1988-01-19

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I rise to table in the House in both official languages the agreement between Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Arctic co-operation.
* *
*


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and 1 think you would find that the House would be disposed to allow a Bill on notice standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) dated January 18, 1988, to be called for introduction. I think you would find that there would be a disposition to allow that Bill to be called for debate later this day and also a disposition to have committee stage of the Bill taken in Committee of the Whole immediately following second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STRIKING-FORTY-SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Forty-seventh Report of the Striking Committee.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, entitled: High-level Radioactive Waste in Canada: The Eleventh Hour.

Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
In this report, Mr. Speaker, your committee has tackled the thorny issue of the safe storage and disposal of highly radio active nuclear waste. If one thing is certain about nuclear energy, whatever its future, we must find methods to dispose of


PRINCE RUPERT GRAIN HANDLING OPERATIONS ACT
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the port of Prince Rupert, British Colombia.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? Later today, with unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petitions


STRIKING
[Stage Direction]
January 19, 1988

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Official Opposition Whip, that the Forty-seventh Report of the Striking Committee tabled earlier today be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the Hon. Member. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*
(1110)


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to present on behalf of a number of Canadians a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106.
These petitioners feel that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, as they call it. Because the Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States these petitioners are asking Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is actually signed.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadian citizens mostly from Edmonton concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They point out that it will deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, in accordance with the Standing Orders, to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada; from Oshawa, Toronto, Richmond and other places, pointing out that this Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that such an agreement would deny to Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. It would undermine our ability to build a distinct society, distinct from
that of the U.S., and not only fails to secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective, but it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of Canadians concerned about the trade deal that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan have initiated, chiefly because of its threat to Canadian sovereignty, and because there was no mandate given to the Government to negotiate the deal, and it will ultimately reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canadians need.
The petitioners, therefore, request that this debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is signed.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and the privilege of presenting a petition signed by the residents of Warren, Ontario, Hanmer, Ontario, Timmins, Ontario, Sudbury, Ontario, and Sarnia, Ontario.
These petitioners claim that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and, furthermore, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
Further, the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
As a result they therefore pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a list of petitions from a number of points in my riding calling on the Government to dissolve Parliament to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the City of Thunder Bay who protest that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had actually promised in
January 19, 1988

the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
Whereas the agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions, and since the agreement denies Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, it undermines our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States, the petitioners call upon this Parliament to dissolve and allow the Canadian people the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions in January of this year.
The people of Canada who have signed this petition indicate that they believe Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed trade deal. They believe the Government has no mandate to negotiate the trade arrangement with the United States and they believe that it would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canadians need. They also believe that the deal would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industry base.
For these and other reasons they call upon the Government to have a national debate on this issue and they wish that we will have a national general election before this deal is consummated.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 in which the petitioners say that the Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, that the trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs we need.
For these reasons they ask the Flouse of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition that has been duly approved. It is in the proper form and it is signed by a number of constituents in the Toronto area.
These petitioners state that considering a Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence, and considering that such an agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions, they the undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and
Order Paper Questions
that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from citizens of Canada concerned about the trade deal.
The petitioners say that considering a Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on the economic, cultural and political independence of Canada and that it implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions of Canada, the undersigned request the Parliament of Canada to obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.

[ Translation]


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, question No. 202 will be answered today.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	What is the current annual cost of maintaining small craft harbours in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton?
2.	Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans allocate more funds to repair and maintain small craft harbours across Ontario and particularly in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and, if not, what plans does the government have to protect itself from potential legal actions that may be the result of continued use of unsafe facilities?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1. Since its inception in 1973, the Small Craft Harbours Program has expended $2,190,543 in the constituency of Victoria- Haliburton. The 15 year average, therefore, is $146,036.20.
2. In June of 1987, Cabinet approved the funding of the Harbour Revitalization Program whereby harbour infrastructure repairs or construction are ongoing throughout the country. This three-year program will permit us to catch up on the backlog of important work which was neglected in the past. At the termination of the Program, the Small Craft Harbours Branch budget will be established at $70 million annually, a 44 per cent increase, to ensure that harbour facilities are properly maintained in the future and that users are not faced with unsafe conditions.
Specifically, in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton, a $75,000 wharf repair project was announced for Sturgeon

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Point and a $80,000 wharf repair project was announced for Virginia Beach under the Harbour Revitalization Program.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the debate was interrupted yesterday the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had completed his speech. The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Hon. Members. If there are no questions and comments the Chair is prepared to recognize Hon. Members for debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 was interested in the speech made yesterday by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He talked about the sham involved in this Bill. The Government has been taking $1 billion a year out of regional programs and is now putting $200 million a year back in. The Government is calling it decentralization. Rather than decentralization would this not be better characterized by the word "abdication"? The Government is really abdicating its responsibility to look after the concept of regional development. It is shuffling this responsibility to an agency and underfunding the agency at the same time.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is absolutely correct in his suggestion that it is an abdication of the responsibility to eliminate regional disparities, particularly in Atlantic Canada, which is supposedly the purpose and principle of Bill C-103.
In fact, all Canadians recall that when the Conservative Government came to power it was on a kick of cutting the
deficit. As a result, it embarked on program cuts in Atlantic Canada. Since 1984 cut-backs have been in the amount of $1 billion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Cut-backs?


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. We all remember when the big kick was to cut the deficit. The deficit was the enemy and we were supposed to cut it. Atlantic Canada felt the heel of that jackboot and $1 billion was cut from the economy of Atlantic Canada by the federal Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unemployment is high there.


John R. Rodriguez: Of course unemployment is high. Those were the days when we kept reminding Canadians that Tory times were indeed tough times. The Atlantic is well aware of that.
Having cut $1 billion from federal spending in the Atlantic the Government is now blowing the trumpets and saying that it is giving $1.05 billion of new money.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's dishonest.


John R. Rodriguez: It is absolutely a sham. It is dishonest. It is the old shell game. This is not new money. The Government is in fact giving back to Atlantic Canada the $1.05 billion. In fact, it is even less than was cut from the economy of Atlantic Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you sure about those figures?


John R. Rodriguez: I am absolutely sure. I refer Hon. Members to the documentation on the specific areas which have been cut to which I referred in my speech yesterday.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, there is confusion and cynicism in Atlantic Canada about the intentions of the Government in this area. This agency was announced in October of 1986 and again in June, 1987. This legislation was put before the House on December 18 and we are at second reading stage today. Is it not appropriate under these circumstances for the legislative committee which will be considering this legislation to travel to the Atlantic region and hear submissions from Atlantic Canadians?
The Government says it has consulted. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said there were consultations going on, but not while the legislation is before the House and not on the basis of what the legislation contains. Would the Hon. Member care to comment on that?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for the question which allows me the opportunity to expand on that aspect. The program was announced in 1986, reannounced in 1987, and finally brought to the House in the form of legislation in 1988. There is a considerable amount of confusion as to the objectives and goals of this agency.
January 19, 1988

1 pointed out yesterday that the board which will be directing the activities of the agency is only there to assist the Minister. The Minister and the Deputy Minister are here in Ottawa. There is no decentralization. This is a continuation of the concept that everything that will happen in Atlantic Canada will be determined here in Ottawa. In fact, the Deputy Minister of this agency, Mr. McPhail, said that the agency will not be concerned with macroeconomic programs in Atlantic Canada. That is, in fact, contradicted by Mr. Deneen, who said that they are concerned about programs for Atlantic Canada in a regional perspective. Indeed that is what the Prime Minister said.
There is so much confusion with regard to the aims and objectives of this agency, the functions of the board, and the evaluation of the programs which may be approved for economic development in Atlantic Canada that I think it is an excellent suggestion that the legislative committee studying Bill C-103 go into the Atlantic region and listen to input from people who live in the region. Their suggestions for how this Bill can be improved and how their lives can ultimately be improved are extremely important. I agree that the legislative committee should travel throughout Atlantic Canada and get the input of people living there. That is very important to the success of any regional development program in any region of Canada, but particularly in the Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada and one who is excited about the agency and its creation, it is my pleasure to address some comments today to Bill C-103.
Bill C-103 establishes six basic operating principles of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; consultation, decisionmaking in the region, emphasis on small and medium enterprises, adapting regional development programs to regional needs, creating the environment for business and economic growth to flourish with flexibility.
Consultation is a key part of the Government's fresh approach to regional development. Since the formation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was announced on June 6 there has been extensive consultation in every area of Atlantic Canada with provincial governments, businessmen, and representatives of labour groups.
The consultation process means that the key regional development decisions will be made with the advice of true experts on regional problems and regional opportunities, the people who live and work in Atlantic Canada and care about Atlantic Canada. It is the small and medium enterprises which create the jobs in our economy and Atlantic Canada is no different. The agency will build on that job-creating ability of small and medium enterprises to create and sustain the economic growth Atlantic Canada needs. Through the extensive consultation process, the agency will be able to adapt broad federal regional development programs to best meet the needs of Atlantic Canada.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The agency marks the end of regional development policies and programs imposed from outside the region. An environment will be created in which business can grow and prosper. The agency will encourage an understanding throughout the region of the very important role of business to the economy, and create an atmosphere in which men and women of ideas can turn their ideas to the economic benefit of the region.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in order to prepare for the announcement of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, had asked Dr. Donald Savoie, an Atlantic Canadian, to do consultation work throughout Atlantic Canada. Mr. Savoie was the head of the Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development at the University of Moncton, and he has a broad extensive background not only in regional development but also dealing with Government. At one time I believe he served as special assistant to now Senator Romeo Leblanc. He was to meet with other Atlantic Canadians, businessmen, provincial governments, university officials, labour representatives to discuss how regional development could be more effective in Atlantic Canada.
As a result of that fresh look at regional development programs, we have the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Perhaps the most important result of this extensive consultation process has been the creation of a network of men and women throughout Atlantic Canada who know about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who know the ACOA staff and who know they can use ACOA to improve the region's economy. That is the sole purpose of ACOA. It is, this Parliament willing, the legislative purpose of the agency as set out in Clause 4, "to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and, more particularly, to enhance the growth of earned incomes and employment opportunities".
ACOA will help improve the region's economy by taking responsibility from existing regional development programs and adding new programs. The Prime Minister has promised to maintain the present level of funding for existing programs like the Atlantic Enterprise Program, Industrial Regional Development Program, Enterprise Cape Breton and the Economic Regional Development Agreements, about $196 million a year.
The Government is also committed to putting $1.05 billion in new money into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency over the next five years, which is roughly $200 million a year. This means ACOA will administer almost $400 million each year in regional development funds in Atlantic Canada for the next five years.
Just how that $400 million a year will be used is currently stated in Clause 4 and Clause 12 of Bill C-103, which outline the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and what it will do. Clause 4 states that "the purpose of the agency is to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
and, more particularly, to enhance the growth of earned incomes and employment opportunities".
Clause 12 adds to that, saying that the agency will place: ''particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises, through policy, program and project development and implementation and through advocacy of the interests of Atlantic Canada in national economic policy, program and project development and implementation".
The human meaning of that dry, legal language is that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will develop the most important resource of Atlantic Canada, the people of Atlantic Canada.
The commitment to the people of the region is the key part, the important part of the Government's fresh approach to regional development. Regional development must be based on local involvement, must be based on the local economy, must be developed mainly by local people who are those with the most intimate knowledge of what will work and with the greatest stake in making development work.
This is the first real regional economic development policy that will not be dependent upon ideas that are made and formulated in Ottawa. It will not be, once again, the flow of ideas from Ottawa because that is what Ottawa thinks is best for Atlantic Canada. This agency will utilize the innovative thinking, the entrepreneurial spirit and ideas of Atlantic Canadians who know best what the Atlantic Canada economy needs and what will work in Atlantic Canada.
This Bill gives Atlantic Canadians the tools to develop their economy in a way that no previous development Act has ever done. It throws out a challenge to Atlantic Canadians to show that they, with their enterprise and their initiative, can do the job.
We know Atlantic Canadians can create their own opportunities. As a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I can assure the House that we need and want the opportunity for economic growth. We want to use our entrepreneurial talents. This Bill gives us the financial resources and the leeway to utilize our entrepreneurial talents, to make it work in Atlantic Canada.
Let there be no doubt that there is entrepreneurial talent in Atlantic Canada. Between 1978 and 1985, Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs created 20,000 new enterprises, each with fewer than 100 employees, to give the region 70,000 small and medium sized enterprises.
This is not regional development imposed from Ottawa. It is regional development with roots in the region.
To ensure that the purpose of the Bill will be met and that the agency will help Atlantic Canada direct its own economic development and build on its human resources and its abundant natural resources on the land and in the sea, Senator Murray will be advised by a 19-member board of men and women from and of the region.
When examining the board, we must take into consideration the role which these 19 people have been assigned. The role of the board is to give policy advice. It will direct the staff to conduct studies and formulate policy options. It will review program proposals and innovative or unusual projects, and will recommend policies or decisions to the Minister. The Minister retains the executive power of decision-making but will be strongly guided by the recommendations of the board which consists of these 19 members from Atlantic Canada.
While most people have understood and welcomed the creation of this board, and the strong advocacy capacity, some have suggested that a decision-making board which would focus on projects and specific cases where it could make final decisions, would be more appropriate.
This argument misses the point. Of course, the group of people on the ACOA board could make good decisions on specific cases. They have the experience to do so, but if they had to examine even a partial share of the hundreds of cases that come before ACOA they would have to become full-time employees of ACOA. Even then, there would be no time for the vital job of guiding the broad policy developments of the agency.
Of course, the board will have all the information on the cases and project decisions of ACOA and will comment on these program delivery decisions as appropriate. Indeed, this kind of independent, objective review of program results will be a big contribution by the board to the operations of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities agency.
The agency will be an advocate for Atlantic Canada, defining and promoting the interests of Atlantic Canada at regional and national levels; promoting an Atlantic perspective and ensuring that Atlantic Canada gets fair and reasonable consideration, and a fair and reasonable share of the benefits from national policies and programs.
Following the Prime Minister's announcement about the establishment of the agency in St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 6, responsibility for economic and regional development agreements was transferred to Senator Murray and ACOA. Under this Bill, the strategy and management of the ERDAs is a responsibility of the agency.
Discussions are now being held on a new series of economic and regional development agreements with each of the four Atlantic provinces.
Clause 6(2) of the Bill says that the Minister for ACOA may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with the government of any province or provinces in Atlantic Canada respecting the carrying out of any programs or project of the agency.
Clause 13(h) gives the agency power to enter into contracts, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements in the name of the agency.
January 19, 1988

Clause 18 of the Bill deals with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board, made up of 19 people from Atlantic Canada, as I mentioned. Their main job is to assist the agency in the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties and functions. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have five members each on the board, and Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have four members each. Members are owners and operators of small and medium-sized enterprises, representatives of provincial governments, regional development commissions, and of labour.
1 have a list of the members of the agency. I want to mention some of the occupations which describe the broad range represented by the board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. One board member is an acting chairman of the cabinet secretariat from the Province of New Brunswick. Another is president of Canada East Tours, located in Bathurst. Another individual is the owner of Atlantic Mini-Fridge Company, located in Moncton. This person used to work for the old Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and saw some of the benefits government programs were offering to Atlantic Canada. He took the initiative, formed his own company, and has done extremely well. He has offered his expertise and experience to the advantage of all Atlantic Canadians, by serving on the board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The President of Assumption Mutual Life, located in Edmundston with headquarters in Moncton, is another member of the board. The regional librarian for the Saint John Regional Library is another member of the board as is a member of the Canadian Advisory Board from Marsh McLennan in Halifax.
Despite some of the criticisms we heard in the House yesterday, another member of the board is the international representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers located in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
Another is partner in MCS Ventures located in Halifax. There is the executive director of the Eastern Shore Development Commission in Halifax County. There is the President of Stewart Restaurant in New Glasgow. Prince Edward Island is represented by a director from the Atlantic Ventures Trust in Charlottetown. There is the president and general manager of M.F. Schurman Limited in Summerside. It is represented by a well known lawyer from Prince Edward Island, and from the Government side, the secretary to the policy board of the Government of Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland is also well represented with the manager of the National Life of Canada located in St. John's, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the president of General Industries Limited and the president of North Limited, which is located in Goose Bay, Labrador. These people have offered to share their talent and expertise to help Atlantic Canadians take full use of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Since that board was appointed on August 31, a great deal of activity has taken place with respect to Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The agency spends a great deal of time addressing itself to Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. That is a topic I will leave to a representative from Cape Breton. I am sure they will be able to give a first-hand impression of what Bill C-103 will do with respect to the Cape Breton Enterprise Corporation and what it offers to the people of Cape Breton.
I have outlined briefly what this Bill will do for Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians once it is passed by Parliament. Since June 6 when the Prime Minister announced the formation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency there have been consultation meetings held all across Atlantic Canada. A head office has been established in Moncton and certainly as the Member of Parliament for Moncton, I can tell Members that it is a pleasing thought to us to have in Moncton a headquarters of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which, in essence, is really a national agency.
We welcome the people who will be employed in that agency. We are sure they will find Moncton an excellent place to work, to live and to bring up a family, and possibly, after successful years with the agency, an excellent place to retire.
Offices have been set up in every provincial capital. Staff has been hired and work has been done on a policy framework for the agency which has resulted in the Bill before us here today.
ACOA has been administering and delivering existing regional development programs since it was created. It has cut red tape and streamlined the delivery process to get funds to those who need them in the shortest time possible. Over 90 per cent of the applications under AEP, IRDP and ECB can now be directly approved by the regional vice-president. This has made the approval process much simpler and faster.
In the six-and-a-half months since the agency was established, it has approved 451 applications and authorized $68 million in contributions to the Atlantic Enterprises Program. These approvals have meant that business has been able to create 1,704 new jobs and has enabled these businesses to retain 2,648 additional jobs. We are now asking Parliament to give us the authority to do the full and complete job we must do to bring Atlantic Canada into full partnership with Canada's economic life.
This Bill creates an agency which will allow Atlantic Canadians to make decisions about their economic future. This Bill creates an agency which Atlantic Canada can use as an instrument to mold so that Atlantic Canadians can seize the opportunities of the future. It does not repeat the mistakes of the past. It does not expect Atlantic Canadians to adapt to programs best suited for central or western Canada. In fact, this Bill gives Atlantic Canadians, through the agency, the

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
tools needed to adapt national programs to meet the specific needs of the region.
The agency takes into account the dramatically different economy, industrial base, environment and cultures of the Atlantic Canada region in a way that is fresh and exciting. We have targeted, in particular, small and medium sized enterprises, those locally owned and locally managed, as the best way to improve economic performance in Atlantic Canada. Smaller enterprises have a proven record of creating new permanent jobs. The job of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is to encourage local growth. We know this can best be done by increasing the number of small and medium sized enterprises operating and flourishing in Atlantic Canada.
ACOA will develop the abundant talent and ability of Atlantic Canadians. This is a new partnership for Atlantic Canada of private and public sectors, a development partnership with improved and faster decision-making authority. It is an agency completely supported by all members of our caucus from Atlantic Canada, not for narrow partisan reasons but because this agency, this approach, is the best for Atlantic Canada. It is an approach not of desperation but of concern for the region and optimism about the region's future.
It has been my privilege to assist my colleagues in caucus, as well as Members of the Cabinet, Senator Murray and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) in this House and outside this House. This is an important Bill. It is important for the future of Atlantic Canada and for the future of Canada. I know we can move quickly on this Bill. I know Members all agree that we should and must move quickly to ensure Bill C-103 receives the full support of Parliament and the Senate so it can be put to work fully and extensively to bring benefits to Atlantic Canadians.


Mr. Howie:: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, Mr, DesBrisay, has been mentioned in the media as having suggested that the board, just mentioned by the Hon. Member in his address, should be a decision-making board with authority over the agency. I wonder if the Member would share with us his thoughts on this proposition and the reaction of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce to the decision of the agency not to accept that proposition?


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to respond to the question of my colleague. There has been ongoing debate in Atlantic Canada about the agency. It has been basically premature debate because the agency is only six-and-a-half months old. We are now looking for legislative authority to put the agency into operation. One of the critics has been Mr. Rick DesBrisay, who is the president of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce. I happen to know Mr. DesBrisay and probably know from where he is coming when he speaks.
I might add that a number of other members of the Chamber of Commerce, particularly in the greater Moncton Area
and throughout Atlantic Canada, have expressed a concern to me that perhaps this president is not speaking on behalf of all their member agencies. Perhaps he has an axe to grind. 1 think anyone from New Brunswick knows his background politically and the involvement of his father in the previous Liberal Government from 1960 to 1970. More importantly, I think, those of us in Atlantic Canada who were involved at the beginning of this agency realize that he felt he was the best person in Atlantic Canada, believe it or not, to be the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He came to see me. He lobbied fully with bureaucrats in Ottawa and with other Members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada so that he could receive the appointment as president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Knowing that, I have a very difficult time looking with any seriousness at the comments coming from this individual, supposedly on behalf of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce. He does not necessarily represent each individual Chamber of Commerce. We know where he is coming from politically. I think we know he feels a sense of rejection. He felt he had the best ideas for that agency and because we did not accept him and because Don McPhail, a previous ambassador, was chosen to be the president designate, he feels the agency is out of touch and out of tune and, basically, out of touch and out of tune with his thinking, his point of view, his background, and his own personal objectives.
I am pleased to have a chance to tell everyone that perhaps some of the criticism is coming forward for a reason not strictly in the best interest of Atlantic Canada. The application that was submitted by the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce was rejected. I think the board would be receptive to seeing a new application. However, the basic reason for that rejection was that the money was going to be used to assist volunteers in a program, and by its very legislative mandate the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is designed to put people to work, to earn money, to make a living and, hopefully, to pay taxes. It was not meant to promote a volunteer program.
If the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce wishes to rework that application, I am led to believe it will be given consideration by the board. Certainly, in rejection of the application there was no element of blacklisting of that Chamber of Commerce. At the same time, I think people must read and note the comments of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, particularly through its spokesman, Mr. DesBrisay, keeping in mind his background, his involvement and his interest in this agency and its creation.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. I hope that the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) was not leading the House to believe that because a person's father may have voted one way in the past that his son would vote the same way or act the same way politically. I would like to relate to him a recent experience in Newfoundland which took place
January 19, 1988

in July of last year. At that time a great number of people whose fathers did not vote for the New Democratic Party, and a great number of people whose mothers did not vote for the New Democratic Party, voted for the new Democratic Party. 1 do not know what goes on in New Brunswick. We will see what will happen in the next federal election. At that time there may be a great number of people who will not vote the way their mothers or fathers voted.
I now wish to ask the Hon. Member a question. Does he agree with the Minister of Public works, (Mr. Mclnnes) who said in March of this year that this is the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada? Is this the last shot? Will we throw up our hands if this does not work? Does the Hon. Member agree with that approach? If he does, does he think $200 million a year for five years is sufficient to look after regional development in terms of the regional inequities and the regional disparities that exist in Atlantic Canada?


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I was not casting any aspersions on Mr. Des-Brisay's ability to look at good legislation and good programs of the Government and therefore have the possibility of changing his ways of the past. I was more or less drawing attention to the fact that the background is somewhat relevant when looking at the criticisms that are coming forward.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's question with regard to the last kick at the can in Atlantic Canada. I do not believe that. This is one program that is specifically designed for Atlantic Canadians. I think that it is our best kick at the can. I wish to assure the Hon. Member that after a five year period, if we find that this program does not work, the Government will look at other solutions, as it has done in the past. We will not just go to a group of bureaucrats in Ottawa and ask what is best for Atlantic Canada. We will continue to consult with Atlantic Canadians.
It is our best kick at the can. It is the best opportunity we have seen for a Government program to help Atlantic Canadians. I can assure the Hon. Member that it will be successful. It has all the elements of being a successful program, not only because of the $200 million that the Hon. Member and I have mentioned, but also because of the $196 million a year that it will administer through AEP, the ERDAs and the IRDP. The $400 million for each of the next five years gives us a chance to put Bill C-103 to work for Atlantic Canadians by Atlantic Canadians. It really represents the best effort that has ever come out of this House with regard to helping the people of Atlantic Canada help themselves.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the people of Moncton are happy that the head office of this agency will be located in their city. I want to ask the Hon. Member how many of the people who will be employed in the head office of this agency will come from the hundreds who were laid off when the CNR shops were closed? Does the Hon. Member have any information as to how many of those have already
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
found employment or what are the prospects for those who worked for the railway for so many years?


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the Hon. Member's question. One of the reasons it was decided to locate the headquarters of the agency in Moncton was that Moncton was going through some difficult times. I can say that as a Member of Parliament from Moncton I have been going through some difficult times, along with my constituents.
There are approximately 300 jobs across the system associated with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I am led to believe that in the area of one-third of those will eventually find their way into the regional headquarters in Moncton. A number of the DRIE support staff have been seconded to work for the agency. As well, some new people have been employed. We are certainly pleased to have the 100 or so highly paid bureaucratic jobs located in Moncton.
As to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, hopefully, some people from CN might find their way into this agency. However, the reality is such that this agency performs basically a bureaucratic function, whereas most of the people at CN were involved in industrial activity.
Of the 1,020 people who were affected by the shut-down only 130, in the end, will find themselves without employment security which will guarantee a job until the age of 65, a transfer elsewhere in Moncton, or a transfer elsewhere in Canada, primarily to Montreal or to the city to which the Hon. Member represents. The 130 people received up to 80 per cent of their salaries and benefits for a period of time that related to the number of years that they worked for the company. Of the 1,030 only 130 are left seeking long term employment activity.
I can assure the Hon. Member that this agency will give some of the enterprises in Atlantic Canada an opportunity to expand and, hopefully, to employ some of these people. My job will be to ensure that is does that. My job will be to ensure that the business community in my area will be able to attract some of this $400 million per year into Moncton to find employment opportunities for these people. That is an objective of mine, and, I am sure it is one which the Hon. Member shares. I am sure that all Members of this House who will be supporting Bill C-103 also share that objective.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am happy to be able to participate in this debate. The comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane), about those who dare to criticize the formulation and, indeed, the implementation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was a character assassination which I do not believe is becoming of that Member.
Regional development has been on the minds of many Canadians, particularly those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada, for quite some time. Suffice it to say that for me as a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada I believe it to be

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
the most pressing issue that Governments, both national and provincial, must consult, address and, hopefully, solve.
The fight to lessen regional disparities did not begin in September of 1984. Policies of the past were put forward with the same hope and desire to lessen those disparities before September of 1984. Unfortunately, many of those programs were not as successful as one would have hoped.
However, it is worth noting the effect, as was indicated by the so-called expert in the person of Dr. Donald Savoie, who submitted a report to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in May of 1987, that some of the previous policies have had on lessening regional disparities, particularly those in Atlantic Canada. I do not subscribe, nor do Members of my Party subscribe, to the statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister responsible in this House for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, when he said that all programs of previous Governments were bad, did not address the issues and were not successful.
1 remind the Minister and, indeed, all Members opposite, of what Mr. Savoie said in the introduction of his report that he gave to the Prime Minister. He stated that, "If we have learned anything about the problem of regional development during the past 30 years in Canada, it is surely that there are no panaceas." That must be the same for this particular agency in that it, too, is no panacea.
It is also worthwhile to note that on pages six, seven and eight of this report to the Prime Minister he writes about regional equity in public services. He states:
Federal transfers to the provinces and to individuals in Atlantic Canada over the years have had an important impact on the economic structure of the region. Unfortunately, this fact has been too often overlooked. By concentrating on standard economic indicators of employment and per capita income, we have never focused sufficiently on the important progress that has been made in the region in recent years.
Those are the words of Dr. Donald Savoie set out in his report to the Prime Minister in May of 1987.
The report further states:
Federal transfers to provincial governments and to individuals have enabled the Atlantic provinces to close the gap with the other regions on a number of fronts. By 1979-80, the total fiscal capacity of the Atlantic provinces fell within a relatively narrow range, 85-99 per cent of the national average. This brought the Atlantic provinces much closer to the national average of provincial expenditures per capita in 1979 than they were in 1962. Federal finance officials report still more progress in recent years with all four Atlantic provinces now close to 95 per cent of the national average (after all federal transfers).
Increased provincial expenditures can indicate improved public services, as has been the case in Atlantic Canada.
He goes on to quote and itemize some of those.
On page 7 of the report it states:
Federal transfer payments have not only increased the capacity of provincial governments to provide services to their residents but have also enabled individual Canadians in lhavc-not' regions to acquire basic household
necessities. Regional disparities in this respect, extremely wide twenty years
ago, are now virtually non-existent.
Dr. Savoie gives the example that Newfoundland moved from 38.3 per cent in 1961 to 97.1 per cent of the national average in 1981 for the indicator "households with refrigerators", and the report goes on and on.
The policies of the past, although they have not met our expectations, hopes, or desires, in a way have tried to alleviate some of those problems. I wish to put that on the record in order that all Members will be cognizant of what has taken place, and indeed of the words of Dr. Donald Savoie, the expert, as indicated by Members opposite.
This debate in the Conservative Party has raged on from 1982, through 1983 and 1984 leading up to the federal election where the Conservatives won with an overwhelming majority, and 1 believe the largest majority in Atlantic Canada for quite some time. That majority was predicated on the fact that they and they alone had the answers, or many of the answers with regard to the lessening of regional disparity in Atlantic Canada.
That was prior to September of 1984. Many Members on this side of the House, and many residents of Atlantic Canada, automatically assumed that the Government of the day, knowing full well the difficulties and the problems of that particular region, would have a program or a series of programs which could address the fundamental problems in the Atlantic economy.
From September 4, 1984 we had to wait more than two years until October 1, 1986 for the Government to put some words on paper with regard to regional disparities. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, those were the words which were contained in the Throne Speech by the governing Party. That was October 1, 1986, and here we are in January, 1988 now dealing with a Bill which, if one goes by the words and sentiments expressed by the Minister of Transport responsible for Atlantic Canada opportunities, will be our panacea. It has been almost four full years before the problem of regional disparities in Atlantic Canada are addressed in a substantive manner.
I suggest to you, Sir, that perhaps the critics of this agency may have a point in that we are on the route or the path to a general election only months ahead, and that this is mere window dressing on which to run the next federal election.
The critics, as commented by the Hon. Member for Moncton whom I believe was rather unfair in his assessment of the criticism coming from that particular organization in Atlantic Canada, are real, because our expectations, our hopes and dreams of lessening disparity have been fueled by a governing Party which has repeatedly stated that it would have the answers and the programs to address those most serious situations.
The time lag is one major problem. But let us look at the moneys that the Government of Canada is committing to
January 19, 1988

regional economic development in Atlantic Canada. Much has been said of the billion dollars. In fact, the Prime Minister has gone on record to talk about new money to the tune of $1 billion. Canadians, and particularly Atlantic Canadians, ought to be reminded that since 1984 the Government has reduced the financial wherewithal in terms of regional disparities by approximately $1 billion annually for a deficit or a reduction in regional development expenditures of $3 billion. The Government has now stated that in place of that it will allot $200 million annually, adding up over five years to $1 billion. That is another example of the lack of sincerity and lack of political will of the governing Party and its huge majority.
One would have to conclude the ineffectiveness of the whopping majority of Conservative Members from Atlantic Canada, and in particular the Cabinet representations, in what we are receiving in Atlantic Canada in view of those obvious, startling revelations in terms of the reduction of moneys allocated toward regional disparities.
Much has been said about the ERDA program. The Minister of Transport responsible did not argue or debate. This program will terminate in June, 1988. That is one program gone. The Minister of Transport does not say that even though that ERDA program had substantial shortcomings, some moneys, not a great deal, have gone into Atlantic Canada. That will no longer be the case.
In fact, at page 14 of his report to the Prime Minister, Dr. Donald Savoie stated that the total expenditure from 1984 to 1985 in Nova Scotia amounted to roughly 3.7 per cent of the total budget, while during that timeframe in the Province of Ontario roughly 41.8 per cent of the moneys under the ERDA program were spent there. We got a teensy-weensy, little bit of money, but then again that program will be gone in June, 1988. There is no new money to replace that particular program.
It is, what my colleague from Newfoundland has said, less money being spent on regional economic development in an attempt to massage the media into believing that somehow by the introduction of ACOA, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, and all the other programs with ail the different names- by massaging them together somehow the people of Atlantic Canada will be tricked into believing that the new Messiah is on the horizon, when it has taken four years for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues from Atlantic Canada to put this legislation before the House of Commons. I
I say to you, Mr. Speaker that that is not negligence by the Government of Canada, that is not negligence by the Prime Minister or the Atlantic Ministers in that Cabinet, it is gross negligence that they would treat a region of this country with such disrespect by making it wait for almost four years before introducing legislation to address the seriousness of regional disparities, and thereafter substantially reducing the moneys being allocated to reduce regional disparities in our region. What an insult. What is even more insulting is that those Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada who sit on the
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
government benches say nothing of the disrespect that this Government has shown to our region.
Many questions have to be asked at the committee stage, in the House, and perhaps during third reading. We would like to know the remuneration that the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will receive. We want to know the annual budget that this will have both for operating and capital purposes. However, yesterday we heard very clearly from the Minister of Transport that there will be no money set aside for the purposes of infrastructure moneys, none whatsoever.
We will want to hear from Canadians in that region about the concept of an 18-member board. Is it merely to enhance the economic viability of 18 Tories in Atlantic Canada? Is that the purpose of it? It has had four meetings since its inception. We will want to know about it from the Minister and indeed from Canadians living in Atlantic Canada.
We also want more information and more answers with regard to Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation in terms of its budget, both on a yearly basis and for the next five years. We want to know the rationale for having the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also sitting as the president of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
I have been told-and I hope that I am wrong and that Hon. Members opposite will set the record straight-that the president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will reside in Halifax. However, its head office will be in Moncton, and the head office of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation will be in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Residency of the president is not the most important aspect of the debate, but it has bearing on the programs and the sensitivity which one accumulates over a period of time by residing in a particular community. We want to know the rationale for that.
There is a clear demarcation between the previous Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The president will not reside in Cape Breton. Presumably he will reside in Moncton if in fact the headquarters are to be there.
We want to know why the Government of Canada has fixed the sum of $100 million on loan guarantees which Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is allowed to make. Why has it fixed them at $100 million? Is that not an impediment with regard to the flexibility of that particular corporation in terms of its dealing with future businesses as well as with the public and private sectors?
It was interesting to hear the comments of the Minister of Transport yesterday in the House of Commons. I think he devoted the sum of one paragraph to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. In his last sentence he said:

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
DEVCO will retain a clear commercial mandate to continue the coalmining
operations of DEVCO.
Let it be said that the Government has made a complete and utter mess of the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It has gutted the coal division, starting with the statements made by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) when she said, on one of her many junkets across the country, particularly in western Canada, that they did not want the Cape Breton Development Corporation exporting any of its product on the international market.
Talk about disparities, Mr. Speaker. I know the Government will talk about the investment tax credit which we put in place, by the way, and about certain economic activities taking place on the Island itself. Everyone including myself wants to see more of that taking place in terms of real economic dollars, but the Government does not talk about the 604 employees who were gutted from the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It does not talk about the way in which that corporation deals with compensation of miners who work underground, sometimes going down seven miles underneath the ocean floor. The Minister of Transport has made no reference to that. The Government does not talk about the preretirement need to fix a certain sum of money to ensure that individuals who may take an early retirement will not be at the poverty level for one year or for the rest of their lives because if they accumulate any outside income it must be calculated in the figure in terms of the income they receive from the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
We have not heard from the Minister responsible with regard to research and development expenditures at the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I have said to coalminers, to their executives, to their families, and to the loved ones of people who have lost their husbands in the coalmines that we in Cape Breton cannot continue to develop a coal industry by merely extracting from the ground, or beneath the ocean floor, quantities of coal to be shipped to the surfaces and burnt in power plants. Moneys must be received for research and development in terms of products which come from coal, whether it be a carbo-gel, or a form of oil and coal to be used in a variety of purposes which is environmentally safe. The Government has done little if anything to assist or to enhance that aspect of the Cape Breton coal division.
In terms of the price of coal, the Government of Canada has directed DEVCO to reduce its price to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. It is funding the private sector to usurp the role which Cape Breton has been playing for a good number of years in the mining of coal and providing it to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation.
Those are a few of my concerns, not all of them, with regard to the legislation, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. They are substantial, but in summary 1 should like to reiterate two points. It has taken the Government four years to introduce legislation to address what it knew in 1983 and said in 1984 was a serious problem. Second, to reduce the budget and the
expenditures to the tune of $200 million to replace a $1 billion assessment by previous Governments is not only an injustice but an insult to the people of Atlantic Canada. It is totally wrong for the Government of Canada to pursue that course of action.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Dingwall). I would like to ask him whether the following is a misrepresentation of his views.
I quote from the October 1986 edition of The Chronicle Herald of Halifax wherein the Hon. Member is quoted as admitting that his own Party lost the political will to stimulate economic growth in the region in the last years of the Trudeau Government. I wonder whether the Hon. Member was misquoted in that context.
Would he also tell us what reaction he had when the former Prime Minister, the now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), dropped the Minister responsible for regional expansion or regional development from Cabinet? What was his reaction to that? Has the position of his Party changed since then?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for his question. He reiterated a quote which he found in The Chronicle Herald. I do not know whether it was absolutely accurate, but I think the sentiment I expressed was well described in the article to which he referred.
1 take the Hon. Member back-and I am sure he has done his research thoroughly and effectively-to a debate in the House of Commons in 1982 when the Government of the day, my Party, brought forward amendments to change DREE to DRIE. At that time many Members on all sides of the House expressed grave reservations. I was one of those Members who believed that that change was wrong and said so on the floor of the House of Commons. I indicated to Hon. Members opposite that it ought to be changed if I was proven right, and I think I have been proven right.
I think the Hon. Member will attest to the fact that those policies which were put in place did not fundamentally address the concerns of Atlantic Canada. Equally so, the plan which is now being put into effect, some four years or five years after the Conservatives have come to power, is no panacea for righting the wrongs in terms of regional disparity. I do not have a monopoly, nor does the Government and certainly not the New Democratic Party, on all the answers and all the panaceas for regional disparity. That is my response to the first question the Hon. Member asked.
The Hon. Member mentioned the dropping of a regional Minister of DRIE at the time. The Hon. Member will recall, as I am sure his research has found, that there was a cabinet committee set up specifically to deal with regional economic
January 19, 1988

disparities. One of the problems the Hon. Member will find about this particular agency, as we found in 1982, 1983 and 1984, is that this agency will become the sole economic tool for development in Atlantic Canada. There will not be the cooperation of the Department of Transport or the Secretary of State for expenditures. The government Departments will say, "You have a budget of $200 million; you want us to construct an airport or a wharf in St. John's East, so go to that pool of money under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, that is where it is at".
That is one of the underlying shortcomings and deficiencies of this program. 1 say this to the Hon. Member, who I believe, and I say this with great sincerity, shares my view or at least has expressed similar sentiments, that regional disparity cannot be fought on the back of one small agency of the Government of Canada. It must receive the attention of the Prime Minister. There must be a national commitment to rectifying those disparities within the region. That cannot and will not be done, as evidenced before by other Governments which tried, by deluding ourselves into thinking that one agency with 300 people, a budget of $200 million less $800 million from previous Governments, will address in any fundamental way the disparities in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of honesty, fairness and facts, since the Hon. Member mentioned four years as it related to the present Government, would he not agree that four years ago there was a Liberal administration of which he was a part?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member has brought to my attention his ability, his astuteness and his awareness, and he wishes to show the House that he has a major in mathematics since he can count better than I in terms of months. What the Hon. Member may have missed in some of my statements is that it was his Party that led in part a debate on regional economic disparities, particularly relating to Atlantic Canada, some four years ago in the House of Commons when the Right Hon. Prime Minister was the Leader of the Official Opposition. I say to the Hon. Member that in part, he is correct and in part, I am correct.


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) spoke of regional disparity in Atlantic Canada and the almost four years it seemed to take before the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was implemented as though to imply that during this period of time, the Government had been standing still. I would like to bring to his attention that since 1984 there has been a total of 35,000 jobs created in my own Province of New Brunswick. In comparison, there was a net loss of 1,000 jobs in the period between 1980 and 1984.
The unemployment rate has fallen by almost 3.5 percentage points during that same period of time. Total unemployment rose by 19,000 during the term of the last Liberal Government. In contrast, unemployment in New Brunswick has fallen by
7,000	since September, 1984.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Given these figures, one would ask if we really need this program. Well, indeed we do, without a doubt. In New Brunswick, there is still an unemployment rate of some 12.7 per cent, and I daresay that is reflected across Atlantic Canada.
It has been said that there are no political yards to be gained by trying to do something in the Maritimes because they are so fiercely partisan that they can agree on nothing. Perhaps the Hon. Member would be so kind as to prove this wrong and to tell the House what is the one single most important achievement of this Bill.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on the final point, one of the Bill's objectives is that it will attempt to use money, time and effort for entrepreneurial development. I believe that that is an important and positive feature of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, something to which I have subscribed for quite some time. That is on the positive side.
The Hon. Member believes that the Government has been doing something for the last four years. The Hon. Member is quite right, but he refuses to acknowledge that conditions within the international economy and particularly the North American economy have improved dramatically. In large part, that has not been because of the Government of Canada but because of world international conditions.
Perhaps the Hon. Member has had some difficulties understanding and accepting this, but this is a Government that has done a lot about regional disparities in Canada between 1984 and January of 1988. It has done a great deal. It has slashed expenditures for regional economic development. It has raised taxes to an almighty God high, the highest we have ever seen in this country. That is what it has done for regional disparities in Atlantic Canada.
Of course, the Government has cut substantially the number of public servants across Canada, something which affects the Atlantic region more than any other region in Canada. For the Hon. Member's own edification, I give him the example of the cancellation of the decentralization program which was set to help the constituency of my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys. That is a clear example of what the Conservative Government did for regional economic development.
We agree that the Tories have done a great deal for regional economic development. They cut the budget, they waited for four years to introduce new legislation and they reduced their commitment to the people of Atlantic Canada to a mere blinking of the eye.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the run up to the election of 1984, the Conservative Party made hundreds of promises. It promised that it would continue existing programs and that it would bring forth new programs. Those are promises that to a large extent have been ignored since the Conservatives won the election.

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The promises have been ignored because the major objective of this Conservative Government has been its insistence that before anything can be done to help the people of Canada and the many regions of Canada which need assistance the deficit which it says is unnecessarily high must be reduced.
When looking at this Bill, an Act to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we must keep in mind that since its election in 1984 this Conservative Government has reduced funding for federal Government programs in Atlantic Canada by $1.5 billion annually. Now it proposes, if and when this Bill is passed, to give this new agency $1.5 billion, not $1.5 billion annually but $1.5 billion over a period of five years. That is just $200 million a year.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about Atlantic Canada before the election he promised that the Conservative Government would pump new money into Atlantic Canada. We see that instead of pumping new money into Atlantic Canada the Conservative Government has reduced very substantially the funding for Atlantic Canada.
The objective of this agency, as outlined by Senator Murray, is that it will concentrate its efforts almost entirely on the private sector helping individual companies get going. I wish that members on the government side would look at the experience in the United States, particularly in the have-not states, the southern states of the U.S.A. They have come to realize that low wages will not produce jobs, certainly not good jobs. They have come to realize that they cannot compete in a meaningful way, in a way that will help their people as long as the infrastructure which they provide is so poor compared to the western states, the northern states and the central states. States like Mississippi have the lowest per capita expenditure on education. Sewer and water systems are poor, electric power rates are high and roads and bridges are in poor shape. These have-not states cannot compete and they have begun to realize that.
The Canadian Government ignores that evidence from the United States and ignores the evidence we should have accumulated in Canada by now. Without providing the required basic infrastructure, physical and human, Atlantic Canada will not be able to improve and certainly will not be able to compete with more prosperous areas in Canada.
Under this Conservative Government the commitment to regional development and assistance to Atlantic Canada has declined substantially. I talked about the $1.5 billion reduction annually for Atlantic Canada. Let us put that in more precise terms. Explicit regional development expenditure in 1984-85 for all of Atlantic Canada was about $230 million. That is just 15 per cent of the unemployment insurance payments for the area. Expenditures under DRIE's industrial incentive programs have decreased in real terms from $9 a person in the 1969-74 period to $4 a person for the 1984-86 period. Expenditures under the GDA and ERDA programs has declined
from $16 a person for the period 1974-79 to $14 in 1984-86. Even the Conservative Government of Newfoundland has estimated that a minimum requirement for funding this agency so it could do its job properly would require an expenditure of $366 million a year instead of the $200 million which is being put forward by this Bill.
1 was struck by some of the remarks made yesterday by the Conservative Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). He said in part that this agency will build up the research capabilities of the area's universities to ensure that regional enterprise is fostered. We can build on the excellent universities in the area, he said. Then he compared the large scale unemployment in Atlantic Canada with the New England States which have a low rate of unemployment.
The Hon. Member from York-Sunbury and other Conservative Members should ask why there is that difference. First, the United States, under the Reagan administration, has been involved in a tremendous and major increase in expenditures for the production of armaments. Even the Conservative Government which is proposing to build nuclear submarines, tanks and ships could not visualize a similar rate of expansion for the building of armaments in this country.
There is another very good reason. The universities in the New England States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Boston University, and the University of Massachusetts have been very heavily involved in scientific research and development funded to a large extent by federal and state Governments. That research and development has led to the spin-off of a large number of new companies involved in high technology areas. We have nothing like that in Canada and we are not likely to get anything like that, given this Government's approach to research and development.
I remind Members of Parliament that before the 1984 election the present Prime Minister castigated the then Liberal Government because Canada's expenditure for scientific research and development was one of the lowest of any of the countries belonging to the OECD and Japan. While other countries were allocating 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of their Gross National Product to scientific research and development, Canada's rate of expenditures was just about 1.3 per cent, half of what other countries were doing.
The present Prime Minister quite properly castigated the then Liberal Government and promised that a Conservative Government would double the rate of expenditures to 2.5 per cent, but what is the record and the reality, Mr. Speaker? The reality is, as the Prime Minister had to admit at the recent Conference on Scientific Research and Technology, that this year, after over three years of Conservative Government, we are still devoting only 1.3 per cent of our Gross National Product to scientific research and development.
What happens as a result of that? Canada is the only major industrialized country with trade deficits in all of the major high technology groups including aerospace, data processing machines, drugs and electronic equipment. Canada is also
January 19, 1988

failing to educate sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers who might sustain the necessary economic transformation. If we do not have that transformation, we will have more unemployment, more people working at low wages because the resource-based industries on which we have always depended are facing increasing competition from Third World countries with much lower wage rates than we have, and our resources are, to a large extent, being rapidly depleted.
In an OECD survey of the number of scientists and engineers per 10,000 people in the labour force, Canada had just one-third as many as Japan, less than half of the number in the United States and just over half the number in West Germany. There are approximately 50,000 businesses in Canada that depend on technology and only 2.5 per cent of the total, about 1,250, are involved in any research and development. Contrast that with the United States where there are
15,000	firms spending $110 billion annually on research and development at a rate of three times ours as a percentage of domestic product.
At the recent conference on scientific research and technology the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be allocating another $250 million a year to the universities for scientific research and development. That sounds very good until you compare that announcement with the announcement made just about the same time that the private sector companies in the U.S.A. involved in the production of computer chips are, this year, investing the same amount of money, $250 million, into a new research facility located in one city in the United States, that of Austin, Texas. That is only a small illustration of how far behind we are falling.
When the former Liberal Government announced a cutback and limits on transfers to post-secondary education under the Established programs Financing program, the then Conservative Opposition voted against the proposal. What has the present Government done? In the Budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced in 1985 we saw a proposed further cumulative loss to the provinces of nearly $6 billion between 1986-87 and 1990-91 of which $1.6 billion represents losses to post-secondary education institutions across the country.
What does that mean for post-secondary institutions in Atlantic Canada? From 1986 to 1990 the universities will lose; Newfoundland, $37 million a year; Prince Edward Island, $8 million; Nova Scotia, $55 million; and New Brunswick, $45 million. That is almost $200 million right there. These reductions will severely compromise the ability of the universities to carry out the research and teaching they should be doing, particularly since these universities have already, over the years of Liberal Governments, had their funding reduced.
We see a similar situation with the granting councils. The Government recently attempted to hide its negligence in funding university research by announcing a matching grant
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
scheme. In February, 1986, the Minister of Finance announced that the Government would match private sector contributions to the three granting councils up to a maximum of 6 per cent annually.
Even the most optimistic projections on the dollar value of the matching grant schemes indicate that funding to the granting councils will be only marginally increased over the frozen base budget level. If you compare the matching grant scheme to the proposed five-year plans prepared by the granting councils themselves, there is a short-fall of hundreds of millions of dollars. The five-year plans that the granting councils developed were to meet the research goals and technology development strategies outlined by the federal Government, so the continued inadequate funding is inexcusable and tragically short-sighted. That means that the claims which the Member for York-Sunbury and other Conservative Members have made will simply will not materialize.
Let us look at the granting councils. In May of last year Dr. Bois, the President of the Medical Research Council, told the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare that the Medical Research Council had to implement a whole range of Draconian measures to cope with the current fiscal crisis. Among the measures that they adopted was that the approval rate of new operating grants from the February, 1987 competition was limited to approximately 25 per cent, even below the usual low approval rate of 30 per cent, and actual funding of the approved applications was delayed from July to October forcing disruptions in many planned research projects.
One of the areas in which new and important discoveries which will save hundreds and thousands of lives are being made is the field of medical research. Whole new industries are being established as a result of these discoveries. Just when that is happening all around the world the Conservative Government cuts back and freezes funding for the Medical Research Council.
Let us look at the National Research Council. Before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister he said that the National Research Council, which acts as Canada's main research laboratory, needed a funding increase of at least 20 per cent to bring its budget up to $400 million. That was four years ago. In May, 1987, the President of the National Research Council told the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology that the NRC budget had just reached $408 million. However, he also pointed out that in the preceding 12 months there had been $31 million worth of decreases at the NRC including a $4 million cut-back in science funding in British Columbia and $19 million in reductions to the NRC's regular programs.
At the same time as it is ignoring well-established and productive research at the NRC and University Granting Council the Government is plunging headlong into the vague area of space research, where there is no demonstrable track record, without the approval or agreement of any reputable scientific advisory committee.

January 19, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Let us look at some of the areas in which government research has been important, for example, the business of food production and utilization of agricultural products, which is the most important and largest industry in Canada and is very important to Atlantic Canada. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians are involved in producing, researching, processing, servicing, and other parts of the food industry. It should be obvious that research in this area is tremendously important. In 1970 Canada's agricultural expenditures were 3.7 per cent of the total federal expenditures. By 1978 they had dropped to 2.4 per cent and are now only 1.9 per cent of total federal expenditures. Of this, only 10.9 per cent was devoted to agricultural research. In fact, between 1985 and 1987 federal expenditures in science and technology activities in agriculture declined by over $14 million.
Let us look at forestry, another area important to Atlantic Canada. Forest products industries represent one of Canada's largest industrial sectors accounting for about one job in every seven. It is very sad, therefore, to report that Canada is the only Government in the western world with a forestry ministry but no forestry research capabilities because the former Conservative Government in 1979 sold the forestry lab.
I think I have indicated very clearly what has happened under this Government. I will summarize what has happened in the way of cuts in university research funding. From EPF $5.5 billion nationally will have been cut by 1990. Important cuts have been made to universities in Atlantic Canada which have always been under-funded.
As my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), has indicated, this is a major effort to flimflam the public. It is another public relations effort to convince people that the Government, which has in fact done so many things to hurt Atlantic Canada, is finally going to rectify the mistakes it made and give Atlantic Canada the help it needs. The help it is getting is substantially less than the help it got under the former Liberal Government, which help was itself inadequate.
For all those reasons we intend to vote against this Bill.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was kind enough to refer to my remarks in the House yesterday, and for that I thank him. Being mentioned by such a distinguished and highly respected parliamentarian is a very distinct honour for me and I am very grateful to him.
He mentioned in particular my allusion to the locomotive economy aspect that could be adopted by Atlantic Canada if we are able to trade more freely with the State of Maine and learn lessons from the way they have built on their great universities led by Harvard and MIT. He correctly points out that Canada's ability to purchase military installations and armaments is certainly not comparable to that of the United States. I should point out to him, however, that in the Province of New Brunswick we have the largest army training area in Canada and it is the largest employer of skilled and semi
skilled persons in central New Brunswick. We also have more defence installations per capita than in any other part of Canada. These bases provide a large number of jobs.
The Hon. Member mentioned forestry and the lack of research. I should tell him that under construction in the City of Fredericton is the largest and most modern research facility in forestry in Canada. It is called the Forestry Complex. It is a product of the Government of Canada, being the largest contributor of funds, along with the Maritime Provinces and the University of New Brunswick. It opens a window on research for the vital forest industry which, as the Hon. Member mentions, employs one out of seven people directly and indirectly, and is a leading industry and stimulant of employment in the Province of New Brunswick and indeed Atlantic Canada.
He may also be interested to know that the Government of Canada is setting in place an incubation centre for science, a science mall to test new inventions and spin-off new industries. ACOA is negotiating with the University of New Brunswick for an international marketing function to take full advantage of the great stimulant to Atlantic Canada in freer trade, which I believe his Party also opposes.
CADCAM, Computer Assisted Design and Computer Assisted Manufacturing Centre at the University of New Brunswick, and the Advancement of the Research Productivity Council are all efforts of this Government to build on science and on technology and research to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. I am sure the Hon. Member will be very pleased to hear that before he gave us his wise advice we had already heeded and implemented it.
The Repap Mill which has been built in the riding of the Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) has cost several hundred millions of dollars, most of it coming from the private sector. This does not appear in our budgetary estimates or public accounts, but it is part of the Government's attempt to get the private sector to invest in the area by inducing them with incentives and encouraging them to create jobs. That has created several hundred jobs in the area of highest unemployment in the Province of New Brunswick.
1 am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased to see that we are already implementing many of the very wise and excellent suggestions he has made in his remarks and for which 1 would very much like to commend him.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, of course I am pleased to be advised that the Government has instituted a number of programs which will help improve the deplorable record in the area of scientific research and development. However, I remind the Member for York-Sunbury that, according to the Prime Minister, we are still only devoting 1.3 per cent of our Gross National Product to scientific research and development. That is only half of what most other countries are doing.
January 19, 1988

Let me refer to the forestry industry. That is one of the largest employers in Canada and is a very important industry in Atlantic Canada. Our record is a disgrace. For every two trees cut down, at most only one tree is replanted. Even industry sources are telling us that some 25 years from now the distance from which companies will have to bring wood to their mills will make it uneconomic to keep their plants and mills operating.
Let us consider the example of other countries. Sweden has had social democratic government for 45 of the last 50 years. Most of the forests in that country are owned privately, but that social democratic government-which some Tories believe is absolutely opposed to free enterprise-co-operated with the private owners of the forest lands so that for every tree which is cut another tree is planted. Furthermore, they have made major efforts to develop new, better and faster growing trees, some of which they obtained from British Columbia. They are growing and planting trees in the millions.
Most of the forests in this country are owned and controlled either by the federal or provincial governments. These governments, which almost invariably believe in the free enterprise system, have done virtually nothing to insist that the private companies to which they give licences plant a tree for every tree they are permitted to cut.
The profits of these companies over two generations have been astronomical. Yet what have they done for this country? As a result of their negligence and refusal to co-operate in planting trees to replace those that they cut down, they have brought the industry to the point where, according to industry sources themselves, we will be facing a major catastrophe in the next couple of generations.
While I am happy that the Government has taken some hesitant steps in the right direction, there is still a long way to go. The Conservative Government is fixated in the belief that it must cut back the deficit, which is caused to a large extent by the fact there is almost 10 per cent unemployment. These people are receiving Government assistance instead of being productive workers and paying income tax and sales taxes.
While 1 applaud some of the things the Government has done, it has a long way to go before it meets the needs of the people of Atlantic Canada.


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


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, before 1 commence my remarks perhaps I could call it one o'clock and make my entire speech when I am recognized later.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.58 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in August 1986, the Conservative Government abolished programs under which workers in the footwear, clothing and textile industry could take early retirement. It is now January 1988, and a new program is still not forthcoming.
In Montreal's East End, several businesses . . . For instance, last week CIP closed its doors, and the week before, the Vickers shipyards. Thousands of jobs in the East End have been lost, and once their unemployment insurance runs out, people between the ages of forty-five and fifty will not be able to take early retirement.
I urge the Government to keep its promise to introduce a new early retirement program within a year. It has now been more than a year, Mr. Speaker, and we have yet to receive a response from the Government. The people in the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou who have been seriously affected by these measures want the program now.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
[Stage Direction]
1988 CEREBRAL PALSY TELETHON IN QUEBEC-OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW GENEROSITY
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the 1988 cerebral palsy telethon in Quebec will be held on February 6 and 7. Quebec has a reputation for being generous, and this year, Mr. Jean Perron, President of Normick Perron in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, is the honorary chairman. He speaks on behalf of between 12,000 and 15,000 handicapped individuals. The objective is to develop and improve rehabilitation services in Quebec, while focusing more on the social integration of these individuals. Whatever the nature of their handicap, they have a right to be intellectually independent, to have a social life and to participate in recreational activities that will enhance their lives.
Mr. Speaker, these people deserve our respect and our contributions, and we have until February 7 to demonstrate our generosity in Quebec.

January 19, 1988


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in their replies to questions about the situation in Montreal's east end, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Prime Minister mentioned statistics that failed to reflect the real situation.
I would like to remind Hon. Members and this Government that 22,000 people are unemployed in Montreal's east end and
10,000	on welfare. Since 1985, Daoust-Lalonde Inc., La Parisette, SKD, Vickers and CIP have closed. There were 185 lay-offs at Canadian Steel Wheel, 175 at Canadian Steel Foundries, 200 at Gulf, 30 at Angus. A total of 1,800 jobs were lost. This morning in the northeastern section of Montreal, Leviton announced 250 lay-offs.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the federal Government intervened and injected $25 million to set up an office to help restructure the economy. Funding is necessary for manpower training, and considering the age of the workers who were laid off, thanks to the federal Government, the worker adjustment program that operated in conjunction with unemployment insurance should be reinstated to provide these people with early retirement benefits.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, when thousands of people are imprisoned in camps and many are intimidated and denied even food; when women thus seek food in stealth and then watch it trampled by troops with vicious arrogance; when even children, protesting their oppression as they must, fall before lethal ammunition; when the angry leaders of an angry people are deported from their own land, and when the nations of the world condemn these excesses of the occupying army of Israel, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) commends the restraint of the oppressive conqueror. Have human rights thus become to our Government something less than universal?


Mr. Prud'homme:: A courageous statement. At long last someone is speaking up.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all Members a struggle being waged by 11 women in my riding. They are members of Local 2107 of the Union of Bank Employees, and employees of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. They have been on strike in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, since November 23, 1987. They are seeking wage parity with bank employees doing the same work in Halifax, and with employees of the local credit union who are doing this work as well.
Many of these strikers have years of experience but have not been rewarded for their performance. Negotiations broke off at the end of September and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has not shown interest in resuming the talks.
I urge senior management of the bank to show good faith by resuming negotiations with these employees. Their cause is just and their case is reasonable.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government has shown it cannot live up to the trust of Canadians. Last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) issued four offshore lobster licences to companies in Nova Scotia. The Premier of Nova Scotia has also objected to the awarding and issuing of these licences.
The Lobster Advisory Council, a group which advises the Minister on such matters, has come out against the awarding and issuing of these licences. In fact last Friday its members threatened to resign unless the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cancelled these licences.
The fishermen of Nova Scotia are extremely upset that the Government of Canada has issued four new licences to the offshore fleet, denying other Canadians that particular right, bypassing the advice and the counsel of the Lobster Advisory Council. This flies in the face of the way in which this has been done for years. In fact the integrity of the management of our lobster fisheries in Atlantic Canada is at stake.
I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reconsider his position and to cancel these lobster licences issued to those individuals in Nova Scotia.
January 19, 1988


SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the great news continues. A recent Decima poll indicates that free trade with the United States is gaining support and now has the favour of the majority of Canadians. This is good news for those of us who believe that it is just what the doctor ordered for the Canadian consumer.
The Economic Council of Canada has predicted a decline in the consumer price index which could give between $700 and $1,000 in additional purchasing power to the average Canadian. In Alberta we would call that substantial, and recognize it as a means of insulating our economy against a recurrence of the dark days of the early 1980s.
Many Canadians already buy extensively in the United States. The duty they pay at Customs upon their return amounts to additional tax and lost savings. Eventually free trade will eliminate these duties while encouraging more Americans to come north.
It is high time for all Members to get onside and to tell Canadians the truth about free trade. It will mean lower prices, wider selection, and higher quality goods for everybody. The bottom line is more money in the pockets of the average consumer.

[Translation)


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government cannot set itself above provincial legislation on the environment, especially now that as a result of Bill C-74, the federal Government is becoming increasingly dependent on provincial governments to protect the environment. It therefore comes as something of a shock that the federal Government should challenge the application of provincial legislation in a case where there has been a federal violation of that law.

Where is co-operative federalism when we really need it in the field of the environment? This is an absolutely deplorable situation. In Bill C-74 the Government depends more than ever before on provincial Governments in the field of the environment. Then, when a provincial Government, in this case Ontario, applies the law the federal Government uses Crown immunity to hide behind its own infractions of provincial environmental laws.
We need tough, national standards on the environment. We need respect for provincial laws on the environment, on the part of the federal Government. The federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) ought to tell the Department of Justice not to proceed with an appeal and use legalistic ways to avoid its own responsibility.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, each day hundreds of individuals who wish to circumvent Canada's immigration laws use fraudulent methods to gain access into Canada. This assault on our immigration system is the result of 20 years of Liberal neglect.
The Government acted by passing Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 which would curb the abuse and at the same time send out a clear message that individuals who lie and cheat would no longer have access to Canada. Yet this legislation has not become law due to the lack of the Liberal Senate's approval.
The Liberal Senate seems determined to assure the survival of the old system. This brings us to an interesting juncture. The two opposition Parties which used every means to discredit Bill C-55 and Bill C-85 are now demanding action on the PLO terrorist who lied his way into Canada. Had these Bills become law this terrorist would be denied the claim of refugee status as an avenue of appeal.
Another terrorist, Francesco Piperno, used the refugee route to remain in Canada for 10 years. When he decided to leave there was still no decision on his case.
Therefore, the bluster shown by the Opposition is hollow. It should be directing its thunder toward the Senate where the laws demanded by the Canadian people are presently stalled.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the concern of many people who work for both the CNR and CPR about the possible extension of the period of time for the arbitrator. I am sure that many Members of Parliament who have rail workers in their ridings have been hearing from these rail workers. They feel that, given the fact the strike occurred so long ago and the arbitrator was appointed so long ago, it is high time a decision was made and they were given a new contract.

January 19, 1988
We would urge upon the Government that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) see to it that the arbitrator does his work by the deadline that he has presently. In that manner, rail workers will know as soon as possible exactly what type of settlement they will get. There should be no further delays. Justice should be done.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, CBC news is in the news these days, and for good reason. Many people believe that CBC stands for "Can't Balance Coverage".
Last summer when the NDP topped the polls, CBC news ran it as a lead item, followed by in-depth analysis, followed by commentary that predicted the socialization of Canada.
In December when the Government overtook the plummeting NDP, which had dropped to third place in the polls in only six months, it was barely even mentioned on the CBC.
Just last night the so-called "National" did not see much national importance in the resignation from the Liberal Party of a former cabinet Minister and leadership candidate. Now the CBC wants to deliver its version of the news 24 hours a day. Why should it? It cannot even get the good news right!


INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCHSPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, from January 4 to January 10, 1988, a general meeting of the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians was held in Yaounde, Cameroon.
The Association represents forty parliaments from every continent in the world. Although the proceedings of the meeting were of considerable interest, the most noteworthy event was without a doubt the election of a Canadian as president.
For the first time in the twenty-year history of the Association, a Canadian was elected president of this illustrious body. Although it is not customary to offer congratulations during the period set aside for oral statements, I am sure that in the circumstances, all Members of the House will want to join me in congratulating Senator Martial Asselin on his election as president of the Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Of course, Hon. Members are delighted that a Canadian has been elected president of this prestigious organization, but we are particularly pleased that the president is a man who has made his mark within this organization and who is eminently worthy of his new position. Bravo, Martial!


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist party has given his blessing to the document entitled New Democrats' Trade Options prepared by his comrades the Hon. Members for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Our priorities regarding trade options are based on the governement's intervention. Small businesses, which have permitted the creation of 800,000 permanent jobs since 1984, large businesses, the banks, th eConseil du patronat du Quebec are wrong to support free trade. And yet, they are the ones who pay 92 per cent of the salaries in Canada, that is of almost 12 million Canadians.
Canadian businesses which sell for 95 billion dollars to the United States are not clever? We should ignore their positions in our negotiations?
Because Bob White makes money with the Auto Pact, because he fires the shots for the comrades of the socialist Members of Parliament, it means free trade is good for the automobile industry, for Oshawa.
The study prepared by the socialist comrades must be discussed and published all across the country. There are parties like that whose interest is not to be known!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the ongoing investigation into the corruption, breach of trust, and fraud charges against the Conservative Member for Gamelin (Mr. Gravel) has been hampered by a report that crucial Crown evidence has not been found. The Department of Public Works has been unable to locate the daily appointment book of the then Minister, the Conservative Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
January 19, 1988

All parliamentarians have a stake in ensuring that all of the evidence necessary to ensure a just conclusion of the case of the Member for Gamelin is available. I would strongly urge that the Government investigate the situation and either locate this important document or lay criminal charges against the parties who have destroyed it.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-PLEBISCITE VOTE IN FAVOUR OF FIXED LINK CONNECTION WITH MAINLAND
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Prince Edward Island went to the polls in a plebiscite, after five or six weeks of debate and discussion, and voted 60-40 in favour of a fixed link crossing to the mainland. I was delighted to be present for several days in Prince Edward Island and to talk to many people there during that debate and that discussion.
Apart from the historic decision itself reached yesterday, the democratic experience on the Island shows once again to all Canadians the importance of this additional form of democratic expression in our country. We should not be ever shying away from direct democracy but seeking additional ways to supplement it. This is why I think that it is a singular lack that we do not have a statute at the federal level which would permit plebiscites.
The self-definition that Islanders went through in the debate and discussion was very healthy. It is a positive thing. Canada is a strong country because it is so democratic. When we find ways to make it more democratic, it will be stronger.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Well, Mr. Speaker, here you have it-the New Democrats' trade option, by author Steven Langdon. It is an amazing, amazing booklet of 59 pages, of which the first 34 are all about the Conservative free trade pact.
If you go on and read further, Mr. Speaker, and because the Liberals wanted to rip ours up I will help them start with this one, the next seven pages are a bunch of quotes going back to Tommy Douglas. This is how they are going to help free trade, as the New Democrats see it.
If you go on further, Mr. Speaker, you will see that they like GATT. That is their system. They are going back to the
Oral Questions
GATT system, and that is the only way they are going to solve any trade problems.
If you get to about page 57, by that time, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to rip up. Look at that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that Canada's trade surplus with the United States is now $10 billion a year lower than it was when he assumed office, and that despite his vaunted special relationship with the President. As if that were not enough, Clayton Yeutter, the United States trade representative, told The New York Times this week that the United States will attempt to reduce its world-wide trade deficit by forcing, and I am using his words, "a major adjustment in countries like Canada".
We know that the Prime Minister sold out our energy, that he sold out our farmers, and that he sold out our financial markets in order to obtain, in his words, "a better trading relationship with the United States".
What is his response now that the senior United States trade officer has said that the purpose of that relationship is to persuade and force Canada to sell less to the United States and buy more from the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would want to look at the exact comments of Ambassador Yeutter. Quite frankly I have not seen the text to which my right hon. friend refers.
The trade agreement with the United States of America is designed to create greater prosperity, more jobs for Canadians, and greater fairness. All objective studies so far indicate that there will be a very substantial increase in employment.
As a result of our trading patterns over the last three years, and those on which we have been working, for example, in the last 12 months, as we were informed in December, 474,000 new jobs were created in Canada. That is the largest number of jobs created in a 12-month period since Statistics Canada began collecting statistics.


OBJECTION TO CANADA CONCEDING TO UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister will not answer this question. But the trade agreement he signed with the United

January 19, 1988
Oral Questions
States does not provide guaranteed access to the American market.
After all the concessions he made, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he will now yield to the Americans who want Canada to reduce its trade surplus with the United States? Does he not understand that in fact the Americans want his agreement with them to make up for their trade deficit at the expense of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition is taking a rather funny approach. Canada's economic growth rests primarily on international trade with the United States, and the situation is improving on a daily basis.
Here is where the Government stands: more active trade not only with the United States but with other nations of the world, including Japan among others, whose Prime Minister I met over the weekend.
Now I know full well that the Leader of the Official Opposition is against the free trade agreement regardless of the fact that, among other things for instance, Quebec Premier Bourassa has just stated again that the free trade agreement is an absolutely essential mechanism to ensure the economic future of Quebec and Canada.
As far as I am concerned, the facts are there. We have made our choice. Our choice is to promote stronger bilateral and multilateral trade, our position is to create jobs, and the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition is quite simply to tear up the agreement. In 1988 and 1989 it is not good enough to tell Canadians: I will tear up something. We know you are against it. What are you in favour of?


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to outline the naivete of the Prime Minister's position. The top American trade official has admitted and stated that the United States will step up its efforts to eliminate our trade surplus with the United States, and the Americans have the power to do that because they retain the right under the Prime Minister's trade agreement to use their protectionist trade laws against us.
Article 1904 of the trade agreement with the United States continues to allow the United States to apply its trade remedy laws against Canada, and therefore continues to give the United States the power to force Canada to reduce and continue to reduce its trade surplus with the United States. Will the Prime Minister not admit that his agreement has merely consolidated and facilitated the American intent to reduce our trade surplus to zero?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for a former Minister of Finance this is really quite a
shameful statement to be making. This is a remarkable statement either made maliciously or in deep ignorance.


John Napier Turner: You don't understand.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that we do not understand. Surely he should not be surprised if the United States, stuck with a large trade imbalance, is stepping up its efforts to reduce that trade imbalance. The reduction of that trade imbalance will eventually have beneficial effects upon the world economy.
We are stepping up our efforts to increase our trade around the world because trading around the world creates jobs at home. What my hon. friend has done is make a choice for the past, and this Government is speaking with confidence about Canada's youth and is leading us into the 21st century with new trading opportunities, new jobs, and new wealth for all Canadians.


UNITED STATES TRADE DEFICIT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. He said that the American position is one that would be tied to generally increased trade over-all. 1 would like to tell him, if I might, of the statement made by Mr. Yeutter in The New York Times of Sunday, January 17. When asked how the U.S. intends to reduce its trade deficit, he said that they cannot reverse a $170 billion figure with countries that they may have a surplus with so there will have to be major adjustments in western Europe, Japan, and also in countries like Canada, and that it doesn't necessarily mean that they will all go to a deficit position but some of them will. That is a very clear statement of objectives on the part of a chief trade spokesperson for the United States Government.
Why is it that this Government has refused to acknowledge its very clear objective? Why has it signed an agreement that gives the Americans carte blanche to reduce their trade deficit but to increase ours?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a very substantial trade imbalance in the United States with some of its trading partners is well known. The fact is that added up to some $175 billion. That was reduced just last month by approximately 20 per cent or 25 per cent which was good news to the markets around the world, but the main problems of the U.S. come from Japan, western Europe, Taiwan and South Korea with which countries there have been a lot of unfavourable trade imbalances.
Surely my hon. friend should not be surprised if the United States of America, confronted with a quite colossal and unhealthy trade imbalance against it, seeks with Japan, West Germany and others to bring its trade into better balance. Surely this is the object of the entire exercise multilaterally, to
January 19, 1988

trade on a fair and more equitable basis, providing job creation and equality of opportunities around the world. One of the important aspects of this is to ensure that the American economy is capable of buying products from Third World countries at terms that provide for Third World growth.
This is part of a very complex and challenging situation, but surely there should be no objection whatever with the declaration of policy by the United States of America whereby the Americans seek, by legitimate trading instruments, to reduce what has become a very substantial deficit for them.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has forgotten something important. In this statement, Mr. Yeutter doesn't just mention western Europe and Japan. He specifically mentions Canada. He specifically says Canada will have to make adjustments. He specifically suggests we will have to face a trade deficit with the United States because we are a country with one of the largest trading surpluses with the U.S. Anybody can figure out, even Tory mathematicians will figure out, that if the Americans are going to reduce their deficit, ours will go up. That will mean a loss of jobs, a loss of employment and a loss of growth in this country.
Why are the Prime Minister and his Government ignoring this clear statement by Mr. Yeutter? Why have this agreement that gives Mr. Yeutter the means to achieve his purpose, which is to reduce his deficit but add to ours?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this really, when we examine it, will be one of the least impressive questions asked by my hon. friend among a very long list that he has asked over a period of time.
I told the Leader of the Opposition that I have not seen Mr. Yeutter's statement. I will look at it carefully and I will compare his statement with the interpretation placed upon that statement by the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg. The President of the United States, who is the boss of Mr. Yeutter, conveyed on January 2-


Don Boudria: He is your boss too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry?


Don Boudria: He is your boss too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the impression of the Government of the United States that it was seeking more trade with Canada, more trade around the world, which is our position. That is exactly what we are doing. We seek ways to liberalize trade so that we can create more jobs at home.
Surely if my hon. friend is suggesting that Mr. Yeutter wants to change the trade balances using unfair trading practices, that is a different kettle of fish. If he said that, we will drag him before the GATT and before our binational
Oral Questions
panels very, very quickly. I might even bring in the Hon. Member from Winnipeg as a character witness.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Immigration I have a question for the Solicitor General.
On July 18 past in a memo to the Minister of Immigration, his Deputy Minister included the following words:
CSIS notified the immigration department that Mr. Mohammad was believed to be en route to Canada and was due to arrive in two hours. All immigration and custom staff were immediately alerted. Unfortunately the flight arrived just as the staff was changing shifts and he was admitted.
Those words were taken precisely from that memo.
Considering the nature of this memo that went to at least one Minister of the Crown, and perhaps to others, considering that CSIS in terms of its information and headquarters in Ottawa had full documentation on Mr. Mohammad, how could the Minister account for his rather ridiculous statement made yesterday that it took the Government of Canada another two months to identify this man as a terrorist?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot and will not become a safe haven for terrorists.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: The Emperor has no clothes.


Lloyd Axworthy: Somehow they found us. I don't know how, but they found us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Our intent is to apply the full force of the law to ensure the expulsion of this individual from Canada. Terrorists will not be allowed to remain in this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. It was the Solicitor General who gave a completely foolish and misleading answer to the House yesterday, not that Minister who has otherwise given a foolish and misleading answer to the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 19, 1988
Oral Questions DELAY IN TAKING ACTION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will ask either Minister to deal with this question because they are in the business of buck-passing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Remember your image-gentility.


Mr. Kaplan:: Remember yours, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope they will answer the question this time. The Government knew last February that a known terrorist came into the country. No meeting of senior officials took place until June and the Minister himself was not informed until July. A concrete decision to act against this known terrorist was not taken until October and it was not acted upon in terms of informing that known terrorist until December.
Will the Minister not agree that while they were taking all kinds of action in this country against legitimate refugees they allowed a well-known international terrorist to stay in the country 11 months without any action by the Government? Will he tell the people of Canada why?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect the Hon. Member is incorrect when he says that we knew that a known terrorist arrived in this country in February. We did not.
There was no positive identification at that time. We did a police security check on him in Europe based on false and misleading information which he gave to us. Based on that he was given his clearance and allowed to come to Canada.
We received subsequent information. CSIS officials interviewed Mr. Mohammad the day after he arrived in Canada. He still denied that he was the known terrorist. Three days later the RCMP interviewed him. Fingerprints were taken which were sent to Europe, and no positive identification was made on that gentleman until May, 1987. That information was then turned over to Immigration officials in June and they began their investigation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister now knows that the same man has been licensed as a security guard in Ontario. That ought to be of some concern to the Solicitor General, among others.
I do not accept the rationale the Minister has given for the ignorance of the Government of Canada up until the month of May. Given what the other Minister said just a minute ago, does it not sound just a little hypocritical for the Government to say that it is concerned about terrorists when, according to the Minister's own words, the Government knew last May but took no action against this known terrorist until December? Account for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Jelinek:: You're the biggest hypocrite, Ed.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I have a little trouble with the Hon. Member's question because the Hon. Member and members of his Party would be the first to criticize the Government if we did not follow the due process of the law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we made the positive ID in May. We turned the information over to Immigration in June. They immediately commenced their investigation. They went to the Minister in October, who ordered that proceedings be started. We have followed the due process of the law. We are doing everything we can, and no one wishes more than this Minister or this Government to rid this country of this terrorist.


REQUEST THAT DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS BE EXPEDITED
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration and it, too, concerns the convicted terrorist who was granted landed immigrant status. The Minister and his officials have been saying over the last 24 hours that deportation will take five years, if not more, to complete. However, the Minister will know that in cases involving the national interest and national security these cases and files are routinely granted expedited processing to produce an initial decision within weeks or months.
Has this individual actually been served with a deportation notice? Has an inquiry been scheduled? Can the Minister ensure that the Government will request of our respected institutions, whether SIRC or the Refugee Advisory Committee, that this matter be expedited as the national priority and not dragged on as though it is some average, run-of-the-mill case file?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have collected strong documented evidence to build a strong case for deportation. We interviewed the immigrant in the month of December and indicated to him that deportation proceedings would be going ahead very soon. The next step in the process is a formal hearing before an immigration adjudicator. That will take place very soon.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is basically saying that after a full year the Minister and the Government have still not filed a notice of deportation and scheduled a hearing. The Minister should be ashamed of this embarrassing situation and should at least correct himself and the Government's negligence.


DEPUTY MINISTER'S OPINION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Given
January 19, 1988

that last summer the Government called in the Army to ensure security and identity of refugee claimants, does the Minister agree with the report of the Deputy Minister of Immigration who claims that this convicted terrorist does not constitute a threat to Canadian safety? If he does, on what reasons does he base his decision?
Can the Minister explain why this individual was not arrested or detained, at least to guarantee that he would not escape or go underground during the inquiry process, which would really complete the circle of this extremely bungled case?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe this question has already been answered. However, I will repeat the answer for the benefit of the Hon. Member. We did the positive ID in May. It was turned over to Immigration in June. I repeat my original admonition that surely the Member would want us to follow the due process of the law.
Heinous as this crime is, and as much as we would like to get rid of this gentleman as quickly as possible, the due process of the law must be followed. We must have a sustainable case. I can assure the Hon. Member, without going into security details, that this man is under very close observation.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt Question Period except to ask Hon. Members to observe the clock and also observe that we have only had time for five questions. I would ask Hon. Members to couch their preambles in a brisk and succinct form. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan.
* *
*


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned how easy it is for a convicted terrorist to get into Canada, even when CSIS and the Immigration Department know which flight he is arriving on.
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport in relation to his responsibility for airport security. In Section 3.4 of the May 19, 1987, notice of approved security measures that he issued, why is there an exemption for certain air passengers to bypass normal security checks, even though those passengers could come into contact with or gain access to planes or passengers subject to normal security clearance at Canadian airports?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, natually I would have to know which clauses are being referred to and what particular passengers. There are
Oral Questions
certain exceptions for certain passengers. The hon. gentleman will have to give me more information.
It would be very helpful to have a little advance notice for a question like this if the hon. gentleman is really interested in getting an informative reply.


ACCESS TO RUNWAYS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister's staff could advise him that we have been inquiring about the particular sections which actually allow a passenger on planes equipped for 60 or less passengers to bypass normal security procedures. This means that they could go into an airport terminal, out onto the tarmac with a weapon or bomb-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: -and come in contact or adjacent to another aircraft where individuals have been secured. It is a serious breach of the quality of air security about which the Minister has been boasting. How soon will he move to change that so that the travelling public in Canada as well as those going into some American airports are protected?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question, this is poppycock.


Iain Francis Angus: It is right here, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman is talking about domestic security in our air system here in Canada. His question leads one to believe that he wants all passengers guarded or in chains so that they cannot possibly get out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman's Party are the people who are against any strict measures for security. They are against any tightening of the Immigration Act. They are against the tightening of anything until they think it is to their cheap partisan advantage to raise noise in the House about something.
* *
*
[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Agriculture). Under the Free Trade Agreement, yogurt and ice cream are not included in the list of controlled import goods and this omission was strongly criticized by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec. The Minister of Agriculture had promised to initiate

January 19, 1988
Oral Questions
negotiations in this regard. I would like to know what progress has been made in these negotiations.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, when our Government initiated the free trade negotiations, we undertook to safeguard our marketing boards and all other mechanisms which protect Canadian farmers. We indeed discussed this issue last December with the Department of International Trade, and my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade, and myself finally decided to include products such as yogurt, ice cream, and about ten other dairy products on the list of controlled imports, which, added to the reference to Article 11 of GATT in the Agreement, should please the
42,000	Canadian dairy producers, including the 18,000 in Quebec, who know that they can rely on the Canadian Government.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. It concerns the terrorist in Canada. Will the Minister confirm whether or not the necessary documentation for deportation has been served on this particular individual? He has not answered that question yet. Have the necessary documents been served on this individual and will the Minister indicate whether his Department is aware of the whereabouts of this individual?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I answered quite clearly that we have been collecting the evidence, the strong documentary evidence. The next step in the process is the hearing before the immigration adjudicator, which will take place very soon.


John V. Nunziata: Surely Canadians are entitled to some straight answers to some straight questions.


WHEREABOUTS OF INDIVIDUAL
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question again. Have the necessary documents been served on Mr. Mohammad, and is the Government aware of the whereabouts of Mr. Mohammad today? Yes or no?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, yes.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In June, 1986, the Standing Committee on Immigration recommended to the House that the procedures for investigating security clearance of prospective immigrants be tightened. It said that CSIS was too slack.
In November, 1986, CSIS headquarters in Ottawa knew that Mr. Mohammad was in Spain. When Mr. Mohammad, this terrorist, applied to enter Canada in December, 1986, why did the CSIS liaison officer in Spain not even bother to consult with CSIS headquarters in Ottawa who would have told him, if he had bothered to ask, that this person was a terrorist and should not have been allowed into Canada at all?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. gentleman that I am well aware of the results and report of the Standing Committee that was delivered in June, 1986. As a result of that, in September, 1986, three months later, I requested the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in writing, to prepare an investigation and report for me into those procedures that might be brought forward. I just received that report last week.
With respect to the liaison officer in Spain, he received false and misleading information, as I have told you. It was on that basis that he asked for a police check in Europe and received a nil return. He then conducted a personal interview and, as a result of that, under the standing procedures as he is entitled to do, he made a decision that no further investigation was required and advised the immigration officer in Madrid that the security clearance should go forward.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Instead of just checking with the Madrid authorities, why did the liaison officer not check with headquarters in Ottawa as he should have done?


FUNCTION OF CSIS
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary is for the same Minister. Next Thursday, the CSN will make public very important evidence showing that the CSIS paid officer Mark Boivin to act as agent provocateur in the Quebec labour movement and that, in this capacity, he urged various criminal and dangerous acts. How can this Minister defend a security agency which targets democractic organizations such as the CSN and shows its total incompetence when dealing with real terrorists attempting to enter Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have advised the Hon. Member on a number of occasions that CSIS does not target peace organizations or labour organizations because they are not within the mandate of CSIS. There is no investigation or evidence to date that has


January 19, 1988

revealed to me that it is exceeding or acting beyond its mandate.
As far as terrorists are concerned, as a result of the Osbaldeston Report which was brought forward over a month ago, we are concentrating and making counterterrorism a prime objective of CSIS and of the Government. We will continue to do so.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He knows full well that in a post INF world both superpowers will be putting more emphasis on air-launched and sea-launched Cruise missile weaponry systems. Therefore, today it is more important than ever for the two superpowers to put Cruise missile systems on the START agenda as a priority.
Why does Canada not cease the testing of the Cruise and demand that Canada's long term foreign policy objectives and defence interests be given top priority in that START agenda?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is, as the Hon. Member has indicated, that the question of Cruise missiles is included in the START negotiations. It is a matter of negotiation between the United States and the Soviet Union. If an ally of the United States took an action that broke the solidarity of the West on questions in negotiation with the Soviet Union, that would weaken the prospects of progress being made in those negotiations. That may be the interest of the Liberal Party of Canada, although that is hard to know, but it is certainly not the position of this Government.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows full well that the Liberal Party remains committed to our NATO alliance, unlike our colleagues in the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: But there is absolutely-


An Hon. Member:: Good stuff!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A divorce is so messy.


INCLUSION OF CRUISE MISSILES ON START AGENDA
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs therefore indicating to the House that Canada cannot within its obligations to the NATO alliance push forward our long-term foreign policy and defence
Oral Questions
interests by demanding at the NATO councils in Europe in Canada's interest-and 1 might add all of those countries in the circumpolar regions of the world share the same interests-that Cruise missile weaponry systems be placed as a priority on the START agenda?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, they are on the START agenda. They are on the START agenda, explicitly discussed by the Soviet Union and the United States. The House should bear in mind why it is we got an INF agreement. When my colleagues, the Minister of Communications and the Hon. Member for Victoria, were representing Canada, as was the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, we were part of the two-track decision of NATO. The two-track decision of NATO was a position of solidarity within the western alliance. We held to that solidarity. The Soviets knew they were not able as a consequence to split the West and achieve their goals so they had to agree to negotiation.
What worked on the INF can work on strategic systems, and this Government intends to continue as we have in the past to recognize that solidarity in the West leads to progress in arms control.


TAX REFORM
Mr. John MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Everyone, the business community and individuals across Canada, agrees there had to be a reform of the tax system. However, with the October 19 stock market drop and the present uncertainty in the investment market, there are some real and great concerns among the prospectors and developers in the mining sector which must be addressed.
Can the Minister indicate whether he is prepared to discuss the impact of tax reform on flow-through shares financing with this vital resource sector in the very near future?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member has raised an interesting point. What I should point out to him is that since October 19 there has been extremely little equity financing of any sort, be it flow-through shares or large industrialized company shares. We have indicated in the response to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs on tax reform on December 16 that we were prepared to, and did, make some significant changes to flow-through shares to ensure they were one of the most attractive vehicles in the equity markets, and I believe that will be the case.
I also said at the same time that, after depletion is phased out, we are prepared to consider alternative mechanisms


January 19, 1988
Oral Questions
should exploration activity decline as a result of economic factors. However, in specific answer to the Hon. Member's question, yes, I would be prepared to meet with representatives of the industry should they so desire.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. At the end of the year, the Prime Minister said in an interview on TVA that the future looked rosy for Quebec's shipyards and that they would have enough contracts to maintain the three yards in Montreal, Sorel and Quebec City. What happened between December and January? Why will two of the three yards have to close down very shortly? Where are all those contracts the yards were supposed to get? What is so rosy about the future of 600 skilled workers who are about to lose their jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is mistaken about the federal Government's role with respect to Quebec's shipyards. Since we were sworn in, this Government has provided the yards with $97 million for modernization purposes. The Goverment has awarded $550 million in contracts to yards in Quebec. In addition, another $900 million or so in contracts is being awarded at this very moment and will be in the months to come. All things considered, including the modernization program started by the Quebec Government, by Mr. Johnson and his colleagues, I said that unlike the impression some people would like to give, the future looked very encouraging for yards in Quebec. I believe that in the light of action taken by the Parliament of Canada for the benefit of the Quebec yards, all Canadians may be proud of what we have achieved.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL COMMITMENTS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. If it is supposed to be encouraging that Quebec gets to keep only one of the three yards, one wonders about the alternative if the situation is as disastrous as it seems to be to everyone except the Prime Minister.
Mr. Bourassa said he was very disappointed that no portion of the contract for the second set of six frigates had been awarded to shipyards in Quebec. What specific commitments is the Government prepared to make in response to the Quebec Government's request to ensure continued employment in Quebec's shipyards?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I realize that like any premier who has shipyards within his jurisdiction, Mr. Bourassa would have liked to see major contracts awarded to his yards. The Government
decided that it was important to award contracts to New Brunswick, a province that suffers from very high unemployment and that also has the requisite expertise for producing the ships at lower cost. However, nearly one-third of the contracts awarded to St. John . . . the benefits of the contract are filtered through to Quebec through the Paramax contract. In addition, as I said before, $950 million in contracts is being awarded, and many of these contracts will benefit the yards in Quebec. Furthermore, now that the Government has tabled its White Paper on National Defence, several billion dollars in contracts will be awarded to modernize our defence fleet, and a major part of these contracts will be awarded to yards in Quebec. That is why I said the Canadian Government had served the Quebec yards very well and that the future looked rosy for the Quebec yards.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact this House recently voted against the reintroduction of capital punishment and, even more significantly, in light of the recent brutal killings in Alberta and British Columbia by alleged repeat murderers recently released by the judicial system, I would like the Minister to explain to this House and to all concerned Canadians the actions he proposes to take to change the necessary legislation and judicial system to ensure the protection of all of us here in Canada? Most important, when is this action going to be taken? Could the Minister give us a date when legislation will be tabled in this House, please?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Hon. Member who is very much interested in this issue and who has spoken to me on a number of occasions in support of a sensitive judicial and justice system. We have not waited. We have taken a number of initiatives with respect to the judicial system and changes to the Criminal Code. An unprecedented amount of legislation and a number of initiatives have been taken by my predecessor, now the Minister of Transport, and myself.
We are looking at some fundamental questions, including the whole question of sentencing. The Archambault Report has been delivered to me. It is a matter which is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. Indeed,
I hope to have an opportunity to discuss this matter with my


provincial counterparts in the very near future. These matters will be dealt with with the usual expedition for which I am known.


REQUEST THAT FULL LIFE SENTENCES BE SERVED BY RAPIST-MURDERERS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the circumstances of the question that I put to him yesterday, which has been put to him again today, is it too much for the Canadian public to expect that convicted killers who are sexual deviates should be kept in jail for the full term of their sentences rather than to be let out on parole? Should not life mean life?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 advise the Hon. Member that as a result of the passage of Bill C-67 last year we are now in a position for the first time to keep inmates, who meet the criteria under the Bill, in prison for the full length of their term. Since the introduction of that Bill some 25 per cent of all people who have come before the special parole board under the provisions of such a hearing are now being detained until the full length of their term has expired.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond .


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday, in response to a question put by my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the Minister tried to smear the name of a prominent Nova Scotian family. At best his answers can be described as very misleading.
Why has the Minister told his Lobster Advisory Committee one thing with regard to the issuing of new lobster licences only to turn around and issue four new offshore lobster licences to companies in Nova Scotia? Will the Minister not do the honourable thing now and cancel those lobster licences as has been requested by Members of Parliament and, indeed, by others?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question which allows me to clarify a statement I made in the House yesterday. In deciding to issue four new offshore lobster licences I followed carefully the advice of the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee. I followed a set of prescribed criteria set out by my Department to ensure absolute fairness in the
Point of Order-Mr. Weiner
awarding of those licences to the best qualified individuals that is to say to ensure that it was a Canadian company with the capacity to harvest this additional resource and to create the additional economic opportunity that would be represented by processing that resource in Nova Scotia.
I must say that if in any way I created the impression that there was anything untoward in the awarding of previous licences, I must indicate today that licences were awarded and obtained in the 1970s according to the same appropriate, objective, and fair kinds of criteria that were the basis on which my decisions were made.


REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENCES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Six months ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assured the Lobster Advisory Committee that he would issue no more licences without consulting it. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has now broken that undertaking.
On Friday last members of that committee demanded the cancellation of those licences. They have been joined by the Premier of Nova Scotia and by the Leader of the Opposition in Nova Scotia calling for the cancellation of those licences. Will the Prime Minister now seize the opportunity to stand in the House and cancel those licences in order to rid his Government of the perception and the symbolism of patronage and sleaze at its worst?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that, as is usually my practice, extensive consultation occurred and no undertakings of the sort which have been inferred were made. I did follow the advice of the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee to the effect that a new exploratory fishery could be justified west of Sable Island, that there would be no impact on the inshore lobster landings, and that other quotas not be increased.
I have followed that advice and established practices to the letter.


POINT OF ORDER
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that on a series of questions asked by the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) 1 had heard only the second question which was with respect to whether or not I knew where the individual was. I answered yes to that question. There was no intent on my part to answer both questions.

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
I wish it clearly shown to the House that I was answering the second question which was with respect to whether or not I know where the immigrant is. The answer to that question is yes. I did not hear the first question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a question of privilege, it is a point of clarification.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the point that was being made at the time the question was asked was whether or not the Minister knew or had taken the proper procedures. Was he aware that procedures had been taken today to make sure that this individual was subject to the due process of law? The Minister said yes. Is he now telling us that it is no? That makes a difference to the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The clarification has been made.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to clarify his answer so that all Members of the House can understand what he is talking about. But there were two questions put to him very simply. He answered yes the one time to both questions. Is he now telling us that he wants to answer no to the first one and yes to the second? Is that what he is telling us? Will he clarify his point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He has already done that. The Hon. Member can ask the question again tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my unhappy task to inform the House that once again the parties to a collective agreement have failed to accept their responsibility to resolve their differences. I refer to Prince Rupert Grain Limited and the Grain Workers Union Local 333 whose dispute has deprived Canadians of an important grain export facility. There is no indication or reasonable expectation that the dispute between the parties will be resolved in the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the fact that a sensible, formal proposal was placed before the parties which would have settled this dispute and avoided the intervention of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for a Minister of Labour to have to make such an assessment. Our system of free collective bargaining is founded on certain fundamental principles of democracy which our society relies on to resolve differences between competing interests.
Like many of the relationships which we each encounter in our lives, labour relations are adversarial relations. Yet the basic principles which govern these relations generally ensure that these competing interests are reconciled without irreparable harm to the parties involved or to innocent third-parties.
Such is not the case in Prince Rupert. In Prince Rupert there are two opposing interest groups, Prince Rupert Grain Limited, representing interests of six grain handling companies, and the Grain Workers Union Local 333, representing the 69 employees at the terminal. These parties have effectively said to the Canadian public, "We don't care about your interests or about collective bargaining. We will pursue our own private interests no matter what the cost to the national economy or to the overseas reputation of Canada".
This attitude is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. It really does not matter who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, or even whether there is a right or wrong side to these issues. What is unacceptable is that the parties have made up their minds that they are not going to settle their differences through the democratic mechanisms which are provided by our Labour Code.
While both parties claim to have the interests of western farmers uppermost in mind, they both appear quite prepared to wait it out while the most efficient grain terminal in the country sits idle and Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of grain is destroyed.
In the most recent exercise aimed at resolving this work stoppage, I summoned the parties to Ottawa to meet under the auspices of the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, Bill Kelly. Mr. Kelly's skills as a mediator are well known to all in this House, and he has justly earned his reputation. However, it did not take Mr. Kelly too long to conclude that the parties are so entrenched in their respective positions on the issues that no compromise was possible. He then made a formal proposal to them that they agree to submit their dispute to arbitration for final and binding resolution.
This is a method which has been used on three occasions in the past to resolve bargaining impasses in the grain terminals in Vancouver between the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association and the Grain Workers Union Local 333. It should have been crystal clear to the parties that Mr. Kelly's proposal was the obvious solution if they wished to avoid a legislated end to this dispute.
January 19, 1988

Even with this certain knowledge, they chose to continue their disregard for both the public interest and the principles of sound labour management relations. The union placed an unacceptable pre-condition on its acceptance of Mr. Kelly's proposal, while the employer rejected the proposal in its entirety. Indeed, the employer characterized the notion of arbitration on the key issue of manning as "irresponsible". One would have to wonder by what stretch of logic they considered it less than irresponsible to allow this dispute to continue.
Through their actions, the parties have effectively abrogated their responsibility to resolve their dispute, and made it quite clear that if the Prince Rupert Terminal is to be restored to operation, it will be through Government action, and not their own.
This is not what our collective bargaining system is all about. I find the attitude of these parties not only disappointing, but shameful. It is shameful in its disregard for the farmers of western Canada who are being held hostage to the intransigence of these two disputants, and shameful for its disregard of our collective bargaining system.
It is abhorrent for a Minister of Labour to have to recommend to Parliament that the right to be responsible for your own destiny be taken away from anyone, but the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal Limited and the Grain Workers Union Local 333 have left me with no other choice. This Government cannot allow the western economy to be further jeopardized by the private disputes of these parties.

For those who might question my assessment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to describe the efforts which have been made to promote a resolution of this dispute through the accepted collective bargaining process.

When the collective agreement which applied to this bargaining unit expired on December 31, 1983 the parties were aware that the new, highly automated terminal on Ridley Island would become operational during the life of the next collective agreement, and that there were transitional issues that would have to be faced. The parties agreed that issues that were common between Prince Rupert and Vancouver would be dealt with in the context of the bargaining that was taking place between the union and the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association.
These negotiations, which were conducted with the assistance of a conciliation officer and, subsequently, a conciliation commissioner, eventually concluded in May, 1985 with the signing of a three-year agreement. During the period of these negotiations, the new terminal in Prince Rupert was brought into operation. Although the issues which had been theoretical in 1983 were now very real, the parties remained unable to resolve them:
The conciliation commissioner my predecessor had appointed, Mr. Vince Ready, continued his efforts throughout the
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
remainder of 1985, and in January, 1986 produced his report and recommendations for settlement. With certain reservations, the company accepted Mr. Ready's recommendations, but the union did not. In March, 1986, the Vancouver Regional Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Mike Collins, was appointed as a mediator.
Meanwhile, the union pursued its efforts to have the scope of its bargaining unit expanded through applications to the Canada Labour Relations Board and the Federal Court of Appeal. Negotiations between the parties continued on an intermittent basis between April, 1986 and November, 1987, but neither side gave any evidence of its willingness to compromise on the fundamental issues. The union commenced strike action on December 9, 1987. Mediator Collins once again convened the parties, but to no avail, and on January 4, 1988 he terminated his involvement. Even at that point, I was unwilling to accept that so important a dispute could not be resolved through negotiation.
I summoned the parties to Ottawa to meet with my Associate Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly. Mr. Kelly explored every possible avenue for settlement of the dispute. When it became clear to him that neither side would make any compromise, he made a formal proposal to them which would, if accepted, have resolved the dispute and ensured the immediate resumption of terminal operations.
In addition to recommending that they implement the terms of the collective agreement now in effect for the Vancouver grain terminals, Mr. Kelly proposed that the parties voluntarily agree to submit their outstanding differences on manning in the grain centre, job classifications, and security personnel to an arbitrator for final and binding determination.
While the union agreed to the concept, they imposed an unacceptable condition on the process by insisting that a specific individual be named as the arbitrator. As anyone who has had any involvement in quasi-judicial proceedings is well aware, it is a fundamental principle that the individual or tribunal with the decision-making power must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
While I have the utmost respect for the individual proposed as arbitrator by the union, the very fact that he is the choice of one party to the dispute immediately raises apprehension in the mind of the other party. That individual's acceptability as an arbitrator is then seriously compromised. By stubbornly insisting on this condition, the union was effectively rejecting the mediator's proposal.
For its part the employer maintained its position that it would not voluntarily agree to submit these issues to a third party. In its reply to Mr. Kelly's proposal the employer claims that the subject of manning in the grain centre, which is the primary issue in dispute, was placed before the Canada Labour Relations Board and decided in the employer's favour. Thus, it

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
contends that it would be irresponsible for it to agree to submit the issue to arbitration.
There is no logic to this response whatsoever. The matter which was placed before the CLRB for determination had to do with the inclusion or exclusion of certain positions from the bargaining unit. The board determined that the operations foremen in the grain centre are excluded from the scope of the union's bargaining certificate. However, at no time did the CLRB consider the issue of manning, which refers to the level of staffing that will exist in the grain centre. It is abundantly clear that the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve the manning issue through the negotiation process. If there is ever to be any hope of resolving this impasse, arbitration provides an ideal forum for an impartial hearing and determination of the interests which are involved.
Frankly the attitudes of this employer and this union are irresponsible. Given the extreme importance of Prince Rupert in Canada's grain export program, one might suspect that the parties are quite prepared to have Parliament make the difficult decision they are unwilling to make for themselves. Both sides are well aware that the Government cannot permit this terminal to remain idle for the months or years it might take before the parties decide that they should resolve their impasse.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the employees in Prince Rupert want to go back to work and get the grain moving again. I know that the western farmers desperately want the Prince Rupert terminal reopened. The will of the Canadian public, as expressed through their representatives here in this House, must in this case take precedence over the will and interests of the immediate participants to the dispute.

Let me turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill which will accomplish the resolution of this long-standing dispute. Not surprisingly, we are not asking Parliament to deviate from the proposal for settlement which the parties had an opportunity to accept voluntarily. The clear purpose of this approach is to send an unmistakable message to any negotiators who think that they can achieve more through legislation than through collective bargaining. Parliament will not reward parties who propel their disputes to our level for resolution.
In addition to providing for an immediate resumption of terminal operations, the Bill requires the parties to incorporate the terms of the agreement between the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association and the Grain Workers Union in Vancouver into their collective agreement. In fact, this merely formalizes the existing informal arrangement in which the employer has been implementing any changes that have arisen from time to time as a consequence of the Vancouver agreement.
In respect of the three issues which caused the impasse in negotiations, the Bill calls for the appointment by the Minister
of Labour of any arbitrator to make a final and binding determination of these matters. A 45-day time limit is established for this process, subject to extension only if the parties mutually agree.
The public's patience with these parties is exhausted. They have had more than four years to resolve their differences. They have imposed the consequences of their dispute on western grain producers while continuing to reject every opportunity for a settlement through accepted dispute resolution mechanisms. The Government has an obligation to the farmers of the country to restore the export of their grain products through Prince Rupert, and this is precisely what we intend to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jacques Guiibault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would like to speak on Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, which has just been tabled. First, I wish to emphasize that we have co-operated with the Government to allow this Bill to reach the floor of the House of Commons as soon as possible. We agreed to forego the required 48-hour notice on the Order Paper and for the Bill to be introduced in the House of Commons today rather than Wednesday. We also agreed to the Bill being referred to a committee of the whole rather than a legislative or a standing committee, which would have made for a longer debate on this Bill.

If we have co-operated with the Government to try to ensure that the Bill passes the House of Commons quickly, it is because we think that it is about time the Government did something to get the grain moving again. Prairie farmers are already facing very difficult conditions. I am informed that on average the price of grain is about $110 per tonne, a level which is about half what it was five years ago. Needless to say, farmers are having a very rough time.
We are watching the United States and the European Economic Community systematically drive prices down. The American export enhancement program has a budget of $1.5 billion, which it is using to subsidize grain sales, sometimes in our traditional markets, and which has eaten away at some of our markets.
The only good news which prairie farmers have had recently is that sales have been good. The Canadian Wheat Board has been successful in selling grain. I am told that in 1986-87 we had record sales. However, it is one thing to conclude contracts with other countries to sell grain, and it is something else to deliver the commodity especially when grain terminals are at a standstill. The strike has cost us sales as the Canadian Wheat Board could not sign contracts for sales to be delivered prior to late March or early April.


January 19, 1988

Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier in what I consider to be a very competitive market was running the risk of being damaged.
This is what I mean when I describe the situation under which the farmers must live. This is what I mean when I say that it is about time that the Government did something. The elevators are clogged, the grain is not moving. The problem, though, is that the solution, the back-to-work legislation, is not exactly the solution we would have liked to have seen.
The Government is again indulging in what has become almost an addiction, and that is to wait until there is no other solution than back-to-work legislation. The Government seems to have fallen into the habit of wielding the billy stick whenever there is a labour dispute in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, other solutions were available to the Government. There were attempts to communicate with the parties involved, but there would surely have been a way to bring them to agree to binding arbitration instead of introducing back-to-work legislation.
In a press release last week, the Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the Liberal Party urged the Minister of Labour to meet last weekend with the two parties involved in the labour dispute which has shut down grain handling operations in the port of Prince Rupert to convince them to submit to binding arbitration. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the Minister should be ready to propose the name of an arbitrator to the two parties involved. However, the Minister chose not to meet with the parties involved and decided instead to introduce this Bill.

I am amazed at the fact that the Minister was not able to pass to the two parties this very simple message: "If you do not agree voluntarily to go into binding arbitration, it will be imposed upon you by back-to-work legislation". If that message had been passed properly, I am sure the two parties would have realized that an agreement had to come about and that it would be in their interests to agree voluntarily and have a say as to who the arbitrator would be. Now that will be imposed upon them. An arbitrator will be appointed, according to the Bill. Whether they like it or not, the parties will have to live with that individual who will be appointed.
Mr. Henry Kanes of Local 333 of the Grain Workers' Union had agreed in principle to go back to work voluntarily without a billy stick over his head. I agree that he was talking about a condition. He would have liked to have Mr. Justice Emmett Hall as the arbitrator, but he also said that someone else acceptable to his local could do as well. The employer did not agree to having Mr. Justice Emmett Hall as the arbitrator, but the employer did not disagree in principle with binding arbitration. In other words, the Minister could certainly have used words that would have helped these people understand
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
that it would be better for them to agree voluntarily, first, on the principle of going back to work and, second, on the individual who would act as an arbitrator, and that if they did not do so, it would be imposed on them anyway. The Minister failed to say that. It is a failure on behalf of the Government to get the parties to understand what their interest in this dispute was.
I would like to turn to some of the details of the strike. This strike is not about money. This strike is about jobs. It is about the jobs of the people who staff the grain terminal at Prince Rupert.
I would like to quote a representative of the union, Mr. Henry Kanes of Grain Workers' Union Local 333, who said the following in a press release of last week:
This dispute is about jobs-union jobs. The sacrifices our members are making on the picket line are not for selfish reasons. It is so union members can share in the future world of computer technology and not become a relic of the past like the grain shovels we once used. We are intelligent enough to participate in the future. We already do it at other elevators.
A big part of the problem is that some jobs will be lost because of computerization. The union and the workers understand that, but they would like to see some of the remaining workers trained to work on those computers rather than having people come from large urban centres to operate these new electronic machines while the union members go on welfare or on unemployment insurance. That is what the strike is all about.
It is not an abusive use of the rights of workers when one considers that they have been out of a contract for four years. They waited for four years before going on strike last December, and they went on strike simply because they want the assurance that the people who will operate the modern, up-to-date grain handling equipment will be union members. I think it is only fair that they be given a fair chance to be trained to operate these computers rather than having computer operators come from the central part of Canada. That is the root of this strike. It is not strange that people would walk out to try to protect some of their basic rights as these people have done.
I mentioned earlier that the union membership was willing to return to work voluntarily without back-to-work legislation. I would like to quote again from the same press release put out by Local 333 of the Grain Workers' Union. Mr. Kanes said:
-two days after the strike began, I was approached by farmers and other organizations to return to work and accept an inquiry by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Emmett Hall. I agreed to recommend this to our members with no conditions attached. The Company rejected this proposal from the farmers.
This must be put on the record so that the people of Canada who are watching these proceedings will know exactly what the score is.
After quoting these documents, I would say that the Government and the Minister failed to recognize the willingness expressed by the workers to try to avoid back-to-work legislation and to use methods that are more like the ones we

January 19, 1988
Adjournment Motion
would like to see used in this country, methods by which management and workers agree by themselves.
Let us take a look at this piece of legislation which, in my opinion, is what we have become accustomed to seeing in this Parliament. It is the standard back-to-work legislation. It extends the collective agreement until the end of 1989. It amends it by including the items that have been agreed to so far by the two parties. It appoints an arbitrator who will have to deal with three specific items; namely, the staffing of the grain terminal which is at issue, the classification of those workers and also the issue of whether or not security personnel will be included in the same bargaining unit. This arbitrator will have 45 days to complete his report unless the parties agree to an extension.
What we find abusive in this Bill are the same stiff penalties that we will never become accustomed to but that we have become accustomed to seeing in each and every piece of legislation which the Government tables in the House to bring workers back to work.
Let me take a quick run through this particular part of the Bill. For example, an officer of the union or representative of the employer who will contravene the present Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $10,000 and no more than $50,000 a day for an offence. We will be talking to this later when we come to the Committee of the Whole. On previous occasions, for instance in the postal strike, we have tried to educate the Minister to understand that one does not need penalties that high to get people to live up to their responsibilities in a country like Canada. Our judges and tribunals do not need a minimum penalty of $10,000 set out if the judge is to have the flexibility to determine what type of fine it will be.
We hope that this legislation nevertheless, and as unhappy as we are with its tabling, will get through the House as soon as possible because we want to get the grain moving again. We believe farmers have suffered enough from this breakdown in transportation of cereals. We hope the legislation will solve the problem. We have no hope that it will improve employer-employees relations generally in Canada because we think it is another bad example of the Government moving in and swinging the axe or the billy stick to try to put people up against the wall. We have no hope that it will change the attitude of the Government, but if we can get the grain moving again, at least we will accept that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 York East (Mr. Redway)-Children- Television documentary on runaways; the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)-Trade-Free trade-Elimination of control by Canadians over American investment- Request for details / Control over American investment; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)- External Affairs-Haiti-Possibility of Canadian initiative at United Nations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the Port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the Port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, I would like to state on behalf of our caucus that we are upset that this legislation was necessary. We believe that legislation of this nature, although perhaps not the exact legislation that we have before us, has indeed become necessary. During the negotiation and mediation process the two groups were unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion of negotiations. A long strike, although it helped to bring the issue to the public's mind, again did not result in the issue being resolved in a collective agreement.
We oppose the legislation as it is written not only because we find it unfortunate to have it in front of us but because the Government is insisting on retaining its regime of heavy fines, fines which quite often the employer can afford to pay but which are crippling to the individual if he or she ends up in a situation of being fined.
That is a problem and one of the major reasons we cannot support the legislation. Having said that, as you, Mr. Speaker, know, we have agreed to allow the legislation to pass the House of Commons. When we get into clause by clause study later on today we will be putting forward some amendments and voting against some parts of the legislation in an attempt to improve it. We believe that there are changes which could make this legislation better.
For Canadians there is no more difficult decision than whether to support workers who are trying to preserve their jobs or whether to support farmers who are trying to make sure that their grain or other commodities get to market. Canadians tend to sympathize with both groups. Some,
January 19, 1988

depending on where they live in this country, may support one group over the other, but in almost all cases, whether you are a farmer, a worker or involved in some endeavour, you recognize that the issues can be important to both the farmers and the workers. It is not an easy issue in legislation of this nature. You cannot really say that the farmers are at fault, because they are not at fault, they have legitimate concerns. You cannot say the workers are at fault, because they too have legitimate concerns. Legislation of this kind quite often creates a very emotional debate, a debate that sometimes gets quite unreasonable in the way Canadians treat each other.
I find it unfortunate that the two parties could not come to an agreement. In this case I think we have a situation where other methods were suggested to resolve this dispute. The appointment of former Justice Emmett Hall was not suggested just a week or two ago; it was suggested before Christmas. The union representative at that time said they would be willing to have the workers go back to work if former Justice Emmett Hall were appointed to arbitrate the issue. The union representatives went on to say that if it were not former Justice Emmett Hall, perhaps some other acceptable person could be brought in. They made that an option, an option which could have resolved the issue before Christmas or, at least if it did not resolve the issue, it could have resolved the work stoppage and allowed the grain to flow. But that was not done, Mr. Speaker. A month passed, mediation was attempted by the Associate Deputy Minister, Mr. Kelly, and that did not work. Now we are getting legislation in this House that is basically doing what could have been done a month ago.
At no time during that process did the employer agree to allow the issue in dispute to go to binding arbitration. As recently as yesterday, Party leaders were receiving telexes from the employer denying that the issue was whether or not the jobs in question should be part of the collective agreement. The employee was saying that that should not be dealt with by an arbitrator or by the House of Commons because it was strictly a management right. If the issue could not be settled through negotiations and if it could not be settled through mediation and if a strike could not settle the issue, what other mechanism was left but arbitration to settle the dispute?
In the communication which the owner sent out yesterday, it it was claimed that the issue had been resolved in the past by the Canadian Labour Relations Board and, therefore, there was no reason for it to be settled through arbitration. Again, that is not the truth. As a result of that communication and through the co-operation of the Department's labour officials, I have the previous decisions that were made concerning Prince Rupert. They did not deal with the specific issue which is causing the work stoppage at this time. They dealt with foremen and the position of a supervisor, but they did not deal with the whole category of workers. It is obviously a very important issue in dispute which must be resolved.
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
I find it unfortunate that there is a management attitude in some parts of the country that if it is dirty work, it is union work, but if it is computer work where you punch buttons, it is management work. There are a lot of highly trained people in the Public Service, engineers, doctors, and other professionals. There are people in the largest companies in this country who have degrees and are members of unions. However, there is an attitude that if you are playing with buttons on a computer, as opposed to working with a shovel, it cannot be a union job. That attitude will never lead to the settlement of a dispute.
Prior to Christmas the union offered to have the outstanding issue of whether the jobs in question should be done by union members or non-union personnel put forward for arbitration. The union was doing a service for the people of Canada and especially the farmers of western Canada.
I know that all things are not all black and white. I know there may be a reason why former Justice Emmett Hall, with all of his qualifications, was unacceptable to the employer, but surely to God they could have suggested appropriate, qualified and experienced people who are as respectable as former Justice Emmett Hall. They did not do that. Hence we have the legislation before us today.
Although we will not support the legislation I am glad to see that many of the more objectionable clauses in the legislation ordering the postal workers back to work have been dropped from this legislation. One of the concerns we had with the postal worker legislation was that the arbitrator was referred to a particular report which management liked and the workers did not like. We were also upset about what we considered to be an unconstitutional clause in that legislation which denied union members the right to run for re-election for up to five years after they contravened the legislation. We believe that that was completely uncalled for. Some of those things are not contained in this legislation, and to that extent we believe it is an improvement.
However, there is a contradiction in that in the postal workers' legislation where the Government liked the conciliation report it referred to this report and said that the arbitrator must look at it. Just a few minutes ago the Minister said that he would not appoint former Justice Emmett Hall because the union suggested him.
I suggest that former Justice Emmett Hall is respected by all Members of this House and by Canadians right across the land for the work he has done in such important areas as medicare and transportation. He has experience with regard to grain transportation, the very issue of this dispute. If we cannot accept him as an independent-minded arbitrator just because the union suggested his name, then we obviously apply a double standard in back-to-work legislation. Something was acceptable to the Post Office, therefore we put it in the legislation. When something is acceptable to the grain handlers and to most Canadians, we do not put it in the legislation. The Minister said that he will not accept that.

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
I think there are some problems with the legislation, although I believe it is necessary at this time. 1 find it very unfortunate that the two parties did not get together and resolve the dispute, but 1 do believe we could make this legislation better. 1 hope that in the time we have before us today, after we hear from the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), in whose riding this dispute is occurring, and from others from western Canada who are concerned about the plight of farmers, the Minister will accept some amendments and send a clear message that when someone as respected as former Justice Emmett Flail is named as a possible mediator perhaps we in this House should respect the fact that that person was available, qualified, experienced, and should have been used.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise this afternoon to speak on this Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). The Minister of Labour has given Members of the House a very detailed account of a dispute which has gone on for more than four years. The strike by Grain Workers' Union Local 333 has halted the flow of grain at Canada's newest inland terminal, Prince Rupert Grain 2. This facility is owned by Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and incorporates state of the art computers and equipment. It has just begun to demonstrate its potential in terms of its role in the prairie grain transportation system. 1 believe it would be useful to look more closely at the PRG 2 operations to give us an indication of the significance of this work disruption to the grain economy.
During the recent parliamentary break I took the opportunity to visit all of the RM councils in my constituency which were having their first meeting of the year. I was able to visit 22 of 27 rural municipalities. That covers a pretty sizable chunk of southwestern Saskatchewan which I represent. Each municipality mentioned the Prince Rupert grain situation. They made mention of the fact that the dispute had been building for years because they had no contract and could not imagine why that situation was allowed to exist. It is not a matter of pointing the finger at either union or management. Both have a responsibility which certainly is not being lived up to.
The grain elevator facility at Prince Rupert was constructed to give the West Coast a second outlet for export grain markets. The facility was rated at the time of its construction to have an annual export capability in excess of 3.5 million tonnes. During the 1986-87 crop year exports totalled 4.2 million tonnes. That level of throughput was achieved using a two-shift operation for the first five months in the crop year beginning August 1, 1986, and a three-shift operation for the last seven months ending July 31, 1987. Under certain conditions with maximum throughput PRG 2 has the potential to reach even greater production and to play an even greater role in West Coast exports.
It should be mentioned that one of the outstanding features of the PRG 2 terminal is its ability to clean grain at a very
high rate. According to the description of the facility published by the company, the terminal has the highest throughput of any grain cleaning elevator in the world. Its high performance, which results from state of the art engineering and technology, allows gain to be cleaned about as fast as it is unloaded.
The significance of this cleaning capacity is that it avoids the potential bottleneck in processing grain and contributes to PRG-2 being one of the most efficient grain terminals in the world.
The Prince Rupert terminal is serviced by CN Rail which transports grain through the mountains and connects thousands of grain producers to the terminal. Grain is received on one of the four tracks at the terminal and each of these tracks is capable of accommodating an entire train. The terminal storage bins can hold approximately 210,000 tonnes and shiploading is done at a very high rate through three tower mounted spouts. This gives us an indication of the operation of Prince Rupert Grain No. 2.
What is perhaps most outstanding about PRG2 is the fact that all of the grain-handling functions and grain flows at the plant are remotely controlled and monitored by computer from the elevator grain centre.
As has been described earlier by the Minister of Labour, it is the manning of this computerized grain centre that is one of the key issues in dispute between Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and the grain workers union.
Earlier I referred to some 4.2 million tonnes of grain exports through PRG2 in the last crop year. This level of export gives the terminal an annual throughput efficiency of approximately 20 times its capacity, compared to perhaps 10 to 13 times capacity at other grain terminals. PRG2's throughput efficiency gives the terminal a very significant role in grain exports. Fourteen per cent of the 1986-87 crop year exports went through Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert's share to December 6, 1987 is unchanged at 14 per cent. In 1986-87, grain exports from the West Coast, that is Prince Rupert and Vancouver combined, amounted to over 16 million tonnes, and PRG2's share of West Coast grain exports amounts to 26 per cent.
It is interesting to note that the facility PRG2 is 80 per cent owned by the prairie co-operatives. It has been mentioned that the Prairie co-operatives also own most of the other ports that load grain into the export market. There has been some suggestion that their position is that the grain will move through their facilities, albeit at another point, and therefore they are not as anxious to settle this particular issue as they might be.
This strike has gone on for more than a month. In fact, it began on December 9 of last year and has been in effect for the better part of five weeks. That is a long time for a terminal
January 19, 1988

to be left idle when our export grain commitments are at an all-time high.
There is no question that responsibility for settling the issue lies with the two parties in dispute. They have demonstrated a complete lack of responsibility, which has resulted in these collective bargaining negotiations breaking down and has caused the present impasse and consequent impact on grain shipments. The parties in dispute have shirked their responsibilities by failing to come to an agreement. Both union and management have a role to play, and it certainly has not been carried out.
The shareholders as well as the union have known for the past four years that this issue must be settled. The manning of the computerized grain centre is in dispute, and this issue must be resolved.
The dispute now poses a severe threat to the prairie grain economy in terms of lost grain sales and in terms of our international reputation as a reliable supplier of grain.
It is indeed a most unfortunate situation. Not only are the grain handlers at this facility out of work, we also hear reports of ships lying idle in the port, waiting to load. As well, there are railway cars to be unloaded at the terminal. Some 80,000 to 90,000 tonnes of grain would normally flow through this terminal in the course of a week. If this situation is allowed to continue, Vancouver elevators would be the only terminal export point available until spring. As Hon. Members are aware, Thunder Bay operates on a reduced scale during the winter. Only a relatively small amount of grain is shipped by rail to the Lower St. Lawrence transfer elevators during the winter months. As long as the Prince Rupert dispute is not resolved, each day will add to the current congestion.
The other problem associated with moving the grain down to the Lower St. Lawrence elevators is the increased cost. That, in addition to the demurrage paid for the ships that are in a position to load, must ultimately be borne by the prairie producers who have no input in this impasse.
This labour dispute points out very clearly that strikes and lock-outs are not the answer. If we must resort to the Government instituting compulsory binding arbitration, as in this particular case, perhaps disputes should never be allowed to get to this stage. Perhaps we have reached the time when we should consider measures such as the Private Members' initiative introduced by the Member for Swift Current- Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) last summer when we debated this very issue. Perhaps the time has come to consider such a solution.
1 have attempted to describe what I see as the very significant role that this relatively new grain terminal facility plays in the prairie grain economy. PRG2 is a significant new grain export facility, with 26 per cent of West Coast grain exports going through the port. It has the potential to become even more significant in the years ahead.
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
This work stoppage has brought a halt to the flow of export grain through PRG2 and, in doing so, prevents the realization of the efficiency potential of this important national asset. The company and the union have failed to make the compromises that would resolve their long drawn out dispute, even with the repeated efforts made by the Minister of Labour through conciliation and mediation, including the assistance of Canada's top mediator. The parties have brought their dispute to a critical stage and the Government has no alternative but to require the resumption of operations and the resolution of the issues through arbitration. I urge all Hon. Members to support the Bill and work toward its immediate passage.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, my riding of Assiniboia is the largest wheat producing riding in Canada. During the Christmas break we had no end to calls from farmers who were concerned about this strike.
The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) alluded to that somewhat, but I am surprised by the position of the Opposition in regard to the action the Government is taking. It would almost appear that many of them do not understand the conditions facing the farmers.
We in the agricultural and grain producing areas have been through difficult times. We have faced a very low price. We have faced other difficulties. I am surprised at the insensitivity of the Opposition in this respect. I would like to hear from the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw. I am sure his experience has been the same as mine. The telephone rang steadily during the break. Farmers were calling to ask what can be done about this. Surely there must be a better way than tying up the country. The cost of demurrage alone, which the farmers end up paying through the Canadian Wheat Board, is very significant. Certainly, the Government has a responsibility to look into this matter, and the Minister has done so.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, I had the same comments put to me in discussions I had with the rural municipal councils, for example. Each time this matter was raised they wanted to know what was going to happen. I told them we would get Bill Kelly involved and if he could not solve it, it would not be possible to solve. They want the port operating. They are not necessarily only pointing the finger at one side. Both parties in the dispute have a responsibility to bear. They obviously have not lived up to their responsibilities or this situation would not have developed.
As the Hon. Member pointed out, the problem is that the producers we represent in western Canada feel totally helpless and frustrated. They ask why the situation has been allowed to happen. That is what we have to deal with. We must put a process in place that settles these disputes before they reach this critical stage or before the present contract expires, and if they cannot settle, we must have the next step firmly in place so we do not have this disruption.

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
Another example is the Air Canada strike which disrupted Christmas plans for everyone across Canada. The parties in dispute seemed to be totally insensitive to that situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no more questions or comments, debate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words with respect to the Bill before us today, Bill C-106. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson) has pointed out the problem. The Government has dillied and dallied around on this matter for too long. It is just getting around to taking action today with respect to this dispute between the grain handlers and the Prince Rupert grain terminal.
The problem has been with us for three or four years and the Government has not really taken any action until earlier this month when it appointed Mr. Kelly as the mediator in this dispute. It became very clear after Mr. Kelly had completed his mediation attempts that only compulsory arbitration, hopefully, joint voluntary compulsory arbitration, could resolve the dispute. That is why the Leader of her Majesty's Official Opposition issued a statement last Friday calling on the Government to call in the parties to propose a suitable arbitrator between the two parties and seek a negotiated settlement thus avoiding this back to work legislation. It seemed clear at that time that if a suitable arbitrator could be found the union involved would go back to work on a voluntary or agreed basis. Unfortunately, after those negotiations last week it appeared obvious that that could not happen. The wheat pools are concerned that an arbitrated settlement may strike at the prerogatives and normal powers of the employer in this case. They see it as a dangerous precedent because the decision that is made with respect to the management role in the operations of this terminal may reduce that role, and some of that management role would be turned over to the union's employees at the terminal.
There seemed to be almost an inevitability that the only solution was compulsory arbitration, as the legislation before us proposes. Clearly, action had to be taken. This morning in the Standing Committee on Agriculture the Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board suggested that every month the terminal moves $70 million worth of wheat and other grains, and the strike has been going on for over a month. If the terminal is shut down the grain simply does not move. At the other end of the equation, when wheat has to be moved from prairie points to the East Coast ports, there is at least a $15 million loss in additional costs which are not received by the farmers.
We are facing an incredibly difficult time in the grain industry today with prices running at half of what they were five years ago. There is no clear indication that the American Farm Bill will not ratchet down prices another notch or two in this coming year. The Americans are putting up more and more money in the Export Enhancement Program. The budget has been increased to $1.5 billion in direct violation of the
trade agreement that they would not take pre-empted strikes and actions against Canada. The Wheat Board has been selling grain at a maximum rate. We hope the free trade agreement will not have an adverse affect on that body which is doing such a marvellous job in selling our grain and maintaining extremely high quality, which is putting our grain in demand around the world.
The contracts are being put off for delivery from the West Coast by the Canadian Wheat Board now into March or early April because of the strike. There is no question that prairie agriculture is suffering from this strike. We need to take the action which is proposed before the Ffouse today in order to maintain Canada as a reliable supplier and retain its reputation as the best wheat producer and the highest quality wheat producer in the world. We want to see this legislation enacted so that the dispute can be resolved. Perhaps if the Minister had acted last Friday and called in the parties, proposing a series of acceptable arbitrators, we could have had a voluntary agreement and would not have to take the legislative route which is being proposed here today.
We want to study this Bill clause by clause so we can have a more detailed question and discussion kind of format. We believe it is essential that the Port of Prince Rupert be brought back into operation and that grain starts to move on an urgent and immediate basis so that the grain industry, so vital to our entire national economy, can get moving again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments? Debate.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy participating in these kinds of debates involving the ordering of workers back to work. However, it appears that in this situation there were not a lot of options because of the intransigence of the employer. I want to spend a moment on that because I know the Minister crafted his speech to condemn equally Prince Rupert Grain Limited and Local 333. However, there is a larger picture about which Hon. Members should be reminded.
The problem, as Members here know, is that Local 333 has been without a collective agreement for three-and-a-half, going on four years. There are reasons for that. There are reasons for a great many of the delays.
There has been a funny deal in the works ever since 1980 when the federal Government agreed to provide Prince Rupert Grain 1, the old waterfront elevator, to the consortium of Alberta Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, James Richardson and Sons, Cargill Limited and Manitoba Pool Elevators, an elevator estimated at some $50 million plus in value for $1. The federal Government, as well as the taxpayers of Canada, put in something in excess of $30 million in infrastructure on Ridley Island to Prince Rupert Grain 2, a truly amazing and modern state of the art elevator.
January 19, 1988

People in Prince Rupert do not forget easily, nor do I. Prince Rupert lost some 60 grain jobs as a direct result of the closing of PRO 1 and the opening of PRG 2. There was a direct loss in wages to the Prince Rupert economy of $3 million per year and almost double that if we take into account the lay-offs and movement of CN workers as well as the dislocation of other people in the economy as a result of the direct loss of those very important and longstanding historic jobs in Prince Rupert that have been there for more than half a century.
Just after the last election I asked a question of the then Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), about the old grain elevator. I knew then, and the same is the case now, that it would long be necessary, as are the jobs, to the Prince Rupert economy. On November 21, 1984, as reported at page 457 of Hansard, he said:
On the issue of the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, I share the Hon. Member's concern. 1 am deeply disturbed by the prospect of the loss of jobs. I had an opportunity to meet with members of the union during the course of the election campaign, at which time I set out to explore whether there were other ways and means by which the existing terminal could be utilized. There has been some demonstrated interest in that. 1 think there is a way in which that terminal might be used for non-grain services, such as specialty crops, pellets and things of that nature. 1 will be discussing this with some members of the provincial government, and other interested parties, with a view to attempting to maintain that facility, even on a one-shift basis, to help alleviate some of the problems affecting workers. More important, in the long term we should make sure that we do not close down a facility, something which we may regret later on.
That is the signal that the Deputy Prime Minister sent to the grain workers at Prince Rupert. The signal that he sent to Prince Rupert generally is that we are going to keep the old elevator going and get the new elevator under way.
By the time of the opening, farmers were receiving 30 cents more a bushel by using Prince Rupert. Of course, there was a saving to those countries which were sending freighters to pick up grain, a saving of 500 miles each way, particularly for grain vessels from the Orient. Thus Prince Rupert has a great many reasons for being popular, not only with the farmers who receive a better price for their grain by moving it through Prince Rupert. Countries buying grain from Canada receive a better deal because it is even closer than Vancouver.
So there was a change in capacity from 1.2 million tonnes with just PRG 1, which in 1983 was about 15 per cent of West Coast exports, to 3.5 million tonnes, the potential throughput through PRG2, which now, as other Members have pointed out, was 26 per cent of the West Coast exports last year. During the 1983 crop year over 4 million tonnes were shipped through Prince Rupert, providing a very substantial benefit and gain to the farmers of Canada.
I agree with what other Members have said. We have to keep in mind not only the interests of Prince Rupert, the grain workers or anyone else in particular in the local sense of this issue, but the farmers. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), reminded me that
500,000	tonnes were diverted from Prince Rupert to the Lakehead at a $30 per tonne loss to prairie farmers. Once
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
demurrage, storage and so on is added on to that, one finds that this dispute from December 9 until now has been very costly to the farmers of Canada. There is no doubt that that loss amounts to millions and millions of dollars.
There may have been other measures the Government could have taken. On December 14 the grain workers offered voluntarily to go back to work. They have always wanted to go back to work. Of course, they suggested at that time, and continue to suggest, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall as being an entirely appropriate person to arbitrate such a matter. I agree. 1 think that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) agrees, although he has made some suggestions today that, by the grain workers continuing to suggest Mr. Hall and Prince Rupert Grain Limited not liking the suggestion, that may have made it impossible for him as a Minister to appoint Mr. Hall.
As I stated earlier, the Minister crafted his speech to be equally condemnatory of the union and of Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. I hope he will keep in mind that he should take great care in whom he chooses as an arbitrator. For whatever reasons, the Minister has not included a clause in the Bill requiring the mutual consent of both parties to the appointment of an arbitrator for this very important matter.
Records were set and broken regularly at old Prince Rupert Grain 1 prior to its demolition. It was one hell of a hardworking group that put that all together, with the kind of antiquated equipment it had, particularly in terms of boxcars and in terms of bringing them in, loading them and moving them out very quickly. Some 40 per cent of the union jobs have been lost since 1985. The jobs went from 115 down to 51, while the number of supervisors has grown from 6 to 15. As I pointed out earlier, that is a direct income loss to the Prince Rupert area of $6 million per year in wages alone.
While Prince Rupert Grain 2 has been a welcome facility in terms of high technology and its ability to move a great deal of farmers' grain, it has been a really sore point in Prince Rupert, especially in terms of the promises of more jobs and how great it would be. The great promises from Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. never came to be. In fact, Prince Rupert generally lost, in a net sense, as a result of the new elevator.
As the union pointed out in evidence given to various tribunals and in press releases, it is not opposed to technological change but wants the right to perform the same jobs as are performed by members of the same union in Vancouver. In 1984 the employer would not recognize Local 333's right to continue with its collective agreement to represent employees on Ridley Island. That gives one some idea of the kinds of bad faith that was demonstrated by the employer very early on in the relationship in terms of the development of the Ridley Island site.
The Canada Labour Relations Board upheld the union's right to do so. The employer then laid off 76 employees from Prince Rupert Grain 1. I wish to point out that the Alberta and Saskatchewan Pools have unionized workers operating the computers as panel control operators in Vancouver. They are

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
the principal owners of Prince Rupert Grain 2. We have to understand the nature of this difficulty. The Minister touched on the matter of manning the grain centres as being the principal problem. He pointed out the discrepancy between what Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. is saying publicly and what the CLRB ruled on. The position being taken by the company is quite different from both the interpretation of the Minister of Labour and what the CLRB ruled in relation to manning the grain centre. It ruled in relation to foremen but never ruled in relation to the level of staffing. There are also the questions of job classification and security to be considered.
The point I want to make is that the same principal owners of Prince Rupert Grain 2 have unionized workers doing these panel jobs in Vancouver, but are making that the key issue blocking a satisfactory settlement through collective bargaining at Prince Rupert.
The employee classification at Prince Rupert Grain 2 has been done by the employer without regard to Prince Rupert Grain Terminal No. 1 in terms of grandfathering, the collective agreement, or the Vancouver operations. I would like to know on the basis of what logic, let alone law, the employer has attempted to stuff that down the throats of Local 333, which, Mr. Speaker, over the last three and a half years has been about as cool-headed a group of bargainers as I have ever seen.
The employer did not respect seniority rights. In fact, many laid off workers were forced to move and find other work while they were waiting for a decision from Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. The employer then contracted out the watchman's work. There has been no agreement since 1983. As the Minister and other Members have pointed out, that is almost four years.
Over the past few weeks the Minister of Labour appointed Bill Kelly to find a solution. The Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) attempted to paint some type of picture that the Opposition have created the delay. We know that the House was sitting on December 14 when the farmers made a proposal, which was then supported by the Grain Workers' Union Local 333, to have arbitration at that point. That was some six weeks ago, so it is hardly appropriate for the government side to be attempting to paint it as some nefarious deal cooked up on the opposition benches.
Of course, the employer refused voluntary arbitration, as Mr. Kelly suggested. Let us not forget that the Minister must exercise care in his choice. I listened with care to his reasons why Mr. Justice Emmett Hall may not now be suitable. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall could in fact end up being the arbitrator in this matter. I listened with care to the reasons of the Minister, and even though it is not in the Bill, I would hope that when looking at his short list the Minister might at least call Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and Local 333 with a suggested short list to see whether or not mutual consent could not be obtained in that manner.
All along the union has been prepared to accept an agreement negotiated and concluded in June, 1987 in Vancouver. It is the other three contentious issues which, as I have demonstrated could easily have been resolved. Rather than suggesting Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, Henry Kinks of Local 333, could have suggested me. I could have resolved these matters in five minutes, but I am not sure that that would have been entirely appropriate.
I know that farmers across the country are listening to this debate, I know that the grain workers are listening, and I know people in Prince Rupert are listening. But I will speak now for a moment to the farmers. They must ask just who is the employer at Prince Rupert Grain 2 and how well are they being served. How well is the country being served when the grain workers are being treated so shabbily year after year at Prince Rupert? At a time when the U.S. Farm Bill is hurting Canadian farmers, and low prices, high debt, and high costs are all harming Canadians farmers and their families, I think those farmers, particularly those associated with the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, United Grain Growers, James Richardson and Sons, Cargill and Manitoba Pool Elevators should be scratching their heads and wondering how it is possible that a collective agreement and a dispute such as this has to wind its way to Parliament to find resolution.
Farmers may well hold the key. We do not need some type of specialized dispute settlement mechanisms as proposed by the Member from Swift Current. We need some cool heads at Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. and with the cool heads that there have been at Local 333 I think we will find the way out of future disputes, if the farmers take that key. They know what the problem is and they can look at how this dispute has come to be. I think that they hold the lever and the key in replacing some of the management at Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. in order that this type of dispute does not rear up in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 7-Arbitration
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment:
That Clause 7 of Bill C-106 be amended by
(a)	striking out lines 28 and 29, on page 3 thereof, and substituting the
following:
"Arbitration 7. (1) Retired Justice Emmett Hall is hereby appointed as arbitrator and the Minister shall refer to him all matters"
(b)	by striking out lines 31 and 32, on page 3, and substituting the following:
January 19, 1988

"classification and security personnel that, on the date of the coming into
force of this section, are in dispute"


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of this motion. I wish to put on the record the fact that there are two sides involved in this dispute. As it is viewed by many prairie farmers who are also shareholders somewhat at arm's length in Prince Rupert terminals, they see the problem being not only a problem with workers but also a problem with management. They are quite cognizant of the fact that the number of management positions has increased from six to fifteen with this new terminal. They are also very much aware that the amount of unionized workers has decreased by more than a half. They are quite familiar with the old cries of some promanagement writers about featherbedding.
That is not the case with the unionized workers here. The unionized workers have lost a considerable number of jobs and a considerable amount of power. On the other hand, what they are looking at with some distrust is a rapid increase in the amount of management positions from six to fifteen, as I stated. These are generally very highly paid positions. They are starting to wonder if they are not being held up to ransom by some of these high paid workers on the management team. They are beginning to use words like "job-napping" to refer to the ransom that this increased group of managers are engaging in in this particular negotiation.
It is very important that the arbitrator be cognizant of both the needs of the farmers and of the needs to get the grain moving, as has been relayed to the agriculture committee this morning by the Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. In order to meet commitments, the Wheat Board has been forced to divert 500 tonnes of shipments through Thunder Bay and St. Lawrence ports at a net loss to producers in direct income of some $30 per tonne for each tonne so diverted, a loss of 15 million.
We could add to that the cost of demurrage for ships sitting in Prince Rupert harbour, which will be taken out of the final returns to wheat, barley, and oat producers. As well there are the storage charges which terminal operators have been able to put in their pockets during the course of the strike. Farmers are paying all these costs. They are paying for increased high-cost management, for the delays, and for the terminal having been down for 30 some days. It has become a very expensive proposition.
1 regret that the two sides did not agree to the back to work proposal before Christmas. 1 understand that it was rejected by the group of 15 managers. As a result, this strike has been going on much longer than it needed to. There is no choice except to put an arbitrator in place. I hope the House will accept the long experience of Chief Justice Emmett Hall who is cognizant of all problems in the grain industry. He would be acceptable and is held in high regard by workers, management, farmers, railways, and elevator companies. I think he would be an excellent choice. It will take an arbitrator of that standing
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
in the community for this particular difficulty to be permanently resolved.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques want to speak on the amendment, or does he want to wait until we have disposed of it and then speak?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a statement to make on Clause 7 and a question for the Minister once we have disposed of the amendment.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the particular amendment, for the reasons I gave in my speech earlier today, and with the greatest of respect for the individual who has been specifically named in the House, we cannot accept that amendment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) negatived: (Yeas, 6; Nays, 27.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, we were at a stage last week where it appeared that the two parties were fairly far apart. The individual who put forward a proposal which was quite worth-while was the Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly, who is with us in the House today. He made a proposal for binding arbitration to be voluntarily agreed to by both parties. This came close to ending the strike without the use of back to work legislation. On behalf of my Party, and I guess on behalf of all Hon. Members of the House, I should like to congratulate Mr. Kelly.
Unfortunately, for the proposal to go forward additional moves had to be made. The Leader of the Opposition made a very concrete suggestion last Friday in a press release. I should like to quote the first paragraph of it for the benefit of Hon. Members. It indicates: "Liberal Leader John N. Turner today called on Labour Minister Pierre Cadieux to meet with the two sides involved in the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal strike this weekend to persuade them to accept binding arbitration. He said the Minister should be ready to suggest the name of an arbitrator to the parties".
This suggestion was in fact meant to put into action the proposal which had previously been put forward by Mr. Bill Kelly.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he went to the trouble last weekend to meet personally with both sides to try to see if there was a possibility for the sides to agree to binding arbitration on a voluntary basis instead of having it forced upon them by back to work legislation, and also to try to test them with regard to the possible name of an individual, who would be agreeable to both parties, to act as an arbitrator. Did the Minister try that last weekend?

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, with respect to binding arbitration, whether it be voluntary arbitration or involuntary arbitration, Mr. Kelly who was appointed to this dossier tried personally to get both parties to agree to voluntary binding arbitration. The union accepted it with a condition.
When 1 received the union's qualified acceptance, 1 communicated by telex with the employer or employers in order to get their response to the proposal made by Mr. Kelly, which included voluntary binding arbitration. The employers at that point responded indirectly, and again I went back to them to get their response on the principle of binding arbitration. The employers refused the principle of going into binding arbitration because, according to them, the manning issue was a management issue which should not be subjected to arbitration. They refused that concept.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, 1 have two brief questions for the Minister. I am not sure whether either of them is a proper question. However, since he has rejected the proposal for an arbitrator in the person of former Chief Justice Emmett Hall, does he have another arbitrator in mind? If he cannot answer that question, would he at least tell us if people who have been acting on this case will still be acceptable as potential arbitrators when he gets around to nominating them? Specifically, could Mr. Kelly still be nominated for this job?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I was about to ask my hon. colleague to qualify his question by asking to whom he was specifically referring.
I want to make a particular comment in respect of the individual to whom the NDP refers. The first time that the name appeared was in the context of mediation. At that time my understanding was that that suggestion was formally refused by the employer.
Mr. Collins who was mediator in this particular dispute at that time reactivated the meetings with the parties, which unfortunately led to a dead end. Then 1 appointed Mr. Kelly in order to intervene in the dossier and to try to mediate the dispute. That was not possible, and then he made the formal proposal which unfortunately was not totally accepted by the employer and was unfortunately not totally accepted by the union in the sense that it qualified its acceptance.
Obviously, once this particular Bill is accepted, I will consider some options in respect of the appointment of an arbitrator. With respect to Mr. Kelly specifically as a public servant, I am informed that he would not accept such an appointment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a very quick question for the Minister of Labour relating to the mutual consent clause which is found in a great deal of legislation. With such a clause, both parties would have either an individual or a short list proposed to them. Quite often when a final binding solution is put forward by the arbitrator, it tends to stick better
and be more acceptable if both parties at the beginning agreed to a person to arbitrate.
I wonder why the Minister has not included a mutual consent clause in this Bill. Perhaps he could expand on the proposal I made while I was speaking. 1 proposed that he could, here on the floor of the House, agree that when he comes up with a short list, he would be prepared, though it may well be the Minister who will have to decide alone who the arbitrator will be-to meet privately and see if there is a mutually acceptable and consensual arbitrator.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. colleague for a very interesting question which makes a lot of sense. We are not always used to that in this House, but with respect to the-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Especially on your side.


Pierre H. Cadieux: We don't ask questions, we answer them.
With respect to the consent clause being in the Bill, my hon. colleague has answered part of that question himself by saying that the Minister may have to decide himself. That is obviously one of the reasons why I would not wish such a clause to be in the Bill.
With respect to possible consent by the parties to the choice of an arbitrator, I can assure the House that, as we have done in the past, we can consult with the parties and ask them to provide us with a list of possible candidates, say three candidates, just for the sake of argument, and then I would make my own decision, taking into consideration their suggestions and mine, which may be the same or different. We have done that in the past and 1 am obviously prepared to do that again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, Clause 7, subclause 3, calls upon the arbitrator to have, within 45 days of being appointed, dealt with all the issues before himself or herself. In Bill C-85, which was passed in August of 1987, there was a similar clause, though I realize it was not quite the same clause, relating to back to work legislation for the railway. In that piece of legislation, we gave the arbitrator 60 days. Since then, the Minister has given the arbitrator an extension to March of 1988. I understand that another request has come forward for the arbitrator in the railway case to be given even more time to finish his work. I do not know whether or not the Minister wants to comment on that, but I think it is a very important issue.
When we do pass legislation saying that an arbitrator has only so much time to do his work, then the parties involved and the people concerned expect justice within that period of time. Bill C-85 was passed without any pay increases for the workers and the management was able to do all sorts of things in the meantime. Each and every time the arbitrator's time to do his work is extended, we are being unfair to the people involved. The House did pass the legislation in the form in which it was passed with an understanding that the work would be done within 60 days. That has not happened in the case of the
January 19, 1988

railway arbitration. It is dragging on and on, and I think it is actually resulting in an injustice to the workers involved.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, the question addresses Bill C-85 more than it addresses this particular legislation. Consequently, 1 do not think this is the appropriate forum in which to deal with that particular issue. However, I will acknowledge that I have received some representations from various parties about the possibility of an extension. 1 have not received any formal request for extension, and 1 can assure the Hon. Member that should I receive such an extension, 1 will look into the situation.
I have given instructions to my officials to look into the situation right now because of those representations. I can assure my hon. colleague that I will deal with it in full knowledge of what is going on if it comes to me.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject, we too were aware of the fact that the arbitration decision in the rail strike is taking a long time. This is all because an extension could be granted by the Minister.
I would suggest an improvement in this Bill. I would suggest that an extension could be agreed upon by the two parties. If the two parties decided that they wanted to give the arbitrator one more month, they themselves could make the decision to wait before getting a collective agreement. If they were to reach such a decision, it would be because they came to the conclusion that they had better wait for an additional period of time in the hope of getting a better agreement.
This is something to be remembered for the next legislation of this kind, although I hope that this kind of legislation will not be coming to the House too often. I think the Minister knows our position on back to work legislation, which is that we resent and hate it, but the problem exists in the back to work legislation that settled the rail strike. They are without a settlement and we hope that if an extension is again requested by the arbitrator, the Minister will turn it down. It is about time that these workers saw the end of the process and were finally able to enjoy their own collective agreement, although part of it will be imposed on them by outside sources.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we might not seek unanimous consent not to see the clock in order to continue progress on this Bill, with the understanding, of course, that if we were able to finish the Bill within a reasonable time, we would complete discussions on the Bill and then proceed immediately to Private Members' Hour and allow the Hon. Member to have a full-hour's debate on his Bill if so required.
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to complete discussions on this legislation today, we are prepared not to see the clock, with the clear understanding that Private Members' Business would be a full hour. Of course, we anticipate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be in support of that Bill. We would like to see debate for the entire hour.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 10-Offence by individuals [Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to Clause 10 of the Bill. Unfortunately it would seem that the Government got used to imposing penalties which, in our opinion, are much too severe.
Allow me to read Clause 10(l)(a), page 4 of the Bill, and I quote:
(a) of not less than $10,000 or more than $50,000-
-each day, applicable to-
-an officer or representative of the employer or the union-
-who contravenes any provision of this act.
Mr. Chairman, we agree on the principle that a law must contain such penalties that people will want to abide by the law. However we think that the penalty I have just referred to in the case of an officer of the employer or the union is much too severe.
In the same way the penalty for a single individual who would contravene the Act is a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $1,000 per each day that the infraction occurs. The employer or the union is likely to be subjected to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $100,000 per day. These are penalties which have never been seen before this Conservative Government came to power. As well, these fines make a mockery of the flexibility a judge has in making a decision in a tribunal. Why impose a minimum fine? If there were no minimum fines and if those minimum fines were removed from the Bill, keeping the maximum fines, although the maximum penalties are very high, a judge would still have the flexibility to impose a fine which is reasonable and appropriate to a violation. We think that these penalties are unfair and not appropriate to the situation, especially the question of a minimum penalty. To try to deal with that I offer the following amendment:
That Clause 10 of Bill C-106 be amended:
(a)	by striking out the words "less than $10,000 or-" from line 26 on page 4 of the Bill
(b)	by striking out the words "less than $500 or-" from line 31 on page 4 of the Bill
r

January 19, 1988
Prince Rupert Grain Handling Operations Act
(c)	by striking out the words "less than $20,000 or-" from line 38 on page
4 of the Bill.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove the minimum penalties mentioned in Clause 10 of the Bill, allowing a judge to use his educated judgment in handing down the proper sentence to anyone who violates the Act. We do not think it is desirable or fair to have a judge strapped into having to hand down a minimum fine of $10,000 for one day's contravention. It is barbaric. We think the judiciary should enjoy the same flexibility in this piece of legislation as it enjoys with others. This is the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Jack Harris: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on the same issue as my colleague from the Liberal Party did concerning Clause 10. I want to speak in support of his amendment.
A similar argument was placed before Committee of the Whole on Bill C-86 in the postal dispute. The Minister as a lawyer is well aware of the arguments put forward at that time, and he is also aware of how justice abhors minimum fines and penalties in any legislation.
I think all Members of the House are aware of the minimum sentence of seven years in jail for importing narcotics. We have had instances of young people caught with a very small amount of marijuana or a drug like that who are subject to a minimum sentence of seven years in jail. It is obviously an abhorrent type of measure. I say that despite the fact that we are talking here about a situation where the employer or the union contravenes the Act and there is a minimum fine of $20,000. In this case, the union is anxious to have binding arbitration while the employer is not and, on a matter of principle, we cannot have in legislation the kind of minimums stated. The judges of this country who deal with offences and contraventions of legislation are very well prepared to deal with them.
I will give one example because I think an example is worthy of note even though it may be theoretical. If we look at Clause 3(b) of the Bill we read:
every employee shall, when so required, forthwith resume the duties of that
employee's employment.
Forthwith, Mr. Chairman, has been interpreted by many courts as to its meaning; namely, that it has to be done right away. If somebody did not report for work right away for some reason, then it may be a very minor period of time, it may be a very minor offence, but it is still subject to a minimum fine. There are also provisions in Clause 4(b) which require a union and each officer or the representative of the union to take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply with Clause 3(b).
Some judge might decide that the union or an individual should have done something which the judge thought was reasonable but they did not, and that union or that individual
could be found guilty under this Bill. It may have been a minor or a technical breach, yet a minimum fine would apply.
The Minister of Justice has left the Chamber, so I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to respond to this point. It is a very serious precedent not only to have a minimum penalty in this legislation but in other legislation and I ask him to reconsider the inclusion in a Bill of this type of minimum penalty. There are ways of making sure that the seriousness of the offence is recognized by the judiciary by placing maximum fines or providing for other penalties other than fines. Having a minimum fine in place is not an appropriate measure in dealing with this type of thing.
We have many examples across the country of labour disputes where court orders are issued and sometimes individuals are brought before the court for contempt. In those situations judges deal with the contempt of court order, if there is one in place. This is a similar kind of matter where there is an order from Parliament to return to work. Without any minimum fines or minimum approach, judges across the country are well able to deal with the seriousness of crimes committed in similar circumstances. Sometimes jail penalties are provided and sometimes very large fines, sometimes fines as large as those proposed here are imposed.
Could the Minister of Labour tell the House why it is that he is including this type of minimum fine in the Bill when there is an opportunity to accomplish the same object without this measure?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I have had the occasion to reflect on these particular fines on a number of occasions now since they were placed in Bills C-24, C-85 and C-86. I recall that we had a particularly long debate on Bill C-86 in this regard. I have acknowledged, and I will acknowledge again today, that these fines are severe. We have been using fines consistently in these types of back to work legislation. In this case I would like to point out that if the parties had agreed to voluntary binding arbitration we would not be here today considering back to work legislation and considering these penalties. As in the past we have not supported amendments in this regard. I believe that on Bill C-86 my colleague from Saint-Jacques proposed the same amendment, which we did not support then and we will not support today.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 10 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 11 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 12 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
January 19, 1988

Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few seconds to mention again that it is not one of my greatest moments as Minister of Labour when I have to rise in this House to introduce back to work legislation. However, in this case I think everyone will agree that this was the last option. Notwithstanding the fact that we may not agree totally with all the clauses of the Bill, this legislation was necessary in order to get the grain moving again in Canada to help our farmers and to maintain our reputation as a grain exporter throughout the world.
1 think we should give credit when credit is deserved. I want to thank my colleagues in both opposition Parties for their cooperation in the speedy passage of this piece of legislation.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) just said that it is not pleasant for him to stand in the House to introduce back to work legislation. I can tell you that it is certainly not pleasant for me, as the spokesperson for labour for the Liberal Party of Canada, to see him bringing this regressive type of legislation to the House of Commons time after time, especially when these Bills contain overly harsh penalties such as we discussed earlier.
We have been trying to amend the Bill. The Minister will recollect that we tried to make him understand when dealing with Bill C-86 that these penalties were too stiff, were unnecessary, and were tying the hands of judges. I do not think our arguments were well heard because he has brought back the same type of measure as was contained in Bill C-86. Our only hope is that after the passage of this Bill operations will resume as soon as possible, that the grain will get moving, and that we will be able to safeguard our markets and deliver grain to people who have concluded contracts with us.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for just a few minutes on third reading. We have done much today to expedite the passage of this legislation. It is in third reading after just over two hours of debate. Much of the legislation is familiar to us in that we have seen a fair number of Bills in the last six months which contained similar words and clauses. It is, therefore, not new to Members of the House.
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
We recognize that, there having been a breakdown in negotiations, a long strike which has not resolved the issue, and since mediation has not worked, there is a necessity to go to arbitration. However, as 1 said earlier, there are still some problems with this legislation.
As the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) said, this legislation is very strict in terms of the minimum fines it provides for. An individual who has every intention of abiding by this legislation but is unable to do so will be fined a minimum of $10,000. That person may not be in Prince Rupert today, tomorrow, or Thursday when this legislation is proclaimed. It has been a long strike and the people have not all stayed in that community.
That type of clause is obviously meant as punishment for people who deliberately disobey the law. However, people who may have gone away to visit family, or could not pay their mortgage because they have not been working for the last while and have gone to live with family elsewhere, would be subject to a minimum fine of $10,000 a day.
When there is a dispute in the City of Thompson, where 1 am from, there is usually a cooling off period, a certain amount of time to allow people who are out of town to return to town and resume work. Those are the types of things that should be done.
This is not the first time the Minister has introduced this particular clause, and 1 hope that if he believes it is necessary to have minimum fines in the future he will make them subject to a wilful disregard of the legislation. He has not included that and, as a result, has a very dangerous clause which could be used against any individual. 1 am not talking about a hypothetical situation. The law is the law and someone, especially after a bitter labour dispute, may try to enforce the law in a way which would not see justice done.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being after 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-BILLS   CANADA-ALASKA BOUNDARY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
James Ross Fulton: that Bill C-222, an Act respecting the international boundary between Canada and the State of Alaska, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to bring a Bill regarding 54-40 or as we know it on the north coast of B.C., the A-B line, before the House for debate. Many

January 19, 1988
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
Members of the House will know that just over a year ago the legislative committee chose this as one of the Bills to be brought before the House for a vote. Through a variety of calendar changes ranging from the changing of opposition days and government days to the proroguing of the House, Bill C-222 did not get to the floor of the House for a vote. I am hoping that before 20 minutes after six this evening Members of the House will allow this Bill to come to a vote so that it can either go to committee or be passed into law.
Everyone who has followed the rather sad history of the disputes in relation to 54-40 will know how important it is that a statutory and parliamentary vote be taken putting the A-B line into law, not to send a message to individual Canadians but to send a collective message to Washington that we are tired of the steps they have taken throughout this century to try to capture a part of Canada which has always been Canada and is supported by many treaties.
I would like to thank my colleague, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who spoke on this Bill the last time around. I hope that the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and others will take the opportunity to participate in this debate today because 1 think it is an historic moment for this House to pass Bill C-222 into law. it entrenches the boundary lines from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon, to the opening of the Portland Canal.
Let me outline the location of that boundary. The Alaskan Panhandle which comes down the north coast of British Columbia and ends just above the Queen Charlotte Islands where an area known as Dixon Entrance Lies. Prince Rupert lies in that immediate vicinity and there is extensive fishing in Dixon Entrance.
The history of the A-B line essentially begins in 1825 with a treaty that was struck between Russia and Great Britain. At that time, and well into the century, Britain produced our treaties for Canada. That was followed by another treaty in 1867, after what was probably the greatest land transaction in the history of the world when the United States purchased Alaska from Imperial Russia for $15 million in gold. Just as in 1825, the 1867 treaty included very specific references to 5440 as being the southern terminus of the territory that was acquired from Imperial Russia.
There was some trouble in that area during the gold rush period in 1897 and 1898, up the Stikine, through various of the transboundary rivers and over the Chilcoot.
As well, President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 and was succeeded by President Teddy Roosevelt. He was a rather notorious and rowdy President, who did not like the trouble among the miners in the disputed area between Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon. He threatened then Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier with sending troops into the area north of Prince Rupert and up into the transboundary areas to quell this so-called uprising.
Not many who have studied history will forget the cry of "54-40" by the Americans back in 1884. That became a famous slogan of the United States that wanted to move the boundary from Oregon all the way up to join the southern terminus of Soviet territory at that time, 54-40 and further up so that the United States would effectively have been all of North America.
The events in 1903 were unfortunate in relation to the rest of the Alaskan Panhandle. However, it supports very strongly my Bill because the Hay-Herbert Treaty was brought forward. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to ensure that there were no Canadian MP's who did not understand how serious he was. He appointed his Secretary of War, E. Root, the Secretary of State, Henry Cabot Lodge and George Turner, the senior Republican senator from the State of Washington.
As 1 stated earlier, at that time Great Britain was responsible for making our treaties and therefore sent Lord Alberton from the House of Lords. We also had on our side the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Quebec and a lawyer from Toronto. That was the Canadian contingent, up against the Secretary of War, the Secretary of State and the senior Republican senator from the northwestern United States.
Unfortunately, Lord Alberton voted with the three Americans on six of the seven boundary questions and gave up about
10,000	square miles of Canada to the United States. This included all of the headwaters and the beautiful inlets up the north coast of British Columbia which were never part of the 1867 treaty or 1825 treaty. These were given to the United States, effectively closing off the northern half of British Columbia from access to ice-free ports, of which Stewart is the most northerly ice-free port on the West Coast of North America.
There was a four to two vote on the six questions of the Panhandle, but a unanimous vote on the A-B line, 54-40. It was unanimously ratified, placed into the Hay-Herbert Treaty, an international treaty, passed through all of its necessary legislative means in the United States, which entrenched the A-B line as the international boundary.
Finally, in 1909, six years after the Americans had taken charge of a big chunk of Canada, an Order in Council finally wove its way through the august chambers here when Cabinet met and said it should do something about the A-B line. By 1911, Canadians not only in British Columbia but right across the country were still enraged about the 1903 rip-off. The newspapers from 1903 to 1911 will show that Canadians continued to be angry, whether in Toronto, Moose Jaw, Prince Rupert or elsewhere. People everywhere felt very badly about how we were treated.
It is interesting how history collides with itself from time to time. At that time the Government of Canada had initiated free trade talks with the United States. It was the dispute over the A-B line that brought about a quick end to those talks. The people of Canada rejected the free trade talks with the United States in 1911.
January 19, 1988

For many years the A-B line disappeared into the mists of time until a conscious decision appears to have been taken in Washington by the State Department to start harassing Canadians, almost simultaneously with the kind of boundary harassment we saw on George's Bank and have now come to see on a more regular basis in the Beaufort in relation to the 141st meridian between Alaska and Yukon.
In June, in 1981, a vessel known as Sable Mist was boarded. This caused a great furor on the north coast of British Columbia and protests by fishermen who closed off the Port of Prince Rupert, ferry traffic movements and so on.
In July, 1981, a number of American vessels attempted to come to fish in Canadian waters south of 54-40. Those six fishing vessels were ordered back out of Dixon Entrance.
In May, 1984, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States offered 40 square miles of Canada off the Queen Charlotte Islands for sale. That did not attract too much attention for some days and, in fact, the Federal Register, Volume 49, No. 63, published March 30, 1984, offered this particular sale of a chunk of Canada by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to various U.S. oil and gas companies.
I raised that matter in the House and the Minister promised and subsequently sent a note of protest to Washington. In the next publication of the Federal Register, the sale was withdrawn.
The Learmonth Bank, the area in the Dixon Entrance above which many anadromous and non-anadromous species tend to school, has long been of interest to both Canadian and American fishermen. It was in relation to the Learmonth Bank in 1984 that the Storus and Brooks Bay were boarded inside Canadian territory by the U.S. navy and coast guard. Again, notes were sent by Canada to Washington.
The issue became more involved when President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz became more interested in the A-B line. There were a number of reasons for this.
There was enormous fishing value, enormous gas and oil potential. Polymetallic sulphides have already been located on the ocean floor. There are military reasons as well. The Americans want to move various Trident submarine related activities into the southern Panhandle area. This has raised jurisdictional questions and so on.
There is a very serious test of Canada's will and our ability to stand together on an issue which exists even today.
It was just two years ago that George Shultz appointed Ed Derwinski as the U.S. negotiator for the A-B line. He is a 25-year member of Congress and someone we know through the Canada-U.S. group and other meetings. He is a very knowledgeable and respected member of the U.S. House.
Finally, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), under pressure from British Columbia fishermen, myself and others, wrote in August, 1986, to the Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, saying no to the negotiations. That was a
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
puzzling period of time. I think it is important that I quote from Hansard to show how woolly-minded the Secretary of State for External Affairs was on this issue. One can only wonder what kind of advice he was receiving from various bureaucrats and officials at the Department of External Affairs to have even considered entering into negotiations on the A-B line. It has always been Canada's boundary. Why would any government want to get involved in negotiations? If would be the same as if some bum walked in off the street into your home, Mr. Speaker, and said: "I would like to negotiate this house. Why do you not get out?" What was being proposed out of the Department of External Affairs was that someone could come in and say: "This house is actually mine. Let us negotiate a price. How about $50?" A preposterous situation began to evolve. On March 21, 1986, I was questioning the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House about why he was having discussions with British Columbia about appointing a negotiator on the A-B line. I said the following, as reported, at page 11747 of Hansard:
-the article in Maclean's is not an editorial. It quotes Canadian officials. I wonder if the Minister would explain to the House why he and the B.C. Government are discussing the movement of West Coast Canada-U.S. boundaries like the A-B line. Does not the axiom "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" hold in the case of Canada's sovereign boundaries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to know if opinions put forward in Maclean's magazines are stories or opinions. Whatever they are, this one was false.
With regard to why we are discussing with the Government of British Columbia whether or not it would be useful for us to discuss with the United States a negotiation to bring clarity to a situation about which there is now dispute, it is precisely because clarity is better than a lack of clarity. I made it very clear on several occasions that if it is not in Canada's interests to enter into those negotiations, we will not do so. If, once in those negotiations, it is not in Canada's interests to conclude an agreement, we will not conclude an agreement.
I think that stands as an all-time Canadian great of woolly-mindedness. If that is clarity of the Canadian position on the A-B line, it is an astonishing state of affairs. Nevertheless, I give the Minister full credit. He finally did write to George Shultz to say no to the negotiations after Mr. Derwinski had been pulling together various files and so on in relation to this matter.
I will not bore Members of the House with the enormous amount of legal writings, academic investigations and so on which have been done in relation to the A-B line. There is an abundance of evidence, including from American sea captains, mariners and so on, who all agree that 54-40 historically has always been Canada's international boundary with the State of Alaska and the United States of America.
What I am pleading about with the House today, Mr. Speaker, is to set aside whatever kind of orders various caucuses might be under in relation to this Bill and to think for a moment of how simple this Bill really is. What I am suggesting is something which previous Cabinets have gone part way with. In 1909 an Order in Council passed through

January 19, 1988
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
Cabinet identifying 54-40 as our international boundary with the United States running from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon to the end of the Portland Canal. However, what is happening is that there are funny things going on within the Department of External Affairs and between Washington and Ottawa in relation to a whole variety of things. I do not think any part of Canada be it marine, submarine, island or offshore, should, under any circumstances, be part of negotiations, whether in relation to free trade, hotel conventions or some other boundary area. I think it is of fundamental importance. This was entrenched in 1825, in 1867, in 1903, and substantiated many times since then.
All I am asking for in this Bill is to allow a vote to occur this evening to send it to committee. If Hon. Members have more questions, why not send it to committee? The Bill is fundamentally simple. It simply entrenches the boundary in statute as are other boundaries in this country.
I stood in this House and supported the Secretary of State for External Affairs following the voyage of the Polar Sea when he brought legislation forward to bring closing lines in the Arctic Archipelago. I congratulated him as a Canadian and as a Member of this House, as someone who recognized that the right thing in terms of sovereignty was being pursued by the Government on behalf of all Canadians. It is not a partisan issue when members of different Parties rise to support something that is right.
This Bill has been chosen by a legislative committee consisting of a majority of government Members. Very important questions were asked. I see some of the members of the committee here this evening. That Bill was chosen to be voted on. That is this Bill, Bill C-22. However, because of the prorogation of the House last year, it missed its opportunity to be voted on.
We have the opportunity now to either vote on the Bill or to send it to a committee where it can be amended or redrafted. If Members have questions, I have piles of information, legal, academic, you name it. I can answer, I am certain, or find the source for an answer to any question Hon. Members might have.
I plead with Members of the House to focus the debate this evening and direct it towards a vote to send the Bill to committee or to pass it into law. I think it is important for Canada and I think Canadians have waited far too long in this century and are the last to make absolutely certain, statutorily, that 54-40 is our international boundary with United States.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), Bill C-22. I know that several of my colleagues from British Columbia from this side of the House will also have the opportunity to speak on it today. It is the kind of Bill where it would be helpful if we could actually use maps, because I think it is a difficult thing for those hearing us perhaps to visualize what we are talking
about with respect to this boundary. Lacking that possibility, 1 will try to explain in words some of the concerns I have about the Bill.
Although I laud the Hon. Member's intentions, I must say to him that I do not support either the technical wording of the Bill or his approach to the resolution of this particular boundary issue. As the Hon. Member has said, in purporting to recognize and declare that the Canada-Alaska land boundary is the boundary established in 1903, Bill C-22 merely states a fact that is disputed by no one in either Canada or in the United States. If the Bill did no more than this, I would still be obliged to criticize it as being redundant and unnecessary. That is because, by its very redundancy, it calls into question all of Canada's extensive boundaries with the United States. Why should we create uncertainty where none now exists?
It seems that Bill C-22 purports to deal with more than the boundary dividing the lands of Canada and Alaska. Clause 2 of the Bill, states:
For greater certainty, the Canada-Alaska boundary includes the "A-B line"
running from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon to the mouth of the Portland
Canal, and a line running headland to headland from Cape Muzon to Langara
Island,...
That does not translate the intention into clear legislative terms.


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order. 1 would just like to point out that there is no reference whatsoever to a headland to headland boundary from Cape Muzon to Langara Island. That was removed several years ago from a completely different Bill. I would hope the Member could perhaps address her remarks to Bill C-222, not Bill C-22. Bill C-222 is presently before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not really a point of order. It is a point of clarification. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) has the floor.


Mary Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I am quite familiar with Bill C-22. I am quite aware that this is Bill C-222. I am sure it will not provide a headache, hopefully, for the Hon. Member or anyone else in this House.
Indeed, there is no doubt that the A-B line was indeed established by the 1903 Alaska boundary award and that it divides the lands of Alaska and Canada. That is the view of both Canada and the United States. But the United States insists that it is the land boundary only in the sense of a line for the allocation of the land territories alone and not for the allocation of sea areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of either country. Canada, on the other hand, has always taken the position that the A-B line is not only a boundary dividing the land but a maritime boundary as well, and that the waters south of that line are Canadian, together with the sea bed under them.
January 19, 1988

Regrettably, Bill C-222 would seem to adopt something like the U.S. view of this matter instead of the Canadian view. The language of the Bill, given the history of this dispute, requires greater precision if it is to avoid being interpreted in that way.
I think that there are problems with the drafting of the Bill. One might say that that can be fixed up when and if it goes to committee, if they deal merely with technical areas. However, these problems are also symptomatic of different difficulties that could arise if we ignore the language of Bill C-222 and address its apparent intention instead.
Imagine for a moment that the Bill before us did enshrine in a clear statutory form the longstanding Canadian position with regard to the A-B line in Dixon Entrance. We would still have to ask ourselves whether such a Bill would truly achieve its objectives, or whether it might harm the very interests it seeks to protect. These objectives and interests would be to secure Canada's maritime sovereignty in the Dixon Entrance beyond all doubt of challenge. But could any Bill do this?
The answer is clear. No domestic law or other unilateral action can of itself resolve a boundary dispute with another sovereign state. International law and practice lay down a few basic guidelines for the settlement of maritime boundary disputes between neighbouring countries. I think, as my colleague will recall, these were well stated by the Chamber of the International Court of Justice in its 1984 decision in the Gulf of Maine case. I quote:
No maritime delimitation between states with opposite or adjacent coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those states. Such delimination must be sought and effected by means of an agreement, following negotiations conducted in good faith and with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result. Where, however, such agreement cannot be achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party possessing the necessary competence.
Of course, it can be said that the A-B line in Dixon Entrance is itself the result of a third party settlement by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. That, indeed, is Canada's position regarding the status of the A-B line as a maritime boundary. The United States, however, does not accept that position. Successive Canadian Governments have recognized that the only way forward in this matter is either by negotiation or by international adjudication. So far, negotiation has been the preferred route, although it has not yet brought about the result that we in Canada would like to see.
Any Bill enshrining the A-B line as a maritime boundary in Canadian law might well rule out the possibility of a negotiated settlement and virtually force Canada to refer the dispute to third party proceedings. Is that what the Hon. Member for Skeena wants? Is that what the House wants? International adjudication is a valuable last resort, but one to be entered into by design rather than by mere accident.
Hon. Members will be aware that discussions on the West Coast boundaries were suspended in 1979, pending the conclusion of the Gulf of Maine case. With that case behind
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
us, the U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz, suggested that special representatives be appointed to oversee discussions and possible negotiations on West Coast maritime boundaries.
Before responding to Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of State for External Affairs sought the views of the Government of British Columbia. He also heard from numerous groups and communities on the West Coast. Having carefully weighed their views and the attitude of the provincial Government, he concluded that now is not an opportune time for Canada to resume discussions with the United States on West Coast maritime boundary matters. In reaching this conclusion the Minister was conscious of the sensitivity of the issues involved, particularly with respect to Dixon Entrance, and the need to allow some breathing space to ensure the smooth implementation of the Canada-U.S.A. Pacific Salmon Treaty.
At the same time, however, the Secretary of State advised Mr. Shultz that he intends to keep the situation under review and to leave open the possibility of taking up his proposal for discussions on the boundary at some future time when circumstances may be more propitious.
Whether we negotiate now or later, or whether it is ultimately decided to refer the question to third party settlement, we must still ask ourselves whether any version of Bill C-222 might advance the Canadian position. I have already indicated that domestic legislation would not resolve the problem under international law. But could it have some effect on the United States? Let me ask the question another way.
How would Canada react if the U.S. Congress were to adopt a law of its own regarding the maritime boundary in Dixon Entrance? Such a law, we can be sure, would incorporate an equidistant line dividing Dixon Entrance equally between Canada and the United States. That, of course, is the U.S. position regarding the maritime boundary in Dixon Entrance. So far, the United States has only declared its position in a public notice in the U.S. Federal Register, and has done so on the express condition that such notice be without prejudice to any negotiations with Canada.
A law adopted by Congress in response to some variation on Bill C-222 might not include a condition of this kind, as Bill C-222 does not. No doubt Canada would protest a unilateral attempt by the United States, France, or Denmark, to settle a disputed boundary by domestic legislation. But what credibility would our protest carry if we ourselves had acted in the same way?
There is no way in which any version of Bill C-222 can help to resolve the dispute with the United States over the maritime boundary in Dixon Entrance. Any such legislation would only aggravate the dispute. It would induce a more forthcoming attitude by the United States. Indeed, it would virtually guarantee the opposite result and place us in a situation from which we could probably only extricate ourselves by international adjudication.

January 19, 1988
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
The Hon. Member for Skeena might well respond that Canada cannot be forced into third party proceedings against its will. Strictly speaking he would be right, since the United States and Canada are under no binding reciprocal obligation to refer their disputes to an adjudication. But if we reject negotiation and refuse adjudication, the result is an impasse, something like the situation we were in earlier today with the Prince Rupert grain situation. An impasse could lead to incidents. Incidents can lead all to easily to confrontation. Each side scrambles to stake out its claim at the expense of the other. 1 need hardly spell out the implication of such a development in the Dixon Entrance area.
Clearly, there must be a way to deal with this issue which is mutually satisfactory to both sides. To be sure, there have been incidents from time to time, but thanks to a policy of mutual restraint these have been isolated and have remained manageable.
Any version of Bill C-222 would put this delicate equilibrium at risk, with unpredictable implications for fishing patterns and offshore resource exploration in the disputed area. The impact on the halibut fishery could prejudice local interests. And what about the implications for the Pacific Salmon Treaty? Surely, the last thing we should contemplate at this stage is to say or do anything that might interfere with the successful implementation of the salmon treaty.
We have other outstanding maritime boundary questions to resolve with the United States. They include those seaward of Dixon Entrance, those seaward of Juan de Fuca Straits, in the Beaufort Sea, and both landward and seaward of the boundary fixed by the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine area. In addition, we have boundaries to settle with Denmark in the Lincoln Sea and with France off the coasts of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and Miquelon.
I have only spoken of the possible implications of Bill C-222 for Dixon Entrance. I do not wish to address its possible implications for other areas in question in the limited time I have. Let me only say that I doubt whether they have been given adequate thought in the preparation of the Bill before us today.
We do not need legislation to protect Canada's position in Dixon Entrance. We do not need it to convince ourselves of the rightness of Canada's position there. We do not need it to convince the United States of our own convictions. Finally, we do not need it for the greater certainty that Bill C-222 promises but does not truly deliver.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and to debate Bill C-222, the Bill put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). My hon. friend has been raising this issue both in the House of Commons and through Private Members' initiatives for some time. It is important that we recognize that at the moment we are speaking about the principle of the Bill. We are not debating the clause by
clause details of the Bill. There will be ample opportunity in committee to do that, and there will be ample opportunity in committee to bring forth witnesses both in terms of international law, particularly witnesses who are expert in boundary disputes, and academics who have studied this particular matter and put it in an historical context.
Anyone who has examined the whole phenomenon of the 5440 line in terms of the boundary between Alaska and Canada on our West Coast, would recognize that back in 1903 when the International Alaska Boundary Tribunal got together, the representatives of Canada and the United States, it was unanimously agreed that the so-called A-B line or the boundary of 54-40 was to be the southernmost limit of the Alaska panhandle, and clearly indicated that that would be the boundary between the two countries.
I am not even certain what the dispute is, in the sense that all this Private Member's Bill does is to agree to what the International Tribunal unanimously agreed to back in 1903, that yes, this is the boundary. Mr. Speaker might say, if it was agreed to in 1903 and this Bill simply confirms that, what is the discussion? The discussion is that now the United States has decided that it does not accept that particular ruling in this area of our West Coast.
I am concerned about the fact that our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has not said, "That's it. There is no discussion. There is no need to negotiate. We agreed to this boundary, you agreed to this boundary, and that is it". In a sense we are wimping out here as a country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been sending that type of message to the United States when he stated that we are not prepared to negotiate now. That implies that perhaps we would be prepared to negotiate in the future. We should have sent a much stronger message to the United States and simply said that we are not prepared to discuss this now, in the future, or ever because the decision has been made and we are quite prepared to stand by the original decision.
If the United States is unprepared to accept that, if it in fact wants to deviate from this original decision and move that boundary more down into Canadian territory, that is their problem. We should not do anything to facilitate those negotiations or the American case in terms of achieving more territory that rightfully belongs to Canada.
It is obvious that the United States wants to do that for military purposes in terms of movement of submarines and other military activity along our West Coast. It is obvious because of the very important fishing grounds in that area. It is obvious because of the potential oil and gas reserves in that area.
Of course, as my hon. friend from Skeena reminded us, there are some valuable minerals on the floor of the ocean in that particular area that the United States would desire. For a whole set of reasons that is a very valuable piece of territory
January 19, 1988

which presently belongs to Canada that the United States wants. It is now prepared to continue pressuring Canada until it obtains that boundary change. 1 do not see why we as a country do not say, "No, we are not interested. We have established the A-B line, we have established the boundary at 54-40, that is it".
As on so many other occasions, and I do not wish to list all the requests that the United States has made of Canada in the last number of years, virtually every single one we have agreed to. In other words, all the Americans have had to do is to ask, and we shall agree. This is simply another one.
I am afraid that our Secretary of State for External Affairs was not firm, steadfast, and definite in his response, because he certainly left a very clear implication that we were not negotiating at the moment, but in the future we can consider this matter.
There is an international court in place for this very matter. If the United States wants to challenge the original 1903 decision, if it wants to question the unanimous decision made by those individuals designated by Canada and the United States to determine this border, that is its problem. It has a right to take this to the international court. But for goodness' sakes, it ought not to be our role to facilitate that process and give any indication at all that we are prepared to give more of our territory to the United States, particular such valuable territory off the West Coast of Canada.


Ross Belsher: January 19, 1988
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
fishing vessel that United States vessels were not permitted to fish anywhere in Hecate Strait or in any other territorial waters off the coast of British Columbia. Although this Canadian assertion of jurisdiction was protested by the United States, it constitutes early evidence of a Canadian claim to the waters of Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance.
In the 1890s the growth of activity in the area made the need for a definitive settlement of the entire boundary between Canada and Alaska more pressing. The matter was discussed throughout the decade by the Canadian and British Governments on the one side and the United States Government on the other. In 1892 a convention was signed providing for a joint survey of the territory adjacent to the boundary, but the task was not successfully completed. By the beginning of this century, the views of the Governments concerned were irreconcilable, negotiation had failed to settle the dispute, and arbitration seemed the only solution. In 1903 Great Britain and the United States agreed to refer the interpretation of the 1825 treaty to arbitration.
The arbitration treaty of 1903 put three questions to the arbitral tribunal, the answers to which would give an authoritative interpretation of the relevant article of the 1825 treaty. Those questions were as follows: first, what is the intended point of commencement of the line; second, what channel is the Portland Channel; and, third, what course should the line take from the point of commencement to the entrance to Portland Channel?
The first and third of these questions are obviously the most relevant to the subject under discussion, and the third question is of particular interest.
The arbitral tribunal was able to reach quick agreement on the first question before it. The point of commencement was Cape Muzon on Dali Island and not Cape Chacon, the southernmost point on Prince of Wales Island.
The second question-which channel is Portland Channel- gave rise to one of the key controversies in the whole case. In deciding the issue, the tribunal opted partially for the British view, drawing the line north of Pearse and Wales Islands but then through Tongass Channel to run south of Sitklan and Kannaghunut Islands.
The third question was also the subject of some dispute. Great Britain argued that the line should be a straight line drawn from Cape Muzon to the Portland Channel provided that if that line intersected Prince of Wales Island, the whole island would, in accordance with the 1825 treaty, still belong to the United States. The United States contended that the line should run along latitude 54 degrees 40' N. In the end the tribunal accepted the British argument and drew a straight line from Cape Muzon to the entrance to Portland Channel. This is the line that has become known as the A-B Line.
The 1903 Alaska Boundary Award gave rise to a storm of protest in Canada. The complaints concerned the location of the boundary on the mainland, and particularly the division of
the four islands at the entrance to Portland Channel. Much of the Canadian outrage was directed at the British jurist, Lord Alverstone, who was suspected of selling out to the Americans.
In spite of this hostile reaction, the line drawn by the tribunal, which established the contour of the Alaska panhandle, was accepted as definitive by both Canada and the United States so far as it concerned the land, but a dispute ultimately arose with respect to the waters.
Following the 1903 award, Canada continued to assert exclusive fishing rights in the waters of Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. I have already mentioned an incident in 1897 when Canada issued a warning to an American vessel found fishing in Hecate Strait. A similar incident occurred in 1905 and, as on the previous occasion, the United States protested the Canadian action.
In 1909 the State Department received further complaints from United States fishermen and, as a result, the Secretary of State wrote to the British Ambassador at Washington to request an official statement on the British position with respect to the waters of Hecate Strait. This led to the adoption in 1909 of an Order in Council asserting Canadian jurisdiction over both Hecate Strait and the waters of Dixon Entrance south of the A-B Line. This same position was maintained in another Order in Council in 1914.
In 1910, however, the United States officially asserted its position that the waters of Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance beyond the three-mile limit were not British waters.
Since World War I, various incidents have occurred that tend to support Canada's position regarding the status of the A-B line. For example, in 1924 a United States cruiser seized a Canadian fishing vessel in Clarence Strait seven and one-half miles north of the A-B line and five miles from the nearest United States shore. The United States reportedly justified this seizure on the ground that the vessel was fishing well north of the international boundary. This incident would appear to suggest that the United States considered the A-B Line to be a boundary for both land and sea.
It is also worth noting that at least until 1921 the International Boundary Commissioners concerned with fixing the Alaska boundary did not treat the A-B line differently from other sections of the Alaska boundary. In particular, during the 1920s the American Commissioner tried to persuade his Canadian counterpart to agree to request their Governments to move the boundary line from Cape Muzon to the middle of the Dixon Entrance, because its position at Cape Muzon was anomalous, as it meant that there was no United States territorial sea off Cape Muzon.
In the 1940s there were unsuccessful attempts to settle the issue by negotiation. Efforts to negotiate a settlement were made again in the 1970s, but these efforts too did not succeed.
Throughout the years from the 1890s to the present Canada has maintained that the waters of Dixon Entrance are Canadian, and Canadian practice since that time has been
January 19, 1988

consistent with that position. In this regard several more recent Canadian measures are particularly noteworthy. For example, in 1964, when the fishing activities of Russian and Japanese vessels off Canada's West Coast began to increase, the Canadian Government issued a warning for them to stay out of the Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait. Both Governments heeded the warning and, apart from a few minor incursions, their fishing vessels have not entered these waters.
In addition, in 1971, under the authority of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Canada delimited its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction within Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait by means of the A-B line and a line drawn across the Dixon Entrance from Cape Muzon to Langara Island. This action by Canada was protested by the United States. Nevertheless, Canada's position on the status of Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait has remained unchanged.
I opened my remarks today with a reference to the long and colourful history of the Dixon Entrance question. All Members of the House will agree that this brief account of that history and of state practice in the area generally supports the view that the A-B line is the boundary for both land and water inside Dixon Entrance. That is Canada's longstanding view, and it is this view that Canada can and must affirm in any negotiations with the United States.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to express appreciation to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) who has just done much to clarify the disputed area, if I can use that word. As was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), it is a pity that we cannot have large maps here so that everyone can see the different parts of which we are speaking. However, I think the speech just delivered is the best one can do without a map.
I notice that several of our colleagues from British Columbia are participating in the debate tonight. It is nice to hear correct pronunciation of all these places, which is rather startling, as we who come from Esquimalt-Saanich and such places know. However, tonight there has been a welcome absence of those mistakes.
In discussing the question of the Dixon Entrance, it is important to remember that boundary delimitations are more than a matter of law and that they may have a significant impact on the allocation of resources, both living and nonliving. In the brief time allowed to me I should like to focus on the natural resource potential of the area surrounding Dixon Entrance.
First it should be noted that the subsurface geology of Dixon Entrance has not been studied extensively, but certain inshore tests, seismic profiles, and extrapolations based on wells drilled in Hecate Strait and on Graham Island have offered some clues to assist us in estimating the prospects of oil and gas in and around the area in dispute. The results of these analyses indicate, for example, that the volcanic and sedimentary rocks
Canada-Alaska Boundary Act
under Dixon Entrance may be sufficiently thick and deep to permit the generation and entrapment of certain hydrocarbons. In general, though, the over-all oil and gas potential in the area is believed to be modest at best.
In the time I spent in Prince Rupert many years ago, it was entirely a fishing town. I see that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is shaking his head. I was there long before he was born and spent considerable time in Prince Rupert. Of course, some people say that in Prince Rupert a short time seems like a long time, but I enjoyed the hospitality of the people of Prince Rupert and of the civic Government there.
In those days, the city was practically overrun with Americans. There were more American troops there than there were Canadian plus the local inhabitants, but everyone got along very well. We certainly had sufficient fish resources, shrimps, crabs and the like to instil a lifelong love of seafood in anyone who spent any time in Prince Rupert.
The frequency of exploration activity in the area is modest. The first federal permits for oil and gas in Dixon Entrance were acquired in August of 1961 by Husky Oil, a Calgary and Edmonton corporation. Following a perfunctory seismic exploration program, these lands were subsequently surrendered. In December, 1964, Pan American, which is now Amoco Canada Petroleum, Filed on permits North and West of Graham Island including the area of Dixon Entrance North to the A-B line.
At the same time, outside the Entrance, permits were taken up to an equidistant line, with a caveat placed on those submerged land areas impinging directly on the line. Seismic exploration and onshore geological surveys were also undertaken in the area in 1966. Successes, however, were few and far between, as evidenced by the fact that the permits in and outside the Entrance were surrendered in December, 1967.
South of Dixon Entrance in Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound and within the Queen Charlotte tertiary basin, Shell Canada acquired exploration permits for about 3.5 million hectares. The company conducted geological mapping and offshore seismic surveys and drilled exploratory wells in the period from 1967 to 1969, with generally negative results.
In 1970, Shell entered into a farm-out agreement with Chevron Canada Resources whereby Chevron would earn an interest in the Shell offshore area by conducting seismic surveys and by drilling two deep exploratory wells. Some of the wells I invest in are too deep, that is, t-o-o, so much a foot.
Currently, submerged lands held by the petroleum industry for exploration purposes include two blocks held by Petro-Canada Resources Ltd. in Dixon Entrance, a small block by Union Oil Company of Canada located immediately northeast of Graham Island and the northern end of a large block of Hecate Strait held by Shell Canada Resources and operated

January 19, 1988
Adjournment Debate
by Chevron Canada Resources under the terms of the farm-out agreement to which I have already referred.
The United States has also indicated some tentative interest in the oil and gas potential of the area. Indeed, in 1984, the United States took the first steps toward calling for bids for offshore leases that would have included an area claimed by Canada outside Dixon Entrance. This action prompted a Canadian protest. Subsequently, Canada was informed by the United States that the proposed offers of lease sales had been withdrawn due to lack of interest by the petroleum industry.
Notwithstanding Canadian holdings and some United States interest in the area, little new has been learned about the resources base in the area since the late 1960s. This is due in large part to a moratorium on exploration and oil tanker traffic in the area which was imposed in 1972 by our federal Government.
The 1972 moratorium was intended to prevent crude oil tankers travelling through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound en route from the Trans-Alaska pipeline terminal at Valdez, Alaska. Subsequently, a federal Order in Council indefinitely relieved existing offshore exploration permit holders from their obligations to conduct exploratory drilling in these waters and prohibited any further drilling.
In 1981 the Province of British Columbia declared the area an inland marine zone. At the same time, an indefinite moratorium was placed on offshore exploration in Johnston Strait South of Telegraph Cove and in the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. These respective moratoria are still in effect.
In June, 1984 the federal and British Columbia Ministers of the Environment appointed a five-member environmental assessment panel to conduct a public review of the environmental and related socio-economic effects of any renewed program of petroleum exploration off the West Coast of Canada North of Vancouver Island.
At that time, consideration was being given to lifting the moratorium so that exploration programs could be pursued. Accordingly, the West Coast offshore exploration environmental assessment panel was asked to develop recommendations on the terms and conditions under which petroleum exploration could proceed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
During the course of the review, the panel gathered information on the environmental and related socio-economic effects of the proposed offshore exploration program and held two series of public forums in November, 1984 and in the latter part of 1985.
Chevron Canada Resources and Petro-Canada were designated by the federal and provincial regulatory bodies as proponents of the offshore oil and gas exploration activity. As proponents, they were expected to develop information on environmental and socio-economic effects that might result
from exploration activity in their area of interest and to explain and answer questions related to this information during the public hearings. In November 1984, Petro-Canada withdrew from the review process, explaining that it had other higher priorities.
During the course of the environmental assessment panel's review which is now completed, participants raised a variety of concerns, the most serious of which related to the biophysical and socio-economic impacts associated with the level of risk and the potential for a major oil well blowout. Other significant concerns and issues raised included the social and cultural impacts on the area's residents, the biophysical effects associated with seismic surveying and routine exploratory drilling and compensation programs for losses and damages which might result from a major oil well blowout.
After careful consideration, the panel made a number of recommendations including (a) that a two-year seismic survey program such as that proposed by Chevron might proceed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired. It is 6.19. There is still a minute left.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we have time to vote and I suggest we do that.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important matter and deserves a full discussion, more than can be given it in the next minute or two available.
What I had in mind-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, have you ever had the opportunity to visit the Eaton Centre-not the West Edmonton Mall-I am referring to the Eaton Centre in Toronto? I can see by the smile on your face that you have been there and you have visited many of the delightful shops and wonderful stores. I know you are aware that the Eaton Centre in Toronto is a people place. It is filled with fountains, trees, walkways, and hundreds and hundreds of people mill about. I bet you did not know that originally when the Eaton
January 19, 1988

Centre was built people thought it would be a gigantic flop. It does a booming business, but it does a booming business in more than one way, that of runaway teenagers.
The police in Metropolitan Toronto and the social service agencies indicate that if there is one place in Metropolitan Toronto area that runaways tend to concentrate and head for it is the Eaton Centre. There at the Eaton Centre they are met by all sorts of weird people. They are met by drug users, drug pushers and pimps. These people offer runaway teenagers a helping hand. They befriend them. They offer them help and a place to stay. Sometimes that place to stay may only be an abandoned house or an abandoned hotel, but they give them the guiding hand. In addition to that they offer them other things, like drugs. Pretty soon after they have taken the opportunity of utilizing all the things being offered by these "wonderful" people, they are into all sorts of things themselves. They are into drugs, drug trafficking, breaking and entering, muggings, street soliciting and prostitution.
There have been a number of cases of individuals of this sort reported in our own press in Toronto, one of them the Kristy McFarlane situation, a 17-year old girl who was found dead of a heroin overdose in a stairwell of a hotel. Another case which has been reported very recently and extensively in the press is that of Kelly Anne Mombourquette, a 14-year old runaway who lived in stairwells, walked the streets and recently, at the preliminary hearing of three people charged with her murder, there was a report that she had died a very, very violent death.
We would like to think these are very isolated cases, but they are not. There are many other cases of runaway teenagers. There have been cases that I am aware of in my own constituency and I suspect there are cases of which you are aware as well. You and I, Mr. Speaker, I, anyway, and I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary saw the television documentary program back in September entitled Runaways. That program indicated quite clearly that this is not a phenomenon unique to Metropolitan Toronto. It is something that occurs in all parts of Canada, whether it be Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. Runaways was a shocking program to me in many aspects, but particularly the last scenes. You will recall in the last scene where you and I, the viewers, came face to face with a teenage runaway who was engaged in the process of taking a syringe and shooting up with heroin or with some other drug, sitting there talking to us just a few feet in front of us on our television screens. If nothing else shocked us. that certainly did. It certainly shocked me.
What can we do as a Government and a country to help runaways and their families like this? The Government has already taken a number of initiatives one of which is a pilot program to deal with runaway victims of child abuse. The Government recently announced a drug program which involves a health aspect and more criminal legislation to seize the profits and proceeds from this sort of crime. Of course there is tighter enforcement. Prostitution is another aspect of the problem. We have had new legislation passed within the
Adjournment Debate
last few months dealing with street solicitation and prostitution. Then there is child pornography, and before the House right now is Bill C-54 which deals in an important way with that dreadful problem. Missing children is another aspect, and again recently the Government has undertaken a program to deal with missing children.
You and I and the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker, know very well that there are other things we should be doing, many other things. Things have been suggested such as the use of street workers, and the Children's Aid in Metropolitan Toronto is doing that sort of a thing now. The suggestion has been made of support groups to support the parents and the teenagers to try to get them back together again. The mother of Kristy McFarlane suggested that we need more protection for witnesses to testify against the people who lure the runaways into these illegal activities. We need more shelters for runaway teenagers. We need more programs on child abuse. Quite frankly, we need something to enable the police to deal with the situation, not just when teenagers who have run away are considered to be at substantial risk.
There are many things that we should be doing, and it only takes political will on the part of the Government. Tonight I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to stand up in his place and tell us that the Government has that firm political will. I hope he will spell out in detail specific steps which the Government intends to take to deal with this dreadful problem in Canadian society, the problem of runaway teenagers on our streets.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 1987, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) asked a question on the subject of runaway youth and the CBC television special Runaways, the problem of street children and youth. I wish to take a few minutes to tell Members about some of our Government's initiatives directed at the problem of runaways and to place these initiatives within the context of concerted action on the broader matter of family violence.
The television special vividly introduced many of us to a problem which is representative of a set of related problems experienced by many Canadian families. These include child sexual abuse, spousal assault, drug abuse, child prostitution and pornography and abducted children. Together these problems challenge the response capacities of our social service, health, police and court systems. This Government is committed to addressing these problems and has been deliberate in formulating action.
Bill C-15 on child sexual abuse became law on January 1, 1988, and Bill C-54 on pornography was introduced on May 4, 1987. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have established a national missing children's registry. The Department of Justice has collaborated with provinces in establishing a tracing service. Within their various mandates, we have mobilized the Departments of Justice, National Health and Welfare and Indian Affairs and Northern Development; the Ministries of

January 19, 1988
Adjournment Debate
the Solicitor General, the Secretary of State and the Status of Women and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to plan collaboratively comprehensive action on the prevention of family violence. The breadth of involvement of government Departments serves to demonstrate the various and many factors which must be considered in responding to these pervasive problems.
While the federal Government may take limited, unilateral action on family violence, it must be recognized that provincial and territorial Governments constitutionally provide front-line services. As well the voluntary sector has long been a source of family support.
Our success in preventing and treating these problems will only result through collaboration with provinces, territories and voluntary groups. In recognition of this fact, a special adviser on child sexual abuse was appointed on August 25, 1987, and has initiated consultations aimed at a national strategy on this problem. Further, officials of National Health and Welfare and other Departments are planning to begin consultations with provincial and territorial Governments on all aspects of family violence.
The problems introduced by the TV program Runaways are complex in their origins and in their solutions. Regardless, all in this House would agree that we must give our every effort to their treatment and prevention. I believe that these few comments indicate to Members that we are making that effort.


TRADE-FREE TRADE-ELIMINATION OF CONTROL BY
[Stage Direction]
CANADIANS OVER AMERICAN INVESTMENT-REQUEST FOR DETAILS/CONTROL OVER AMERICAN INVESTMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate relates to an exchange I had with the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) on October 7.
I was dissatisfied with the response I received from her at that time. My question was asked in an attempt to point out to the Hon. Minister the fact that more than 99 per cent of the new jobs that had been created in Canada between 1978 and 1985 had in fact come from Canadian controlled companies, that American-controlled companies had made next to no contribution to job creation in this country and yet Canada was abandoning any effective means of trying to get better performance from foreign-owned companies, particularly American, because of the trade agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed with the President.
I am always impressed by the ability of the Minister for International Trade to believe anything she likes so long as she tries hard enough. That is certainly the case in this particular instance. I suggested that under the agreement Canadians would not be allowed to say anything at all about American investments. She said that she did not understand the NDP's what she called "obsession" with American firms. She said:
The American firms that we are talking about will still be subject to
monitoring by Investment Canada.
I have taken the trouble to look at the agreement, Mr. Speaker. As you well know, the current limit on Investment Canada reviews is of takeovers and investment of over $5 million. According to the agreement, that will be raised to $25 million in respect to American firms taking over Canadian ones after 1989, to $50 million after 1990, to $100 million in 1991, and to $150 million in 1992 and thereafter. In other words, there will be a 30-fold increase. That effectively means that almost all takeovers by American firms of Canadian firms will not be subject to review. Therefore, the Minister's statement that Investment Canada will continue to subject these American firms to monitoring is just plainly not true.
The Minister said:
We insist that we have sold out nothing.
However, if you look at the elements of the agreement with respect to investment, they indicate that the parties are not to impose export, local content, local sourcing, or import substitution requirements on each other's investors. Effectively the Government of Canada, acting for the people of Canada, will no longer have the ability to try to insist that foreign-controlled companies coming from the United States which are active in Canada act on behalf of Canada or to implement a Canadian industrial strategy. The Minister said that we have given away nothing. In fact, we have given away our power to have an industrial strategy insofar as it affects foreign-controlled companies with parent companies in the United States.
The Minister then said:
We have protected our right to invest in America.
That was never in question, Mr. Speaker. The statement by the United States that they will give national treatment to Canadian firms investing in the United States is all very well, but there have never been particular problems at that level. When Dominion Textile recently tried to take over Burlington Industries, we saw that there are problems at the state and local levels in the United States. National treatment does not get you freedom from state and local interference in Canadian takeovers or investment in the United States.
It is ironical that the Americans, who have such a large control of their own economy, jump up and scream when Canadian firms go from 5 per cent to 7 per cent control of a particular industry, whereas we have tolerated 50 per cent or more control in many of our industries.
The Minister then said that the Government welcomes foreign investment because foreign investment creates jobs. She rejects utterly the evidence from Statistics Canada which I sought to cite in the House of Commons which is absolutely compelling. That evidence indicates that over the course of time from 1978 to 1985 Canadian-controlled companies created 876,400 new jobs while American controlled companies created only 1,500 new jobs on a net basis. Yet in the same period the share of total corporate profits by American companies rose from 31 per cent of the total to 43 per cent of
January 19, 1988

the total. American controlled companies saw their profits double to $17 billion. It is particularly telling to note that for every $1 billion in profits, Canadian companies created 5,700 jobs. For every $1 billion in profits, American controlled companies created 17 jobs and no more.
The Minister has no understanding about the degree to which Canada is being shortchanged by foreign investment and foreign-controlled companies in this country. There has been a buying spree by American companies in Canada, which has been documented by Investment Canada and which affected firms with 100,000 employees in 1986-87. There is no indication that we will be able to have any condition at all to make sure those companies act on behalf of Canadians, to protect Canadian jobs, do research and development here in Canada, buy from Canadian sources, and develop unique Canadian inventions in Canada. None of that will be required. Furthermore, we have the evidence that these companies are not creating jobs.
I stated during Question Period on October 7 that the Government was giving up our right to protect Canadian jobs. I cited the situation at Firestone.
The Minister said my allegations were absolutely false and without foundation and did not deserve a further answer. Fortunatel. the rules of the House allow me to seek a further answer and I call on the Minister to support her spurious allegations which are totally in contradiction with the facts. The facts are that Canadian companies have been creating the jobs in Canada in the last seven or eight years and American-controlled companies are taking the profits but not creating the jobs. Yet the Government wants Canada to enter into a free trade agreement that will abandon any means by which our Government and Canadians asking the Government to act for them can ensure that there is a requirement of good corporate performance and citizenship by American companies which are operating and moving into Canada. I call on the Minister or her Parliamentary Secretary to refute my case.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Canadians obtained figures from Statistics Canada on employment levels, indicating a difference between the number of jobs created by Canadian firms and firms under foreign control between 1978 and 1985.
Adjournment Debate
We can draw three conclusions from this information. First, there is a very close correlation between employment levels and business size. Everybody knows that small businesses are responsible for most of the increase in employment levels in Canada.
Second, over the period in question employment dropped in manufacturing and increased in the service sector, whether firms were Canadian or foreign-owned.
Third and last, the information does not indicate that foreign investment is harmful to the economy or that foreign-controlled companies are less likely to create jobs.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That sounds too good to be true!


Jean-Guy Hudon: I suggest the Hon. Member take a deep breath to get some oxygen to his brain.
A careful analysis of the Statistics Canada figures would also have considered the investment policy of the Government at the time. Remember, we are talking about the period between 1978 and 1985. During that time, foreign investment in Canada was discouraged with policies like the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Act. In fact, between 1978 and 1985, the number of foreign-controlled firms dropped from 3,838 to 3,179. Since there were fewer large firms that were foreign-controlled, it is not surprising that large companies contributed less to raising employment levels then small companies.
New foreign investment will be crucial to economic growth, innovation and trade within a free-trade zone. Consequently, within the framework of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, both countries have developed a set of principles that will help increase transborder investment flow. Canada has retained the right to monitor significant takeovers by U.S. investors. The minimum review level for direct takeovers will be raised to $150 million in four years, in other words by 1992. By that time, about two-thirds of all non-financial assets in Canada will still be subject to review.
Mr. Speaker, monitoring of indirect takeovers, involving the transfer of control of a foreign-controlled business to another business will be gradually phased out over the same period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, January 20, 1988

industry must do everything possible to understand and address openly the public's real concerns about this issue. [Editor's note. See today's Votes and Proceedings]

Prayers

* *
*