welcome the opportunity to deal with the report. I hope it will deal with it with relative speed and hear from people right across Canada. I hope that there will not be any question about the committee being provided with the fullest resources, both financially and staffwise, as well as reasonable time to do a thorough job.
Something that the Minister might wish to consider when he is looking over the Toronto situation, but something which also concerns Thunder Bay, Windsor and Vancouver as well as a lot of other locations, is one wide multi-track corridor with both railroads being required to use it as a possible solution. I think that in many locations in the country this is something that could be looked at which would probably in the long run be cheaper to put in and to keep operating.
September 22, 1988


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the report, in both official languages, of the visit by residing officers to Canberra for the inauguration address and first meetings of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the new Parliament House, August 21 to 24, 1988.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. Today is a very appropriate time to report the Bill establishing the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.
I want to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of constituents from western Canada who believe that the present Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
They believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the trade deal Canadian sovereignty would be seriously compromised. They believe also that the deal itself would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They actually have a whole number of other concerns. Let me simply summarize by saying that they are asking for Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of
Order Paper Questions
constituents asking the Government to intercede with Canada Post regarding the installation of supermailboxes in Maple, Ontario.
These petitioners live in an old, established community which never has had door-to-door delivery and which does not wish to see the problems associated with supermailboxes.
They are much more willing to continue their tradition of general mail delivery and pick up, and estimate that 90 per cent of their community is in agreement. Many of these individuals are angry. They, all of them, look to our Government for an ear to their needs and a stop to this construction.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: I have the privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Fort Francis and lgnace in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners today call upon the Government to withdraw what they see as an inadequate child care Act which contains neither national standards nor adequate funding arrangements.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 397 and 410.


Mrs. Sparrow: Has the government ever granted a postal franchise in the Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre in Calgary and, if so \a) during what period of time (b) was there any (i) profit involved (ii) loss to the government and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. No. Providing postal services through a "franchised" outlet is a relatively new approach for the Corporation. A "postal franchise" has never existed at the Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre. However, until recently there was a private sector postal outlet located in the Shopping Centre-known as a Retail Postal Outlet.
In the immediate vicinity of Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre, there are two Retail Postal Outlets currently operating. These include RPO No. 122 in Southcentre Mall, located at Macleod Trail and Anderson Road, and RPO No. 156 in the Deer Valley Shopping Centre, located at Canyon Meadows Drive and Bow Bottom Trail.

September 22, 1988
Orders for Return
The Southcentre Mall and the Deer Valley Shopping Centre have been identified as future full service sites, which will improve the accessibility of products and services in the immediate area. Currently, customers must travel approximately 2.5 km from the Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre, to Postal Station "F" for full service.
In addition to these two full service sites, there will be approximately 12 stamp shops in the area, including one at the Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre.
In keeping with Canada Post Corporation's commitment to providing improved customer access to postal products and services, this new configuration of postal outlets means better service for residents in the Lake Bonavista area.
(a)	The Lake Bonavista Shopping Centre Retail Postal Outlet (formerly known as a sub-post office) was in operation for more than a decade, until its recent closure by the operator in early 1988.
(b)	Financial arrangements between Canada Post Corporation and its private sector operators is considered proprietary information. The outlet located at the Shopping Centre was a private sector outlet and, therefore, the operator's remuneration was based on revenues at the outlet.
GRANTS/LOANS TO METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did Canada Ports Corporation make grants and/or
loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and
governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in
each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Benoît Bouchard: The
management of Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows: No.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council: If
Questions Nos. 388 and 390 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 388 and 390 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Parry: Between February 18, 1980 and September 4, 1984, did any government departments or agencies spend money or provide grants in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River, and if so, by what departments or agencies and, in each case (a) on what dates (b) in what amounts (c) under which programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Kindy: Since September, 1984, have any government departments or agencies awarded grants or loans to individuals, corporations, or non-governmental organizations located in the constituency of Calgary East and, if so, to which ones and, in each case (a) in what amounts tb) for what purposes?
Return tabled.

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 50 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) submitted to the Chair a request for an emergency debate on the issue of the truckers and the others that have lost their jobs as a result of the privatization of CN Trucking.
I wonder if I could get some direction as to when the Speaker would be making a decision as to whether or not that emergency debate will be granted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has had no notice of that request, but we will inquire immediately and report back to the House as soon as we have it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State
(Treasury Board)): Mr. Speaker, I move:
September 22, 1988
[Stage Direction]
That, in relation to Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, not more than one further sitting day be allotted to the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
I should not take too long in my remarks in this debate. We have brought forward, I believe, historic, innovative social legislation which, for the first time in Canada, will set up a child care system. It is very much in keeping with the direction of this Government to give people a hand up and not a hand out.
It is innovative in that it has various ways of applying the funding. I appreciate that some will say that it is not enough and others will say that it should be done differently, but we think we have a good start on this social legislation and we want to implement it. We want to proceed as quickly as we can to get this to the Senate, in the hopes that the Senate will move quickly on this legislation.
We have suffered a delay on the Bill at other stages of debate. I am speaking of the days when it was called at second reading, where we considered the Bill in principle.
I would draw to the House's attention the remarks of my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap, who said, as reported on page 19481 of yesterday's Hansard'.
I do nol see any reason for wanting to rush this legislation through. We will debate for the rest of the week, all of next week and the following weeks, until it is appropriately debated.
I find that unfortunate. It indicates that my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap has no care or feeling for the children of this country or for single parents or for parents who work. I know that that Party makes a great to do about looking after ordinary Canadians, but with that one statement my friend has abandoned Canadians with children and Canadian children. I am not sure whether that is now NDP policy or whether he will wish to retract it in his remarks. I would hope that he would, because I know him to be a caring person, and I find that remark to be completely out of character with his normal conduct. Hopefully, during his comments he will retract that.
I do not need to spend any more time on my feet than is necessary. I would say this to the Opposition, that it would be our intention to call this on Monday, and if my friend wants to sit through lunch on Monday and get an extra hour's debate in, we would be amenable to that. We do intend that the Bill will be called Monday, that the debate at third reading will be wrapped up, and this important piece of legislation will be sent to the Senate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we have here another example of the most hypocritical, double-talking Government in recent history. On the one hand we have a Government which continually talks about parliamentary reform, parliamentary democracy, but on the other hand the same Government has used closure more
Time Allocation
than any other Government in Canadian history. It has used closure and allocation of time to crush debate in this House of Commons more than any other Government. But they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. One minute it is "what a great job we are doing to enhance parliamentary reform and parliamentary democracy", but in Bill after Bill they crush the debate, close off debate, before there is a chance for the debate really to get under way.
In this case, the Minister of State introduced a motion for allocation of time, a motion to close debate for third reading, after only three Members had spoken in this House.
The only people who had spoken were the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who introduced the debate on third reading, then the critic for the Liberal Party, then the critic for the New Democratic Party, and right away the Minister introduced a motion to close the debate.
Once again, the Government, with its large majority, the largest parliamentary majority in Canadian history, is using that majority to crush parliamentary debate in Canada and to stop a discussion on what is one of the most complex and controversial Bills to come before this Parliament in this session.
What is the history of this Bill? The Government promised legislation on day care in the all-Party debate during the election of 1984. It was in the summer of 1984 that this Government promised new legislation on child care. Yet, we only got the Bill on July 25, 1988. We only got the Bill this summer, in a situation where the Government moved that the House sit all summer, because it could not manage its own legislative program. It decided to introduce the Bill on July 25, 1988. The Government is now accusing the Opposition of delaying.
If this Bill is not passed prior to an expected fall election, then surely the fault is not with the Opposition. The fault is surely not with the Senate. The Bill has not even been sent to the Senate yet. The fault is with the Government. It is the Government that delayed the Bill from 1984 until July 25, 1988.
There has not been a filibuster on this Bill. How can the Government say that there has been delay on this Bill when it introduced the motion, when all we had was the Minister and the chief opposition critic speaking?
On second reading, we only had three days of debate. In the legislative committee on this Bill, a very complex and controversial Bill, as I said, we only had three and a third days of discussion and hearings, despite a demand by groups from all over the country that they be heard on this Bill and be given adequate time to be heard.
On report stage, we only had two days, because Your Honour had ruled out of order many of the amendments that had been proposed. We are at third reading and the Government has just put a motion that we limit debate to one more day.
[Stage Direction]
September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
This attempt by the Government to limit debate on this very complex and controversial Bill is totally, totally unacceptable. 1 want to point out, so that Canadians will know, that in the three and a third days of committee hearings the Government again used its majority to force all the witnesses to be heard in those three and a third days. There were 40 groups that came before the committee to be heard and the Government gave each one of those groups a half an hour or less. Can you imagine, anyone with any experience in Parliament saying to a group that might come from Montreal, Vancouver or the Atlantic provinces, "We want to hear you but you only have 30 minutes to make your presentation and answer questions from members of the committee"? What nonsense. Usually we give the witness groups at least one hour in committee.
These witnesses and members of the committee were forced to deal with this Bill in just half an hour. 1 say forced, because a motion was passed by Conservative Members cutting off debate in committee, forcing 40 groups to make their presentations within that very short period of time, and all in Ottawa. The committee did not seek opinions outside Ottawa. The groups had to come to Ottawa.
This Bill is supposed to be so good, but what was the unanimous opinion of those groups? Of those 40 groups that received very short hearings before the committee, not one supported the Bill. The Government could not find one group to appear before the committee to support the Bill. The only witness who supported the Bill was the Minister who is sponsoring the Bill.
Forty of the groups in Canada interested in child care came to the committee and said that the Bill was not adequate, that it does not fulfil the needs of Canadian children. Some of them even suggested that the Bill was a step backward, a regression over what we already have. They criticized this Bill first because it has no national standards. It provides money for day care, but there are no standards as to how the provinces, the municipalities and the various groups must perform in providing day care.
The Bill does not meet the needs of Canadian children. There is no provision at all for latchkey children, young children who must come home after school without parents to take care of them. It only provides for 200,000 new day care spaces over seven years. The need right now is for two million day care spaces, due to the fact that there have been radical changes in society, starting in the sixties, with more and more single mothers, more and more mothers working because of the attitudinal changes in society and the need for both father and mother to work because there is not adequate income with only one parent working to cover the housing, food, clothing and educational needs of the family.
This is a controversial, complex Bill. It was opposed by every day care group that appeared in the very short and compressed time before the committee. More debate and more hearings
are needed in order to clarify the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Bill and in order to put before the Canadian people the various alternatives on day care.
The Government has a false idea of the role of Parliament. The Government feels that because it has a majority in Parliament, the outcome of a vote is a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, that is so. We know there are very few independent-thinking Members of Parliament on the Conservative side who will break ranks from time to time on a question of conscience. They will vote in a bloc and defeat the positions of the two opposition Parties.
We know we will be defeated on every vote put to the House, but the purpose of debate, I repeat again and again, is unfortunately not simply to convince Members on the government side. We know we will not convince them. The purpose of the debate in this House is to send arguments on different issues out of the House so the Canadian population can understand the issues. That is why the debates of this House are televised. That is why the proceedings are reported in Hansard. That is why we have a Press Gallery.
We do not expect to convince those stone-age Tories over there. By having a reasonable debate, we want to let Canadians understand the issues behind the Bill. It is a travesty of parliamentary democracy and justice that the Government should give only one more day to this debate on third reading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will give the floor to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap in a moment, but I have been notified, concerning the question raised by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap as to the emergency debate, that the Chair did receive notice at 9.51 this morning, so we do apologize for not bringing it up. The Speaker will deal with it immediately after Question Period.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, you may have noted that it is dull in the House of Commons. A cloud hangs over the House of Commons once again, the cloud of closure, the cloud of a Government that has betrayed the principles of parliamentary democracy as we have come to know it in Canada.
This is a closure-crazed Government. There has never been a Government in the history of Canada that has so repeatedly decided to muzzle Parliamentarians, those who are elected to represent the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, I remember the day when Conservative Members of the House rushed the Speaker's chair and stopped the House of Commons from performing. I remember other days when, through a misuse of parliamentary tactics, Conservative Members closed down the House of Commons for day after day. The one place where Canadians could speak their minds without fear of reprisal was taken away from them. Those who were elected to represent the people of Canada had no opportunity to express the views of their constituents.
September 22, 1988

Once again, on one of the most important social issues that has faced this House of Commons in the last four years, the Government has decided not to tolerate any more discussion. As my hon. friend who just spoke indicated, the importance of this discussion is not to try to convince the parliamentary eunuchs across the way, and I call them parliamentary eunuchs because they have no power, they have no influence. Their voices are worthless.
What we are really seeing is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deciding that now is the time to jam, to rush, to push this legislation through the House of Commons, and he does not want to hear anybody on the government side speaking on the most important social issue to face us. That is why I call all of those Members across the way government eunuchs. They have no life, no voice, no muscle. We do not hear them represent their constituents.
I would think that there should be a revolt on the backbenches of the Government. Surely to goodness there is someone over there who believes that this is not good legislation. When this was before committee, the Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat members of the committee wanted to have experts come before us. We wanted to bring in the best the country has to offer to advise us on child care, and they came. Not many were allowed to come, because government Members wanted to rush this through the committee in only two days of committee debate.
We brought before us a whole set of witnesses, 40 different witnesses, the best and most expert voices on child care in the country. Do you know what every single witness said, Mr. Speaker? They all said we should tear up the legislation, send it back, throw it out, not proceed with it. This legislation is wrong-headed, this legislation is anti-children.
Where are the compassionate people on the government benches? Are there any? All I hear is sheep-like sounds, just "Baa, baa, baa, tell us what to do, we will cheer, we will clap like seals if that is what we have to do. We are not going to speak out on behalf of our constituents, we are not going to listen to the experts on child care".
This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship. This is dictatorial. The Prime Minister says, no more debate, no more discussion, ignore all of the expert advice on this issue and ram the legislation through. The Government has the numbers to do that, but it abuses the very principles that Canadians hold so dear, the principles of democracy and of open and free debate.
We feel very strongly about this legislation. We think this legislation should be sent back to the drawing-board and drafted properly because it was a rush job. More than four years ago, the Prime Minister said that he had as a priority the introduction of decent child care in Canada. Then 1984 went by, 1985 went by, 1986 went by, 1987 went by and 1988 nearly went by. Then, in the dying moments of this Parliament, the Prime Minister rushes in and says, "Oh, we have to
Time Allocation
jam some kind of child care legislation through the House of Commons with no decent debate, no decent examination of the legislation". Just get something through because I promised it a little over four years ago. We are dealing with legislation that makes no sense in meeting the really serious needs in Canada.
There are two million children in Canada today, Mr. Speaker, who require quality child care of one kind or another. This legislation before us is providing 200,000 child care spaces over the next seven years to meet an immediate two million space requirements. The situation will have doubled at the end of seven years in terms of need. If the Government of Canada did absolutely nothing, took the legislation and put it in a drawer or threw it away, we would be better off because in several years from now we would have more child care spaces than this legislation will provide. That is why we say it is regressive and bad legislation. It is worsening the situation from the status quo.
It is important that the people of Canada hear about this, and the only way they will be able to evaluate the situation is to hear two sides of the debate. He should provide an opportunity for opposition Members to voice their concerns and then hear from government Members why they think this is good legislation. But to do that, Mr. Speaker, you have to have a debate in the House of Commons on the most important social legislation the Government has introduced. Are we having that important debate? No, we are absolutely not. The Government has decided after one speech from each of the three political Parties-there are 282 Members of Parliament-that enough is enough. The Government has said: "We are cutting off debate and muzzling Parliamentarians, but we will set aside one more day". Can you imagine one more day of debate on the most important social legislation introduced in this House in years and years?
But that is the kind of view that presumably the Prime Minister has of democracy. 1 am not criticizing my friends opposite. I do call them political and parliamentary eunuchs. I say that because I really do not believe that they can sit there hour after hour and say nothing on this important issue. Yet they are not going to be given that opportunity, thanks to our Prime Minister.
It is undemocratic that this Bill is being rushed through. It is unparliamentary that we are jamming legislation through the House of Commons, using parliamentary Rambo-like tactics to close off debate. People say they keep hearing the distant echo of jackboots time and time again as closure is introduced this week, closure next week and closure again. There is not a Government in the history of this country that has used closure of one form or another more than this Government has.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
What does that tell us about the Government? Does it tell us that this Government believes in open, free debate? Of course not. It tells us that this Government does not believe in the most fundamental principles of free speech where those who are duly elected to serve Canadians in the House of Commons have an opportunity to express the views of their constituents. But we are being denied that opportunity. We are having that fundamental responsibility of Parliamentarians to reflect the views of our constituents taken away. We have been trying to reflect the views of the experts from all of the child care groups, the coalitions and the individuals who are respected from one side of Canada to another. They came to the committee and said: "Please, Mr. Prime Minister, start again. Please, Mr. Minister, don't proceed with this backward, regressive legislation. Put the interest of Canada's young people foremost rather than your political interest in terms of jamming some legislation through in the moments before an election call".
1 say this is not only a dark day for Parliament but, worse, it is a dark day for the children of Canada that we have a Government that is so uncaring, so callous, so crass in its political efforts that it is prepared to set aside the interests of Canada's young people in order to play a political agenda at the expense of the young people of Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague across the way saying I will have nothing to say because I agree.


Mr. Gauthier:: You agree to everything. You are part of the seal pack.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Three-quarters of the Members of this House have agreed on second reading, on report stage and on this motion, I anticipate, and they will agree on the passage of third reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's called dictatorship!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Three-quarters of the democratically-elected people of this country agree.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Call an election. We will take care of that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What do they agree on, Mr. Speaker? They agree that children need better quality care. They agree that our children are a tremendous asset to this nation.
What is this Parliament asked to agree on in this piece of legislation? The New Democratic Party Member who just spoke said it is regressive legislation. I will tell you what he believes is regressive, Sir. It is regressive to put more money into child care. That is his view.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is dishonest and you know it. You are twisting the facts again.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This is an absurd point of view from my perspective, but that is the view. This legislation is categorized
as regressive because we are putting more money into child care. That is a regressive step from a regressive Party which has a regressive view of this country.
What is the next principle in the Bill which the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition find regressive? That parents should have a choice on how to take care of their children, that parental choice lies at the heart of the policy of our Party and at the heart of this legislation. The opposition Parties say that this is regressive, that more money is regressive, and that it is regressive that parents should have a choice about their own children.
What is the third principle involved in this Bill? That the federal Government respects the rights and the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. We hear that that is regressive, that it is regressive that we should have a nation in which there is co-operation between the federal Government and the provincial Governments in the provision of social services. That is not surprising for any of us who sat in this House under the last Government from 1980 to 1984. That Government cared not one whit. It was a Liberal Government which was supported by the New Democratic Party far too often. It cared not one whit for the constitutional arrangements of this country and jurisdiction. Give them half an inch and both Parties would take over education, health care, and the courts in this country. It is also consistent with their philosophy. They want to run the world and forget about provincial voters and provincial Governments.
They say the federal Government can run everything. My experience tells me that is not correct. Decisions made in Ottawa that affect the people in Trochu, Alberta are quite often not very sensitively done. When we are talking about the parents of this nation and their children, we should not have a group of elected politicians in Ottawa or bureaucrats who live in Ottawa telling the people in Newfoundland how to raise their kids. That is really what they are after. The only reason they believe this Bill is regressive is because it does not give central control about how parents should deal with their children. That is what they want, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Finestone:: Garbage.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They want their view of what is right for the children of this nation to prevail. That is what bothers them the most. If it is not that, are they concerned about more money coming into the system? Surely they are not against that?


Ms. Dewar:: I don't think you have read the legislation.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Surely they cannot be against parental choice? But they are. They are against more money. They are against parental choice and against respecting the Constitution of Canada and the jurisdictional arrangements between the two levels of Government.
September 22, 1988


Sheila Finestone: Not true.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: To highlight their lack of respect for the democratic process and the issue of choice for people, we had a statement yesterday by the Liberal Leader in the Senate. How much respect does that unelected Chamber, full of well paid people appointed by the previous Government have for the democratic process when it tells us in advance, simply on the basis of a Liberal caucus meeting, that it does not matter what democratic people do in the Chamber, it does not matter that three-quarters of the people elected to this Chamber by the voters of this country want this legislation, the Senate will stall and stall and stall and it will not see the light of day?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's a lie, and you know it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Whip for the Liberal Party says that that's a lie and I know it. Members of the Liberal Party probably cost the taxpayers of this country $500 million on the immigration Bill alone.


Sheila Finestone: Look at the mistakes that you made all the way.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Stalling on Bill C-55 cost $500 million of the taxpayers' money. There was failure to put in place something that the democratically elected people of this country said was right and proper. They stalled for a year. The cost of that, Mr. Speaker, was enormous.
That unelected Chamber is costing Canadians today in the form of higher interest rates. Every time somebody's mortgage goes up a little, or their credit card rate goes up, they should look at the Liberal Party of Canada and its control of the Senate. It is the threat by the Leader of Liberal Party to tear up the free trade agreement, the decision by the Senate to stall the will of the democratically elected Chamber, that is causing problems in the market, higher interest rates, and a devalued dollar. The only antidote to that is the polls. The polls are saying that Canadian people understand that democracy should prevail, appointed people should not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: 1 was concerned with the relevancy of the remarks made by the previous speaker to the child care Bill. However, as he has terminated his address, we will leave it at that. I hope he will be more relevant next time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This is not a debate on the child care Bill, Mr. Speaker, it is a debate on the motion to allocate time, and all of of these comments are relevant to that motion. The opposition Members consistently filibuster things that they do not agree with. It does not matter if it is good for Canadians. If they believe it is good for their electoral chances they filibuster.
1 just came out of a committee meeting this morning on conflict of interest legislation. We met yesterday to attempt to organize the committee. We met again today, and we are going to meet again at 3.30 p.m. because the opposition
Time Allocation
Members are filibustering. They do not want conflict of interest legislation that governs their behaviour as well government Members' behaviour, and they are trying to be clever about it. They simply waste time, waste time, waste time. On this Bill they have wasted lots of time.
It should be clear that the most significant protection that Canadians have in terms of the actions of their Government is their vote. It is their ballot and their opportunity to toss a Government out, put in a new Government, or to continue a Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are going to boot you out so fast, Jim, you would not have a chance to say anything.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No Government can afford to be held hostage to the views of a minority in this Chamber. The majority must prevail. That is what democracy is all about. Democracy says that it is time to pass this legislation to put more money in the hands of children and to give more choice to parents to respect the nature of this country and its jurisdictions. That is what the Bill and the policy is about. The majority of Members in this Chamber want that policy in place, and I hope that the other place, controlled by Liberals, will smarten up, respect the voters of this country, and respect the democratic process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the Government's motion to limit the debate on Bill C-144.
I think it is the height of hypocrisy for this Government to tell Canadians that it is so concerned about day care, and then turn around and say it is not interested in hearing the views of their elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, in fact it has acknowledged its incompetence in this area by letting Members like the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) speak to the Bill. He talked about everything except the Bill and why it was necessary to discuss it in the House. He did not explain why the Government is imposing closure. He did not explain why this Government wants to rush the Bill through the House. He did none of these things. He simply talked about matters that had no connection whatsoever with the business before the House.

We have before us a motion to limit debate. It is true, as previous speakers have said, that this Government has used time allocation, limitation, and closure more than any other Government. It has a massive majority in this House, yet it cannot control the agenda, or make up its mind so that we can come to terms with the work.
The Government brought in this bill on July 25. 1 will go through the chronology of how the Bill went through the House. On July 25, 1988, first reading of the Bill; on second reading three days of debate on August 11, 17, and 23. Government Members are the ones who called Orders of the Day. They are the ones responsible for waiting, waffling, and for not being able to make up their minds on this issue. They come in here in August and put in three days of debate.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
There were 11 Conservative back-benchers, including the Minister speaking on this Bill at second reading, and there were six Liberal Members, and six New Democratic Members. Is that a filibuster on second reading? No. This Bill was flawed and the Government knows it. We tried to correct it in committee. There were 40 witnesses who were given half an hour to present their points and arguments to improve the Bill. It was railroaded. There were three and a half days in committee from August 24 on. The Bill was reported back to the House on September 15. There were 13 amendments ruled in order. There was one amendment accepted by the Government. On September 22, two days ago, we started third reading of the Bill, which is the last phase of any legislative process. There was one speaker from each Party, then the Government rose and gave notice that it will invoke Standing Order 117, and limit debate to one additional day.
Yet government Members have the gall to rise today and call this a filibuster. I hope that the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) will grow and mature a little before he uses the type of silly arguments that he was using this morning. Regressive legislation; indeed it is regressive legislation, distorted legislation, unresponsive.
Come the next election 1 hope the Member for Calgary West will self-destruct with the nonsense he has put to us today. The arguments he put were as silly as 1 have ever heard. He said that the Senate will filibuster and block the Bill. The Senate said no such thing. The Senate has not had the Bill yet, it is still here, so it cannot possibly know when it will get the Bill, unless the Government has decided once and for all to bully and bulldoze its way through and get the Bill to the Senate next week sometime. Until the Bill is there, how can the Government tell the media that it is filibustering and that it will block the Bill? 1 suspect that the least the Senate would want to do is to spend as much time as the House of Commons has, that is, three days at second reading and possibly some good committee work where they would hear these 40 witnesses who were against the Bill. There was not one witness before the committee who was in favour of the Bill, not one.


Mr. Allmand:: And they were only given half an hour to respond.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) says they were only given half an hour. That is true. They had half an hour to comment on a very important Bill, one which may have direct consequences on the future of our children. I would like to talk about the mentality this Government has developed over the last four years. It is called a jackboot mentality, and I think it is appropriate. Government members are running the show like dictators. If they do not have it their way, they bulldoze everything, call time allocation or closure in order to put through whatever legislation they have. They cannot debate. I have not heard one Member from the government side yet
make a reasonably good argument in favour of the Bill, except for the Minister who is trying to bootleg this Bill through the House so that he can get out there and snap his suspenders or whatever they do in trying to mislead Canadians into thinking this is a good Bill. It is not a good Bill, I regret. It needs to be improved.
In Ontario it will be absolutely impossible for the Government to meet its requirements. The Government of Ontario had planned to expand by 12,000 spaces, but with this Government's legislative capping it at 200,000 spaces, Ontario will not be able to do it. Ontario has already announced that its expansion plans have been cut because the federal Government is refusing to fund its share over and above what Bill C-144 allows. In Toronto there are 4,000 families waiting to get into these day care spaces. Four thousand families are waiting to get their children into an environment which is conducive to good care and good education. But this Government does not care. It will promise 200,000 spaces over the next seven years, but debate has shown that that is very, very inferior to what we need. It is not even coping with the requirements of the day.
If one looks back over the previous years, one can see a doubling, a quadrupling of spaces under the CAP program, but CAP, the Canada Assistance Program, will not work any more because it has been taken out. The Government has put a ceiling of 200,000 spaces so the Canada Assistance Program will not be able to help the provinces cope with the problem of subsidies.
This Government has delayed continuously. It has not wanted to accept its responsibilities. Yet when it gets an idea, and in this case a bad idea, it bulldozes. I want to say a few things about my own preoccupation with my riding.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier there is an urgent need for day care centres. There is an urgent need for spaces for our children, but under the present program, we will have to tell parents: Sorry, the Conservative Government had to set a ceiling, so there will be no room for your children. Come back in a few years, and we might get a grant under the program.
Mr. Speaker, I must say hundreds of families in my riding will be shocked to hear this Government has ignored their needs and turned down their very reasonable request for daycare spaces so that their children will be properly looked after and properly taught. I think it is incredible the Government could be so insensitive as to want to push a Bill through in one day, and I object to this positively odious procedure, there is no other word for it, this use of a bulldozer to get a bad Bill through the House. I wish the Hon. Member would rise in the House and explain in the course of the debate why he intends to vote for this Bill, because I intend to vote against it, Mr. Speaker.
September 22, 1988


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a happy occasion to have to stand and speak again on a closure motion in this House. I represent the constituency of Prince Albert. That was the seat in this House represented by the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker for 26 years. I can just imagine what that Hon. Member of Parliament would say if he were here today and saw what his colleagues, the people in his Party, are doing to Parliament. John George Diefenbaker loved this Parliament. He believed that this Parliament was the epitome of democracy and that how it operated was important to the country and to the world. He spoke out often and long about closure when he was in this House. He would abhor the approach the Government is using today in taking away the right of Parliament to investigate and speak about a Bill with which most of the people, we now believe, do not agree.
The Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) made much of the fact that 75 per cent of the Members in this House want this Bill. That is a little bit of a sheepish approach to what happens in this House. Seventy-five per cent of the Members happen to be Conservatives. However, 75 per cent of the people did not vote for them. In fact, only approximately 50 per cent of the people across Canada voted to elect these 75 Members, so they cannot in any way say they represent more than 50 per cent of the population. In fact, their support has declined so much in the last little while, they would have a great deal of trouble suggesting that they now represent more than 30 per cent or 35 per cent of the population. Perhaps a third of the people in the country would agree with the Government, but we do not think that even that many would agree with the Government on this particular piece of legislation. When 40 advocacy groups felt they had some need to speak to this Bill and came before the rushed hearings, not one of them expressed support for this particular piece of legislation. Forty groups came before the parliamentary committee and not one expressed support for this particular piece of legislation.
1 spoke about my predecessor from Prince Albert. He spoke loud and long against closure in this House. He believed that this kind of approach to legislation, this kind of closing off of Parliament, was anti-democratic. He would be aghast if he saw what was happening today. Many people who are watching this debate today will remember the pipeline debate on which Mr. Diefenbaker spoke quite often. He took the idea of closure to the people of Canada and they rejected that as a method of getting legislation through Parliament.
The Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker was not the only Conservative who thought that closure was not a good idea and who spoke against it. Not too long ago, on June 9, 1981, one of the members of this particular Government, the Party that controls this House right at the moment, one of the frontbenchers, made a few statements about closure. It was the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister for International Trade. He stated:
Time Allocation
This comes from a closure-crazed government-
One would think he was talking about his own Government-
-a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality. It
cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House.
He went on to say that it is a betrayal of the parliamentary system. We have a parallel here today. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he was running for the leadership of his Party, told the people of Canada and the people of his Party that under no circumstances would he support trade with the United States. He has now betrayed this Parliament and the people of Canada by pushing through a policy on free trade which he, at one time, said he would not do under any circumstances.
To go on with the comments of the Member for St. John's West on the subject of closure, he said:
This is an illustration of what has happened to Canada. Today we have a parliamentary system of government without any checks and balances and without the separation of powers. The Prime Minister has a group of docile sheep in his caucus who keep him in power, no matter what he is doing. They just say, "Baaa, sir, baaa, sir, pass it through the House, sir". As long as they do that, he has absolute power.
That sounds very much as though he were speaking about his own Government, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? He continued:
This Prime Minister has absolute power as long as the majority in his caucus give him that unlimited power. They are so busy with their noses in the patronage trough and power trough that they neither know nor care what happens to this Parliament, and we can expect nothing from them.
That is what the Member from St. John's West, the present Minister for International Trade, thought of closure when he sat on the opposition side of the House.
I will go on with further comments by that particular Minister. He said:
Where are all the defenders of the people on the other side of the House? They are going to come out of their trough in a few minutes. They will hear the bell and they will have to break away from whatever trough they have their noses in at the moment. They will have to come into this House and say "Oink, oink". They will have to say "Aye, aye". They will have to say "Yes" to the stampeding of Parliament, to rushing this bill through the House. They will have to say "Yes" to the gutting of Parliament. They will have to do the dirty work that the parliamentary assistants, assassins and eunuchs have asked them to do.
I think that most of the Members of this House would agree that what is being done here is not good parliamentary procedure. This particular Bill is probably a good example of the inadequacy that the Government has shown during its four years in this House. It promised that it would do something about child care four years ago in the election campaign. It has been in office for four years now and it did not move on this issue until just lately. The Bill was introduced for second reading in the middle of the summer when the election call was imminent. Parliament was asked to give it second reading in the middle of the summer, and the Government is now moving closure on a Bill that had only one speaker from each Party at third reading.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
Why is there such a rush to push this legislation through this Parliament if it is so unpopular? Could it be that the Government does not want the people of Canada to hear too much about this legislation because it happens to be a centre-piece of its election program, that it wants to put it before the people of Canada as a plank in its election program? If the people hear too much about how poor this legislation is, they will not support the Government in this particular area.
I abhor, as did the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, a Government that will push through Parliament, without adequate debate, any legislation which should have a full airing before the people of Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak to the time allocation motion that has been brought forward by the Government to limit debate and to effect closure. This abuse of the democratic process by a majoritari-an Government is the worst in the history of Canada. Most people who watch Parliament or are interested in Parliament are really not aware of the procedures of the House. I would like to say a few words based on that lack of awareness of some, or perhaps of the majority.
I believe that we have abused the democratic process through the Government's operation in more than one instance. In fact, most Bills that have been of prime importance have ended up with time allocation. Why, with such a massive majority, has the Government not been able to manage its own business? When it cannot manage its own business it tries to scapegoat. It tries to scapegoat the Senate. The amusing yet sad story is that the Senate has not yet even seen this Bill and yet the Government is saying that it is blocking it. That is perfectly ridiculous.
What has been the procedure on this very important piece of legislation, this basic building block to equality, stature, and opportunity for all Canadians? Let us look at what has taken place in order to know where we stand. Twenty years ago a Royal commission under Florence Bird, now Senator Bird, took a good look at what was happening with equality of opportunity for women and families in this land. She noted that one of the important measures to effect equality for women and for families was the application and implementation of child care.
The Canada Assistance Plan then came in which allowed for the growth and development of a child care policy for those who wished to apply for it. We had an evaluation done by Judge Abella. She was looking at equality of opportunity in the workplace and she developed the term "employment equity". That term related to the basic building block which was child care.
Then we had the report *1 Equality For All which looked at the application of Section 15 of the Canadian Constitution. We addressed the question of child care in that. We then had a parliamentary committee study child care. I sat on that
parliamentary committee. I went to British Columbia and heard what they had to say out there.
There was a lot of consultation. The Government is very good in consultation. The one thing it forgets is to listen to what is being said in the consultations. It came back and wrote a Bill. That means it supposedly put into legislative language the attitudes and concerns that were expressed.
After having this full and comprehensive review we were faced with the draft language of the child care legislation, Bill C-144. It has been available for review and study for some time and the Government now feels the pressure to convene this kangaroo court and call closure.
Let us take a look at the facts. The facts are that first reading was given on July 25, and today is September 22. It has not even been before the public to be looked at for two months. On July 25 the legal language came out. No one saw it on July 25, in the middle of what happened to be a very hot summer. On August 11 the Bill received second reading. There were not even three full days of debate. Eleven back-bench Conservatives spoke, six Members from our Party and six New Democratic Party Members spoke to the Bill. It was then sent to committee. The action taken by that committee was absolutely unprecedented. I know that many names were submitted, but of the list that was submitted, 40 witnesses appeared, each with half an hour in which to give an assessment of a Bill that was barely a month old.
Most of these groups are volunteers. They had to organize their members, sit down and work hard to analyse the Bill. It is not easy to get organized in the summer, but they came here and were treated with absolute disdain. These groups were given 30 minutes each to make a presentation and answer questions. How can one have an enlightened approach with that kind of ridiculous structure?
Not one group agreed with this Bill. All of them thought that it did not represent the years of consultation that had taken place. How can the Government say that it was listening? How can it be proud of this Bill? No wonder that it has called for closure. It does not want to arouse public interest and make Canadians aware of the disgraceful way the Government has handled the principles of democracy and justice, let alone being informed about the most important social policy that it is supposed to be introducing. It will not even bring in national objectives. This Bill is a sheer and utter disgrace and the Government ought to be ashamed of itself.
The Government operates by sleight of hand. It packages its policies with pretty words, says much in its preambles, but when it comes to putting it into legislation where it can actually put its words into practice, it has done nothing that will be effective for the children of this country.
September 22, 1988

What the Government is doing to the children is disgraceful. It will be called to account. It should reconsider the fact that it is calling closure on a vital piece of legislation which should ensure the future of Canadian children through choice by parents in Canada. That is not what the Government has done. This Bill will impact on our children and their families. The Government has put the country into a strait-jacket and it should be ashamed.
How can the Government expect the population to be informed when it ensures that it will be uninformed? How does it expect the Senate to respond when it has not yet sent the Bill there?
We should consider why the Government has developed this jackboot mentality. It does not bring forward the kinds of Bills this country deserves and has demanded. Democracy has lost its meaning. Time allocation and closure are totally unacceptable.
The 40 witnesses who had one-half hour each to comment on the Bill at least had time to say that it is flawed. That committee stage terminated on August 24. Report stage commenced on September 15. There were 13 amendments, only one of which was accepted.
I may have had complaints about the Broadcasting Act, but at least the Minister had been open enough to act in a spirit to accept some amendments. The Chairman of our legislative committee was sensible and open enough to allow an extension of time in order to hear the groups. It is unfortunate that this was not reflected in the Bill and in the amendments, but there was at least a sense of democracy. There is no sense of democracy or understanding with this legislation.
Finally, at third reading three Members have spoken on this vital and key social policy. It just shows what the Government thinks about social policy. It does not know how to implement social policy so it will hide it by passing it quickly so no one knows what it involves. The Government's approach is sheer hypocrisy.
It may be sheer hypocrisy and the Government may believe that it can cover it up, but the election will give us a chance to tell the people of Canada that while the Conservatives may know how to package policies through public relations, they know nothing about content.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion of time allocation, which is really a form of closure. It is a disgrace that this Parliament is being presented with a motion like this today.
Government Members suggest we do not want to get this legislation through because we do not care about children. I hesitate to say that there are members of the Government who have not read the legislation because if they care about children they would recognize that this legislation does not focus on children.
Members opposite say that this is progressive legislation, but they cannot stand to hear debate about it. They are concerned
Time Allocation
about an open debate on this legislation. They restricted the number of witnesses at committee stage over a period of two days. Some 40 groups presented briefs and made representations to the committee, and the Government could not find one group in this country that supported the legislation.
These groups have done much research and study into child care, child development, public policy and family policy. Yet the Government could not find one group to support its legislation. The Government brought this legislation back from committee and allowed three Members to speak on what the Government suggests is historic social policy. There is no historic policy in front of the House. It is a cosmetic package that pretends to present a child care strategy. The Government is essentially allowing tax exemptions for people who already have child care. The Government is not looking after those two million children across Canada who are in dire need of child care.
I take exception to the suggestions by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other members of the Government that as soon as this legislation is passed working mothers who are concerned about adequate care for their children will have that care available. That is utter nonsense and really misleads the public.
Not only did the Government restrict the number of people it would hear, it heard no one from Saskatchewan, the Maritimes or the Territories. Obviously, in its arrogant stance, the Government decided that these people were not important and that families and children in these areas did not count. I am sure the Government must have beaten the bushes to find someone who would support this legislation but was unable to do so. It could not find any group that would say this is good legislation.
In the 1984 election campaign the Conservatives said that there was need for child care policy. In a public debate the Prime Minister said that it would be a priority of his Government.
Let us look at how the Prime Minister considers this a priority of this Government. He waited until the summer of 1988 to bring forward legislation that he said was a priority. In the meantime, he was busy attempting to deindex seniors' pensions, he was deindexing family allowance, he was increasing the taxes on ordinary families and he was bailing out banks. He did absolutely nothing with respect to child care.
Then he rushed this legislation through in the summer of 1988, during the month of July when many people are on vacation and it is difficult to organize communities to have the kind of participation that something as important as this should have. Even at that it is not enough to cut off the ordinary people across the country. But what the Government is doing is refusing to allow a full and open debate on the child care legislation that has been brought before us.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
To suggest that it is putting all this extra money into child care is absolute nonsense. We know that in the next seven years we certainly would, under the Canada Assistance Plan, get the same number of spaces as we would have now. We also know that what would happen is that we would not cut off the Canada Assistance Plan, which is going to happen now, as soon as the provinces decide that they want to become part of this plan. It means that many of those families that are in real need, the families of low-income and poor families, are the ones that are not going to be able to get access to child care. That is a real disgrace.
We have seen the effects of what happened under an insensitive Government in wartime. Certainly we are redressing today some of the things that happened to Japanese Canadians. If this measure goes through, what it is really saying again is that we have an insensitive Government that does not care about what happens to our children in the present or our children in the future.
This kind of child care strategy is no child care strategy at all. What the Government is doing is deleting the ability to use the Canada Assistance Plan. What it is doing is allowing for tax expenditures to be part of the expenditure of the child care program, which really is not adding to spaces at all. What it is doing is putting money into the pockets of the people who now can afford child care. That is not the issue at all. The issue is the two million children out there who have no kind of quality care.
There has been some talk about how maybe we as the New Democratic Party would like to centralize all of the delivery of that service. We are certainly not talking about that at all. This Party would like to see a decentralization of service with some guarantee that there would be quality care, whether one is in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Newfoundland, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, or wherever. That certainly is not central control. What it is saying is that any child in Canada has the right to some quality care. This Government has consistently refused to put in any kind of national objectives. Sometimes 1 wonder how members of this Government think they grew up themselves. It seems to me that they love to talk about it being fine if parents would stay at home and look after their children.
I think we have to look at the reality that if we take the lowest salary of the two-income family away we will find that 64 per cent of those families are living in poverty. Two people are not working just for the luxury of working. Two people in a family today are working because they are trying to provide a home, a shelter, education and nurturing for their children.
Surely the Government should recognize that its responsibility is to be able to assist that. It does not matter where Canadians and Canadian families are living. It is most important that we have some kind of a child care policy that says that those children are guaranteed quality care. But this Government is insensitive. It is uncaring. It likes to package things in a cosmetic, superficial way that pretends it is doing things when it is doing nothing. It is terrified to expose itself to
an open debate in which the Canadian people can really understand what a sham this legislation is. This is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.
The only good thing that can happen is that we have an election soon so that the Canadian people can make a judgment on the kind of legislation we will have before us. This Government will not allow it to happen in the House of Commons because it will not allow that kind of debate. All it does every time it brings something in is to hurry it through and then decide right away that we must have closure we must have time allocation. That is because the Government cannot allow the people to debate this because they might understand what it is all about.
I see that my time is up. I hope that the time of this Government is up fairly soon.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, as you said, and rightly so, this is not really a debate on the substance of the Bill before the House, Bill C-144. I am sure Canadians would like to know what this Bill is about. And in fact it is an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof.
The debate we are having right now is not, however, about the substance of the Bill but about procedure. This is one more instance, and I see my Quebec colleagues are very interested in the debate, this is one more instance of the Government bringing in a very important Bill and deciding to push it through the House and impose it on Canadians.
This is a very important Bill. This is a Bill that was promised us in 1984, during that great and glorious election campaign. And then all of a sudden, on July 25, 1988, four years later... Is the House to blame? Certainly not! Is the Opposition to blame? Not at all! It's all because one day the Government decided to get out its 1984 election platform and realized, in the process, that. . . Oh, dearie me! In 1984 we promised them a day care Bill, and we haven't done anything about it. Let's set a bill drafted, good or bad, and use our majority to push it through the House. We have to make sure that in the next election campaign, we can go to Quebec and everywhere else in Canada and say that we fulfilled our election mandate. Well, this is against all the rules of intelligent procedure in this House.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have tried to update the House of Commons and the way we operate. We had this vast parliamentary reform that was supposed to give parliamentary committees enough time to consider a bill and allow them to call witnesses to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers understand what the Bill entails. However, the Government is getting nervous because it realizes that the end is near, and so its says: whether you like it or not, we are going to push this Bill through, whether it is a good Bill or not. As far as I am concerned, it can't be that good, since only four witnesses were heard in three or four days, and none spoke out in favour of the Bill, so why the rush to limit debate?
September 22, 1988

Well, it seems there may be an election pretty soon. It doesn't matter whether the Bill is good or bad. The Government must be able to go before Canadians and say it has fulfilled its mandate. Quebecers, however, should wonder why the Government waited so long. Why did it wait until the very last minute-we want to introduce this Bill we just happened to overlook! I really have the impression that someone must have looked at their election platform and their promises, then reached the conclusion that a number of important items had been forgotten and, in the end-of-session panic decided to get those last promises through the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a healthy way to operate in a parliamentary democracy. The Government had four years and a month to schedule the implementation of its election promises.
This Government had four years, four long years, to implement this piece of legislation. Here we are, almost at the very last minute of the last two weeks-maybe, as my colleague from the third Party is saying-when the Government seems to have reopened the book of its promises of 1984 and realized that it has forgotten a few items in it, not to say many, and therefore will force, ram through the House of Commons, this issue.
I can imagine a Cabinet session where the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet instruct Mr. Lewis, the Deputy House Leader, by saying "I don't care how you do it, ram this through the House because we may call the election". Who knows? Maybe Mr. Bourassa will call a provincial election. If such were the case, then there would be no federal election. That is what I heard this morning, and I will not give too much credit to that. But anything can happen.
Why is there this sudden urgency? It is a bad Bill. How can everybody who is involved in this subject matter be opposed to it? I am not an expert in this domain, but 1 hope I have enough intelligence to understand that everybody who is involved in this subject matter should oppose the Bill.
I know that in my district, especially the new one, I will most likely have the honour to run in the next election. I was already chosen there on May 1 with over a thousand people in attendance without being opposed, on a Sunday afternoon, with all my provincial Liberal friends present-two Ministers plus a few others, plus the municipal councillor. It just shows that sometimes in Montreal we can work together. In that district, this subject matter is extremely important and I am very sensitive to this subject matter.
My father was a doctor, and he delivered over 9,000 babies. Many of them are now having babies in my district. But since my father's days, society has changed dramatically. Society has changed unbelievably. Some people cannot adjust to these changes.
Time Allocation
We may like to revert back to the good old days of yesterday, but we cannot. I see these single parents having to cope with working, being on welfare, and having and raising children. It is extremely difficult. It is extremely difficult in the kind of area where I live. They cannot cope with that. They are discouraged. They do not understand why a rich society like Canada cannot have a tough first-class day care system for our future citizens.
I keep saying that this is the best investment that we can make. If we want to have a prosperous Canada, a good Canada, a new Canada, we must have a very strong population. Youth must be capable of replacing us. But they will have to face a greater difficulty than we have known, than my friend from Alberta has known, than we have all known in our youth. It was easier for us in our youth. But not today.
We must help these people who are most in need of help. We must provide for them the quality and the care that is expected in a civilized country like Canada.
I regret to say that we do not see this help in this project. It is long forgotten. It was put forward to the Canadian people in 1984 and it was suddenly reinvented on the very eve of an election. 1 do not like the urgency of ramming it through the House as it is being done now, after very little debate and after no consultation. After having rejected every plea of every expert in the domain, the Government intends to go ahead anyway. I do not think that that is good, and it does not reflect the spirit of the reform that we have had in the House of Commons.
Therefore, I will definitely vote against the fact that this Bill is being imposed so rapidly on the House of Commons, without having any real and honest debate and any real consultation, and without flexibility from the Government to listen to those who oppose it. A lot of these experts should not be taken for fools. They know what they are talking about, and they oppose the Bill. If they all collectively opposed the Bill, I do not see how I could give my consent to that Bill.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join in this debate on time allocation.
The Conservative Government, 1 think, will go down in history as a four-year Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Wishful thinking.


Iain Francis Angus: It is a Government which was only elected for four years, but a Government which wasted a lot of time throughout those four years by not dealing with commitments that it made to the people of Canada while deciding at the last minute to rush a number of things through. Child care legislation is one such example. We did not get it until the summer, in a session that was not supposed to happen in the first place. Once again, because of government mismanagement of the business of the Commons, it was unable to bring forward any kind of concrete action until the eleventh hour. That action that it brought forward is flawed.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
I hope to have an opportunity, whenever the Government brings the Bill forward for debate, to speak to the issues within the child care Bill, the areas that point out why we disagree with what the Government is doing.
Let me deal for a few moments with the process that is basically taking away the right of this Parliament, of this Chamber, to debate substantive matters. It is not forever and ever, but for a reasonable period of time, so that members of the opposition Parties and members of the government Party can state their respective cases. In some cases, yes, we repeat particular aspects of those concerns. But we are a diverse lot here. We represent this country. We come from different areas. We have different needs, whether it is in child care or municipal infrastructure or redress to our citizens who have been abused in the past.
That is what the Commons is all about. It is a meeting place of representatives of the people from one end of this country to the other, from the American border to the Arctic Circle and beyond, to come together to speak on behalf of all Canadians.
If the Government is going to move immediately to restrict debate at third reading, or at report stage, or at second reading, then it is limiting our ability and our right, in fact, to represent our constituents properly.
Since I have been in this House, 1 have seen time and time again not only how the Government has abused its powers, but how totally it made a mockery of majority government.
Time and time again I have seen the Government move closure at a time when anybody who is the least bit familiar with the rules of this House would know that within two, three or four more hours of debate it would have collapsed.
We have within our Standing Orders provision that for the first eight hours, 1 believe it is, after the first round of speeches, speeches are 20 minutes in length, followed by 10-minute question and answer periods, and after that eight hours of debate we are into 10-minutes speeches. One does not need to be a mathematician or have a computer to do a count of the bodies on this side of the House. Regretfully, there are many fewer of us than there are of government Members. Even moving motions that would refer the matter back to committee for six months or send it into nowhere for six months do not add much more time to the debate.
The reality is that the Government will get its legislation, no matter how we may feel about it and no matter what attempts we may make to delay it. I want to remind my hon. colleagues that my Party and the Liberal Party co-operated at the start of this Government's mandate to bring in reforms that eliminated some of the tools that were available to opposition Parties. Quite frankly, these were tools that the Conservatives used when in opposition to tie up Parliament, not for a few hours,
not for a day or two, but for weeks. We accepted those changes because we recognized that in a democratic society and in a parliamentary system, the Government of the day does have the constitutional right to legislate. Our job as opposition Members is to review, to challenge, to test and, yes, to oppose. By opposing, we hope we can push the Government of the day to make changes to legislation.
We have been successful at making changes. There is not one Bill with which I have dealt as a critic for my Party in which I have not been able to achieve some changes. Sometimes the changes make a good Bill a bit better, sometimes they make a bad Bill a bit better, but they are changes nonetheless. Those changes were not made just because 1 sent the Government a letter saying that I wanted these changes. I had to plant seeds, encourage and fertilize the ideas, so that the Government recognizes why those changes are important to make or why particular measures have to be thrown out, much as we did with the cost recovery clause in the Canada Shipping Act. It took a long time. It took a lot of networking in the marine industry to put pressure on the Government. It took time in the House, but that time gained us much. It gained us a better Bill without a clause that would cripple a particular industry.
I have seen the Government make many mistakes. What the Government does not realize it is doing by introducing time allocation on Bill C-I44, the child care Bill, is waving a red flag, not in the House but in the other place. It is giving legitimacy to that ancient body down the way, giving it the excuse to delay because the House of Commons legislative committee was not allowed to travel across Canada to hear witnesses. It was forced to stack 40 witnesses into a two-day period, witnesses every one of which was opposed to the current legislation.
The Government is playing into the Senate's hands by distorting the way in which this House operates, by making a mockery of the legislative process which is designed to ensure that the public of Canada, the citizens who quite frankly pay our bills and to whom we are responsible, has a chance to understand legislation and its ramifications. We believe strongly that what the Government is doing in the child care Bill is wrong. It is the wrong direction. We are prepared to fight that here in the House and on the hustings.
I say as well that it is important that we allow the House to work properly, to ensure that there is reasonable debate. We should avoid the attitude that we have to get it out of here and into the Senate because there may be an election call and we have to get it through. The reality is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will call the election when his pollster tells him he has a chance of getting a majority Government.
September 22, 1988

We could be playing this game of chicken, rushing things through the House, from now until next spring. Yet every week the Government will say that we have to rush things through. If the Government were that serious about child care, why was this Bill not placed on the Order Paper in the fall of 1984? Where was the urgency then? Where was the urgency for a lot of the other things we are seeing happening at the last minute like building roads and pipelines? One would think a municipal election was coming up the way the Government is doling out money to try to bolster its support.
1 realize that my time is almost up. 1 regret that once again the Government has decided to use its majority to push through this legislation. Representatives of the people of Canada, members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, have listened to the key people involved in child care, the ones who are responsible for trying to provide the spaces and the services. Every one of them said that this Bill should go. 1 regret that the Government, instead of listening to them and to the Opposition, has decided to ram the Bill through this House, waving the red flag in front of the Senators. 1 can guarantee that it is all for naught.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to join in this debate and denounce the Government which, for one reason or another, is always prepared to impose closure and cut short our parliamentary debates.
For openers, Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear at the outset that it was this Government which in the early days of its mandate raised the issue of parliamentary reform. We in the Opposition co-operated with the Government precisely because we believe that indeed Parliament is the appropriate forum to debate legislation such as this measure on child care. So this is a major issue in our society and there should be no need to resort to the kind of tactics this Government used in the past when it was on this side of the House. We all vividly remember that when the Conservative Party was in Opposition it kept the bells ringing for two weeks.
Now that we are dealing with an important piece of legislation like child care, the Government could hardly wait for the official Liberal opposition critic and the NDP Member to finish their speeches before bringing in closure. Mr. Speaker, is that what the Conservative Government had in mind when it began selling parliamentary reform to Members of all Parties in this House? What a scandalous contrast. When the Conservatives were in Opposition they tried every trick in the book to upset the parliamentary timetable of the then Government, but now that they sit on the Treasury benches they lower the boom and will not let the democratically elected Members have their say.
Mr. Speaker, 40 witnesses appeared before the parliamentary committee which considered this Bill. The 40 witnesses were allowed a measly half hour each. They were paraded before the committee one after another like sheep. This way in,
Time Allocation
and this way out. Thirty minutes each! All 40 of them denounced the Bill. So, Mr. Speaker, the fact that not a single organization came before the parliamentary committee to give its views on the legislation and that all 40 witnesses did speak out against it would indicate that something is wrong with the Bill. And we are supposed to be here to debate and correct defective legislation.
If the Government sets a limit on the time allocated pursuant to the Standing Orders and under the parliamentary reform proposed and adopted by this Government with the cooperation of the opposition Parties, we cannot speak out, we cannot even attempt to improve this Bill which everybody has found seriously lacking. How can we be expected to rise in this debate and support this measure?
Mr. Speaker, I used the word demagogy. The Government would have us believe that Canadians need this Bill if we are to upgrade the child care system, but we know full well that the Bill as drafted will not produce anything worthwhile. First they say it will be phased in over seven years, Mr. Speaker, so what do we do about the urgent needs of the people?
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that we are headed straight for the hustings! Belatedly, after wasting time for four years, the Government-
After mismanaging the time of the House for four years, now all of a sudden the Government gets a social conscience and says: "We need some social legislation. What about child care?" This was a promise which the Tory Party made in 1984. Here, on the eve of the election, they say: "Why not? Let's rush to the House. Let us put the gas on this piece of legislation and muzzle all the democratic rules," which the same Government introduced and approved. That is how disgusting this attitude is at the end of a Government's term of office. I am sure Canadians will remember that. We are going to make sure Canadians remember that.
The legislation is not even in the Senate yet, but the Government is blaming it for blocking the Bill. How can the Senate block it when the legislation is still here in the House of Commons? That is how the Tories' minds work at this time because they are planning an election and they are doing everything they can so that they can again con Canadians and make believe, as they did in 1984, that they can do beautiful things. But once they get into office and get power they do the opposite. That is what we are talking about here today.

Mr. Speaker, I simply must speak out against this unacceptable and shameful Government approach. We will do everything we can to reject undemocratic practices which fly in the face of the parliamentary reform we began in the fall of 1984 shortly after we were all elected to come here to Ottawa.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I think this measure is unacceptable, but if the government Members really thought it was good, why did they not introduce it sooner? If the Government is convinced that it is a good Bill and that Canadians will accept it, call an election right now and give them a chance to say what they think of the Bill. If the Government is re-elected the Bill will pass right then and there. However I am sure that the people will not accept the Bill, and so we will do everything we can to bury it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just so our listeners will understand exactly what we are saying and why this Government chose to take such an antidemocratic and totalitarian approach-debate has been cut off-certain dates will make it clear for the listeners why this debate is so important and why we are opposed to this antidemocratic measure.
Mr. Speaker, let us just say that four years ago we were given a list of committees, reports, studies, commissions and what have you, much too long to go into details here. I might simply refer to a few recent dates. On July 13, 1988, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who is sponsoring this Bill announced that something like $1 billion would be made available and that 200,000 additional spaces would be created. We wonder what that is going to solve over a seven-year period. Given the extent of the problem, Mr. Speaker, that is just like a drop in the bucket.
But the Bill was first introduced on July 25, 1988, so there was a waste of time right there. Had the Government been really serious and intent on having Parliament adopt this legislation before the elections it would have tabled the Bill on July 13, minutes after the Minister's statement. No, it chose to wait until July 25, twelve days later. And now they want us to pass it in one day, after 40 witnesses appeared to say it is not good enough. They expect the Senate to do the same thing in 24 hours. Well now, Mr. Speaker! Is that democracy, or are we up against Conservative dictatorship? I am sure that Canadians will not stand still for this kind of procedure.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time has expired. I thank you for your attention and consideration, and again I want to say that this approach is not in keeping with the spirit of the parliamentary reform which this Government has implemented with the full support of both opposition Parties, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. Within the bounds of democracy, Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to prevent this Government from generating into a dictatorship here in Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words during this time allocation motion moved by the Government yesterday. 1 oppose the allocation of time on the Bill before the House today, a Bill on child care, and I do so for a number of reasons.
First I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, because you were not a Member of Parliament before 1984, that prior to 1984 the Conservative Party used to complain loudly and clearly about the Liberal Government in those days invoking time allocation over and over again. I suspect that if you were to go
back through the records you would find that the Conservative Government is invoking time allocation at least as often as the Trudeau Government did, perhaps even more often than the Trudeau Government did in its many years of office.
I know the two senior Alberta Members across the way, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) are probably very discouraged that their Party is cutting off debate, using time allocation, bringing down the parliamentary guillotine in the same way that the Trudeau Government did year in and year out. In fact, I know the Member from Bow River would like to get up in the House now and criticize the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for cutting off debate, freedom of speech, and invoking time allocation after only one speaker from each political Party. I cannot recall in my 20 years in Parliament a Government before that brought in time allocation or closure after only one speaker from each of the political Parties. I know the Member from Bow River, who served many years as a Social Credit Member in the Province of Alberta, who was also a Cabinet Minister, and who defeated the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) for a nomination to run for the federal House of Commons, has never seen this happen before.
I would be interested to hear him speak his mind. I know after a long and distinguished career he is going to retire from this place. Perhaps he could go out with a burst of glory by speaking out, defending democracy in this country and freedom of speech. I know it must bother him, he is a man who generally speaks his mind.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Members across the way not to be afraid of the Prime Minister, to speak their minds, and to say: "We need more than one day of debate on third reading on child care and that after one speaker per Party it is neither right nor fair nor democratic to have time allocation or closure brought in at the end of this debate".
At one time this would be absolutely unheard of. In fact, the Conservative Party across the way used to complain when the Liberals brought in closure after four, five, seven, or eight days of debate. I remember sanctimonious speeches on this side of the House. The Tories would ring the bells, storm the Chair, and do all kinds of things in protest against an undemocratic Government across the way. How people change once they get into office. How the leopard changes his spots once he is in office. If you were not in the chair, I am sure you would like to get up and complain about the cutting off of debate. I know that is exactly what is on your mind as a fair-minded lawyer from Montreal. I am sure you have looked back in the old debates to see John Diefenbaker, Jed Baldwin, and all the Conservative Party Members complaining about Liberal after Liberal cutting off debate. Where is parliamentary supremacy? Here 1 see the young man, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who I understand is running as a Member again. I commend him for that.
September 22, 1988

1 imagine he too must be disturbed that his Prime Minister invoked closure after only one speaker per Party on child care. It has never happened before in the history of this Parliament. I am sure, unless he wants to be a cabinet Minister after the next election, that he will rise and speak his mind. Ele must be disturbed about what is going on.
I see that I am being so persuasive you are cutting me off, so I will sit down and continue later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.50 p.m., I do now leave the chair for 10 minutes until 2 p.m.
At 1.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have in my constituency a number of families living in low-cost housing units owned by the City of Ottawa and managed by City Living, who are faced with excessive rent increases of up to 8.8 per cent for the current year. This is almost twice the then 4.6 per cent inflation rate. To make a bad situation worse, the poor state of repairs of some of those units forces tenants to board up their windows and even in some cases to condemn some rooms because the houses are too cold in winter.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this is an unfair and inhumane way to treat tenants who, because they do not earn high salaries and cannot afford a comfortable, well-insulated house, have to live in low-cost housing units. Those people are victimized.
In order to deal with the problem and help those people, I urge the Government to reinstate RRAP, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, as to the municipalities eligibility to the program, so they can get federal support to rehabilitate, repair and perhaps better insulate their houses, in order that the tenants of those low-cost housing units in my constituency can live comfortably and be treated like full-fledged citizens for which we care.



NON-ACCREDITATION OF KURELEK MURAL

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the Ukrainian community makes up a large part of Canada's
multicultural society. One of the best known members of that community, the late William Kurelek, is one of Canada's most accomplished artists.
Since 1983 we on Parliament Hill have been able to enjoy a significant work by the artist. The Canadian Pioneer, a six-panel mural, was acquired by the Government of Canada from the Niagara Falls Art Gallery. The mural depicts Kurelek's pictorial interpretation of the history of Ukrainian immigration to Canada. Since Canada's railway played such an important role in bringing Ukrainian pioneers to the West to settle, this work is appropriately displayed in the House of Commons Railway Committee Room.
The work's name and the artist's name are not identified at the present time. I think that this is unfortunate. I am sure that all Members would agree that such a noteworthy exhibit should be clearly identified for all to know and appreciate. Let us correct this oversight.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, since 1986 there has been a substantial increase in commercial clam digging on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. Residents are under siege by diggers who harvest at low tides both day and night. There are few limitations on anyone seeking a commercial licence, and the number of diggers has increased dramatically as the price paid for clams has risen.
In response to my letter of November, 1987, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), acknowledged complaints from Gulf Island residents. However, he did not offer any solutions at the time, and I am pursuing the issue with him once again.
A recent meeting of Salt Spring Island residents, organized by Island Trust, unanimously concluded that the whole island be closed to commercial clam harvesting. The meeting put forward recommendations calling for the creation of a federal-provincial investigation into commercial clam digging, new and tougher licensing regulations, harvesting limits, and designated commercial harvesting areas in accordance with local zoning regulations.
It is not enough to bring in size limitations and toughen up restrictions as to bag limits and the activities of these clam diggers, as the Minister of Fisheries has promised. Most important is the need to expand enforcement. The regional shellfish co-ordinator admits that there are not enough fisheries officers available to do the job.

September 22, 1988



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is challenging the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in order to cash in on his popularity and win the attention of Canadians. People in Canada certainly would be interested in knowing the motives and the arguments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on the following subjects: The quality of his leadership within the Liberal Party of Canada and his Party's financial position; his suggestions to the non-elected Liberal Senators who are holding Canadians hostages on matters of national import; his lack of understanding of the Free Trade Agreement, his insult to the Quebec Premier; the economic position Liberals left Canadians in when this Conservative Government came to power; the passive and active complicity of federal Liberals over these last 20 years in the area of the environment, because they are truly responsible for pollution in Canada.
When the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is ready to answer those questions, let him say so, and Canadians will certainly be interested in hearing him apologize and contradict himself.



BROILER HATCHING EGGS-CALL FOR IMPORT CONTROLS

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian broiler hatching egg industry needs border controls on hatching eggs and chicks.
In November, 1986, the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency was established, having as signatories the Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, thus representing 80 per cent of Canada's broiler hatching egg production.
The purpose of that exercise was to establish border controls on imports of these products under Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Without such controls, the U.S. controls presently 60 per cent of breeder replacement pullet growers, 90 per cent of the broiler hatching egg producers, and 14 broiler hatcheries are prevented from realizing fair returns to labour.
We need supply management in this industry. Before the last election the Conservative Government stated that it was in favour of supply management. Perhaps free trade has changed
its mind. If the Tories are still in favour of supply management, why do they not want to have this industry provided with the tools in order to have supply management for broiler hatching eggs?



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in May, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then the Leader of the Official Opposition, said: "Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled upon indeed should be compensated". He went on to say: "If there was a Conservative Government I can assure you we would be compensating Japanese Canadians".
Today that commitment has been kept. When history records the story of the Prime Minister and of this Government, and of this Parliament, the redress of Canadians of Japanese origin may very well be just a small footnote. Hopefully, however, that footnote will make it quite clear that this was their finest hour.



HOUSING


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, finally the Government has recognized that there is a housing crisis in Toronto. In Toronto itself there has been one individual more than anyone else who has tried to ensure that affordable housing is not a thing of the past. John Sewell has pushed strongly for more public housing. He has advocated the redesign of existing public housing units, and he has worked hard toward the goal of reducing profits in order to make housing more affordable.
Rather than being thankful for a job well done, the Ontario Housing Minister, and her boss, the Premier of the Province, gave Mr. Sewell his walking papers.
If the Ontario Minister of Housing and the Premier of that province were really serious about doing something to help the City of Toronto through the worst housing crisis in recent memory, they would not have fired the one person who, more than any other, was making a difference.
September 22, 1988

1 have some advice for the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants Torontonians to believe that he is finally taking the housing problem seriously. That, it appears, is why the Downsview land was released last week. If the Government really wants to demonstrate that it means what it says, it should offer Mr. Sewell the job of overseeing the release of public lands in Toronto and co-ordinating a first-rate affordable housing program on the Downsview lands.
1 have discussed this with Paul and Mike Flaherty from the Toronto area who are present today, and that is what they think as well!



RAILWAYS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Gilbert Task Force Report on the transportation of dangerous goods by rail through the Toronto area states that among the major causes of rail accidents are track operational and equipment deficiencies.
We recognize that railways provide economically and ecologically preferable modes of transport. Yet throughout this country for many, many years we have persisted in priorizing what we spend on air and highway transportation. If we were to spend on air and highway transportation a fraction of what we spend on improving railway equipment and track conditions, we would provide this country with safe and speedy transportation that would be much better in conserving the environment.
1 hope that among the points made in this task force report what will be taken with utmost seriousness will be the need to upgrade our equipment and track conditions.



FORESTRY


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is running around the country announcing billions of dollars of promises on a weekly basis in a desperate bid to shore up his Party's position in advance of an election campaign, I beg him to give pause for thought to old promises made and not kept. In July of 1984, the Prime Minister, in the heat of an election campaign, sent a telex to the Mayor of the City of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. In that telex he said: "I want to assure you of my and my Party's full support for the establishment of a federal forestry centre in Corner Brook, Newfoundland". He
said: "Statements to the contrary by the sitting Liberal M.P. are simply untrue". In July of 1988, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, wrote a letter to the mayor in which he said: "There are simply no funds available. This decision is final and is not a contradiction of the Prime Minister's previous comments on the matter".
The people of western Newfoundland want to know two things; when is a promise not a promise? When is a contradiction not a contradiction? And how much is the paper the Prime Minister's commitment was written on worth because so far it has brought us nothing but a cynical view of the value of the Prime Minister's word and the commitments of this Government, in particular, the dog in the manger attitude of the Member for St. John's West who now wants to build that badly needed forestry centre in his own backyard? Newfoundland is bigger than just the City of St. John's.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec had its 14th Annual Convention in Val d'Or from September 14 to 16. Over 620 members registered for the convention, the highest attendance ever recorded, a sign of the keen interest of Quebec prospectors in the mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, one of the conclusions of the convention was that 1988 was a difficult year for the prospecting sector in Quebec. This is partly due to the changes in mid-flight that were made in the flow-through shares system, at various levels of government, but especially to the stock market crash which had a severe impact on the mining industry.
During the convention, people from the prospecting sector sent a clear message to both levels of government, and I urge the Ministers of Finance to consider very carefully a number of demands that are aimed at giving a boost to an industry that is already flourishing and is very important to the development of Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate Mr. Guy Bourassa of Rouyn-Noranda, who was elected President of the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec for 1988-89. I am sure Mr. Bourassa will meet this challenge successfully, promoting the interests of the mining industry in our area.
I want to offer my full co-operation to the new President and to the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec.

September 22, 1988



PIPELINES


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians can be forgiven for being skeptical upon hearing news that the Conservatives have once again announced that they will build the long awaited, often promised Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This was, after all, the same group of Conservatives-the ones applauding here-who promised the pipeline before the last federal election only to have the then Minister of Energy, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) renege on their promise only weeks after the election. Indeed, this pipeline has been promised by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments going back to 1954. It rivals the P.E.I. Causeway as a political football.
Fortunately, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia are patient folk. However, we are not dupes. This time we will wait until construction actually begins before really believing the Conservatives are going to come through.
We would also like to see an environmental impact statement. We want to know why the price has come down from $500 million after a few years. We also want to know what efforts will be made to ensure that island industrial users are prepared to convert to gas. So we are waiting.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
were brought about by Bill C-22. In short, the promise to tear up the patent legislation is a promise to curb medical research, to discourage the diversification of the western economy, and to deny Canadians new medicines developed by this research.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the scandalous closing of the immigration office at 130 Bloor Street in Toronto and its relocation to the riding of the Immigration Minister (Mrs. McDougall) just to satisfy her political interests, has cost her constituents and, indeed, all Canadians, $30,000 in moving expenses, according to the Department of Public Works.
The new lease agreement, originally signed for five years, is a further waste of taxpayers' dollars because the Minister has seen fit to relocate the immigration offices after a protest by her constituents. Again, Canadians will have to reach into their pockets to relocate her office-on-wheels to the tune of another $30,000 in moving expenses.
Furthermore, the Minister has elected to use this office for other immigration purposes so she has conveniently created a new need for services in an attempt to defuse this political embarrassment at a cost of $600,000 per year over five years, a tab of $3 million for taxpayers to pick up. It is, indeed, unfortunate that taxpayer's dollars have been wasted to subsidize the Minister's personal and partisan political interests in a riding she is going to have great difficulty in winning. She should not mix her national responsibilities with her responsibilities as an individual Member of Parliament.



POSITION OF LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Government made important changes to patent legislation. This has triggered an avalanche of investment, research, and jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has now promised that a Socialist Government, led by him, would repeal the current drug patent legislation. If he recognized what this legislation means to western Canadians, he would not be so quick to condemn it.
In Vancouver, for example, Pacific Pharmaceutical has invested $40 million in expanding cancer treatment research. Chembiomed Ltd., an Edmonton firm, continues its research into stopping the reproductive process of the AIDS virus, secure in the knowledge that what it develops will not be exploited by others.
Universities and hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton were pledged $132 million in increased research funding following the introduction of the patent legislation. These investments



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, Canadian Pacific Railway is supposed to allow designated members of its health and safety committees to attend meetings on a regular basis and pay them for the work they miss when they attend these meetings.
It has come to my attention in a meeting with various representatives of CP rail unions that this practice is not being followed, that designated members of the health and safety committees are being compelled to take work on days when the committee is meeting or suffer loss of pay. They are being pressured to send their alternates, so there is not a regular attendance at these meetings.
September 22, 1988

When representatives of the unions have brought this matter to the attention of the national transportation agency which is responsible for rail safety in this country, nothing has been done.
The cosy relationship which used to exist between the CTC and the railways continues to exist between the NTA and the railways, and I call upon the Government at this time to look into this matter and ensure the safety provisions which entitle workers to attend these meetings on a regular basis, and to be paid for it, are adhered to.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. In this morning's Le Soleil, in an article by Marc St-Pierre, we read that the sale of the base at Moisie in the Prime Minister's riding was surrounded by a great deal of favouritism and financial fiddling and also that there was an incriminating tape about the involvement of the Prime Minister's office in this transaction, which Mr. St-Pierre heard. I want to ask the Prime Minister, considering the allegations of favouritism after bids were called and of corruption in high places, and allegations by a senior official who confirmed this was part and parcel of the Tory Party system, what kind of explanations he can give to the House in his defence and what steps he has taken to get rid of this phenomenon.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of the Minister of Public Works 1 can be permitted to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Members ask questions and they don't want responses. My understanding is that the winner of this contract was the lowest bidder.


Some Hon. Members:: Lowest bidder?


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1 am sorry, it was the highest bidder, the one who gave the best bid.
Second, my understanding is that there is not an ongoing criminal investigation. The RCMP looked at the package which was left with them and found no basis for further investigation.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to Prime Minister. I can inform the Minister of Defence that he was right in his initial answer when he said the lowest bidder got the contract. But since we are talking about a sale, it should be the highest bidder!
Mr. Speaker, at noon I had a chance to listen to the tape in question, and I would like to share with you some of the passages, including what was said by Mr. H.D. Hyland, who said: "I retired. It was too crooked. It is awful! They made a deal with Mr. Lefebvre. The legal opinion we got was that the procedure was not correct. The system is very close to the Conservative Party." And worse, he said in a second conversation to which I listened: "The contract was awarded because of his connections. He made some changes. This is sheer robbery. Mulroney's office was involved. Not local people, people from Ottawa".
Mr. Speaker, that is what was said, and I wonder whether the Minister has any explanations to give as a result of these allegations.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat to the hon. gentleman that, on the basis of all the information that has been available to me, there is nothing of any sort that has been indicated which would suggest any impropriety whatsoever.
If the Hon. Member, or the Hon. Member's colleagues, have any information whatsoever that would contradict that, they should be turning it over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If they are not in a position to hand such information over to the RCMP they should not be making unsubstantiated charges on the floor of the House of Commons.


ALLEGATIONS OF IRREGULARITIES IN LETTING OF CONTRACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Prime Minister should answer this one, because it concerns his riding and involves his own integrity and that of his office.
On July 12, the newspaper Le Nord-Est, in the Prime Minister's riding, indicated on the basis of the allegations that were made, and I quote: "It seems that this was caused by high-level political meddling, which has angered the mayor who feels insulted by the system and with him, the entire community. He summarized his mood very neatly when he said: "Instead of having someone here who represents Ottawa, we should have someone in Ottawa who represents us!"

September 22, 1988
Oral Questions
At the time, the Mayor of Moisie raised all kinds of allegations about irregularities in the procedure for awarding this contract.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what he has done about this since July 12, when he read about it in his local paper, which I imagine he did.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the press earlier this month as saying there is a world of difference between an allegation and the truth. The Hon. Member, in this particular case, should know that.
I repeat to the Hon. Member again, if the Hon. Member has any evidence whatsoever to substantiate any allegation whatsoever of irregularities, he has an obligation to turn that information over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If he does not have such information, he has an obligation to the Canadian people not to make unsubstantiated charges.


REQUEST THAT WITNESSES APPEAR BEFORE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. What we are seeing today is the kind of thing we have been seeing for four years, the excesses of patronage, of financial fiddling and the dishonesty of this Conservative Government.
Mr. Prime Minister, considering the allegations made everywhere in the press, are you prepared to ask the Public Accounts Committee to sit, starting tomorrow, and allow the Committee to hear witnesses in order to find out the truth about this unsavoury situation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would remind this hon. gentleman of what his Leader has said with regard to allegations. He said: "Unless you know the facts, and I really mean know the facts, don't say them".
If the hon. gentleman has any evidence whatsoever, let him turn it over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If not, let him stop making false charges.


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE BE CONVENED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my question to the Prime Minister. If you are sure you are guilty-you already said about the Stevens affaire that there was no wrong doing. Nixon said he wasn't guilty. We know how that turned out! If you are sure you are not guilty, why don't you call a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to hear the witness and find out the truth? If you refuse, then you must be guilty! Why won't you?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, if I may point this out to my hon. friend, during my chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, and during the chairmanship of the Member for Trinity from his Party, the Public Accounts Committee was not engaged in partisan politics and witch hunts. That is the way it was in the past, that is the way it is going to be.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. The Minister will know that in recent months in this House serious questions have been raised about the environmental impact of the trade deal on Canada.
Today, in 18 centres across Canada, the Canadian Environmental Law Association released a study condemning the federal Government's trade deal as having an enormous adverse impact on the Canadian environment. It specifically cites the Government's hypocrisy in claiming to be concerned about the environment, on the one hand, but totally ignoring it in this deal, on the other.
Will the Minister tell the House why there was a specific clause in the trade deal which did permit subsidies for exploration and development of gas and oil, but there was no such clause permitting subsidies for environmental matters?
While he is answering that, will he tell the House whether the Minister of the Environment actually asked for such a clause and, if he did, why was it ignored?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is another wild goose chase by the NDP in connection with the FTA. There is nothing in the FTA-nothing-which interferes with Canada's ability to introduce tough environmental standards. As a matter of fact, the House just passed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which is concrete proof that we can continue whatever measures we think are required to protect the environment. There is no requirement in the FTA to harmonize environmental standards. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the FTA specifically incorporates our rights under the GATT to have regulations for environmental protection reasons.
Why is it that the Opposition must raise these false claims, these attempts to witch hunt, these attempts to arouse alarm? Why is it they will not stick to rational arguments about their alternative to the free trade agreement which is autarky for Canada?
September 22, 1988


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it may be just a touch ironical to hear this Minister defending rational arguments. It is a welcome conversion on his part. We will look forward to the evidence.


BRITISH COLUMBIA REFORESTATION LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a group of legal people from right across the country, not affiliated with any political Party, prepared this and they just happened to disagree with the Minister, as do most Canadians, on this important issue. The Minister said there is nothing in the deal. He knows that there is a provision for the discussion of subsidies for the next five to seven years and that is what it is all about.
More concretely, I would like him to acknowledge to the House, if he will be direct on this, that the Government of British Columbia, not long ago, went to Washington in the hope of getting approval for its new legislation pertinent to the question of reforestation in that province. It had to withdraw a clause that permitted subsidies for reforestation purposes on the grounds, they were told by the Americans, that it was inconsistent with this deal.
Will the Minister acknowledge that that has already taken place, that we were losing the sovereign right to control, manage, and conserve our forests? Will he admit that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not going to admit any such silliness or any such silly suggestions from the Leader of the NDP.
The United States has no greater latitude to challenge Canadian environmental programs as unfair trade subsidies under the FTA than it has at present. If anything, the likelihood of its doing this is reduced because we will have binational panel reviews which will discourage frivolous attempts to use U.S. trade remedy law in this way.
I repeat again, despite the attempts of the Leader of the NDP to be devious and unfair and to attack this deal in any underhanded way that he can imagine, there is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are we to have a chance to respond to the nonsense we hear from the Opposition or not?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his next question.


ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSE SUBSIDIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister that to attack this Government one does not need to be devious, one just has to tell the truth. It devastates them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask both hon. gentlemen to recognize that I think their approach and their language are creating some consternation in the Chamber. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to put his question as directly as he can.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will acknowledge, if he does pay attention to the agreement from time to time, that there is a section of it which requires Canada and the United States to negotiate and decide what constitutes a subsidy, over the next five to seven years. There are many people in this country, dare I say on both sides of the House, who already know that things like social programs and regional development programs, according to the Americans, have to be discussed.
Now environmental groups as well as many other Canadians are saying that environmental subsidies are in that category. Why did the Government not do what it did with gas and oil and specifically put in the agreement that it was understood to be acceptable to have subsidies for environmental purposes? Why was that not put in the agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that was not put in the agreement because it is unnecessary to put it in the agreement. If the Leader of the NDP will cease telling falsehoods about us we will cease telling the truth about him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The question of subsidies and what are trade related subsidies is an extremely complicated question that is not settled in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and not settled between the U.S. and Canada. We have agreed to set up a group which will work on a commonly agreed definition of what is a trade distorting subsidy. It is quite clear to us, and I do not think it would be challenged by the United States, that any attempt to assist in the reduction of pollution, or grants from government to assist in controlling detrimental environmental consequences will not be challenged as trade distorting.
This is another wild goose chase by the hon. gentleman in his dishonest attempt to argue against this agreement.


DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]
1985 GANDER AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the worst air disaster ever to occur on Canadian soil, causing the loss of 256 lives in Gander, Newfoundland, on December 12, 1985.

September 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Last night on The Journal, Canadian Aviation Safety Board members stated that vital pieces of evidence had been withheld from them by members of the investigative staff of the Board. This included a report by the FBI Criminal Investigation Division, autopsies performed by the U.S. Army, the Cargo Manifest, the U.S. Army Investigation Division report, and so on.
Why is the Minister allowing a system to exist whereby members of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board are prevented from doing their job? Why is he allowing that to happen?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it was allowed to happen in 1983 by the Liberal Party when the Bill on CASB was passed. We have to live with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which was asked to investigate the Gander crash in 1986.
The Member should know that the final report has not yet been issued by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. As long as this report is not issued I do not think we should comment, even if my friend was on The Journal last night.


Don Boudria: It is not the law that is wrong, it is the interference by the Government with the operation of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.


ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Minutes of the meeting of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board dated November 24, 1987, state that the Director of Investigation, Mr. Tom Hinton, obstructed the investigator in charge of the Gander crash, Mr. Peter Boag, "from carrying out his duty to answer questions".
1 have a copy of that internal document in my hand. Why does the Minister not tell us once and for all who is trying to hide what in the issue of the Gander crash? Why can we not find out the truth? Why can the information not be tabled in the House of Commons? Why can the members of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board not be provided with the information? What is he trying to hide?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Hon. Member could ask the same question 20 times, and 1 would always say the same thing. In our country, when we put forward a committee to make an investigation, as the CASB does, Canadians ask that we wait, as for any board that must make a report. Before making any comment on the official report we should have the report. As is usual with him, we do not know where my friend gets the information and documents to which he is referring.
I will wait for the final report. He can ask the question 10 times, and I will tell him that I will wait for the final report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-USE OF LOW SULPHUR WESTERN COAL BY ONTARIO
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will be aware that for many years citizens from western Canada, including British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, have been pleading with the federal Government to assist them to move more low sulphur coal to Ontario which would not only reduce acid rain emissions but create as many as
26,000	permanent jobs.
In a report released today the Canadian Environmental Law Association says that under the trade deal government support to move this western coal to Ontario would not be allowed.
What steps is the Prime Minister prepared to take to ensure that this western dream of moving coal to Ontario, with the creation of 26,000 jobs, is not sacrificed on the altar of the trade deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my hon. friend for the question. It is a very important one.
I will respond in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister who has been chairing a committee and meeting regularly with the Premier of Ontario, for example, as well as others with regard to precisely this kind of transaction that would be so beneficial to the interests of western Canada. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister will be analyzing the suggestions contained in that report.
At the moment, having successfully initiated on behalf of western Canada a major new development in Lloydminster, and announcing one in Vancouver today on the Vancouver Island pipeline-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -being from western Canada 1 know my hon. friend will support those initiatives on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister just as I will convey to the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon. Member's concern with regard to what may very well be a very important new project for western Canada.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister may be in British Columbia announcing, I think for the fifth or sixth time now, the construction of the natural gas pipeline.
However, the Prime Minister knows that in the last few weeks we have heard a number of multi billion dollar announcements on capital intensive energy projects. This particular project will create 26,000 permanent jobs throughout all of western Canada. It will result in significant reductions in acid rain emissions in central Canada. Why can we not expect the Prime Minister to indicate now what the Government intends to do to make this project a success, rather than wait until the eve of the election to make this announcement?
September 22, 1988

Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated to my hon. friend that the Deputy Prime Minister upon his return from western Canada will be happy, I am sure, to respond in greater detail to my hon. friend. I know that they have worked together and that the Hon. Member has been encouraging in regard to the Deputy Prime Minister's initiatives to make the transaction work with the Government and the people of Ontario.
My hon. friend refers to the energy projects as being capital intensive. They are capital intensive but, most of all, they are labour intensive. Thousands of new jobs will be created in western Canada. If we can put these energy projects together, which is important, together with the Vancouver pipeline which I know my hon. friend will support, then the support will be so large in western Canada that my hon. friend may vote for us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. The Minister will recall that back in the 1960s the Pearson Government gave Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway workers wage parity with American St. Lawrence Seaway workers, thus touching off a very severe round of inflation in Canada.
Bearing all that in mind, is it the intention of the Minister and the Government to discontinue its policy of regional wage rates in connection with the East and West Coast ship repair workers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday there are mediation talks presently going on with respect to this labour dispute and both parties have agreed not to comment publicly.
I want to pick up on what my hon. friend said with respect to the question of paying federal employees wages that are based on rates of pay which are prevailing in the private sector in specific geographic regions. The Government has no intention of abandoning that policy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at surveys of private sector employers across Canada you will find that the practice of paying regional rates of pay is quite common. The Government intends to continue that policy.


SALE OF FORMER RADAR SITE IN MOISIE, P.Q.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the reports of the sale of the radar site in Moisie, Quebec, in the Prime Minister's riding. In answering questions the Prime Minister said that these are unsubstantiated allegations, that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The Prime Minister ought to know that the allegations in question were made by the former Director of Property Management, Public Works, Montreal, a senior federal civil servant who said of the sale, and I quote from the taped transcript: "The party in question got it because of his connections. It is a rip-off. It was Mulroney's office behind all of this".
The question is not necessarily one of criminal wrongdoing, although that may be appropriate. The question is whether or not fairness and an appropriate system were in place in awarding this base to the highest bidder.
Is the Minister denying that the gentleman who was originally the lowest bidder for this Crown asset subsequently changed his bid and was awarded the radar site? Is he denying as well the words of the director that the Prime Minister's office was directly involved in the submission allowing for a second bid to be made?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the various allegations that are being made by the hon. gentleman. First, there is no evidence whatsoever of any action by the Prime Minister's office here. Second, there is no indication whatsoever of any criminal impropriety. The RCMP has found that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: How about political impropriety?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Third, the person who received the contract was the one who gave the best bid.
Additionally, according to the Department of Public Works, there was a significant difference between the two bids which was better in terms of the individual who won the contract.


SOURCE OF ALLEGATIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered whether or not there was an opportunity for one individual to bid twice or to adjust a bid. The Minister made an incredible statement a few moments ago in the House. He said this matter has all been investigated, and there is no problem.
A former member of the Conservative Party provided the RCMP with those tapes of that conversation with a senior federal public servant, a retired one now, only yesterday. The individual in question is in Spain. How could there have been a complete, thorough and full investigation when the information was provided only yesterday, and when the person who is alleging interference by the Prime Minister and his office is out of the country and has not been contacted?

September 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, surely Canadians are entitled to something more responsible than Members of the Opposition simply coming in and making unsubstantiated charges. Indeed, Canadians are entitled to answers and not to false accusations by the hon. gentleman.
in terms of the first bid that was received, the two highest bids were from Mr. Lefebvre for $100,000, and from Mr. Thibault for $50,000. The difference was substantial.
In terms of the final bids, again, on the final bid after more property was added because DND freed up more property, Mr. Lefebvre offered $170,000, plus $17,500. Mr. Thibeault offered $167,500, plus $17,500. It was the best bid that won.
The hon. gentleman has an obligation to the Canadian people not to make false accusations.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my questions were to the Minister for National Defence. Yesterday the Minister felt that there was little reason to have a public inquiry into the nerve gas tests at Suffield. Last night I spoke to Roy Wheeler, a 21-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who was involved in the nerve gas tests at Suffield in the 1960s.
Since the Minister has confirmed that proper records of the participants do not exist, and since Mr. Wheeler suffers from serious medical problems associated with the long-term toxic effects of nerve gas, will the Minister, in the interests of the health of those involved, call a public inquiry to ensure that all participants-the researchers, the volunteers, and the military personnel-are found and evaluated as a group for negative side effects to nerve gas tests?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, first, let us get clear what the Hon. Member is alleging. Is he alleging that this gentleman is suffering longterm effects from nerve gas testing? Or is he simply trying by innuendo to suggest there is a possibility of that?
What I indicated yesterday was that all the employees of DRES are required to take annual medicals, that in no instance have we ever found a case where there has been any long-term effect whatsoever. Nor are we aware of cases where, in military personnel, there has been any evidence of any longterm effects.
Notwithstanding that fact, in order to respond to the irresponsible actions of the NDP in terms of trying to create fear, what we have done is to instruct that we try to locate every single individual who volunteered during those tests, and do a follow-up investigation to ensure there are no medical side effects. That is precisely what we are going to do.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wheeler left the Canadian Forces in 1974. Once one leaves the Forces one does not get one's annual medical check-up. The Minister of National Defence should know that.
1 spoke this morning to Dr. Peter Spencer, the head of the Institute of Neurotoxicity at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He said that these kinds of symptoms are associated with long-term low-level toxicity in relation to nerve gas tests.
This is not fearmongering, the health of Canadians is involved. Some fellows over there might not be involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: There are a couple of points here. The Minister states that the records on this matter are incomplete. Medical tests will be provided only to some of the participants, those who are known. Since yesterday's records are incomplete and cannot be completed without public assistance of people like Roy Wheeler, will the Minister call a public inquiry which, unlike the Barton review which is not public, will have the powers to seek out the whole truth and all the individuals who were involved in the nerve gas tests at Suffield?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that in order to calm fears which are being systematically created by the NDP we are going to seek out anyone who participated in any of those tests whether he is in an employee of DND, retired, in the private sector, or anything else. We will be doing follow-up studies.
In addition to that, two and one-half months ago 1 asked Mr. William Barton, who is the Chairman of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security-


James Ross Fulton: He is not allowed to look into the sixties.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is false. It is typical of what the NDP has been doing. It has been making allegations that are simply false.
I have spoken with Mr. Barton. I have made it clear to him that his terms of reference as written by me give him full scope to look into any matter that is in any way relevant.
Mr. Barton has already undertaken his inquiry. It is under
way at the present time. It will be completed, we hope, by the
end of this year. The results will be made public.
September 22, 1988

Instead of trying to inspire fear on the part of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman could operate in a way that is in some way proper.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This morning the Minister announced that trains carrying dangerous goods would be limited to low speed limits in four high-risk areas of Metro Toronto. In view of resolutions passed by Scarborough City Council and Metro Toronto Council and in the interests of clarity of public confidence, will the Minister consider imposing a limit of 40 kilometres per hour for dangerous goods traffic within Metro Toronto until a new rail corridor outside Metro has been completed?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I tabled this morning the Toronto Area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Task Force report. I think it is a very good and important study which does not, by the way, propose specifically to control the speed limit in Metro Toronto. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, prudence dictates that we take appropriate steps to answer safety questions by lowering the speed limits in some parts of what we call the high-risk sectors of Toronto.
I announced this morning that we will take the necessary steps with the National Transportation Agency to request that some high-risk sectors of the Metro Toronto area be considered sectors where we will impose a speed limit.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Certainly in his capacity as a former Member of Parliament from Central Nova, I am sure he will want to respond. The Prime Minister will know that the Boat Harbour treatment facility in Central Nova emits 25 million gallons of pollution effluent per day from the Scott-Maritime Company into the Northumberland Strait. He should also know that there have been four reported toxic chemical spills of what is best known as green liquor into Pictou Harbour by this company, the last
Oral Questions
two spills having taken place on August 28 and September 8. A company spokesman confirmed the other day that no company money has been used to clean up the spillage.
What action has the Government of Canada taken with regard to this particular spillage? Has it directed the company to clean up this environmental pollution? Has it contemplated charging the company for violation of the Environmental Protection Act? If not, why not, in view of the statements the Prime Minister has been making in the House and around the country with regard to his concern for environmental matters?


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and to state how pleased we are that the Hon. Member opposite has also become interested in the environment. We are very encouraged by the force of the Environmental Protection Act that was passed just some few months ago, which was the first piece of environmental legislation that was passed in this House in over 11 years. In the specific case the Hon. Member has mentioned, I will take it up with the Department and will return to him with a specific answer.


PICTOU HARBOUR POLLUTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, typical of the Prime Minister, he has once again forgotten the people of Central Nova. The Prime Minister ought to know very clearly that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has warned against the harvesting of local shellfish on the beaches at Lighthouse Point, and in addition, fishermen in that area are worried about how long the lobsters they catch in that area will remain fit for human consumption.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a serious question. What will he do with regard to the pollution of Pictou Harbour? Will he direct that that company clean up that spill, or will he do nothing for the people of Central Nova as he has for the past four years?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the record of this Government on environmental legislation and initiatives is one of the most important aspects of the last four years. In relation to Pictou Harbour, which 1 had the pleasure of visiting just a few months ago, I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Department.
There has been a good number of initiatives right across Canada in terms of what we have been able to accomplish, whether it be the acid rain abatement program, the international accords that we have been able to establish-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.

September 22, 1988
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


SITUATION OF OLDER WORKERS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Employment. The President of the Economic Council of Canada has stated that she is shocked that the Government has failed the older workers of Canada. Where there is a program for older workers under the Innovations Program, would the Minister guarantee that that kind of funding can be continued? [Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, we have a job strategy that makes use of the skills and qualifications of all our clients. The various components of our job strategy also make use of the skills of older workers, and we are very attentive to all needs. There is always room for improvement, and as the Minister responsible for senior citizens, I intend to consult with people and truly respond to their needs.
[ English]


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Government announced two and a half years ago that it would have a program, not a strategy, for older workers. The Hamilton Help Centre, under Innovations Canada, has had an 86 per cent success rate. Can the Minister please guarantee some funding under other CJS programs now that Innovations has finished?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have a job strategy that is working very well. We have been successful with the strategy and with the Innovations Program to which the Hon. Member just referred and which is an excellent source of job creation. Of course, older workers can also apply under this program.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Government continually refuses to do anything for the employees of Route Canada who have lost their jobs because of the closure of that former Crown corporation. They have been to see the Minister, he said he would look into it, yet the Government has done absolutely nothing.
The truckers need to be able to work in order to pay for their trucks. The Minister cannot give them intra-provincial
licences but he can give them extra-provincial licences for trucking undertakings. Yet that has not been done. The Government has not looked into the $3 million trust fund administered by the Royal Bank of Canada in the winding up of this company. There are things that the Government could do if only it were concerned for the workers instead of padding the pockets of the owners. When will the Government do something?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 think my friend will agree with what the Government did in 1986. We gave 2,600 workers the chance to work for more than two years, and 1 think that was not possible with the option proposed by the Liberal Party which was to close the shop. They have repeated that since Monday. The company, Route Canada, has not yet officially declared bankruptcy or receivership, and I believe my friend will agree that the Government does not interfere in the process of the private sector.
About what we can do for the contractors, already 25 contractors have asked Route Canada to be released from their contracts so they will be able to work for other companies, and it has been done. The other contractors who would like to be released by Route Canada will make the same request and it will be answered positively by the company.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CN AND ROUTE CANADA BE MADE PUBLIC
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government laundered this closure through the private sector. That is why the company was sold in the first place.
Why doesn't the Minister give the operating licences that he can give so these people can work? Why doesn't he make the agreement between CN and Route Canada public so we will know what the entire aspect of the give-away is? When will the Minister do something for these people? They cannot pay for their trucks. They are owed thousands of dollars. They are not being paid. It is a rip-off of the Canadian people and it is a rip-off of these workers. Surely the Minister can see that. Surely the Minister realizes that he is putting these workers right across the country in an intolerable position. They are on the street without jobs and without compensation. Will he do something?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is no rip-off at all. I believe my friend knows very well that it is a question of legality of the action which the Department of Transport can take. He asks why we don't open the books of CN and Route Canada. That is the private sector. As long as the books are not public-they will be public if there is a bankruptcy-the Government and the Minister of Transport cannot do so.
September 22, 1988


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You can.


Benoît Bouchard: 1 think my friend knows that when I met the workers the day before yesterday I told them that if there is anything irregular, at the moment the company declares bankruptcy we will do all the investigations. I repeat what I said. It is not permitted for the Minister of Transport to interfere in private sector operations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not true.


Benoît Bouchard: Yes it is.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


FORESTRY
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question, since it concerns Canada's most important industry, is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who should know that levels of research and development in Canada's forest industry are causing widespread concern, being at approximately one-third or one-quarter of the levels in the United States or Sweden.
Now that we have seen the Government's final conversion to the creation of a Ministry of State for Forestry, when will we see some serious commitment to an increase for research, development, and regeneration in this most important industry?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to answer the question. If there is any area where Canada has made a great effort in the improvement of our research, to permit, as my hon. friend says, Canada's most important industry to make the transition to more intensive forest management practices, it is in forestry.
The problem of course is-the Member would not recognize it-that not only has the Canadian forestry service improved its effort but efforts are going on in universities; there are federal-provincial sub-agreements, for example, with Quebec and British Columbia and, of course, in other government laboratories such as the National Research Council. The effort has vastly improved in this area and so it should, as the Hon. Member would agree.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary. The Minister must be aware of the fact
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton
that uncertainty about the renewal of contracts for resource development has already lead to cut-backs in reforestation, especially in the Province of Ontario. When will the Government tell its officials to start the negotiations this industry needs so badly?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would have to be reminded that the renewal of our forests, the replanting of our forests and the protection of our forests are in the main and principally a responsibility of the provinces.
I can tell my hon. friend that in my Province of British Columbia and in the Province of Quebec the effort for forest renewal and protection has doubled in the last four years. In fact, in British Columbia efforts in forest renewal are four times what they were during the former regime.
The present forest agreements are in place. They have another two years to go, and I have every confidence, as will be demonstrated by the recent establishment of a full Ministry of Forests, that the federal commitment will stay in place whether or not it is delivered through a sub-agreement. That though will have to be seen and established.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Minister of National Defence referred to the terms of reference of William Barton in looking into matters at Defence Research Establishment, Suffield.
Would the Minister table those terms of reference for the interest of Members of this House and the general public?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, not only would I be happy to table them, I would invite the Hon. Member to read them before he starts making unsubstantiated allegations.
Could I seek the unanimous consent of Members of the House to table, in both official languages, the terms of reference of the inquiry by Mr. William Barton and Mr. Barton's biographical notes? If that consent is forthcoming, I could table those immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members will want to hear the
Hon. Member for Windsor West on the usual Thursday
afternoon question.

September 22, 1988
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order to pose a question to the Deputy Government House Leader. Will he give us a statement of the government business that he intends to call for the coming week? Also, could he outline the government business that he intends to call until the break provided in the rules of the House for this Chamber in mid-November?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on the time allocation motion on Bill C-144. We will then proceed to the completion of report stage of Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act. We do hope that we will be able to complete both those items prior to five o'clock. There has been an agreement, and we will arrange those votes for 6 p.m. Also if there is a vote on the private Member's Bill we can do that at the same time for the convenience of Members.
Tomorrow, if possible, we would like to proceed with third reading of Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act, and to complete that. That would be the business of the day for tomorrow. There is a possibility that we may try to deal with Bill C-152, the Heritage Language Institute from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., but we will have to see if that is convenient to the other Parties.
On Monday, it will be our intention to call Bill C-144, the child care Bill for third and final reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are anticipating the results of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That could be anticipatory. In any event, that is what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On Tuesday, we will have Bill C-158, the variable entrance requirements Act, followed by the Act to reorganize the Department of Industry, Science and Technology-
As to the rest of the week and right up to the Remembrance Day break, I have not got it finalized just yet but I am sure that as soon as I have that opportunity my hon. friend will be one of the first to know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that we have a list for the next few days at least, does the Minister have any idea when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will call the election?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows we have been waiting for the other Parties to catch up. If you could give us a readiness review, we would be prepared to put that into the hopper.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, just one simple question. In order to facilitate planning for all Members on all sides of the House, could the Minister tell us what House business might be on Monday, November 21?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have not got it finalized but I am not sure that my hon. friend will like the result in any event.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning House business for the Deputy House Leader. Could he tel! the House whether the Government intends to proceed shortly with the Bill on political rights, Bill C-157, or is the Government getting cold feet again in not moving it up because of pressure from the unions? Are we, indeed, going to deal with this matter so we can defeat the thing?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this Government has passed 32 per cent more legislation than the last two full Parliaments in five fewer months. We have that on our agenda. I can assure my hon. friend that time permitting we will proceed with it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, before we broke for 10 days, I gave a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), with regard to the Election Expenses Act. The Government House Leader indicated that there would be a response shortly. To my knowledge, I have not received a reply.
I wonder if the Government House Leader is in a position to indicate when the Government will make its position known with regard to election expenses and the Bill before us?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to indicate that today.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 TRANSPORT ROUTE CANADA INC.
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I have an application from the Hon. Member for Regina West on a matter that has been taking up some time in this House, and it is a serious matter. I will recognize the Hon. Member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have sent you a notice, or a request, within what the rules require. Since there was no other opportunity to debate the subject, except under the Standing Order regarding emergency debates, and since the sale of CN Route to Route Canada was authorized by the Government which, in my opinion, is a swindle of taxpayers, employees, and independent for-hire truckers, bringing it to light in debate is the only way to do it. Therefore, Sir, I am asking you to allow, under Standing Order 29, an emergency debate on the subject of the current crisis facing those people who are employees and contractors with Route Canada.
September 22, 1988

Route Canada was once part of Canadian National. It was sold under the Government's privatization program. Several government Ministries are now involved in the affairs of Route Canada, including those of transport, finance, privatization, and labour. It appears at this time that the Government has no intention of allowing any opposition days in the House in the foreseeable future, so an emergency does in fact exist because of what has happened to those thousands of people across the country. It is the only way in which Hon. Members of this place can have an opportunity to discuss this urgent and pressing matter. I hope, Sir, that you will give favourable and sympathetic consideration to my request to use up a few hours this evening to have this whole matter aired.


Mr. Speaker:: I have put some consideration into this matter, and 1 have heard the Hon. Member. I would like a few more minutes to consider the matter, and I will return to the Chamber as soon as I can and give my response to the application.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
September 22, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V.J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 22nd day of September, 1988, at 3.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir
Your obedient servant,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program Branch



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis for the allocation of time to consider third reading stage of Bill C-144.
Time Allocation
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We may have left something a little loose in the business exchange. Is there unanimous consent in the House to defer all votes today until the end of the day?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There is not unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have a lot of nerve asking for unanimous consent after what you did today.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is seeking the floor on debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to complete my remarks on time allocation. Before we broke for Question Period, I was saying that it was very strange to see the Conservative Party across the way bring in time allocation on the child care Bill after only one speaker from each Party has spoken in the House. I have not seen it happen before where time allocation was brought in so quickly by the government Party. I see across the way many long time Members of Parliament who were here in the days of the Trudeau Government when time and again they complained about time allocation and closure being brought in by that Government.
There are more occasions now when time allocation is brought in than there were in the previous five or 10 years. There are more occasions when time allocation is used than we had in the days when members of the Conservative Party complained. I see the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) hiding his head behind the newspaper in shame because of what his Government is doing.
I have here a copy of a speech made by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) on June 9, 1981, when he complained about the Liberal Government bringing in time allocation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is very embarrassed and shouting from his seat.
1 wish to quote something stated by the Minister for International Trade when time allocation was brought in by a Liberal Government. He said:
The same little group comes in here on every closure motion. The same little group of parliamentary eunuchs, the same group of parliamentary assassins-the House Leader, the assistant House leader, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres)-are in here all the time, assassinating this House and removing the good from the House. That is why 1 call them the parliamentary eunuchs. The good has already been removed from them.

September 22, 1988
Time Allocation
The Hon. Member was talking about parliamentary eunuchs in the Liberal Party. I do not disagree with him. However, now that the Conservative Party is in power it is doing exactly the same thing.
Back in 1981 the Minister for International Trade further stated:
Where are all the defenders of the people on the other side of the House? They are going to come out of their trough in a few minutes. They will hear the bell and will have to break away from whatever trough they have their noses in at the moment. They will have to come into this House and say "Oink, oink". They will have to say "Aye, aye". They will have to say "Yes" to the stampeding of Parliament, to rushing this bill through the House. They will have to say "Yes" to the gutting of Parliament. They will have to do the dirty work that the parliamentary assistants, assassins and eunuchs have asked them to do.
Now the Minister for International Trade is on the government side of the House. What is he doing? He is bringing in time allocation, closure, and asking his mindless backbenchers, who are now the new parliamentary eunuchs, to get up and approve what he wants and approve what the Prime Minister wants in terms of cutting off debate on the child care legislation before the House.
I ask my friends across the way, and the Hon. Member for Burlington who is hanging his head in shame as he reads the newspaper, to get up on their hind legs and speak out in favour of parliamentary democracy. I say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who has been here for many years, that he must rise and say the same thing now that he is in government as he said when he was in opposition, that Parliament should not be throttled, that parliamentary debate must continue, and that the people of Canada must have their say.
For years I remember John Diefenbaker sitting in the corner of the House to the left of the Speaker and rising and saying time and again that the Governments of the day were not allowing a full and complete debate, and saying that there had to be full parliamentary participation.
We have a Bill before the House today where there has only been one speaker per Party at third reading, and down comes the guillotine; a Bill before the House today where there were only two days of hearings in the City of Ottawa by the parliamentary committee that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and down came the guillotine; a Bill before the House today where the Province of Saskatchewan wanted to present a position and it was not heard.
The Province of New Brunswick was not heard, the Province of Nova Scotia was not heard, the Province of Prince Edward Island was not heard, nor was the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Those provinces were not heard because the parliamentary committee only met for two days before the Government brought in closure.
Where is democracy? I ask some of the Members opposite, who used to be rugged individuals, who used to stand up and speak for freedom of speech and ask that the democratic
process play a role, to speak now. It would be interesting to see if the Minister for International Trade was correct when he spoke in 1981 about Liberal Government back-benchers being parliamentary eunuchs afraid to get up and say their piece. He said they were parliamentary sheep who would say "bah bah" in the House of Commons as they voted in favour of the Government bringing in time allocation.
Where is the Minister of Justice? He used to pretend to be so indignant when he was on this side of the House and the Liberals brought in time allocation. Where is he now? He is a yes-man for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). How can he agree now to impose time allocation when the Province of Saskatchewan did not have its chance to present its position on child care before the parliamentary committee? How can he do that as a senior Saskatchewan Minister? I am really shocked that the Minister of Justice who at one time was progressive, another John Diefenbaker defending parliamentary freedom, freedom of speech and the dignity of this institution, would now sit back with the power which has gone to his head and watch as his Prime Minister rides roughshod over the wishes of the people of Canada.
It is with a great deal of sadness that I speak today as I watch my friends opposite. For instance, our good old friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka, who has been here a long time, is hiding behind his newspaper. His head is sort of bowed in embarrassment. He is turning a bit redder all the time. Why does that Member not get up and speak now and ask the Government to withdraw this time allocation motion? How can he justify one speaker per Party? How can he justify only one day of debate on third reading of a very important Bill? There were over 40 witnesses at the committee and every single one was in opposition to this Bill.


Mr. Kempling:: All arranged by the NDP.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not all arranged by the NDP. The Government of Saskatchewan could not even present a brief, and it has a Conservative Premier, Grant Devine. The Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island could not present briefs and they are not NDP Governments. We cannot arrange for Brian Peckford or Grant Devine to say anything. 1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow some of my friends across the way to rise, speak their mind, and prove they are consistent in government as well as in opposition when they spoke in favour of free speech in the Parliament of Canada.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This is one of the few times I have heard the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) speak in the House recently. I simply want to assure him that I am here and that I am fully in support of this motion which was moved in view of the obstruction of the Opposition, particularly of the New Democratic Party.
September 22, 1988

I want the people of Canada to remember that here is a Party that likes to hold itself out as being the social conscience of Canada, but when we bring in the first child care program in the history of this country the NDP is out there blocking every move in order to thwart this program for the people of Canada. The New Democratic Party of Canada should be ashamed of itself. I think the next time the Member goes back to Saskatchewan-and we are all waiting for him to come back soon because we only see him there once in a while and it is a great pleasure for us-he will have some explaining to do. When he goes from Aylmer back to Saskatchewan I want him to tell the people of Saskatchewan why he, now the great defender of the Government of Saskatchewan, is blocking this legislation. Why is he standing shoulder to shoulder with the Senate of Canada, with Allan J. MacEachen, to block this legislation so that the people of Canada will be denied the largest input of money in the history of this country for child care? This program was brought forward by a Government which has a social conscience, which does not only speak about it, does not wear it on its shoulder, but in fact demonstrates it by actions.
I want the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville to go to Saskatchewan and explain to the people there why he has tried to block this particular legislation. I have listened to a lot of speeches in my day. When I was in opposition, 1 used to write my own speeches. I never had to resort to quoting speeches from, for instance, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). We were more creative when we were in opposition. This is a sham, a faqade. The New Democrats are reading our old speeches in support of their position. What has happened to the New Democratic Party? Where is the spirit of J. S. Wordsworth? He must be rolling in his grave because the New Democratic Party of Canada is blocking child care.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 will conclude my remarks to allow the Member to get up on a specious point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is just very embarrassing, Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Saskatchewaner and university graduate, to point out that it is Mr. Woodsworth, not Mr. Wordsworth.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching this debate might well be asking themselves why the Government is so desperate to force through this time allocation motion after so little debate on what the Government is claiming is such an important measure. I think the answer is obvious. The answer is that in spite of the Government's claims that this is progressive, forward looking legislation, it is just the opposite. This legislation is grossly inadequate.
The Government says that this Bill will provide 200,000 more day care spaces, but in this country we need 1.6 million
Time Allocation
day care spaces. We not only need 1.6 million day care spaces, but we need them in centres which meet the same basic national standards right across this country so that every child who needs day care will not only receive it but it will be in up-to-date, modern centres with well trained, well paid staff. We need national standards and this Bill does not provide for national standards. In fact, this Bill will provide fewer spaces than if the Government had done nothing and just left the Canada Assistance Plan in place.
The Government does not want the Canadian people to find out the truth about its so-called national day care legislation. It is not a truly national piece of legislation. It does not provide day care for Canadian children who need it. Therefore, we must defeat this motion and go on to defeat this Government so that we can have truly accessible, affordable, universal day care for Canadians. We are not going to get it from this inadequate Conservative Government. Let us defeat this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3.27 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of a motion now before the House have expired under the provisions of Standing Order 117. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Mr. Lewis moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, not more than one further sitting day be allotted to the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Ms. Jacques:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Our seating arrangements were changed recently, and I am not in the right seat. I therefore move for unanimous consent of the House to have my vote accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 TRANSPORT ROUTE CANADA INC.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that earlier today there was an application for an emergency debate moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West. I have been giving the matter some consideration. I have indicated to the Hon. Member that I will hear him further on the matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate your consideration. It will allow Your Honour to consider further the propriety of my application for a debate this evening.
Earlier today I spoke of the Route Canada debacle-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the sincerity of my colleague's request for an emergency debate. I know that this is an important matter. However, as I understand the rules under which one requests an emergency debate, the actual wording of the request is what is read into the record. There is no opportunity to embellish that. I have lived this for a long time now. I appreciate that the Government has no opportunity to tell its side.
In view of the time requirements I request that we stick to the Standing Orders.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is no precedent being set here. Certainly Your Honour has the right in your position to hear a short intervention by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
I want to say that earlier in the day there was a problem in terms of the conveyance of the request for the emergency debate. I understand what happened. It was nobody's fault. It was a matter of a piece of paper not moving in the right direction at the right time. There was nobody to blame.
I think that as long as Your Honour recognizes that there is no precedent being set, because there was a marginal foul-up earlier today, to spend a few moments to hear the case would be quite in order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I just make a comment. I do not understand the Government's sensitivity here. The Speaker himself-


Mr. McDermid:: He just said: "Okay, go ahead".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He did not say anything. He said that this is wrong. The Speaker himself asked for comments.


John Horton McDermid: He just said-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I ask the Minister to shut up. The Minister
should shut up and go back to his seat. I am not talking to him.
I am talking to the Speaker.
September 22, 1988

The Speaker has invited the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to make statements or further comments to help him in deciding whether or not there is need for an emergency debate. I do not see any point in the Government getting up and being all excited. 1 wish the Government would keep cool-keep cool.


John Horton McDermid: The House Leader just said: "Okay".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go look after housing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do not ask us for any co-operation. He has asked for a small generous offer. The first thing that happens is that he is bad-mouthed by the House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members would assist the Chair by quieting down a little.
I wonder if the Hon. Member for Regina West could give me in as succinct terms as possible exactly what he feels could be done if this debate were held this evening in terms of action taken by this place or the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, once again I thank you and I appreciate your providing an opportunity to present evidence for you to consider whether or not you will accept my application for an emergency debate. In my earlier remarks I called this a swindle of the taxpayers, 2,300 employees and over 350 truckers.
To illustrate what I hope will persuade you, Mr. Speaker, I got a letter this morning from a lady in Oshawa which illustrates the results of this privatization authorized by the Government. Her husband was with CN Route for 23 years and then transferred to the private sector, namely Route Canada. He is now out on the street, as are over 2,000 other ones.
Further, 1 asked the Minister if he would intervene and ask the provinces to issue highway traffic board permits to these truckers, even to the ones who got their trucks and licence plates and insurance back from Route Canada. Route Canada still holds the highway traffic board permits for them to haul freight, and they cannot move. They are left out in the cold, and one has lost his trucks because the banks have seized them. One has lost his house. If there was ever an emergency, this is it.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the very serious matter. We have listened in the House and heard Members on both sides acknowledge that there was hardship here. However, having listened very carefully to the Hon. Member and after asking him to add somewhat to his remarks earlier today, I am afraid
Adjournment Debate
I must say that given all the circumstances it does not justify an emergency debate.
However, let me say this. It is one of these matters of considerable anguish that Hon. Members in this place, on both sides, have to face, and it may well be that the Hon. Member and other Members, and Members on the government side, may be able to pursue it further in Question Period. Perhaps there may be some way in which all Hon. Members can find some way to alleviate the difficulties that these people are in.
I do have to say to the Hon. Member, with the greatest respect and keeping the rules in mind, that it is not appropriate to proceed tonight with an emergency debate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[ Translation]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-146, an Act to amend the Tax Court of Canada Act and other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 61.
Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations-Chapter No. 62.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Environmental Affairs-Fraser Valley-Emissions from Burrard Thermal Generating Plant; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-Trade-Tax on Lumber Exports/Imports of United States Lumber.

September 22, 1988
Broadcasting Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 20, consideration of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mrs. Finestone:
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 34 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 24 the following:
"(3) The Minister shall consult with the Chairman before the Governor in
Council makes an appointment to the Board."
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 14 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"hold office for a term not exceeding seven".
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 74 by striking out line 20 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"behaviour for a term not exceeding seven".
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the first of these amendments relates to Clause 34. We were discussing the consultation between the Minister and the Chairman of the Board of CBC to ensure that there was no conflict of interest and that the members to be appointed by Governor in Council to that board were to be appointed in a way that would enrich the board to its fullest.
1 know that the Minister has made appointments to the board, and the last group of appointments she made were appointments of fine, qualified people of which all Canadians would be quite proud.


Miss MacDonald:: Including women.


Sheila Finestone: Including women, right. It is true that those appointments have been good appointments. I would hope that the Minister to be appointed following the election that is about to take place will make the appropriate appointments as well based on those needs.
I would like to recommend the acceptance of this amendment because one has to prevent the perception of patronage appointments. I am sure the Minister would not want that perception to impinge on the making of proper appointments.
The second group of amendments in this grouping are Motions Nos. 73 and 76. They relate to the length of the term of service of both the President of CBC, as found in Clause 39, and the tenure of office of the officers and commissioners of the CRTC, as found in Clause 74. These motions, if passed, would provide that the appointment of the President of the CBC would be for a period of seven years and full-time appointments to the CRTC would be extended to a period of seven years.
These are key administrative and tribunal positions. It is important that the holders of these positions have the fullness of time in which to render the kind of decisions that will be in the best interests of the Canadian broadcasting system. I think it would further strengthen the arm's-length relationship between the corporation and the Government.
One of our concerns, from the very outset, has been of a tremendous potential for interference. Much of that has been removed, but I would strongly recommend that this measure be adopted to do the same thing.
Under Bill C-136, a Government would change the top management of two traditionally independent bodies during its term of office. The rule of a seven-year term for heads of Crown corporations is always intended to avoid this in order to protect the independence and to safeguard the arm's-length principle. At present, the President of the CBC, the Chairman of the CRTC, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have been the significant exceptions to that rule. It was because of the very sensitive nature of the positions of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Chairman of the CRTC, and the President of the CBC that that was so.
Again, we do not want to have a sense of political interference with the increased patronage potential. Certainly, the perception of patronage appointments would exist because of the very nature of this change. Because of the structure of the CBC, with the chairman being a director of the board, it is most regrettable that we could not change that situation so we could determine who was the boss of the CBC, but it would have been a little too complex to make that amendment. Otherwise I would certainly have included in this amendment the position of the chairman of the board.
I would like to recommend that Motions Nos. 71, 73, and 76 be given very serious consideration and that they receive favour with the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as communications critic for the NDP, I would like to speak to this set of motions, Motions Nos. 71, 73, and 76, all brought forward by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Motion No. 71 provides that the Minister should consult with the chairman of the CBC before making appointments to the board. I do not have any particular problem with that. It is kind of odd, though. The Conservative Minister, if it happened right now, would be consulting with the Liberal President of the CBC.


Finlay MacDonald: I consult with him every day.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is quite interesting. The motion simply says
to consult. One can consult and then simply leave, so it really
does not mean all that much, but-
September 22, 1988


Sheila Finestone: It's better than nothing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It's better than nothing, perhaps. What is important, and the Member touched on this in her speech, is appointments to the board of the CBC. 1 have been making a special point since I became the NDP critic to take advantage of the procedures under the reformed rules of Parliament whereby we can call upon all appointees to the board of the CBC and cross-examine them for 10 or 15 minutes, and it is worth while to do that.
Recently we cross-examined Diane Lamb from Vancouver and Ron Collister, who, even though they are both Conservatives, are both pretty good people, and in spite of being Conservatives, they are good Conservatives. I was satisfied that while they had their own viewpoints on certain issues, these people were dedicated to protecting the interests of the CBC generally, and that was important.
That has not been true of all appointments made by the Government. Especially in the beginning of its term, not so much by this Minister but by her predecessors, appointments to cultural agencies including the CBC were dumping grounds for Tory patronage appointments for so-and-so's campaign manager, the Prime Minister's secretary, someone else's friend, and so on. They were pretty awful appointments, and the appointments recently got a lot better.
Motions Nos. 73 and 76 would extend the term of the President of the CBC and that of the CRTC commissioners to seven years. I think seven years is probably too long for one appointment. Indeed, I am told that the President of France- God knows how he loves his seven-year term-is considering a national referendum to shorten the presidential term to five years. If it is good enough for the President of France to shorten the term, we might consider that seven years might be a bit too long a term. As I said to Mr. Juneau in the committee hearings, it certainly avoids any messy by-elections or anything like that.
I would not support Motions Nos. 73 and 76 but would support Motion No. 71.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in support of Motion No. 71 introduced by my colleague from Mount Royal. The clause she is seeking to amend provides that a person who is engaged in the production or distribution of program material suitable for use by a broadcasting undertaking may be appointed director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation if that is not his or her main occupation.
1 should like to say a few words concerning the power of the Government to make appointments to boards of directors and to emphasize how important we think it is that individuals appointed to the boards of these corporations and agencies be quite familiar with their new environment and truly represent the interests of the various Canadian groups. I am referring of course to francophones who at times get hauled over the coals when it comes to appointments to such national bodies as the
Broadcasting Act
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the CRTC. I mention this because the Canadian Diaspora is divided into two majority groups. First we have the anglophone Canadians in general who see to it that their colleagues and fellow nationals are duly represented, and I agree with that.
Then there are the Quebecers who make sure they are represented on the various Government Boards, but then there are the minority groups. It has always been a problem for both anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec to be appointed to the CBC or the CRTC, for example. 1 was looking at the CRTC 1987-88 annual report and 1 am impressed, as was my colleague from Mount Royal, by the quality and especially the representation of women, and I am in favour of that. The point I want to make is that we have to be sure that the directors appointed by the Government-I hope the Minister will exercise that power in the future, maybe not this Minister but the Minister of Communications who will have to act with diligence and make sure that the appointees represent the Canadian community as a whole and that the various commissions, particularly the CRTC and the CBC, have people on the board who understand the aspirations of the official languages minority groups, that is anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec.
I should like to get back to what seems to be a problem these days, the famous TV5 network. I fail to understand why in the past two or three days, responsible and serious journalist Michel Vastel of the fairly respectable newspaper Le Devoir should always be referring to the problem which TV5 creates for French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I can quote these articles in Le Devoir which constitute an attempt-not strong enough, 1 would suggest-to depict what I mean by fair representation of linguistic groups.
I see in today's Le Devoir a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and 1 quote:
"TV5 is an excellent network and we will make it available everywhere"
Another nice promise! Hon. Members will recall that yesterday the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and the chief executive of TV5 were also quoted in an article by Michel Vastel.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote word for word, what TV5's General Manager, James Baird, confirmed to Le Devoir, namely that "... Consortium de Television Quebec-Canada is getting ready to apply to the CRTC, within a week at the most, in order to offer TV5 to cable distributors in Englishspeaking Canada at a price lower than the 27 cents a month paid by Quebec subscribers ..." This is a serious promise indeed, and 1 think it is a step in the right direction. And to quote further: "It is felt within the Canadian Department of Communications that this application should be dealt with rapidly, as a regulatory matter by the CRTC, in order to allow early penetration by CTQC, the Consortium de television Quebec-Canada, of that market outside Quebec." Again it seems to me that this is a promise. They are saying: it is coming. I was told this week, I think it was Tuesday last, September 20, by the Minister herself, that I was impatient. Well, things have moved since then!

September 22, 1988
Broadcasting Act
Wednesday, September 21, and today, September 22, two good articles support my position, which is simply to widen the choice, the viewing grid, in order indeed to include the famous TV5, a Canadian government initiative that cost $1.6 million of Canadian money and that, in my view, is really needed to allow for the development of our official language minorities across Canada, giving them access not only to Radio-Canada's French services, but also to another network, TV5, which as we know is an international entreprise, to the extent it is a consortium of several countries-which Canada, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the province of Quebec-agreed to put that programming together.
I am sorry, but 1 have to quote from an article, again by Michel Vaste in today's Le Devoir:
Miss Flora MacDonald indicated to Le Devoir that regulatory arrangements
could be soon negotiated between TV5, the cable distributors and the CRTC.
The latter promised yesterday to deal "expeditiously" with any application.
But the Minister is here. I for one trust her. I think she is a Minister to be trusted. If she says to those newspapers people she is serious and really wants to help us, let her do so. As it seems to me, the least she could do is tell the CRTC's president, whom she herself appointed, to act, to do something positive. Let her tell Mr. Juneau: "Enough pussy- footing and dilly-dallying. Do something. The time has come to act on that, and we want TV5 to be accessible to English-language cable distributors outside Quebec so it can be relayed to French- language viewers outside Quebec!
It seems to me we are not asking that much, but it is all connected with this particular amendment. The kind of directors we have, the kind of people we have to make the decisions and recommendations all depends on how these people see their role. I see them as representatives of the diaspora. I also see them as strong representatives of various interest groups, including francophones, women, native people and multicultural groups. I think all these people should be very well represented. I think the Minister should give serious consideration to the amendment submitted by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) which says the Minister should consult. That is all we want her to do. We want her to consult properly and at length before making appointments, so that we can be sure of the qualifications of the people up there, that they are really on top of the situation and can provide the kind of service that truly meets our expectations.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very short intervention on the three motions before us. In terms of Motion No. 71, this would make it a requirement that the Minister would have to consult with the chairman of the CBC before any appointments were made. 1
see that as a protection for the Minister and for the board itself.
After an election and the enthusiasm of a new Government, whatever its stripe, rewards are made. Not immediately after the 1984 election but later, when there was a move to appoint new people to the board of Air Canada, we saw people being appointed not because of expertise in transportation or even expertise as a consumer of that particular mode of transportation. The best the person involved could come up with was that she had a driver's licence and a Tory card.
It makes sense to give the Minister the power to hold off the patronage boys. Whatever the structure is, whether it is a committee of the PMO or whatever, it ought to be able to say: "Hang on. Thank you for your suggestions. Let me take them back to the chairman of the CBC and take a look at the mix, the regional mix, and the level of knowledge and understanding of broadcasting, whether it is on the technical side or on the performing arts side".
Even though it may be done informally now, I suspect that there is that type of give and take. The Minister and the Government would not drop it on to the chairman and say: "Here is your new crew". There is some consultation. This is an added bit of protection so that the Minister cannot be overruled or forced to put some people on the board of the CBC who would not go with the wishes of the Minister herself or himself, whoever the Minister may be at the time.
1 encourage the Government to accept this amendment. It does not prevent it from making the appointments or unduly restrict it. It formalizes in law an informal process that occurs today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 71, 73, and 76 were grouped for debate. Motion No. 71 will be voted on separately and a vote on Motion No. 73 will apply to Motion No. 76.
The question therefore is on Motion No. 71, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
September 22, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 73, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Motion No. 73 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The vote on Motion No. 73 applies to Motion No. 76, so Motion No. 76 is also lost on division.
Motion No. 76 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motion is Motion No. 75 which will be debated and voted on separately. On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Communications.


Finlay MacDonald: I would like to advise the House that I am prepared to accept this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motion is Motion No. 75.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 75
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 24 to 30 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"poses to carry out a substantial change to business activities in any period in a manner that is not consistent with the last corporate plan of the Corporation in respect of that period, the Corporation shall forthwith notify the Minister in writing of the inconsistency in the manner of carrying on the business activity."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain Motion No. 75 and thank the Minister for accepting it. Under Clause 52(3) the CBC is required to inform the Minister when it "proposes to carry on any business or activity in any period in a manner that is not consistent with the last corporate plan". This amendment states:
"poses to carry out a substantial change to business activities in any period in a manner that is not consistent with the last corporate plan of the Corporation in respect of that period, the Corporation shall forthwith
Broadcasting Act
notify the Minister in writing of the inconsistency in the manner of
carrying on the business activity."
I believe that such notification should only be necessary when a major issue has arisen, and that is why the use of "substantial change". I am pleased that the Minister has accepted it.


Sheila Finestone: I wish to thank the Minister. I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), moved the amendment. It came to me as a great surprise. It was refused for consideration in our deliberations in the legislative committee, therefore I did not submit it. I was pleasantly surprised when I found it in the Bill, and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed. I am pleased that my colleague moved it. I guess everybody is happy.
The only thing I would like to find now is a five-year plan that has a financial commitment. I can see no reason why we cannot do that for the CBC; we do it for all kinds of other things.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 75, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 75 (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motions are Motions Nos. 75A and 75B which will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 75A
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 4 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Neither the Company, nor its parent, nor any".


Sheila Finestone: Motion 75B
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 5 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"affiliate of the Company shall".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 75A states:
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 4 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Neither the Company, nor its parent, nor any".
Page 44, line 4, of the Bill states:
Neither the Company nor any person controlled by the Company shall directly or indirectly hold a licence issued under the Broadcasting Act or carry on a broadcasting undertaking within the meaning of that Act.

September 22, 1988
Broadcasting Act
That is contained in Part IV of the Act entitled "Amendments to Other Acts" and it refers to the Bell Canada Act. Clause 70 states:
Section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"7. Neither the Company nor any person controlled by the Company shall directly or indirectly hold a licence issued under the Broadcasting Act or carry on a broadcasting undertaking within the meaning of that Act".
The company, I gather, is Bell Canada. Both Motions Nos. 75A and 75B deal with Bell Canada. I read the amendment that we proposed. Bell, which is big enough to swallow up the whole broadcasting industry, cannot get involved with any undertaking under Bill C-136. That is what it states in the Act, unamended. However, Members could ask themselves if it involves all of Bell. Bell has this great ability, and as a matter of fact it should go in the Guinness Book of Records, because the child is able to produce a parent. It is the only thing in the world which reverses the natural order, the child produces the parent. I am speaking of Bell Canada International and Bell Canada Enterprises. The company of Jean de Grandpre makes a billion dollars a year in profit. One sees Mr. de Grandpre on the cover of the Air Canada magazine or other magazines bragging about how he got away from being regulated by the regulators because he was able to spin off another company, and it became a deregulated company.
When we addressed this clause in the clause-by-clause part of the legislative committee, the Minister was asked whether Bell Canada Enterprises-where I talked about the child spinning away the parent, the child being Bell Canada and the parent being Bell Canada Enterprises-was covered by this prohibition. In other words, was Bell Canada Enterprises prohibited from getting into broadcasting? The answer was no. In fact, I believe it was Mr. Palmer of the Minister's Department who said that in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) who was a member of the committee.
What we are saying with this amendment is that Bell Canada and Bell Canada Enterprises have consistently made efforts to avoid Canadian regulations and regulators by spinning off new companies. Indeed, a Bill was passed by this Government to allow the child, Bell Canada, to give birth to the parent, Bell Canada Enterprises. What we are saying is that this amendment should be perfectly clear and that the prohibition should apply to Bell Canada Enterprises as well as to Bell Canada. The Bell Canada Act, under Amendments to Other Acts states:
Section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
"Neither the company nor any person controlled by the Company shall directly or indirectly hold a licence issued under the Broadcasting Act or carry on a broadcasting undertaking within the meaning of that Act".
We want to amend that to "neither the Company nor its parent, nor any person controlled by the company". Therefore, we make it quite clear that we are talking about Bell Canada and its parent, Bell Canada Enterprises. I think that is the nub of this amendment.
We know how close the Minister is to Bell Canada Enterprises. We remember the famed Saudi caper of recent vintage. That is when the Minister worked hand in hand with Mr. Jean de Grandpre, the President of Bell Canada Enterprises, to end run a CRTC decision. The CRTC had ruled that Bell Canada must use $21 million from overseas operations to cut telephone rates in Canada. The Minister went so far as to write a letter of support for Bell which was used by the company in its appeal to the CRTC. I believe the courts have recently rendered a decision with respect to the Government's continuing interference in this matter. I want to quote Mr. Andrew Roman when, in front of the legislative committee, he said:
"This may sound weird, but 1 would even give consideration to going the other way. What you see under the Broadcasting Act is both broadcasting and cable, and cable is essentially not very different from the telephone companies. While I do not think I would like to have the news brought to you by Bell Canada today in the sense that they are writing the news, I do not see why on the transmission side of it they should not, since they produce fibre optics, coaxial cable, and digitalized network, to be able to provide some competition for the cable companies. But then I have always felt that the hardware delivery side should either be taken right out of the Broadcasting Act or put into a special section and dealt with not as if it were broadcasting. I think it should be dealt with as if it were transmission, which is essentially a hardware and transmission function.
I do not mean by this that it should be dealt with only on the telecom side through the Railway Act, but it should perhaps be left in the Broadcasting Act but dealt with as a separate entity. To the extent that we would not want Bell Canada carrying on the broadcasting activity, I would think that it should cover any associated or affiliated company, yes, because it is so easy to spin off another subsidiary that does the same thing or virtually the same thing under a different label, but when it comes to transmission I would be happy to see them competing with the cable industry because, for one thing, it would bring rates down and for another, it would probably bring quality up."
I do not agree with Mr. Roman's somewhat mischievous suggestion about Bell entering the broadcasting picture. We think that Bell Canada Enterprises and Bell are perhaps even bigger and more powerful than the cable industry, which is already powerful enough. In a short time they could well take over the entire distribution side of broadcasting. We do agree, however, with Mr. Roman and the public interest advocacy group that the distribution undertaking should be dealt with separately and perhaps have similar provisions that apply to Bell in the Railway Act apply to cable companies. I have already offered amendments along these lines which have been voted down by the Government.
September 22, 1988

However, this amendment, if I may just summarize it, makes sure that we catch Bell Canada Enterprises, the parent, that was spun off by that miracle child.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 can only support the remarks made by my colleague and suggest to him that based precisely on what he has brought to the attention of this House 1 think perhaps my amendment is a bit fuller in its concept. It covers more, it covers the momma, the poppa, and all the aunts, uncles, sisters, and brothers that might possibly become affiliated. I think the major point here is the fact that cable is a hybrid system. If we were to allow the telcos, particularly Bell Canada, as the first step, into the operations of transmission as a cable system, we would then find them moving into the next step that which we have now accorded to the cable system, and that is as a programmer.
I would like to remind the Minister of her views, which she expressed very succinctly subsequent to my bringing my concerns in this respect to her attention when we were dealing with Bill C-113 on Bell Canada. With respect to Bill C-113, on May 6, 1987, the Minister said that she favoured a preventing of affiliates, not just subsidiaries, of telephone companies from holding broadcast licences. The Minister went further and said: "I believe such a restriction should apply to all federally regulated telephone companies". I would go beyond that and say "all telephone companies", notwithstanding that she went on to say: "We do not tend to favour the telephone company investment in broadcasting receiving undertakings whether directly or affiliated companies".
I recall talking about the child that gave birth to its parents, which is quite a unique undertaking in anyone's world, but it gave birth to a rather unique parent. This parent ended up earning $1 billion profit last year. 1 would say, therefore, it was a very well fed child in the end. Actually, the child who gave birth, Bell Canada, is still a very productive part of the Bell Canada Enterprises. I would suggest that we do not want Bell Canada, Bell Canada affiliates, Bell Canada Enterprises, or any one of them, involved in the broadcast Bill.
The amendment which appears under the Bell Canada Act, through Section 70 of this Act, now prevents Bell Canada only, the regulated monopoly telephone company and its subsidiaries, what flows from the Bell Canada Telephone Company, from holding a broadcast licence. It does not touch Bell Canada Enterprises. I would suggest to the Minister that we would be moving into a very serious situation if we would start with a monopoly transmission facility lending its help and aid to a subsidiary or a sibling or a parent, as the case may be, as one of the affiliates might apply for such a licence.
The potential for conflict must not be permitted. Broadcast and telecommunication policies are not currently advanced enough to allow the entertainment of this particular idea. I would like to suggest that our amendment is valid. The previous Minister of Communications tried such a provision in his first attempt at a Bell reorganization Act under Bill C-19. I would suggest that it was not in the country's interest then and it remains not in the country's interest now. I would strongly recommend the Minister give consideration, through consultation with her own staff, to which one would cover most broadly
Broadcasting Act
either Motion No. 75A of my colleague or my own Motion No. 75B. One or the other, I believe, should be adopted.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on this amendment. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that Bell Canada cannot indirectly, through Bell Canada Enterprises, do what the Bill says it should not do directly, for example, entering into the broadcasting area.
I am surprised the Government would not have accepted this amendment by now, because it has been made quite clear over the course of the past 15 or 20 years that Bell Canada has systematically been seeking to evade regulatory authority of the Government of Canada. It has been aided in so doing by the Liberals when they were in power prior to 1979, again since 1980, and now by the Conservatives in their first full term in office for a very long time.
1 ask myself: What is the reason for that? Why this excessive lassitude when it comes to Bell Canada? Why this complicity with Bell Canada in terms of trying to build it up or allow it to do things which one would have thought the Government agreed it should not do? The only answer I can arrive at is the fact that the Government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has a soft spot for Bell Canada. Of course, I have difficulties with that in a couple of ways. I recognize that Bell runs a more efficient and useful telephone system than many that exist in the world. We benefit from the fact that the telephone system as a whole in North America works pretty well. However, at the same time one must ask whether the cost of that should be to allow continued growth in the nonregulated side which appears to be financed or facilitated by the regulated activity. I think that is a very serious question which the Minister should have taken up.
While I am on my feet, if one wants an example of the problems and corporate irresponsibility which exists, you can look at the situation which is occurring right now. This is a shade distant from the specific purpose of the Bill, but I, as a Member of Parliament, want to register my concern in human terms for the fact that the Bell workers have now been left out on the street for a period of 13 weeks and it looks as though it is going to go on for a lengthy period of time. I want to voice here in the House of Commons my concern for my constituents who have suffered and also for my constituents who are small business people and are suffering because of the deterioration of Bell service. Constituents of mine and other people in this area who are seeking to move into homes or change telephones have also suffered a deterioration of service.
I would like to register my concern for the junior managers who have had to work 60 or 70 hours a week because of the obduracy, obstinacy, and stubbornness with which Bell Canada has continued to hold out against reaching a decent and just settlement with its workers.

September 22, 1988
Broadcasting Act
That is relevant to this particular clause in the sense that this is a company whose primary objective used to be seen as a public service. That does not mean that it was not in the business of making a profit as well. It obviously did. It returned a reasonable stream of dividends and Bell shares were always seen as a safe investment, et cetera. However, a company whose primary objective appeared to be public service seems to have been taken over by an ethic which says that we do not care whether we are in the mortuary business, the telephone business, or anything else, the object of our business, first and foremost, is not to serve our customers, not to look after our employees, not to be good corporate citizens; it is first, last, and foremost just to make a buck, to make as many dollars as we can, and to have the company grow as large as it can.
If that is the guiding principle which is impelling Bell Canada right now, then that means if Bell Canada is prevented from getting into broadcasting, if broadcasting continues to be a lucrative area of endeavour, then Bell Canada will be looking to go indirectly into an area from which it may be barred from going directly. That is why I am suggesting that this amendment, which would ensure that Bell Canada cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly, should be accepted. I ask the Minister to comment on that when she participates in the debate on this particular section.
1 would also like to have her comment a bit about the human situation of a company which I think is doing itself long-term harm in terms of the way it is handling its labour relations. It is doing a lot of harm to its workers, its customers, its clients, and a lot of small business people across the country when this goes on and on. Surely there must be a more sensible way of running a major enterprise with such an important role in our society, as well as our economy, as Bell Canada has, than to hold out, to keep the last tenth of a per cent out of a wage increase for its employees, to give nickels and dimes only when it comes to a second vote to the point where the employees felt they had no choice after 11 weeks but to reject the company's offer.
There is something wrong with that and I put a lot of the responsibility on Bell management. In acting as they have they have engendered the inquietude and distrust which leads my Party to suggest that this amendment would be appropriate in order to ensure that Bell does not use the back door to get into broadcasting.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate on this particular motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway. The section in the Bill to which it refers is Clause 70(7) which presently reads:
Section 7 of the Bell Canada Act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
"Neither the Company nor any person controlled by the Company shall directly or indirectly hold a licence issued under the Broadcasting Act or carry on a broadcasting undertaking within the meaning of that Act".
This amendment expands this somewhat. At first glance it certainly appears that it is a step in the right direction that Bell Canada, or any person controlled by the company, shall not directly or indirectly hold a licence issued under the Broadcasting Act or carry on broadcasting within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act.
It misses, of course, the point made by my hon. colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, that is, the fact that this company is controlled by Bell Canada Enterprises. With Bell Canada Enterprises exempt from this, you might say that the parent of the company is exempt. I do not think that was what the Minister intended.
The Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has suggested that Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 4 at page 44 and substituting the following, "Neither the Company, nor its parent". That will take in the concern that Bell Canada Enterprises also be under the authorization of Bill C-136, Clause 70.
The spokesperson for the Liberal Party has indicated that we should also include on line 5 at page 44 an "affiliate of the company". I think that is more than reasonable because one of the problems we have seen in the past, when it comes to escaping regulation, not only with the Broadcasting Act but other forms of regulation, is that you simply have to spin off a subsidiary and that takes care, if you like, of escaping beyond the net of the regulatory network.
I do not expect that we want to see that happen and my hon. friend, the spokesperson for the Liberal Party, has suggested that we also include an affiliate of the company. I think that is a reasoned suggestion such as she normally puts forward in the House. I was hoping the Minister would have indicated she would have supported the inclusion of the term "affiliate" or, as my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway has indicated, recognized that the parent of the company should be recognized.
I need not repeat some of the arguments put forward earlier by the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who indicated some of the ways in which Bell Canada Enterprises has operated to circumvent a number of regulations in the country.
I think of some of the ways they use to circumvent the Tax Act and the way they have circumvented regulations in a variety of business and industrial pursuits. We are concerned about this one because it refers to broadcasting. This is critical. We all, of course, fear further corporate concentration in the broadcasting field. Therefore, my hon. colleague has moved what we would call informally a friendly amendment. However, the Minister indicated she would not consider this amendment to be acceptable although he is simply asking that the parent also be involved. He referred to the offspring and the parent and this is kind of a backward movement when we want to bring the parent company under this section as well.
September 22, 1988


Finlay MacDonald: i rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we are coming to the close of report stage of this Bill and we have now been discussing the various amendments for a great deal of parliamentary time. There have been 79 various amendments put forward. I have accepted a number of them in the course of debate here in the House and in committee.
We are within one amendment of completing report stage of this Bill. I know I have consent from the critic for the Liberal Party, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I would like to appeal to Members of the New Democratic Party to spend the time it would take to finish report stage of this Bill this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is five o'clock.


Finlay MacDonald: We are within one amendment of Finishing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened carefully to the Minister's request. On the surface, it would appear to be a reasoned request. Taken in the context of the way the three Parties have approached this legislation, it might make sense.
However, a few minutes ago in the House, on the most important piece of social legislation in decades, the child care legislation, the Government made no indication of even a decent debate on it. It brought in closure after a single speaker from each of the three Parties.
While one is encouraged, and I quite frankly believe that the Minister has a legitimate concern about this, since we have already debated closure in the House I do not think the request is reasonable.
However, we look forward to rapid passage of report stage as soon as it is called again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISABILITY OF INFORMING DEPOSITORS WHEN DEPOSITS ARE UNINSURED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, August 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
Financial Institutions
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to continue my debate on this particular issue brought to our attention by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I have glad tidings for the Hon. Member. In fact, it is probably more than he deserves after the way he has been treating the Government with respect to child care, the free trade agreement and everything else. However, when we on this side of the House think someone has a good idea, we go along with it.
In a few moments I will be introducing an amendment which will render this private Member's motion acceptable to the Government. It will not change it in any major way but will simply tidy up the wording.
In my previous presentation I said that this is a good idea. There has been all manner of problems in Canada of late, of people making deposits in various deposit-taking institutions not knowing whether or not those deposits were insured under CDIC or being of the assumption that these deposits were insured. In the long run they found out to their chagrin that that was not the case.
It is good fortune for the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap that he has before us today a motion and not a Bill. On issues such as day care and free trade the Liberals and their good friends the New Democratic Party have been encouraging an attitude of recalcitrance in the Senate. This has flowed over to the ideas put forward by the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) with respect to heritage railway stations. That Bill has been given a rough ride in the Senate. It is lucky for the Hon. Member that he does not have to go through that route.
I want to make one small comment before going through a prepared presentation. It deals with waiver forms, if we adopted a system of using waivers.
When one goes into a bank or trust company to open an account and puts some money on deposit, one ends up with a whole sheaf of forms, all written in legalese. We are told to sign in the various places marked with an x. If we do not sign, they will not take the money and will not open an account. Very few people read those forms. If there was to be a waiver, it should be in bold print on a separate piece of paper that no one should mistake.
A review of the debate on this motion thus far would show that the House is virtually unanimous in its support for the aims of the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. As many Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, however, there are a number of problems with the specific proposal which his motion is putting forth.
I agree with several of my colleagues who have indicated that while they support the spirit of the motion, they are unable to support it in its current form because of those shortcomings.

September 22, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Consequently, in order to ensure that the House is able to convey its support for the swift development and implementation of measures to improve the availability to consumers of information regarding deposit insurance coverage of deposits and deposit-like instruments, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Plourde):
That the motion be amended by striking the words following the word "establishing" and substituting the following:
"new ways of notifying clients of financial institutions of the existence or absence of deposit insurance coverage or similar forms of protection for deposits and deposit-like investments."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the amendment to be in order. Resuming debate.


Mr. Ray Skeliy (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important proposal. Many Canadians have been caught in a situation where they have placed their deposits in an institution in the belief that in the event the investments of the institution were lost they would have protection for those deposits and would be able to recover those deposits from the institution.
A number of organizations in the early 1980s invested in land. As interest rates escalated and the prices of the land dropped, they were unable to obtain a return on those investments. The depositors in those institutions lost their shirts.
After the smoke and dust had cleared, the people who had put their life savings into these institutions found that there was absolutely no protection for those savings. Had they known this when they first encountered the situation, there certainly would have been some caution and probably another form of investment. I know people who lost virtually their life savings in such organizations. There certainly would have been a great deal more caution in placing their investment, such as by spreading it out into different institutions to protect them from such an occurrence.
We have before us this afternoon an extremely important proposal. I notice in the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member who sits on the government side that the proposal is acceptable and that the Government will support it.
One question I have to ask, however, and it is one which I hope the Government will respond to, is with respect to what seems to be proposed here, although more than acceptable to us because of the action being taken to assist, is that some clarification is needed on how that notice to prospective depositors might come about.
Certainly the fact is that an individual must sit down and have the proposal explained, especially the fact that the deposit is not covered by the Deposit Insurance Corporation and that there is no protection should deposits be lost through investments that do not yield sufficient money to return. We watched the same type of thing happen with the B.C. Teachers Co-op. It is an organization that for many years operated successfully. It accepted deposits from teachers and turned around to pay returns on those deposits. In the final analysis it
got caught in the escalating interest rates and declining land prices and left a great number of its members holding the bag.
Hopefully, the Government will explain the mechanism that it intends to use to have prospective depositors fully informed of the lack of coverage, or the nature of coverage of deposits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.14 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Nickerson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for an opportunity to address the House during this adjournment debate to pursue a question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields) on July 27. Briefly, I asked if the Government would reconsider the effects on the environment of the Fraser Valley, especially the District of Chilliwack, in making the decision whether or not to reissue the permit to B.C. Hydro for energy exports using the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary replied to my question, I have several points which I would like to highlight, and a couple of questions I wish to raise. First, a quick view of the environment in the Fraser Valley is necessary. The Fraser Valley is one of the world's most productive areas for fish, wildlife and agriculture.
Surrounding the cities of Chilliwack and Abbotsford are rich and abundant crops of raspberries, blueberries, corn, large dairy farms and pastures for raising cattle, sheep and pigs and chicken farms. Farther up the river at Hope and Boston Bar are the forests which make B.C. famous around the world. We are proud of the valley's beauty but, now, we are concerned about its environment and the people who live there.
September 22, 1988

The Burrard Thermal Generating Plant located outside my riding of Fraser Valley East is a 912 megawatt generating station. Unfortunately for us in the valley the prevailing winds from the West which bring the rain to grow our crops also bring nitrogenoxide. Anyone who has done any study on the environment knows that when sulphur and nitrogenoxides combine with water vapour the result is acid rain.
Ozone-not the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere-is a particular reactive form of oxygen that can harm the respiratory system and has been shown to cause leaf damage and reduced crop growth rates. It is produced during warm months when sunlight causes a reaction in the nitrogenoxide and hydrocarbons coming from automobile exhaust and plants. The effects of ozone and acid rain are not new to Canada. I have only to remind the House of the thousands of lakes and forests that are dying in eastern Canada to point out why we are seriously worried about the emission coming from the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant.
We are told that the current air emissions permit for the Burrard generating station will come up for renewal at the end of this year. It will provide for curtailment of operations if ozone levels have reached or are likely to reach 100 on the air quality index. One hundred is the rate of very poor.
Why must we allow the rate to drop so low just to satisfy a clause in a permit? I am sure that I speak on behalf of the mayors and councils of the Chilliwack district and Abbotsford, as well as the residents, when I say that we had better not wait. Our farmers now and our future farmers should not have to suffer for the sake of a permit to export energy.
The long-term health and environmental effects of most of the chemicals now being found in the environment are not known. We do know that some groups of individuals, for example, the elderly, and some specific ecosystems are more susceptible to these contaminants than others.
In 1987 the National Task Force on the Environment and Economy endorsed the replacement of a remedial reactive approach by an anticipate and preventive approach. This is what we should do in the valley.
As I have said already, why should we wait until it is too late? I am pleased that the federal Government has taken a strong stand on environmental issues. We have been the forerunners of some very constructive international environmental measures, such as the Montreal Protocol. We now have the Environmental Protection Act which gives the Canadian Government the necessary authority to implement the Montreal Protocol. This agreement will cut in half by 1999 the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons which seriously affect the global environment. This is good news.
I mentioned that I had some questions. However, I know that time does not allow them to be answered now. First, can the Minister tell us by how much the National Energy Board
Adjournment Debate
has agreed to increase the exports from B.C. Hydro using the Burrard plant? Second, what measures have been taken which would make the people in Chilliwack and the valley aware that steps have been taken to prevent the possible negative effects to the environment from the emissions from the station? A reply at a later date will be appreciated.
My constituents recognize that energy, such as that produced by the Burrard station, is necessary for economic development and social progress, but we are also aware of health and safety issues. Scientific data compiled by the Vancouver Pollution Control Board and the provincial Minister of the Environment show that the plant will send out nitrogen oxides equal to the emissions from a hundred thousand cars annually.
This is a very frightening figure when we think in terms of adding that much pollution to the already polluted air.
Yes, we are concerned. The Burrard Thermal Generating Plant requires our immediate attention. It is not too late to do something about the situation right now.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) for his continuing interest in the environmental concerns of those who reside within that region. 1 would also note that the question which he is raising today of course is not only one of considerable consequence, but is also one of very considerable depth. I hope he will appreciate the fact that we may only be able to address some of the points which he has raised in his question.
As you and I both know, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East knows, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has a very keen interest in ensuring compatibility between energy and environmental policy. As a result of that, the new electricity policy which was announced a short period ago did address environmental policy.
As a result, we have his commitment and that of the Government to environmental protection. I think we can conclude without too much doubt that the decision by the federal Cabinet to approve the issuance of export permits for electricity from the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant was made only after careful deliberation.
Certainly, the Hon. Member who just spoke is well aware of the history associated with the authorization of exports from this plant. As he knows and as others know, B.C. Hydro applied to the National Energy Board for a licence to export electricity from the province in 1980. The National Energy Board provided approval but excluded exports from this particular thermal plant from the licence.

September 22, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The situation was repeated in 1983, when B.C. Hydro again applied to the board for export licences. Power from the Burrard plant was excluded from the licences because it lacked a pollution control permit, inhibiting the operation of the plant. Since that time, the Burrard station has upgraded its pollution controls and has been granted both a pollution control permit and an energy removal permit or licence from the B.C. regulatory authorities.
B.C. Hydro reapplied to the National Energy Board, seeking approval to use the Burrard station to support electricity exports authorized under the original licences. The National Energy Board and Governor in Council subsequently approved the amendment to the licences.
I would like to stress the following points with reference to the federal authorization of electricity exports from the Burrard station. First of all, the matter has been reviewed not only by the National Energy Board, but also by the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Environmental Appeal Board of the Province of British Columbia. Each of these agencies, on the basis of evidence studied, has found in favour of permitting B.C. Hydro to operate the Burrard plant.
The waste management permit issued to B.C. Hydro for the operation of the facility restricts pollutant emissions to levels that meet or exceed federal guidelines for emissions from new thermal power generation sources, and B.C. Hydro is committed to reducing its NOx emissions from the plant by an additional 20 per cent.
B.C. Hydro must provide meteorological forecast information to the GVRD for the purpose of assessing air quality conditions whenever the power plant is operated.
The permit furthermore requires B.C. Hydro to advise the district director of the GVRD five days in advance of any planned operation of stations, and gives the director of that agency the authority to curtail operation of the Burrard station when air quality levels of ozone or nitrogen dioxide reach or are predicted to reach specified levels. The specified levels have been set to prevent air quality from reaching the maximum in tolerable levels established by the federal Government for the protection of public health.
Based on these factors, the Government and the Minister are confident that the Burrard Generating Station can be operated without causing air quality in the lower mainland of British Columbia to deteriorate to an unacceptable level.
Furthermore, the waste management permit is up for renewal in December of this year. If circumstances change, and the waste management permit is rescinded or not reissued, the issue will be re-examined at that time and I am sure that the Member for Fraser Valley East will be speaking to the issue at that time.
TRADE-TAX ON LUMBER EXPORTS/IMPORTS OF UNITEDSTATES LUMBER


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my application to be heard on the adjournment motion arises out
of a question which 1 directed to the then Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). It concerns the softwood lumber export tax that was imposed at the behest of the American lobby.
The reason I was dissatisfied with the answer was essentially that the Minister, while providing some information of a more or less relevant type, did not address the gravamen of my question. If I can quote, I asked: "What will the Minister do to attempt to ensure that the tax is not costing Canadian lumber producers Canadian markets?"
This is the major concern in the imposition of the softwood lumber export tax. It would not only reduce Canadian exports to the United States, but by the drastic changes that it involved in the cost of volume equations, it would lead to a much improved ability of American producers to compete in the Canadian market. That prognostication appears to have indeed come true.
I have some recent press reports which I think would be worth citing in terms of that projection. The June 4, 1988 edition of The Globe and Mail records that the President of the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, Mr. Apsey, is still calling for Canada to get out of this clause in the softwood lumber tax agreement.
The 15 per cent tax which was imposed on Canadian exports has allowed American producers, now that they have much more secure access to their home market, to increase their production, to drop their marginal cost, and therefore be able to sell into the Canadian market. The lumber tax is not just costing Canadian exports to the United States, but also Canadian shipments to the domestic market.
If I can quote another article on August 27, 1988, also in The Globe and Mail, about a company, Green Forest Lumber Corporation:
One or Canada's leading lumber wholesalers has turned to U.S. wood, U.S.
trains and U.S. dollars to help it stay profitable in difficult economic times.
It goes on to talk about what this company is doing, obviously in response to market forces and the desire, indeed the need, to make a profit, which is taking lumber that it buys in the United States, shipping it across the United States, west to east, and then selling it into the southern Ontario market, which of course is the largest market for construction weights of lumber in the country.
There are a number of other press reports that I can quote of mills shut down because of the 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. We then have the 15 per cent export tax on our softwood lumber exports to the United States.
It appears that we do not have the mechanisms to force the United States to bring, for example, the plywood standards dispute, which is another related and very serious issue, to the Dispute Resolution Tribunal. Under American law they can seek redress before the Federal Trade Commission against the application of that standard which they feel to be discriminatory-
September 22, 1988

The second supplementary question the Minister answered by stating that Canada was selling record amounts of lumber to the domestic market. That is certainly something we would want to look very closely at if we were to accept that statement. The second question was: "What is the Government prepared to do to ensure that we have our share of the Canadian market?"
1 would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is replying for the Government, what discussions in fact the Government has had with the United States Government regarding this problem of the export tax not only cutting Canadian exports to the United States but, in essence, making the reverse advantage also possible; that is, giving American producers a competitive advantage in selling to Canada.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works): Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period on November 17 last, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) directed a question to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) concerning the export charge on softwood lumber products and alleged increases in imports of U.S. lumber into Canada. In addition, on June 20, the Hon. Member directed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) concerning a legal action brought against the federal Crown by a group of lumber manufacturing companies, most of which are located in British Columbia. 1 am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's request for comments on these matters.
The Hon. Member made the allegation in the preamble to his question of November 17 that the sale into Canada of U.S. lumber was de facto dumping and was obviously contrary to the spirit of the free trade agreement. There appears to be considerable confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman since the case he cites seems to contradict both these statements.
In order for U.S. lumber to be dumped in the Canadian market, it must, by definition, be sold at a price which is lower than the price at which it is offered in the United States market, or sold at less than the cost of production. This is not the claim being made either by the Hon. Member or by the industry spokesmen to whom he referred.
In fact, the Hon. Member stated that the U.S. producers have been able to offer their lumber at competitive prices due to a reduction in their unit costs of production. All of us here would agree that if a company were able to lower its cost of production, it should be allowed to benefit from this achievement in the international market-place without undue restriction.
Adjournment Debate
Canadians have always been able to purchase U.S. lumber on the open market and there have always been imports of U.S. lumber into Canada. These have been traditionally much smaller than the Canadian exports of lumber to the United States, but imports from the U.S.A. are not uncommon. The fact that these took place after the imposition of the export charge on softwood lumber products does not imply in any way that the U.S. products were dumped, and certainly not that the spirit of the Canada-U.S. free trade deal was thwarted.
Canadian exports to the U.S.A. have declined slightly, but this has been more than offset by growth in both the Canadian and other export markets. I note particularly that the Japanese market has taken much more of our lumber than it has in past years. The growth in exports and the buoyant domestic market in Canada have resulted in an over-all increase in Canadian production of softwood lumber in 1987 over a year earlier. While the 1988 market is off somewhat, the current high levels of production point to another reasonable year for the industry.
In summary, no evidence has been presented that Canadian producers are losing a share of the Canadian market due to unfairly traded U.S. lumber. On the subject of the legal action brought against the Crown, it would not be appropriate for me to comment directly on the issues now before the courts.
1 would like to comment briefly, however, on the agreement which is the basis for the questions the Hon. Member has raised. It is worth recalling that Canada entered into the Memorandum of Understanding as a means to resolve a major trade dispute with the United States and to avoid the imposition by the U.S. of a countervailing duty on our softwood lumber exports. As a result, provinces have retained the flexibility they need to make changes in their forest management policies. Revenues which would have otherwise gone to the U.S. Treasury remain in Canada. In the first year the export tax was in place, this represented approximately $400 million. This has been distributed to the provinces.
Moreover, all lumber produced in B.C. is exempt from the export charge following implementation of replacement measures by that province, and the charge has been reduced from 15 per cent to 8 per cent for exports from Quebec, the second largest producing province, again on the basis of replacement measures. In fact, most of the softwood lumber exports are now exempt from the export charge.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, September 23, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers