1989-12-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Order made Tuesday, December 12, 1989, the House will proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the third reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I noticed during the vote today the hon. member from Davenport came half-dressed. I wonder if the hon. member would consider doing the honourable thing and withdrawing his vote, or else going to borrow a tie from Elerb Gray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think most members are aware of the way members should dress in the House. It is stated quite clearly in Beauchesne's that the dress of members should be conservative, contemporary dress. That is the rule.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It does happen, when we have votes, that members may come in at the last second and may not technically fit the criteria set out in Beauchesne's. It is for that reason that in the past we have allowed those members their voting privileges. However, if the time came for the member to speak in the House then the decision of the Chair could be different.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1),
these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



REGULATORY AFFAIRS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Federal Regulatory Plan 1990.



NATIONAL BLOOD SUPPLY SYSTEM

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have one of the best health care systems in the world. The national blood supply program is a vital component of this system. Canadians give blood generously, and tens of thousands of lives are saved thanks to these blood donations and the products derived from that blood.
For decades, our national blood supply has been a key component of Canada's public health policy and practice. The public must be able to have confidence in the system.
Thanks to new technologies and our bank of donors, Canada has one of the safest blood supplies in the world.
In fact, never at any time in our history has our blood supply been as safe as it is today.

There is absolutely no risk of contracting AIDS by donating blood, and less than one chance in a million of contracting AIDS from the blood supply or from blood

products. Each and every unit of blood is thoroughly tested by the Canadian Red Cross Society for HIV and for other blood-borne infections.
For a short while in the early 1980s the blood supply in many countries, including Canada, was contaminated by the AIDS virus. Scientists and governments banded together in an immense and successful effort to restore its purity. We developed methods of identifying the virus and treating blood which justify our confidence in the safety of today's blood system.
Before these measures were developed some people who received blood transfusions or who needed blood products to manage blood disorders such as haemophilia were infected with the virus which causes AIDS.
The Canadian Haemophilia Society and a small group of blood transfusion recipients asked the federal government for financial assistance for those who were affected. We have had many meetings with the CHS. I have been very impressed with the tireless efforts of the president of the Canadian Haemophilia Society, Elaine Woloschuk. I would like to thank her and her team for all of the work which they have done on behalf of their membership.
I am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada will provide $120,000 in assistance to each of the approximately 1,250 Canadians who became infected with the AIDS virus through blood transfusions or blood products in this country.
This tax-free sum will be paid in four equal annual instalments beginning next April. The plan will apply in full measure to those who are currently living with AIDS, as well as to the estates of those who have died.
Full details will be provided to potential recipients within a month. Every effort will be made before next April to ensure that their entitlement is established in a prompt manner while protecting rights of privacy and security.
I would like to assure the House that the funding that I am announcing today is over and above the money that we have already earmarked for AIDS. It will not be taken from other programs to provide assistance to people living with AIDS.
Routine Proceedings

The measures announced today should not be considered as a compensation plan. Our decision was not dictated by a fear of legal liability. In any case, no amount of money could ever compensate for the loss suffered by a person infected by AIDS.
My colleagues and I have looked for a fair and equitable solution that acknowledges the fact that haemophiliacs, most of whom are unable to obtain life insurance, must be given special assistance, above and beyond our universal health insurance and social security programs. We have looked for a way to help a group of Canadians who do not have insurance and who in most cases are the family's bread winner.
Canada is not alone in taking this kind of action. Governments of other countries are helping people who were infected by blood products.

Our goal is twofold, to ensure that public confidence in our blood supply system remains high; and to provide a form of disaster relief to Canadians who are facing extraordinary hardship.
I have discussed the federal government's position on this issue with provincial Ministers of Health. Together we have reviewed the unique circumstances, particularly of haemophiliacs who have produced so urgent and tragic a problem.
We have also discussed the concern of both levels of government for maintaining the integrity of Canada's blood supply system. Doing so depends upon public support, technological, medical and scientific excellence, and when extraordinary circumstances arise, a willingness to respond with understanding.
I have received expressions of support for this assistance from many Canadians including from many members of Parliament. In turn I urge all those Canadians whose gifts of blood have been gifts of life for many to please continue to give blood. We have a system that is safe and we need their support to make it effective.
I would like to close my remarks today by saying a few words about other discussions currently taking place. As the House will know, we have received representations from the parents of vaccine damaged children. In some ways their situation is similar. Promoting public health in

December 14, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Canada requires encouraging parents to have their children vaccinated. Even though we know that, in some unpredictable cases, children will have a severe reaction to the vaccine.
Not encouraging vaccinations, however, would lead to a much higher incidence of sickness and death. The government has discussed this issue with provincial governments over the past several months. I hope that we will be able to work co-operatively with the provinces to meet some of the concerns of those families and to ensure that public willingness to have their children vaccinated remains high.
As well, my officials have been discussing the report of the Thalidomide Task Force which we received earlier this year. Thalidomide victims have asked that they be considered separately, and our study of their needs is ongoing.
I have been heartened by the compassion that Canadians continue to show to those who are in need, who will continue to work diligently so that all of us can feel justifiably proud to live in a country that cares for those who are less fortunate.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, persons with haemophilia who have contracted the deadly disease AIDS by relying on our Canadian blood banking system in the past were victims of a national medical catastrophe. The government has announced today assistance for them which is, indeed, welcome. But I wonder whether in fact it is enough.
The Canadian Haemophilia Society had asked on behalf of the victims for three times as much assistance as the government announced today. I would like to ask the government during this Christmas period why only about a third of the society's request has been granted. I would like the hon. minister to account for that discrepancy.
The reasons that assistance is warranted for this group of patients are of course that most haemophilia patients, by the very nature of this disease, are uninsured and hence are not eligible for disability insurance. Also, they had and they continue to incur out of pocket medical costs. For these two fundamental reasons the assistance requested by them and given by the government is truly welcome at this point. But the Canadian Haemophilia
Society had asked for $340 million for about 1,000 victims. Thus we see the inadequacy of the assistance announced today.
The other point I would like to make is that it took almost a year to respond, and it will still take some months for it to be effective. I wonder why it does not start today upon the announcement.
Another point is in relation to the time frame of notification. If a victim does not apply to the government within a year, perhaps the privilege will be waived. I would like the government to consider that should there be haemophilia AIDS patients who are unable to apply within the year, special consideration be given to them even if cases emerge after the end of the year.
On the question of whether this particular announcement by the government would be a prelude to a policy of compassion for victims of failed public policy, that I would like to see established indeed. I would welcome it. We should compensate parents of vaccine damaged children and compensate thalidomide victims. This ought indeed to be a policy of government-if I might paraphrase the Minister for Health-if he would like to have the confidence of the public to follow our national public health policy.
In conclusion, I welcome this announcement although I feel it is not quite adequate. Any government of the day has a moral responsibility to assist victims of national health policy. The story for AIDS victims is not yet complete. The Government of Canada must take steps to alleviate the suffering of all individuals who become victims of this disease. It would then be consistent with our philosophy of universal health care that all people with diseases, as with AIDS, deserve similar assistance.
I urge the government to develop more quickly a comprehensive strategy on how to help all people with AIDS since only such a comprehensive national strategy will lead to the development of a unified and more effective national response to the AIDS/HIV epidemic, a response which will ensure access to drugs and treatment for all people with AIDS.
Again, I welcome this announcement. I had hoped that it would be more, but in the spirit of Christmas, we give credit as well.
December 14, 1989


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the government's announcement today of financial compensation for those users of Canada's blood supply who contract AIDS, or become infected with HIV. In the words of the Canadian Haemophilia Society, this is an horrendous medical catastrophe, a colossal failure of the country's blood supply system. By failing to adequately screen the national blood supply system after it became clear that some blood products were contaminated with HIV, and the failure to recall potentially harmful blood products, the government is responsible for part of this tragedy. It is only right that it has moved to compensate the innocent victims.
I note that this announcement today has only come after intense effort by the Canadian Haemophilia Society over 18 months, and after the Royal Society of Canada recommended last year that the government compensate persons infected through the blood supply system.
Now that the government has finally moved to help these people, there is an opportunity for them to finally act to prevent the spread of AIDS through the general population. I note that the total compensation offered to those persons infected through the blood supply system is greater than the entire budget allocated to the fight against AIDS.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Wrong!


Chris Axworthy: It seems likely that it was only the possibility of legal liability that encouraged the government to compensate those infected through the blood supply system. Other persons with AIDS, those infected with HIV, and those who will be infected in the future have only a moral and compassionate claim on this government. We have seen how reluctant the government is to act when it is not forced to do so. The Minister of Health has said in the past that he is very concerned about the spread of AIDS, for the plight of the 3,272 persons with AIDS and the approximately 30,000 to
50,000	persons infected with HIV. Yet this often repeated concern has not meant any action to date. It is negligent of this government to continue to stall while new cases of infection are reported each day.
Routine Proceedings
There must be an immediate and national preventive education program. There must be palliative programs to assist persons with AIDS, as this government has already admitted through its announced assistance today the enormous personal and financial cost endured by persons with AIDS, their families and friends.
The minister has pledged that he will not allow AIDS to destroy the human spirit. Perhaps the time will not be too far away before he also sees fit to act to prevent AIDS from destroying ever greater numbers of human lives.
Steps must be taken to alleviate the hardship of old people infected with HIV or with AIDS. The federal government and its provincial counterparts must bear the responsibility for not acting sooner to instigate adequate education and prevention programs. Everyone with HIV or AIDS deserves the same sort of assistance which the minister has announced today for those contracting AIDS from the national blood supply system. Canada does not have adequate social and health facilities for dealing with HIV and AIDS and this situation should have been addressed a long time ago.
The federal government must act with urgency to ensure the adoption of an effective and adequately funded national AIDS strategy. While the announcement today is a welcome one, more is required than a piecemeal approach. It is the government's responsibility and that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to address the concerns of all of the 3,272 people with AIDS and the estimated 20,000 to 50,000 people infected with HIV.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there remain the other claims on the government, as the minister has mentioned, vaccine-damaged people and the tragic thalidomide victims. If we are to maintain an effective universal vaccine program, it is essential that those harmed by the vaccine be compensated by government, given their difficulty obtaining compensation through the courts.
Likewise, the government bears a special responsibility to those harmed by the drug thalidomide. Their claims are based on strong moral grounds, including the gross failure of the drug approval process which led to government acceptance of a dangerous drug, and the past promise of the Government of Canada to help those harmed by the drug.

Routine Proceedings
I welcome this announcement, Mr. Speaker, but as I have indicated much more needs to be done, and I urge the minister to quickly settle those other outstanding claims on a fair and just basis.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (arson).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall 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.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (joinder of counts).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall 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.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for Mr. Jelinek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Customs Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall 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. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to present a petition from young students at the Charles-Rodrigue School in Levis.
The purpose of this petition is to send an important message to our legislators about the environment, the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and acid rain.
I would like to pay special tribute to students Marie-Eve Preau and Julie-Anne Vien who helped to promote this petition. Mr. Speaker, I may add that the message sent to us by students of the Charles-Rodrigue School is supported by their teachers and all the people responsible for transmitting to our young students a collective awareness that must be translated here by our legislators into concrete measures to protect our environment.
[English \


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, under Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by the residents of southwestern Ontario objecting to the government's goods and services tax.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions duly certified by the clerk of petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex to the House of Commons.
The constituents are very concerned about the impact of pornography on the outlook and views of our children. They are concerned specifically that obscenity involving children is degrading and harmful to the human mind, and also that organized crime is usually the beneficiary of the proceeds that this bleeds from the economy.
I present these petitions on behalf of these constituents in my area who are concerned about the level of pornography in the country.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
It is from a number of constituents from Brampton who are very concerned about the government's intentions regarding the 7 per cent goods and services tax. They point out that it is a very regressive tax in that it hits the low and middle income earners the hardest.
They also point out that Canadians, as we all know, are not only overtaxed but that the tax system is discriminatory, unfair and biased in favour of upper income earners and large profitable corporations.
They also draw our attention to the fact that over
60,000	large profitable corporations do not pay any income tax at all and therefore obviously our tax system needs to be improved and made more fair, just and equitable.
They go on with a whole page of concerns that point out why this is wrong-headed, why the government has misread the people of Canada, that over 80 per cent of Canadians have indicated clearly that they oppose the tax, that this tax will particularly hit the regions of Canada, and that with the news of the last few days regarding the thousands of people who have lost their jobs in Atlantic Canada this 7 per cent tax on most of the goods and services which they utilize will simply be a cruel and a brutal tax.
In summary, the petitioners are simply asking the House of Commons to do whatever we can to bring the government to its senses to abolish and abandon its plans to implement such a cruel, brutal tax on the people of Canada.


Mr. AI Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 25 of my constituents who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the pre-bom child without distinction as to the stage of development.


Edward Allan Horning: Mr. Speaker, I also have a second petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It contains 97 signatures of petition-
Routine Proceedings
ers who call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Justice Minister of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.
These 97 constituents represent over 100,000 names that have been presented here in the last three months.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by people from Surrey, B.C. who are calling upon Parliament to introduce legislation that will effectively protect the life of the pre-bom child without distinction as to the stage of development.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling five petitions which reject the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Isolated and Northern Areas.
The signers representing the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi are concerned about the recommendations of this unfinished report.
Mr. Speaker, the final report of this task force makes no mention of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and of the inquiry into regional disparities of isolated posts by the Quebec Government in October 1989.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by 161 people most of whom live in the riding of Durham, in the Bowmanville area of the town of Newcastle.
The petitioners call on the government to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of a pre-born child without distinction as to the stage of development.

December 14, 1989
Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House once again to call on the government to come to its senses with respect to the way it is taxing the people of Canada and its concept of a goods and services tax.
The words on the petition express the very sincere worry of Canadians across this land that they are not going to have any disposable moneys, that they are not going to be able to make this economy work. Since September 1984, this Conservative federal government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers at least 31 new taxes and tax increases. Since 1984, the federal sales tax, which we have called the silent killer of jobs so many times in this House, has been increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Now they want to put it back to 9 per cent and tell us that they are giving us a gift.
The Conservative federal government wants to impose a new federal goods and services tax. Whether it is 9 per cent, 7 per cent, or any per cent, the public does not want it. Obviously this government cannot hear or does not care to listen. This new tax will be hidden, irrespective of what this government says that it will be an open and well understood tax.
It will apply virtually to everything they buy. The imposition of this new goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians. There is not enough money in what it is proposing to enable people to buy fairly and evenly across this land. The imposition of this tax will create onerous burdens on small business.
I would suggest that in the name of those Canadians from the Mount Royal riding who have called on me to oppose strongly in their name this new goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment. I think this government does not realize what it is doing.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the privilege of presenting a number of petitions this morning which have been certified correct as to form. They all relate to the goods and services tax, that abominable tax proposed by the
Conservative government. I would like to cite one petition, in particular.
This particular petition is on behalf of private music teachers in my Province of Manitoba. It specifically mentions that the taxation of these private lessons would impose a financial burden on the parents and students involved. They would be required to pay such a tax on a weekly basis for at least nine months of the year and often for more than one member of a family.
They ask all of us who are members of this House to reject, and soundly reject, this goods and services tax.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition under Standing Order 36 from people in the town of St. Mary's concerning figure skating. They plead that we consider instruction in skating as an educational service and therefore exempt skating educational expenses from the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present two sets of petitions to the House this afternoon. Both have been certified correct according to Standing Order 36.
I have a petition here that has been signed by residents of the London-Kitchener, Ontario area; Melville, Saskatchewan; Yorkton, Saskatchewan; a number of other places in western Canada, Prince Albert, for example; and Ottawa.
These Canadians are very concerned about the government's plan to drastically reduce VIA Rail services. They call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid economic, safe, convenient, environmentally sound, and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also have a group of petitions signed by 232 residents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, primarily the community of Thunder Bay but also from Upsala. These petitions have been circulated by merchants in the community who are concerned about the goods and services tax: Intercom Supply, Michael's Hair
December 14, 1989

Design, Galaxy Lanes, Superior Cartage, Peran's Music, Hugh Wilson's Body Shop, G&G Esso in Upsala, and Aesthetics by Linda.
They all collectively call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax at any per cent.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present petitions on behalf of my constituents.
These petitions are signed by over 200 people who live in New Westminster and Burnaby, British Columbia. They are very upset about the goods and services tax.
They call upon this Parliament to reject the proposal for a goods and services tax. They say that the tax is a very regressive tax, that it will hurt mostly people in middle and lower incomes, and that the wealthy will pay the same tax on a pair of shoes as the poor will pay on a pair of shoes. They are upset about that.
They call on this government to withdraw the tax and to bring in fair taxation for Canadians.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition to the House of Commons today. This petition is called "Help Save the Rouge".
This is an extremely important issue that the petitioners are presenting to Parliament and that I have the privilege of presenting. We are talking about 5,000 acres of land in metro Toronto that is presently in a wilderness state, presently in its natural beauty, and we want to protect it. The threats to it are a metro Toronto garbage dump in the Rouge Valley or a 12-lane freeway up through the valley.
The petitioners are outraged. The citizens of Scarborough are outraged with this kind of thinking. Right across Canada the people are concerned about this. We are most encouraged today to see that the federal Minister of the Environment has made a commitment to quadruple by the year 2000 the national park land. This is most encouraging to the petitioners.
The Minister of the Environment has toured the Rouge Valley. This government has committed $10 million to save the Rouge Valley. The petitioners are
Routine Proceedings
calling upon Parliament to work with the provincial government. The Canadian people own the land through the provincial government, and they want the Government of Canada to work with the provincial government to establish this area as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with a petition signed by some 63 persons from the communities of Revelstoke, Nelson, South Slocan, and the other B.C. communities of Golden and Salmon Arm.
The petitioners are upset that the federal government is getting its hands even deeper in their pockets and is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels, among other commodities.
The petitioners also call upon Parliament to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
That is perhaps too much to ask, but the petitioners are upset in any event.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with two petitions today that have both been certified under Standing Order 36.
The first is in objection to the goods and services tax from people who live in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Mission, and Maple Ridge. They feel very strongly that the suggested goods and services tax will not only affect them as individuals but will dramatically affect the financial viability of the community. The reason for that of course is the impact that the goods and services tax will have not only on small business in the community but on the municipal infrastructure.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions that I have come from Surrey, Vancouver, my riding of Mission-Coquitlam, as well as Alberta and Ontario.

December 14, 1989
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners are asking Parliament to support Private Members' Motion No. 254 regarding children's rights and are calling on the government to negotiate with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children in Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: The last for petitions but I am sure the first in the heart of the Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to stand and present 13 petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, with 1,954 names from various places in my riding, such as Narama-ta, Kaleden, Princeton, Rock Creek, Bridesville, Okanagan Falls, Keremeos, Hedley, Oliver, Osoyoos, Christina Lake and Penticton.
The petitioners are upset with the goods and services tax as proposed by the government. They are asking Parliament to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, to ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab, and, finally, to cause the government to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, one month from tomorrow the policy announced by the government to scupper our national rail system will take effect and the VIA cut-backs announced by the Minister of Transport some time ago will go into effect to the great dismay of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast, indeed millions of Canadians.
I have a petition signed by some of the people who are so concerned and upset about this bad decision on the part of the government.
The petitioners are residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands. They went to the time and trouble to sign a petition to call upon this Parliament to urge the government not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada.
I note that the petition was signed before the disastrous government decision was announced, and I know, if these people could be approached again to ask their views of the decision that the government announced, there would be even a stronger objection than that contained in the petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to advise the House on behalf of the deputy House leader that all questions should be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of an application under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
The Chair has also received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Ottawa South.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to move a motion that the House adjourn to discuss a matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the dire consequences facing thousands of families in Atlantic Canada's fishing communities as a result of recent and anticipated fish plant closings in the Atlantic fishery, and the urgent need for government action to deal with this crisis in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The matter raised by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is no doubt a most serious and important matter. For that reason I will consider it before giving a decision, which I would intend to give at three o'clock.
December 14, 1989


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice yesterday to the Chair of my intention to raise a question of privilege arising from a series of questions and answers given in the House last week with respect to the proposals of the government to apply a special tax to old age pensions and to family allowance benefits under Bill C-28.
If I might very quickly refer to that series of questions and answers, I think the question of privilege will become apparent. I should also advise the Chair that my intention to raise this matter was indicated to the office of the Minister of State for Privatization yesterday afternoon as well.
The first question and answer occurred on Tuesday, December 5, 1989, in a question directed to the Minister of Finance concerning the clawback tax. He responded by quoting from a document given to him in February 1989 by One Voice, which is a group representative of seniors in Canada. He quoted from that document at page 6509 of Hansard.
The context of his quotation indicated that the One Voice seniors network supported the proposed clawback measure, and in response to that implication from the quotation One Voice issued a press release on December 6, 1989, in which they stated that the Minister of Finance had "twisted their words", to use the wording of the press release, and I quote from it:
Mr. Wilson invited us to consult on the budget while it was in preparation. At that meeting he specifically promised us he would not touch social programs but then he went ahead and proposed this awful clawback. That was a real betrayal. But now he is taking our own words out of the context of our brief to make it look as though we agree with the clawback. This simply is not what we said. Mr. Wilson has aggravated the anger and mistrust seniors are already feeling.
In light of that press release I raised the question in Question Period on December 7. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs rose to reply to the question. He said at page 6615 of Hansard, and I quote:
In the pre-budget consultations which the Minister of Finance had with various interested groups, Mrs. Woodsworth was there.
Privilege
Mrs. Woodsworth being the president of One Voice. The quotation continues:
And I want to quote exactly what she said as part of the presentation that was made to the Minister of Finance. She said, "We agree with the Economic Council that people with over $50,000 of income should have their OAS taxed back."
He went on in answering a supplementary to that question, again at page 6615 of Hansard, and I quote:
It is very plain exactly what Mrs. Woodsworth who was representing that group said. She said it and I will read it to you again. I will do so slowly, "We agree with the Economic Council that people with over $50,000 of income should have their OAS taxed back."
I might note that there was a touch of sarcasm at the time that that second quotation was read.
This matter was raised on a point of order as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, on Friday when I asked that the minister table the document from which he was reading. He said, and I quote, on page 6671 of Hansard'.
I was not quoting from a document yesterday. I was quoting from one-page notes that I had in front of me.
He therefore refused to table anything.
On December 11, the One Voice, the Canadian seniors' network-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member raises a question of privilege which the member obviously has a right to do. The Chair would like to know as soon as possible where the member believes his own privileges have been breached. What the member has raised may be an important matter for the member and may be a question of debate, but so far I must indicate to the member that I do not see at all how the member's privileges have been breached. Could the member please address that question?


John Paul Manley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned very much with the privileges of the House. I think these become apparent.
There are two issues of privilege here. The first emerges clearly in the letter from One Voice to the minister dated December 11. I will quote from that letter:
"During Question Period on December 7, 1989 you made reference to a pre-budget consultation meeting between representatives of One Voice and other national seniors' organizations and the Hon. Michael Wilson,

December 14, 1989
Privilege
Minister of Finance. The meeting took place February 28, 1989".
"In response to Mr. John Manley, Ottawa South, in the House of Commons you quoted me as saying at that consultation: 'We agree with the Economic Council that people with over $50,000 of income should have their OAS taxed back' ".
"It has been the consistent position of One Voice that the clawback is a serious threat to universality of Canada's social benefit programs and we have never supported the measure. I know that I personally never made such a comment".
"We have contacted the Economic Council of Canada and they have been unable to locate any report which makes a reference to the clawback or the $50,000 threshold. What concerns us more is that the clawback was not announced until the budget was released in April. We wonder how discussion of the clawback or the $50,000 threshold could have taken place in February before it had been announced in April".
"Your reference to our organization and to my supposed comments in particular as supporting the clawback have created a mistaken impression in the House. We insist that you clarify this error as soon as possible".
The issues of privilege are these: first, it would seem that Mrs. Woodsworth, the author of this letter on behalf of One Voice is indicating to the minister that he has either inadvertently or advertently misled the House in answering the question on Thursday.
I think this is a very important matter of the privileges of the House, that the House be given fully truthful and correct information.
And related to that is the minister's refusal to table the document from which he was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That matter I must remind the member has already been settled by the Chair. The member has the floor.


John Paul Manley: The second issue of privilege is that of the use of the House of Commons as a forum in which to use in debate the confidential advice given in pre-budget meetings with the Minister of Finance. Many groups and organizations are invited to meet with the minister prior
to a budget being completed and tabled in the House of Commons, this group among them.
What has happened here is that this chamber was used to take the words given in a confidential session where there was no transcript of the meeting held and to use them in debate in an apparently, at least as far as the organization to which the words were attributed is concerned, misleading fashion.
This can only undermine the pre-budget consultative process and I believe is therefore an offence of the privileges of the House of Commons because of this chamber being used as a forum in which to take these private and confidential submissions and make them public.
That completes my submissions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may or may not wish to answer, but the Chair does not feel it is necessary for the minister to answer.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague from Ottawa South who is debating facts on a point between a group known as One Voice and their president, and the meeting that was held and the understanding of what the Minister of Finance heard at that meeting. We are very aware that One Voice has changed its stand since that meeting. I think it is incumbent upon us to let the people know the type of advice we get at these meetings when people say they did not give us that advice when, in fact, they did.
I indicated to the House on December 8 that I was not quoting from a document during question period on December 7.1 had a one-page note in front of me that I was referring to. First of all, the member has not brought this up at the earliest possible opportunity. Second, he has not given the Minister of Finance an opportunity to reply to the letter that One Voice very conveniently sent to the member before the minister had seen it, and has not given the minister a chance to reply to that letter.
I believe that the point of privilege is frivolous, it has wasted a tremendous amount of time in this House and the hon. member should get on to more important things
December 14, 1989

such as the business of this country rather than wasting time on such frivolous things in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will listen to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, but I must say that unless he has very compelling arguments the Chair intends to rule that both questions raised by the hon. member for Ottawa South are not questions of privilege. That will probably be the ruling I will make and at the earliest possible opportunity I will give the reasons to the hon. member in the proper way. I will hear the member for Kingston and The Islands out of courtesy for the member.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of State for Privatization misunderstood the point. I just wanted to clarify it for the House. The letter that was sent was addressed to the Minister of State for Privatization, not to the Minister of Finance. I would not want the minister to think that my friend had not raised this issue at the earliest opportunity. The letter was delivered to him yesterday, the notice was sent to the House yesterday, I believe, or first thing this morning. It was at the earliest opportunity. The matter was raised properly and in an appropriate way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes as of one o'clock.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, as the House and probably many Canadians know, Bill C-49 has been before us for several days, having been introduced in the House of Commons on December 6, 1989. Each hour that the House delays the passage of this legislation
Government Orders
causes more difficulty and upset to Canadians, both in the health sector and in the marine transportation sector. However, it has been very clear that the need and desire for termination of this work stoppage has been recognized by the government and the government is proceeding to ensure that this legislation is passed and put into operation so Canadians can have the government services to which they are entitled in marine transportation and in hospital services.
In introducing the legislation to the House on December 6, the President of the Treasury Board made it abundantly clear that the presence of Bill C-49 and the back to work provisions would not prevent the negotiations being continued in order to reach a settlement of matters in dispute, both with respect to hospital workers and with respect to ships' crews, which are the two work groups affected by the current strike situation.
The President of the Treasury Board has made several attempts to have negotiations continued. There have in fact been negotiations taking place but to date no successful resolution has been arrived at, so we must proceed to pass Bill C-49 to terminate this situation.
Nobody, and certainly not the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of Transport, who are the members of the ministry immediately involved in this matter, approach back to work to work legislation with any sense of relish. It is done in light of the need of Canada and Canadians to have government services and not to be deprived of those services for any protracted period of time.
It is important to note immediately that the ships' crews, who provide very valuable services through the Canadian Coast Guard, through fisheries patrol, through auxiliary vessels on behalf of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works, have been on strike since November 14.
Hospital workers have been on strike since November 30, with the effects that has had on the services provided in hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I do not think there is any point in exacerbating the situation with rhetoric in the House of Commons and certainly no government member in the ministry would involve themselves in that pursuit. But it is important to underline the risks to Canadians and persons on the high seas and in our hospitals that occur in a strike of this kind

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
and particularly when the strike is protracted over a long period of time.
I do not like it, but I have an obligation to remind members and the Canadian public that during the period of the strike three vessels were lost at sea off the east coast of Canada with a loss of life of 48 seamen.
The Minister and the President of the Treasury have made it abundantly clear that there is no linkage between the strike situation and the loss of these vessels. But that loss of life, that dramatic event of a ship going down to the bottom of the sea with all personnel aboard, focuses our attention on the fact that the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard are vital to seamen and persons who go out on the sea in ships.
The member from Dartmouth and other members have said in this House of Commons that there is no risk, there is no danger, there is no immediate problem. Of course the coast guard have indicated that they would provide emergency services and have in cases. That is not the point. The point is that there is an important government service available to ships and persons who navigate our waters and that service is not being provided. Had the strike been settled after a short period of time or had there been some immediate hope for settlement, it may not be that we would have to deal with back to work legislation. But that was not the case. The government has a duty to act and did act.
There have been numerous cases in the past when the House has considered back to work legislation and invariably the House has co-operated because there was a recognition that government services affected on railways, in postal services and in other essential services had to be restored and reinstated.
A current member of the House who was a former Minister of the Crown, the member for Papineau- Saint-Michel, has stated the circumstances under which back to work legislation is justified. I have repeated this several times but I am going to repeat it once more because I hope hon. members will listen to this criteria,
especially members of the Liberal Party, because it comes from a Liberal.
The member said in 1978: "Unfortunately, however, there are times and situations when the spirit of compromise and the demonstration of good faith, so necessary on the part of all concerned, are found wanting. In such circumstances the federal government, as custodian of the economy and protector of the public interest, must assume its responsibility."
We have in Canada a process of collective bargaining that has been developed over a long period of time and which resolves most, if not all, cases. This is one case where collective bargaining was not effective to resolve the matter in dispute. The Parliament of Canada that makes the laws proscribing collective bargaining, which creates the right to strike, now has to intervene to enact a new law to resolve the situation.
At the same time, every effort has to be made to continue negotiations to ensure that if the parties can reach a sensible agreement that is in the interests of all Canadians and of the particular workers involved, then of course that is the course of action that we would like to see followed and completed.
Because I think there has been in this debate disinformation that might affect people in Canada who expect from their parliamentarians fairness and good and proper treatment for all Canadians, I want to indicate some events that led to this strike.
First, we do not have in place in Canada a clear definition of essential service and we do not have legislation that prohibits strikes and work stoppages in relation to those essential services. Of course that is our fault as parliamentarians, all of us, for not bringing forward legislation that would make it clear that we cannot have work stoppages that affect some essential services.
Considering that void in the laws of Canada, it is essential for the well-being of all Canadians that when events do occur that involve withdrawal of essential services we must meet the exigencies of that situation. In this case there was collective bargaining over a long
December 14, 1989

period of time, the parties could not come to an agreement and it was apparent that no agreement would be reached in an appropriate period of time. At that point one must look at the facts.
In the case of hospital services, what can one say? These hospital services involve the veterans of Canada who require hospital care. If any member of this House of Commons wants to deprive the veterans of Canada of hospital care over a protracted period of time, I invite that member to get up and say so. I invite that member to get up and say: "Yes, I believe that the veterans of Canada should be deprived of effective and proper hospital care services over a protracted period of time, because the workers who administer those services are having a wage dispute with the government".
If that is the view of members, I wish they would say that very clearly and not say that they believe in collective bargaining and that they believe that the collective bargaining process should be let alone to resolve any labour disputes. Of course we all believe in the collective bargaining process. We also must recognize that when the process fails, when the system fails, then there is a duty to consider the effect of that failure and the effect of that failure on the persons involved, in this case the veterans.
I say with some concern that we should have a better system in Canada, but I do not say with any embarrassment that I for one, and all members of the government I am sure, are agreed on this point, that if it comes to choosing between continuation of effective hospital services to veterans and the temporary deprivation of a right seen by the workers involved, we have to choose the veterans, and that is what we are doing in Bill C-49. We will do everything possible to see that the workers involved get a fair and effective settlement in the end result.
Now let us talk about the ships' crews. We are talking about the coast guard, fishery patrol vessels and so on. I do not have to go too far to find examples of why back to work legislation is necessary in this situation. Yesterday when we were debating this bill a barge off the coast of Nova Scotia broke away from its tow line. It was carrying 150 tonnes of light diesel fuel. I do not think any member would like to see that barge go up on the rocks and cause a massive oil spill that would result in environmental damages that would take months, years and even decades to resolve.
Government Orders
According to an Ottawa Citizen report, there were on December 11, after this bill was introduced in the House of Commons, 41 large ocean-going ships which would be jeopardized in terms of not being able to remove themselves from the St. Lawrence Seaway before the closing date of December 19.
What did those 41 ships have on board? They were carrying grain. They were carrying 1.3 million tonnes of grain. I wish some member from western Canada, from the grain-growing area, would get up in this House of Commons and say that they do not really care what happens to that grain, that what they care about is that the government and the workers involved should resolve their dispute over whatever period of time it takes to resolve it.
Would somebody in the New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan get up in this House and tell western farmers, grain producers, the people who are involved in this process, that the strike will go on indefinitely regardless of the ability of the parties to reach a settlement, and that grain can freeze in the St. Lawrence, the 41 ships can stay there into March and April of 1990 when the ice breaks up in the St. Lawrence, then they can leave.
Again, we all appreciate the collective bargaining system. We all appreciate the desirability of labour and management settling their own disputes, but sometimes it becomes our responsibility to take action. If members from Saskatchewan want, they can say: "No, no, we have to live with the result of failure in the collective bargaining system. Let the 41 ships with millions of tonnes of grain freeze up in the St. Lawrence, to heck with western grain farmers, to heck with the grain industry. They will have to take the loss of that labour dispute".
We cannot accept that. We appreciate the good work done by the coast guard. We appreciate the desirability of having wage settlements and all matters involved in disputes resolved by the parties, but there comes a time for action.
What is the action we have taken? Very briefly, Bill C-49 provides for a conciliation. That conciliation will be binding on the parties.
Because I have a particular interest in their situation, I believe that as a result of this legislation ships' crews will have a very beneficial settlement.

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
I hope members opposite have not thrown away their opportunity for wage equality between ships' crews on the west coast and ships' crews on the east coast because members like myself and my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants have fought for this equality for years. In the 11 years that I have been in Parliament, I have raised it hundreds of times. Finally, we have come to the point where this could be a reality.
I hope members of the Liberal party, especially the member for Dartmouth, and members of the New Democratic Party have not thrown that opportunity away because they are going to have to answer to the ships' crews. The ships' crews knew that they had wage equality in their hands. If they lose that wage equality it will be on the hands of the members opposite and the member for Dartmouth can answer for that.
I say to the ships' crews, do not picket my office. Do not come and see me. I had delivered for you wage equality. Picket the Liberal offices. Go to the Public Service Alliance of Canada and ask Daryl Bean why he threw away wage equality on your behalf when we had it in their hands. It was on the table, it was theirs, and Daryl Bean and the Public Service Alliance of Canada gave it away because they wanted to delay this bill. They wanted to suffer through the process of the House of Commons. They wanted the ships to risk tie-up in the St. Lawrence Seaway. They watched ships go down at sea and they did not care. They showed no concern for that.
We could have had this bill passed on December 6. Those ships could be moving, the men could be back to work and they could have a favourable settlement, but they are not simply because the process of the House of Commons and the avarice of the members opposite in their leagues with the Public Service Alliance. They are lackeys of the Public Service Alliance. They would not make their own decision. They would not make the decision in the interest of the people of Canada. They delayed this legislation. The legislation will go through, it will be passed. People will be back to work and they will get fair settlements and those who suffered through the delay can blame the members opposite. The blood is on their hands.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have very little time before the lunch break to respond but I would like to begin by responding to some of the comments that the hon. member opposite made.
He talked about the serious situation being created by this strike and he talked about it as if it were something that materialized the day the strikers went on strike. One fact of life in Canada is that winter comes every year. That means ice comes every year. That means traffic on the Seaway gets into difficulties every year and that sooner or later the Seaway closes down. The shippers are aware of that. The government is certainly aware of that. The ships' crews workers who are on strike are certainly aware of that because they are the ones who go out in those icy waters, keep the channels clear for commerce, for the grain ships, for the oil ships, for the chemical ships, for the ships bringing supplies to communities along the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
I am mystified totally by the hon. member pretending that these situations only arise because workers are on strike. The fact is that the Saguenay River is frozen which is something that happens every year. The fact is that ice-breakers need to be up and down that river constantly throughout the winter. This happens every winter. It has happened every winter since Confederation, and it happened for centuries before that when nobody was there to see it happen.
The member has done something on which he has been challenged before in this House, on which he has been challenged in committee, and I am going to challenge him once again. Despite the words of the President of Treasury Board, despite the facts of the situation, the member has unconscionably attempted to link this strike and the workers on strike with the tragedy at sea. That is an abuse of his ability to stand and speak in this House with impunity. That is a despicable attempt.
The member knows that in this, as in every other urgent situation at sea, even though these workers have been on strike they have responded and have responded instantly. They have never once failed to meet normal times for normal responses to an emergency or even a potential emergency at sea.

On the particular occasion to which the member referred, the ships' crews workers, despite the abuse by this government, despite the mistreatment, despite the fact that for two years their requests for equity and justice have been denied, delayed, fought every step of the way by the government instead of recognized and acceded to, those people put out to sea. Despite that even those who were not on a coast guard vessel, The Alert, put out to sea with a full crew above and beyond normal requirements of emergency services.
The union representing these workers has spared no effort to make sure that they are available at any time to respond to an emergency. They have not been sitting at home nice and warm and comfortable. They have been out on their picket lines, and they have put down their pickets the instant there was a requirement for their services.
The union representing them, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, has spent thousands and thousands of dollars, even though it has no obligation to do so, to make sure that these workers are available at all times for emergency services. Not the government, but their bargaining agent which this government refuses to even recognize in legislation, has kept them in hotel rooms. The workers have voluntarily left their own communities, stayed away from their families for weeks at a time to be available for emergencies. They have been put up in hotels and transported by their union. They have remained right on the scene so that they could respond to any kind of an emergency. This has been done at great personal sacrifice by the workers and has been done at a cost to all workers represented by this union. Despite that, the member has the nerve to stand up in this House and try to link the names and reputations of those workers with a tragedy.
The member tries to pretend that the members on this side of the House are unaware of the seriousness of the situation. We are well aware of the seriousness of the situation, and I will come back to some specifics on that. We know where the blame for that serious situation lies, it lies right across the aisle of this House. It lies with a government which is incompetent, incapable and unable to respect the collective bargaining process, which is unconcerned about paying people what they are worth and paying people who are doing the same job the same amount of money. This government is absolutely unconcerned about following due process. It is using every
Government Orders
legal means at its disposal to try to bypass collective bargaining and waste valuable time and valuable dollars dragging people through the courts instead of trying to reach a settlement with them.
It is the members on this side of the House who, before the strike ever started, raised questions in this House and pointed out to the government the dangerous situation that was developing and the need to act quickly to settle these collective agreements.
Last spring we were raising in the House the question of pay equity for hospital service workers. That was at a time when the first round of collective bargaining had been negotiated, completed and referred to the bargaining units. It was at a time when the different bargaining units were considering whether they would or would not approve the particular agreements that had been worked out for them. I will be going through that case in a little more detail later, after the lunch break.
The hospital service workers wanted one thing, one sign that this government really understood the whole basic question of human rights, fairness and equity. They simply wanted the government to grant them what the Human Rights Commission had already said they were entitled to. They simply wanted the government to include in their contract the settlement of this whole pay equity issue so that people performing the same work, whether in a government office building or the veterans home on Smyth Road, were getting paid the same.
The government had gone through those 18 months of negotiations without ever addressing those issues. It had refused to address those issues. It had refused to recognize that the basic problem of a proper wage for their work needed to be recognized in their collective agreement with the Government of Canada.
If our veterans are suffering less than adequate care right now it is because when we raised that question in the House last June the government chose not to respond to that, not to address that question and, in fact, continued to stonewall. The government knew that this strike was going to happen. The government knew because we warned it in this House. The workers had warned that the agreement was unacceptable if the issue was not dealt with in that agreement. As far back as two years ago, this government knew the end result of its intransigence, its bull-headedness and its stupidity in refusing to recognize that fair is fair, just is just. The Human Rights Commission had told the government what was fair, what was just, and what was right in this situation. If one veteran is suffering a lack of comfort

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
anywhere in this country, it is because of this government. It is not because of the opposition in this House.
We raised in this House the question of safety and security. My colleague from Leeds-Grenville pointed out to the minister the very specific problem of navigational buoys in the St. Lawrence Seaway and the fact that if an effort was not made to settle the strike, millions of dollars worth of equipment were at risk in the St. Lawrence Seaway, the value of which is far greater than the cost of settling this strike with the ships' crews workers.
Mr. Speaker, may I clarify that I may resume after lunch?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that the sitting will be extended by 16 minutes because of Ministers' Statements and she may proceed until 1.16 p.m.


Marlene Catterall: I recognize that, but I understand I may continue after lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: Yes, by all means.


Marlene Catterall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, my colleague from Leeds-Grenville did point out to the government that $6 million worth of navigational aids were at stake, safe navigation in the St. Lawrence Seaway was at stake, if the government did not act quickly to settle this problem. The government chose to ignore that.
I am not sure why the hon. parliamentary secretary is today saying that the opposition seems unaware of the problems that are being created by this strike. We seem to have been the ones to tell the government of the problems that were being created by this strike.
One of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island warned the minister in the House of the dangers of harbours freezing up, of the costs to commerce of that happening off Prince Edward Island and of the dependence of Prince Edward Island on keeping the sea channel open to the mainland. It seems that the members opposite do not remember that when winter comes, water freezes and it is necessary to anticipate problems, to be sure that the people who perform the work of
keeping our sea lanes open and safe are there to do their jobs. I am sure if the government had realized that, it would have made some effort to act like a good manager and to negotiate a settlement that would be acceptable to their workers and a fairer recognition of the work they do.
We also raised with the Minister of Transport the question of safety and security when we realized that winter was coming on, the strike was still on, and there was no movement on behalf of the government to meet any of the needs of these workers for a settlement which they could accept with some dignity and some assurance that it would allow them to provide for their families adequately. In spite of the fact that the ice was creeping out on the St. Lawrence River, various harbours were starting to freeze over, what did the Minister of Transport say? The Minister of Transport said, "There is no problem with safety and security". He sloughed off our suggestions that the strike needed to be brought to a quick and speedy end with some movement by the government at the negotiating table. We asked the President of the Treasury Board about safety and security and he said, "There is no problem with safety and security. We have contingency plans in place; everything is under control".
We know now what the contingency plan was. It was, "Don't deal with the issue. Don't deal with the situation of the sea lanes and the harbours. Just pull back to work legislation out of your back pocket and force people back to work. Don't act like a responsible employer who is concerned about your employees and concerned about the service you are offering to the people of Canada. Just stonewall at every opportunity, walk away from the table". How often have we heard the President of the Treasury Board in this House stand at his seat and say, "We are ready to go back to the negotiating table. The union just has to come back to us."
Whose responsibility is it to make sure that collective agreements are in place, that workers are at work doing their jobs and earning a decent living for doing it? It is not the union's responsibility. It is not the opposition's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the government. It is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board, when he sees that things are going off the track, to take a hands-on approach and make sure that things
December 14, 1989

are happening in a way that is going to get this issue settled.
The parliamentary secretary can stand there and talk about the deprivation of veterans. The government is responsible for the deprivation of veterans.
I also want to refer to some other comments from my colleague on the other side. He referred to back to work legislation that was brought into this House in 1978 and made a point of quoting from a predecessor of mine in the House. I would also like to quote from the same hon. member, the Hon. John Munro, then minister of labour when he introduced Bill C-45 to provide for the continuation of regular postal service operations. What the former member said at that time is quite different than the impression created by the parliamentary secretary this morning.
Bill C-45 was introduced in the context of a pending election and a pending strike by postal workers. It is far from the Draconian piece of legislation that we have before us today, far from the piece of legislation that basically says, "You're going to get back to work whether it is fair or not. You're going to accept binding conciliation whether it is fair or not. You're going to accept the fact that we have loaded the dice in our favour, whether it is fair or not". That is the government speaking. "We're going to by-pass and over-ride every principle of collective agreement we can think of in this act."
I want to quote the Hon. John Munro. I must say that the members opposite who were in Parliament at the time agreed with him, including the parliamentary secretary who spoke just before me, because he did in fact vote for this bill. He stated:
By introducing this bill I am not attempting in any way to interfere in the process of negotiations by officers of the Post Office and the bargaining committee of the trade unions in the Post Office. Nor do I anticipate that the amendment proposed by the bill would interfere with that orderly process in the future-with the single exception of a breakdown in negotiations that could occur during a federal election.
At that time a federal election was pending. Mr. Munro continues:
Government Orders
I would like to assure hon. members that the government continues to rely on the voluntary determination of any new collective agreement by the parties.
Obviously, this government has no wish to rely on the voluntary conclusion of any agreement acceptable to both parties. It wishes, instead, to ramrod and to force its will upon these, the most vulnerable, the poorest paid workers in the Public Service.
The former minister went on to say:
I would be among the first to recognize that public employees have normally used their democratic rights as trade unionists wisely and responsibly.
That is not an opinion obviously shared by this government. It obviously does not believe that it, as a government, can go into a collective bargaining process unforced by legislation and reach any kind of solution.
The Hon. John Munro said further at that time:
Public service unions in Canada have not been strike-happy in the
past, and I do not believe they are quick to call a strike at this time.
That is certainly the case in this instance. The workers have reluctantly and belatedly used the right to strike. They have not done this willingly. No worker making $17,000, $18,000, $19,000 a year willingly goes on strike and leaves his or her family with a much reduced income in the weeks just before Christmas. As winter is coming on, with the need for heating, with additional expenses on any Canadian family, no worker willingly does that. No worker willingly goes out on a picket line in temperatures below zero and does it day after day, week after week. They only do it when they are forced to do it and when they are faced by an employer who is unable, unwilling to come to any kind of an agreement with them.
I think the member has at least given his own interpretation-I tread carefully here-has at best given his own interpretation to the words of the Hon. John Munro back in 1978 and attempted to apply them to a situation which is hardly at all comparable. We are not facing an election, unfortunately. It would be kind of nice at this point in time if I thought we were.

December 14, 1989


S. 0. 31
[Stage Direction]
The parliamentary secretary also referred to discussions which occurred between the parties early this week and he seems to have forgotten the actual course of events.
Sheila Finestone: Maybe he distorted them.


Marlene Catterall: I would not suggest, as my colleague behind me did, that he might have distorted them. I would not say that for a moment. He has been in the House of Commons since at least 1978, so perhaps it is just that his memory is failing somewhat since Monday and Tuesday.
He accused my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, of being responsible for not achieving wage parity for the ships' crews workers. I want to remind the member opposite and I want to make sure that this is clearly on the record, that in fact it is the member for Dartmouth who, earlier this week, was able to get a commitment from the President of the Treasury Board that parity for east and west coast workers would be effective the date an agreement was signed; that it would not be something that needed to be negotiated at the bargaining table. I will have more to say about those discussions later.


An Hon. Member:: Time.


Marlene Catterall: I have no intention of concluding before 1.16 p.m., so we are into a continuing situation here, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Finestone: It is up to the Chair to call it.


Marlene Catterall: The member for Dartmouth has admirably represented his constituents. We will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I regret to interrupt the member. She will indeed have time after the lunch break.
It being 1.16 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.16 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this government is becoming skilful at recycling, particularly when it comes to old promises. Take for instance putting into law an environmental assessment process. It was first promised in the 1984 election, then in the 1988 election, and most recently in the throne speech last April.
We learn now that Cabinet has put this proposal on hold. Apparently it is the their opinion that an environmental assessment law is not an urgent step. To make matters worse, it is reported today that when and if an environmental assessment law is ever approved, the Export Development Corporation would be exempted. Why? Does Canada plan to export polluting practices?
From day care to universality of pensions, from public consultation to foreign aid, from fisheries to sustainable development, increasingly this government's decisions fly in the face of its own promises.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the unfair treatment by this government of veterans' hospital and other federal workers under Bill C-49, the back to work legislation, is just another sign that this government is no longer listening.
The employees of veterans' hospitals work very hard. They treat our worthy veterans with care, compassion and give more energy to the comfort of their patients than most of us will ever know. Families of these patients want an end to the labour dispute, but they also want these workers fairly compensated for their unending, unselfish and dedicated efforts.
Instead the government is trying to resolve this dispute using a hammer, rather than an approach of fairness and honesty. The government should stop playing with figures in distorting the truth. It must accept the fact that these people deserve equitable wage settlements for the work they do.

Is there fairness in withholding pay equity, an insidious form of blackmail, until an agreement is signed, making it a reward instead of a right?
We call on the government to end its heavy-handed approach, settle for our veterans who are owed this respect and help, and settle for our workers who deserve fair wages. Families and friends of those in veterans' hospitals are very concerned about getting service back to normal for they know the work that is done and believe in fair compensation that is rightfully deserved.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, coincidentally with the celebration of Human Rights Day last weekend, I am proud to advise that the Atlantic Human Rights Centre was formally opened at St. Thomas University in my home riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury.
The purpose of this centre is to promote and carry out the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights among the citizens of the Atlantic region.
Its origin springs from a three-year pilot project in Atlantic Canada that revealed a compelling need for greater public knowledge and awareness about individual rights and freedoms as a foundation for peaceful and harmonious community life.
The Atlantic Human Rights Centre will mobilize our regional resources to advocate and stimulate the growth of social justice and equality for all citizens, thus encouraging the fight against racism, sexism and poverty.
As we have done in the past, the Atlantic region will continue to pursue leadership to eradicate cultural bigotry and racial discrimination.
On behalf of this House, I offer congratulations to St. Thomas University and all who have been involved in the establishment of this project.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the striking ships' crews for the patience, perseverance, courage and dignity which they have shown in light of overwhelming and intolerable conditions.
In spite of the fact that the striking ships' crews are among the lowest paid members of the Public Service, in spite of the fact that ships' crews have been without a contract for two years, and in spite of the fact that this government has done everything in its power to ignore, isolate and discriminate against the ships' crews, last weekend the crew of the Alert downed their picket signs and ventured out into one of the most violent storms in Atlantic history on a search and rescue mission off the coast of Newfoundland. The entire crew was in great danger. Three crew members were injured and had to be airlifted to Halifax.
This is just one example of the bravery and integrity which our ships' crews have continued to show.
Given everything that this government has done and is continuing to do to the ships' crews, we should consider ourselves fortunate to have a group of people so committed to their profession and their country. I am proud to pay tribute to the Alert.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, December marks the second anniversary of the passage of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act. With the implementation of these changes, which came only after much debate from opposition members and especially the Senate, we see very clearly that the government was right. Indeed, more and more research is now being done in laboratories, clinics, hospitals and universities in Canada. This new policy saved Canadian consumers $60 to $80 million on the price of drugs last year alone. In 1988, 57 research and development companies invested $164.5 million in Canada, including $72 million in Quebec. Thanks to the changes to the Patent Act made by the Conservative Party, the pharmaceutical industry can look to the future with confidence and optimism.


PENSIONS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure all members know that the government

December 14, 1989
s. o. 3i
has initiated a new hotline to answer questions about the new Italian-Canadian pension agreement. Dial 1-800-263-8538. If you dare dial, the news is all bad.
First, this is likely the worst agreement that Canada has with any country.
Second, if you make less than $24,000-a grand sum indeed-your pension will be tax exempt.
Third, if you make $24,001 and have waited 40 years to collect a retroactive pension, Revenue Canada will collect 40 per cent of your pension after Italy has rightfully collected 10 to 15 per cent.
Fourth, despite the fact that the agreement is bad and has not been ratified it is fully operative.
Fifth, the Canadian government will collect $200 million from the 40,000 Italian-Canadian pensioners this year, even though they have no right to any of the money.
The deserved reply: con le parole dei amici Italiaini: questo patto fra Canada e Lit alia fa scifo. Translated, the reply means: This agreement stinks.


DISASTERS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I learned that on Monday next at 10 a.m. a memorial service will be held at Sandy Point, Nova Scotia for the eight men lost at sea in the Johnny and Sisters II.
Whenever sailors put to sea their families know they may not return. But that does not make it any easier if they do not.
The north Atlantic is awesome and forbidding on a beautiful August afternoon. In the dead of winter and in a raging storm it can only be described as terrifying.
The courage of those who defy that terror to support their families through a life at sea in a small boat hundreds of miles from home in quest of fish is a kind of courage and commitment few others can understand, let alone contemplate.
Each time a vessel and its crew is lost we stop to reflect. What is even more sobering is the knowledge that as we speak and sit here today hundreds of other Canadian fishermen have their lives on the line in the
north Atlantic. May God protect them so that the sadness now descended upon Sandy Point will not be repeated in other communities and on other families.
Monday next may all members of this place and, indeed, may all Canadians pause to remember the crew of the Johnny and Sisters II and the friends and families they left behind.

[Translation\


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Americans refuse to release Richard Bilodeau, a trucker from Coaticook, on $50,000 bail following a road accident in which he was involved on November 29. The Americans are treating a Canadian citizen most unfairly.
The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and the Americans persist in their unjust attitude towards this Quebec trucker. If we Canadians jailed all Americans involved in fatal accidents on our territory, they too would worry about coming here.
Mr. Speaker, as of today, the extradition treaty between the United States and Canada is no longer respected and I feel the Americans are acting in bad faith, unless their ambassador across the street has already left Canada to vacation in Florida. In any event, I call on all Canadian truckers to show solidarity with their Quebec confrere, Richard Bilodeau.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, today is election day in Chile. Today we look to Chile with a renewed sense of hope for a democratic future in which all citizens of that country can live in peace and justice. However, hope is not enough.
We must not forget that not long ago the duly elected government of Allende was overthrown by a cruel military junta which for years brought horror and grief to the lives of many Chileans.
December 14, 1989

We must not forget that Pinochet will continue to wield power as the head of the military. We must do all we can to assist and uphold the will of the Chilean people who, through a great deal of solidarity and effort, managed to bring about these democratic elections.


ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret the Atlantic provinces are facing a number of difficulties. However, economic indicators reveal the economy of Atlantic Canada has benefited under this government's economic initiatives.
Farm cash receipts are up by 9.7 per cent. Sawmill production has increased by 56.3 per cent. Fish landings have risen by over 34.1 per cent in the past five years.
Since 1984, this government has been creating an average of 2,314 jobs a month in Atlantic Canada. That is a total of 118,000 new jobs for Atlantic Canadians.
Hollow words from the members opposite will not put bread on the table of Atlantic Canadians. It takes vision and leadership to arrive at long-term solutions to the economic realities of Atlantic Canada.
This government has shown its commitment to bring economic development to the regions of Canada. I commend the Prime Minister for his continued commitment to Atlantic Canadians.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to a Canadian taxpayer the Minister of Finance wrote:
The GST is a stable, reliable source of revenue that will secure
our plan for year-by-year reduction in the deficit.
Could this mean that we will see year-by-year increases in the rate of the GST as well?
On the other hand, the government is reported to have told Canadians that it will lower the rate of the GST by cutting $1 billion from government programs.
We have also been told that the government had already cut non-essential programs. Does this mean that essential programs will now be cut?
The Chairman of the Finance Committee has once again blurted out senselessly inflammatory comments saying that the city of Ottawa must be trembling because of these proposed cutbacks. When will he stop abusing Canadians and start addressing their concerns about the goods and services tax?
When are the Canadian people going to get the straight facts about the goods and services tax?


ETHIOPIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, the devastating famine confronting the people of Ethiopia is caused not only by drought, but also by a civil war and a government that refuses to allow relief supplies to reach the drought-stricken rebel held territories in Eritrea and Tigre.
According to international aid agencies, the famine threatens the lives of more than four million people in the northern provinces. A massive international emergency relief program must be put in place immediately.
I call on the Canadian government to take a leadership role in developing such a program. I also call on the government to pressure the Ethiopian government to open up supply routes to the territories, to establish corridors of tranquillity. As it stands now, supplies have to go through Sudan to reach the starving in the north, a long and difficult route.
Canadian and international aid to Ethiopia must reach the people who need it. The Ethiopian government cannot starve its own people. Canada must drive home this point.
Canada and the international community also have to state clearly that the Ethiopian civil war must end. A ceasefire, genuine negotiations and democratic reforms have to be put in place so that future suffering is eliminated.

December 14, 1989
Oral Questions


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to voice my concern for the youth of our country if a form of the proposed GST is not implemented.
If there is a primary reason for one to support the GST, it is to secure the well-being of the tomorrows for the children of today. It is indeed Canada's economic future that we must address. The GST allows us an optimistic economic future, one that we shall be proud to say we helped to shape.
The present economic situation necessitates a tax reform and a GST is a positive reform. It will raise productivity, improve competitiveness and lower the cost of capital goods and thus result in job creation.
It is estimated that as early as 1992, 60,000 new jobs will be created. This is the kind of outlook we want for the youth of this country. Implementation of a type of GST will achieve just that-a secure, promising, healthy economy for all the youth of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['The Chair received this morning an application under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate. I have given careful consideration to the request made by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and at this time the debate will not be granted.']
Right Hon. John N. Tkimer (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In December of last year in this House he had this to say to members of Parliament, "The free trade agreement continues the process of making trade more and more secure". Those were the Prime Minister's words.
Since this government was sworn in in 1984, we have seen our $20 billion trade surplus steadily fall to less than half of that in 1988, down to $4.4 billion for the first three quarters of 1989 and to a world-wide deficit of $421 million for the month of October-the first worldwide trade deficit since 1976.
We also have a reduction of $2.5 billion for the first ten months of this year in our trade surplus with the United States.
How can his government take comfort in these latest figures? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he said to members of the House of Commons that his trade deal would make our trade more and more secure?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, we have trade with the United States in the neighbourhood of $200 billion a year. It is the greatest trading arrangement between two nations anywhere in the world, and obviously there are fluctuations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am surprised that a former Minister of Finance would either raise it or is chuckling about it. Our trade remains in solid balance. We have a $4 billion surplus as we speak today.
On the basis of figures for one month, the Leader of the Opposition is now projecting his usual doom and gloom. Why does he not share the optimism and the confidence of all Canadians in respect of trade with other nations and in respect of free trade with the United States, that will ensure growing prosperity? He knows better. He has been a Minister of Finance. He knows full well that it is very misleading to use one month's figures and try to project any serious results from those.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this is just the latest month in a series in which the figures have shown a steady graph downwards over the past five years of our trade surplus for the world and with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement with the United States, negotiated by the Prime Minister, proves that our government has abandoned our economy to the United States. Not only are our trade figures deteriorating, we see a restructuring of business across North America which tends to benefit the U. S. worker, at the expense of the Canadian worker. Plants are closing down one after the other, and the number of lay-offs is rising steadily: Gillette in Montreal, Ford in Windsor, Gerber in Niagara Falls, General Electric in Toronto, Indal Limited in Toronto, Inglis in Toronto, Burlington Canada in Toronto, Northern Telecom across Ontario and Dominion Textiles in Quebec. How can the Prime Minister
December 14, 1989

justify this threat to Canada's interest, all because of the free trade agreement with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition surprises me. He knows perfectly well that the Canadian economy is modem and dynamic. There are structural changes and job changes taking place. I believe the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that between 25 and 40 per cent of the Canadian labour force changes jobs in the course of one year. This reflects the reality of competition and the rapid technological changes that our economy and all economies have to cope with. I am surprised to hear the line of reasoning taken by the Leader of the Opposition, because since January 1, instead of jobs being lost in this country, 216,000 new jobs were created, and 73 per cent were full-time jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I find it hard to understand then-position. The Minister for International Trade tells me that the exact figure is 232,000 new jobs created since the elections, last year. Why does he keep saying the economy is going down hill? Our job creation rate is already impressive, and we will try to maintain it at this level, despite the obstruction and the reactionary views of the Liberal party.


John Napier Turner: I can understand your impatience, Mr. Speaker. Nobody really believes that stuff any more.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We told the Prime Minister when he came back from telling the American bankers in New York that Canada was open for business again that this country should not be up for sale. This Prime Minister has put Canada on the auction block.
As part of the trade deal the government also sold out our fish processing industry on both coasts. There is now a crisis in the industry, as we described yesterday. Fish plants are closing down at an incredible rate. It is estimated that approximately 6,000 jobs are going to be lost in the industry in the next few months.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister keeps telling us he has a plan to meet this crisis. What is the plan?
The Prime Minister keeps telling us that there is a special cabinet committee. Where is the report of that committee?
Where are the programs to assist the workers and families of our fishing people on both coasts, both at sea and in the fish processing plants?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is fulfilling the prophetic statement of his erstwhile finance critic, the member for Etobicoke North, who said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Copps:: We've heard this before.


Some Hon. Members:: Boring!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They can dish it out but they bloody well can't take it. They better get used to it because they are going to get a lot more from us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The finance critic of the Liberal party said, "The strategy of the Liberal party and the leader of the Liberal party is very simple. We are going to blame every sparrow that falls on the free trade agreement."


Mary Catherine Clancy: The sparrows have fallen.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is exactly the policy that you are following today. It was dishonest then and it is dishonest today. The Liberal party should be ashamed of itself for not having a policy for job creation in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is where they really deserve the A for hypocrisy. The leader of the Liberal party has the nerve to stand up today and ask what we are going to do about hard-pressed fishing villages in Atlantic Canada when we have introduced a bill that will make it easier to draw unemployment insurance in some areas.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberal Senators have received instructions-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Read the bill again.

December 14, 1989
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: You've got to be kidding. That's why every Atlantic government is opposed to the bill-even the Conservative government in Nova Scotia.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That bill will provide for unemployment insurance at 10 weeks. The Liberal Senators want to keep it at 14 weeks. You are betraying the poor people who need unemployment insurance in Atlantic Canada. You should be ashamed of yourselves!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a disgraceful bunch of hypocrites.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Prime Minister that the people in the Atlantic do not want unemployment insurance. They want work and a good fishing industry. They do not want your unemployment, and they do not want the policies of that Minister of Employment.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
To top off a week when an American scallop dragger flagrantly violated our maritime sovereignty, when the European Community proposed new quotas that continue to rape our fish stocks, when fish processing plants are closing all over the place, and now the President signs a bill that effectively wipes out a $30 million lobster industry, will the Prime Minister begin to take effective action to protect Canadian interests in the Atlantic fishery?
When is he going to come to the realization that the free trade agreement will be of little help in dealing with American attitudes that allow a bill such as the President signed this week to be passed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the statement of the hon. member who says that the people in the depressed areas of Atlantic Canada do not want unemployment insurance.


Coline M. Campbell: They want work.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They want work, the hon. member is right. That is why unemployment since this government was sworn in has decreased in the provinces of Atlantic Canada by 4, 5 and 6 per cent from where it was left by the Liberals.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Tell them in Canso.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think it is disgraceful that the Liberal leader allows the Liberal Senate to hold up an unemployment insurance bill that would give more money to the poor fishermen in Atlantic Canada. I think he should give instructions today to Allan MacEachen to call off his troops and pass that unemployment insurance bill now because it is designed to benefit the people of Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: You would get arrested in Nova Scotia after this.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister could complete his answer shortly.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister to complete his answer.


Mr. Peterson:: He's finished.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the Prime Minister that the statistics he has on unemployment insurance do not take into account the people who did not have enough work to get unemployment insurance-those fishermen who only had eight and not ten weeks, those workers who did not have 17 or 18 weeks of employment in order to qualify. Put them into your statistics.


Mr. Charest:: That's the point.


Coline M. Campbell: This past Tuesday the Prime Minister asked for a quick reference to a bi-national panel under the free trade agreement regarding a size restriction on lobsters by the United States legislation. So much for the assurances of the Prime Minister and the President that other discussions would be held.
December 14, 1989

Is it now the Prime Minister's policy to allow the free trade agreement to manage our fishery every time there is a problem with the Americans pertaining to fish?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not at all. I have indicated to the President of the United States that not only have we already begun to contest that decision, but we are considering instruments of retaliation to protect the lobster industry in Atlantic Canada. This is the way it goes under the GATT, and this is the way it goes under the free trade agreement.
I have also indicated our plans to assist the Atlantic fishing industry in a very major way. But I must say that I am surprised, because it was pointed out today that delay of the unemployment insurance bill beyond January 6 means that people in areas of high unemployment would have to work 14 weeks to qualify for benefits instead of 10 weeks.
If the member really is concerned about the well-being of people in Atlantic Canada, then give instructions to those non-elected Senators to pass that bill now because it benefits the poorer people.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. For the past two years, the Prime Minister has tried to promote the trade deal to Canadians saying he was going to assure Canadians that this was going to give us secure access to the U.S. market.
Since this government was elected, we have seen our trade surplus shrink by $19 billion, our Canadian dollar go to 86 cents, the Atlantic fishery virtually close down, and tens of thousands of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector. Today, Statistics Canada released figures that show the manufacturing trade balance is in a deficit for the first time in thirteen and a half years.
Is it not time for the Prime Minister to admit that the winners in this trade deal were the Americans, who got secure access to Canadian jobs and Canadian markets, and the losers are Canadian families and Canadian workers who have lost their jobs?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take seriously a question like that which tries to ascribe to an agreement-which was to take place over 10 years-such alarming effects already in just 11 months.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What other reasons are there?


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to point out to the House that exports in October rose slightly from September but there was a substantial rise in imports. One of the reasons there was a substantial rise in imports is that we are importing considerable amounts of machinery and equipment to increase our capacity to produce, to become more productive.
One of the reasons for the diminishing trade balance is conditions in other countries because international trade is with other countries, it is not with your own country. This shows the weakness in the economies of other countries, not in our economy.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It's their fault!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: We had a very slow Question Period yesterday. I intend to hurry it along. Perhaps the minister could answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the good news that can be drawn from these figures is that exports and imports are continuing to grow despite indicators of a slackening pace in some aspects of the economy. The continuing investment of Canadian business in new machinery and equipment will make provision for a more competitive future. That is the good news that comes from these figures.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about machinery and all of the machinery that is coming in. I want the minister to tell the 1,900 people-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put her question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr Speaker, I think the minister should talk to those 1,900 people who have been laid off at Canadian Airlines International. He should talk to those 150 people from Gerber who have been laid off in Niagara Falls. He should talk to the 200 people who are going to be laid off in Montreal at the General Electric lamp factory. Those are the people he should talk to. Those people have families and it is their lives we are talking about.

December 14, 1989
Oral Questions
In the course of the televised debates during the election campaign, the Prime Minister told Canadians that the trade deal was merely a commercial arrangement, cancellable on six months' notice. Since it is evident that the trade deal is only giving pink slips to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, is it not time for this government to give the pink slip to the United States?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party does not want to talk about machinery and equipment. That apparently bugs her, as does much of the New Democratic Party bug her as well.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: You better talk to your mother, John and get some good advice.


John Carnell Crosbie: I forgot to check with mommy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon. [Translation]


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this series of figures is cold comfort for the poor who are unemployed. People are not interested in statistics. People want work. They want a pay cheque, not welfare.
An Hon Member: Exactly!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: They want to feed their families and give them a comfortable future. They want to know what this government is going to do to find them a job so they can live in dignity.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous sympathy for all Canadians who become unemployed, whatever the circumstances. In fact, that is why the federal government has made broad-ranging retraining programs available to all workers. In August in Quebec, the unemployment rate was at its lowest in ten years. So far, since January 1, 216,000 new jobs, 73 per cent of which are full-time jobs, have been created, and 72 per cent of these jobs are held by women. Now that is progress! The Leader of the New Democratic Party should stop saying we are losing tens of thousands of jobs, because we are in fact creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs here in Canada.



Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The European countries fishing off our east coast continue to thumb their noses at us. We told the Europeans, through NAFO, that they could catch no cod at all off the coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador. They say now that they are going to catch 27,000 tonnes this year. That is a job loss of 750 additional jobs because of European overfishing in eastern Canada.
The question is very simple: When is the government going to stop pussy-footing? When is the government going to get tough with the Europeans? When is the government going to do something to protect the jobs that are being raped by the Europeans off the east coast of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that we have had an intensive campaign with respect to the European Community and its ignoring NAFO quotas in the last six months or a year with some considerable success.


John Napier Turner: Big success story, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The quotas that the European Community announced for itself yesterday are a very considerable improvement with reference to flatfish stocks, but still deficient in the area of the cod stocks that the hon. gentleman mentioned, but all in all, below the catches of last year and a very great improvement from previous years. It is still not good enough. We are still not satisfied, but it is a very considerable improvement.
When the hon. gentleman's government was in power in the 1960s and 1970s, the Europeans took 800,000 tonnes of cod from the North Atlantic: 800,000-not 27,000-and the hon. gentleman's government did nothing for 12 years to stop that. Now he suggests that we can somehow, by some miracle, do something to stop what the Liberals could not do when 800,000 tonnes a year was taken from the North Atlantic.
December 14, 1989


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the government cannot do something about the fish outside 200 miles, I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he can do something about the fish inside the 200-mile limit because he has jurisdiction and this year he has given away 8,000 tonnes to the French. That is 220 jobs. That is 220 jobs lost to the French. You have direct control. What are you doing, Mr. Minister, to stop the job loss to Atlantic fishermen?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member would recall when his government was in office giving the French-


Mr. Volpe:: We want to know what you are doing. You are the ones who administer.


An Hon. Member:: Let's talk about the Gulf.


Coline M. Campbell: You have got the power. You use it on the GST. You use it on other things. Use it in fish!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You let them in the Gulf and you let them take 800,000 tonnes; that's what you get.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister and those other members on the opposite side of the Flouse who are engaged in a brilliant conversation with the Prime Minister to keep in mind that there are other members who wish to ask questions in this Question Period and I would ask for some co-operation. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries.


Thomas Edward Siddon: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member opposite would recall that when his government was in office it granted the French 20,000 more tonnes in Canadian waters than this government does, and the Liberal government granted Europeans quotas of our non-surplus stocks for 15 years.
I should point out that since the implementation of our $750,000 fines, the arming of our patrol vessels, that has dropped to virtually zero, with the exception of the last few weeks, partly because of the intransigence of opposition members in not being willing to get our fisheries patrol vessels back in the water.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Not so!
Oral Questions TRADE


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Tomato farmers in Norfolk, Brant and Elgin counties have just been told that after 25 years Campbell's no longer needs their tomatoes.
With the ongoing tariff reductions in the free trade agreement, Campbell's plans to import from the U.S. some of the tomato paste that was previously processed in Canada. This will replace a net loss of 7,000 tonnes of tomatoes because of the closing of its Mississauga line and will put Canadian farmers out of work.
Will the minister now admit that all his government's talk of free trade, harmonized markets, and industry rationalization, means nothing more than Canadians losing their jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no one in the country being fooled by this attempt to pick out individual companies and allege that they are all reducing their operations because of the free trade agreement.


Coline M. Campbell: There won't be anything left. It's as simple as that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is this is a Question Period, or do we have to outshout the people who ask us questions?


John Napier Turner: Look who's talking.


Mr. Speaker:: In answer to the hon. minister's question, it is Question Period. Perhaps the hon. minister could complete his answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me say that in November, 1988, 4,883,000 people had jobs in Ontario. A year later in November, 1989, 4,987,000 people had jobs in Ontario, which is a very considerable increase over the beginning of the year.


Mary Catherine Clancy: We are talking about tomatoes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, if all the hon. gentlemen and all the hon. ladies opposite who bring forward these individual instances were correct, the reverse would be true. There would have been a tremendous decrease in jobs. Get your act together for heaven's sake and stop getting up in the House with juvenile points like this.

December 14, 1989
Oral Questions


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, my question was about tomatoes. I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture who represents farmers in this House, the same minister who promised Canadian farmers that free trade would be good for them. The minister should be aware that the farming industry and the food processing industry in Canada are under siege because of this free trade agreement.
Will the minister now tell the tomato farmers of southwestern Ontario what specific programs he has to help them with the loss of their livelihood because of this free trade agreement?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to look at the facts, he would find this past year the investment in the food processing sector has increased by some 15.4 per cent; 40 per cent in the bakery industry; 23 per cent in the cereal industry; 21 per cent in the biscuit manufacturing industry-


William Warren Allmand: What about tomatoes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -73 per cent in the red meat industry. When you go through the application of the free trade, Pillsbury is expanding, Canada Packers is expanding, General Foods is expanding, J.M. Schneider is expanding, MLM Flour Products is expanding, CSP is expanding, the meat processing is expanding, all because of free trade and a buoyant Canadian economy.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, he and his minister of industry waxed eloquently and enthusiastically about the sale of Connaught BioSciences and Canadian R and D to France, and about the sale generally of Canadian industry to foreigners. Yet, his own national advisory board on science and technology has said that on R and D Canadian jobs depend and that "the high level of foreign ownership of Canada's industries contributes to our low industrial R and D spending".
Who really is timid and timorous, as the Prime Minister described yesterday, those of us who are concerned about the Canadian future, or his government which refuses to act to protect Canadian R and D, Canadian jobs and the Canadian future?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday and have said before in the House, it is regrettable that Connaught was not able to find a Canadian suitor with which to join forces in order to ensure its future.
In fact, in the applications, we were able to obtain from both applicants for Connaught assurances that there would be very, very substantial increases in R and D, whichever suitor ended up controlling Connaught. We have those guarantees. It is in the press release which I am sure the hon. member has. In fact, the transaction will result in significant increases in research and development in this important area in Canada.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also about Connaught and it is directed to the Minister of Health. Connaught is the leading supplier of influenza vaccines in Canada. During the next imminent world-wide epidemic, it will be the only Canadian supplier capable of producing the five million or so doses needed here.
When Connaught was owned in Canada it responded to a health and welfare emergency request to supply vaccine sometime in 1976. I want to ask the Minister of Health, why did he fail to obtain a guarantee of supply in times of emergency from the foreign buyer of Connaught for such vaccines?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons why Connaught felt it was necessary to join forces with another suitor with deep pockets, as it were, was in order to ensure it had the processing capability to meet the demands for vaccines, including polio vaccines. The technology that Merieux brings to these circumstances will help ensure that Connaught will be able to meet the demands of Canadians for polio vaccines and indeed for a whole host of other vaccines which are important to human health.
December 14, 1989


FISHERIES
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Reference has already been made to the infamous U.S. lobster bill, and I commend the Prime Minister and the government for moving quickly to advise President Bush that the law is simply unacceptable to Canadians and that we will apply for an FTA panel on it.
However, lobster prices are falling already and time is of the essence. Can the minister advise as to when we might reasonably expect a panel decision, and as to what countervailing measures Canada will take during the interim to let President Bush and the Americans know that we expect them to live up to the spirit, as well as the letter of the agreement, and to show Canadians that the FTA process works?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a truly concerned question about the fishery.
Luckily, we have the free trade agreement so this matter can be proceeded with and adjudicated upon in a few months rather than the year or longer it might have taken under the GATT. Thank heavens, we have the free trade agreement.
The government has already taken preliminary steps. We did not wait for the President of the United States to make up his mind whether he would sign this democratic bill or not, a bill sent to him by the democratic majority in the Senate and in the House. We have had consultations. We have had the matter before the Trade Commission, so we have saved weeks by doing that. We are now seeing if we can get an expedited process.
We were talking to our U.S. colleagues to see if they will agree to a quick process. Even if they do not agree, we can reasonably expect that there would be a decision, and by the middle of May there should be a final report, if we go with all due expedition as we can under the agreement. It could be quicker if we can have an expedited process as we did in the case of the B.C. salmon.
We did not wait for the President to make his mind up. We started long ago on this process, and we have advice that we have a very strong case. We are going to press it in every agency that we can press it in. We are going to
Oral Questions
go on with the support of the House, I trust, to see that this trade distorting measure of the United States is found to be trade distorting.


THE ECONOMY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, and it is very simple.
The government agency, Stats Canada, reported today that our trade surplus with the United States is down 21 per cent over last year, that the investment income deficit is up 25 per cent over last year, but the trade in services is down 21 per cent over last year.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this simple question. Does he agree with the comic logic of the Minister for International Trade that this is good news, or does he recognize that this represents a serious challenge to the economic well-being of this country, and that this government has got to do something to repair this serious situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the point of view expressed by members of the ministry that, clearly, interest rates are high and that is taking a toll on the economic situation. Imports are high and that is impacting negatively on our exporters. The state of the dollar is doing that, and we recognize some important structural difficulties in the economy. Productivity is not as high as it should be.
The object of the policy of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance is to squeeze out of the economy the inflationary pressures to avoid what I am sure my friend wants to avoid, a repetition of the tragic situation of 1981 and 1982 when inflation got out of hand and crippled the economy for five years.
We believe that while there have been figures that have been out for one month the Canadian trade balance remains in a favourable posture by something in excess of $4 billion. We believe that the policies set out by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade are valid.
We have not heard any alternatives to them whatsoever that make any sense from the opposition. We have delivered now almost six years of economic growth and prosperity second only to the economic growth of Japan which led the world. Canada was number two. We

December 14, 1989
Oral Questions
believe those policies are right and we are going to pursue them.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I say through you to the Prime Minister, Sir, you do not have a government, you have a flat earth society. You are not looking at the reality of our economic situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I put this question directly to the Prime Minister.
In light of his recognition of the serious structural difficulties in the economy, will the Prime Minister instruct his Minister of Finance to take actions to bring down interest rates and the exchange rate so we can begin exporting again and represent our full responsibility as world traders?
What is happening is that this government is going into recession.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in this House qualified to discuss recessions, it is the hon. member and his colleagues.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Then why don't you listen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the flat earth society in reference to the policies we have followed. Last week the OECD produced a report which indicated that it was in full substantial agreement with the policies followed by the Government of Canada. In August, the World Economic Forum from Geneva indicated that Canada's competitiveness had increased from number 11 position where we were in 1984 to number 4 today, indicating major strides by Canada to achieve a better competitive situation.
In Canada, 1,555,000 new jobs have been created. There have been record profits, record job creation, record reinvestment, record jobs for women, 750,000 people have been taken off the poverty roles. There have been good times, not perfect times, but good times all around, infinitely better times than those of the Liberals and we want to keep them going.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -St-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
How can the Prime Minister continue to pretend that assessment of human rights policies and practices are a concrete factor in decision making in Canada on our aid determination, while numerous international and Canadian non-governmental organizations have condemned the El Salvadoran government for human rights violations, for death squads and for the murders of six Jesuit priests? How can his government receive representatives of the El Salvador government this week in Ottawa to discuss new aid programs for this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made very clear the position of the Government of Canada with respect to any attacks on human rights in El Salvador, Central America and elsewhere. It is a policy that has been very, very consistent from the beginning. I think it is an enlightened and effective policy.
Further, I think my hon friend will applaud the fact that in the area of human rights, yesterday the government announced the appointment of the Hon. Ed. Broadbent to be in charge of the International Institute of Human Rights. I think that is probably a good move as well.


André Ouellet: I think the Prime Minister should listen to the question and try to answer it. We are talking about El Salvador, with a representative of this government being here in Ottawa to meet with officials of External Affairs to discuss new aid programs, at the very moment when the government in El Salvador is universally criticized for violating human rights.
In the past week, the Salvadoran air force dropped thousands of pamphlets from the air urging the killing of international aid workers it accuses of supporting the FMLN guerrillas. Dozens of churches, humanitarian and community groups have been forced to close their offices after they were raided by security forces.
December 14, 1989

Karen Ridd who appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs this morning confirmed this, and said that while she is now back in Canada, she still receives death threats.
What is the Prime Minister going to do in light of all of this evidence that shows certainly the Canadian government should not continue aid to this government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is referring to the delegation that is visiting at the request of the government of El Salvador, there are at least two meetings with the government that will be held with the Acting Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Raymond Chretien, and the Acting Vice President of CIDA for Latin America. The visit provides them with the unique opportunity of conveying the position of the Government of Canada to them, receiving their point of view. After these meetings, the government looks forward to receiving specific recommendations from the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Raymond Chretien, in whom we have great confidence.


HOUSING
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. This government has cited Project Haven as an example of action it is taking to combat violence against women. Well, some action.
The government promised over 18 months ago that within four years it would provide shelter for 500 more battered women each day. To date, a year and a half later, there are 22 more shelter beds in all of Canada.
Will the minister tell us when this government will take concrete action to lessen violence against women and keep his and his government's promise to battered women?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the government has made a commitment under Project Haven to provide the capital funds for shelter beds for victims of violence: women and children.
Privilege
Some $22 million was committed to be put in place over a period of time. Proposal calls have been put out for that. A number of those proposals have been accepted and put in place. Others are in the process of being put in place. Some of the provincial governments involved have raised concerns with respect to providing the maintenance funds to look after those shelters once they are put in place, and that has been a factor which has delayed the process.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would have preferred to go on longer but we are out of time. The hon. Minister of Justice.


PRIVILEGE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the House leaders with respect to the most appropriate method of dealing with communications which have been received from all parties regarding testimony given before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General relating to police investigations of certain members. Those discussions have included yourself and officers of the House.
This is a matter of grave concern to all of us as members of Parliament and we have searched long and hard for an appropriate solution. We have arrived at a two-part solution which will address the current situation and assist the House and its members in the future.
First, I will propose a motion to be jointly moved and seconded by myself; the member for Windsor West, the Official Opposition House leader; and the member for Kamloops, the New Democratic Party House leader to deal with the request for a question of privilege raised by members from all three Parties. The motion will read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business be empowered to study the rights, immunities and privileges of members of the House of Commons.
We also feel that it is appropriate to review our current practices and therefore following the passage of the motion which I just suggested I would move the following motion, again jointly moved and seconded by myself;

Business of the House
the member for Windsor West, the Official Opposition House leader; and the member for Kamloops, the New Democratic Party House leader:
That a special committee of the House be appointed and empowered to review the Parliament of Canada Act regarding the powers, duty and obligations of the members of the House in relation thereto and regarding the authority, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy;
That the said special committee shall have all powers of a standing committee pursuant to Standing Order 108(1);
That the said special committee shall report its findings and recommendations no later than March 5, 1990;
That the said special committee be chaired by the Deputy Speaker; and that seven additional members be recommended by the striking committee.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have a copy of the first motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard both the motions put forward by the hon. Minister of Justice. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

Mr. Frangois Gerin (Megantic-Compton -Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question of privilege after what happened last Tuesday before the Justice Committee.
We have listened carefully to the proposals made by the Leader of the Government which met with the agreement of the House, and we are very pleased with these proposals. The Quebec caucus had been considering the matter for several weeks, and it proposed this long-term solution in the form of a special committee as provided under Section 53.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
It will be an opportunity for us to clarify the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy and to suggest publishing the rules of internal economy by which we are probably governed. The special committee will also give us a chance to consider not only the rights but also the obligations, privileges and duties of members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, our main purpose in seeking this longterm solution is to preserve the independence members
of this House need to do their work, which is not always easy. The budgets we are given are not only tools, they are absolutely essential.
We also asked for this to be a public debate, and we want to thank all parties in the House of Commons and all members of this House for agreeing to this solution. The committee's proceedings and the entire review process, will be public and open. That, Mr. Speaker, is what Canadians expect of their members of Parliament.
We need the co-operation of all concerned, especially and including RCMP authorities and members of the force.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to ask the government House leader to give the usual weekly statement of business.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that tomorrow at 10 a.m. the House will consider Bill C-28 at report stage.
After Routine Proceedings at twelve o'clock we will deal with Bill C-40 and it is expected we would complete second reading. We will then move to Bill C-47 in all stages; that is the amendments to the Elections Act.
We are still negotiating to try to find appropriate business which could be proceeded with on Monday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the business to come up, I think it is fair to say, concluding from exchanges earlier in Question Period, that Bill C-21 may likely not receive Royal Assent by the New Year.
Of course we are concerned about that because of the variable entrance rates for qualifying for unemployment insurance. I simply wanted to say to the government House leader that usually at this time of the year we give rapid passage to a bill to continue the variable interest rates.
December 14, 1989

I want to offer our co-operation again to pass without debate legislation that would continue, until this legislation is eventually passed, the variable entrance rates that are presently in place.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Justice gets up again I would like to raise an issue with him. He wants Bill C-47 passed tomorrow. Could he assure the House that no Canadian elector will be barred from running in a by-election by the passage of this legislation?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in answering the second question first, I would advise the House that the amendments to the Elections Act which are before the House at the present time in Bill C-47 are simply to correct a section of the Elections Act which was left out of the Revised Statues of Canada in error.
I am not prepared at this time to give a legal opinion on my hon. friend's question. I will certainly take that under advisement. If he has any specific questions he wishes to ask on that issue, I think those would be best addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 ATLANTIC FISHERY-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair received this morning an application under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate. I have given careful consideration to the request made by the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and at this time the debate will not be granted.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-49, an act to provide for the resumption of certain government services, be read the third time and passed.
Government Orders
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the lunch break I was responding to some of the points made by the hon. parliamentary secretary while speaking in support of the bill. I was just commencing comment on his statements on the role of my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, in the discussions on this bill that have taken place.
The hon. parliamentary secretary stated quite clearly that my colleague has in fact not well represented his constituents and that he is responsible for the matter of parity of pay between east coast ships' crews' workers and west coast ships' crews' workers not being granted.
I had alluded to the failure of the memory of the hon. parliamentary secretary. He is well aware that it is my colleague from Dartmouth who was responsible for ensuring to the best of his efforts that pay equity would be a given, that it would not be something that would be referred to the conciliation board, that it would be decided and accepted by the President of the Treasury Board before the conciliation board was even struck, before the conciliation board even met, and that it would not be included in the matters to be decided by the conciliation board.
My colleague, the member for Dartmouth, had assured those ships' crews' workers that they would finally have-not out of the goodness of the heart of this government but because of the position he took-parity on the signing of this contract, that it would not be used as blackmail or as a tool to pry from them concessions on any other matter to be dealt with in those negotiations.
I think it is unfair of the member who spoke to relate what happened in a way contrary to the events that actually took place. I hope that perhaps he might consider seeking professional advice for the obvious lapse in his memory.
The lapse in his memory has applied to other things as well. I think I am being kind here and within the rules of parliamentary procedure. The member also referred to the meetings of the legislative committee that took place last Sunday at which members of the government were not prepared to accede to the request of members of the Official Opposition for information on the severity of the situation.
Neither he nor his colleagues would accede to our request that we have before us the Minister of Transport who could give first-hand information on the situation in the Seaway, on the situation on the Saguenay River, on

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
the situation in the Great Lakes, and on the situations on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast.
Members of the government were very clear that their intention was to have this committee meet for a matter of a few hours and to have its business over and done with. They would not give permission for the Minister of Veterans Affairs to come before the committee and provide us with accurate information about what was really going on in the Veterans Affairs homes and what was really going on in National Defence hospitals.
The government members of the legislative committee wanted to make sure that a request by the Liberal opposition to hear from the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board was not acceded to. I challenge members of the committee to say that they felt that they were fully aware of the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and fully aware of labour law and the positions that the courts had taken on various matters relating to collective bargaining within the Public Service.
I certainly did not feel that I was and my colleague from Dartmouth certainly did not feel that he was. We both felt that we needed the counsel of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the impartial advice of the chairman of that board, to advise us as to the implications of certain aspects of this act. This very clearly interferes with the normal collective bargaining process. This very clearly sets in place a process that abrogates some of the normal rights to negotiate which workers enjoy within the Public Service of Canada.
Government members of the committee had a majority and indicated every intention of using that majority with a heavy hand to ensure that the committee did not have a careful and close look at that bill. They had every intention of ensuring that this bill was reported back on Monday morning to the House, regardless of whether or not the committee had completed its deliberations.
The legislative committee, on Sunday afternoon and Sunday evening, did hear from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing the workers in both these strikes. The Public Service Alliance of Canada put before the legislative committee certain amendments that it felt did not make this a good bill, did not make it a palatable bill and did not make it a bill that it wanted to see adopted or passed by this House. But it did put before the legislative committee some reasonable
amendments that would at least represent a token acknowledgement of the normal process of collective bargaining.
Government members of the legislative committee, with their majority, chose not to consider in detail those recommendations of the union representing 3,600 workers. They simply said: "We have not got time for this. We have not got time to seek the advice of people within the departments, people from the justice department. We have absolutely no way of knowing if these are reasonable amendments or acceptable amendments or not".
They said that in general the amendments did not seem to be a problem. They were not going to give this committee established by this House of Commons the time to consider each of these amendments and to get the advice of professional Public Service employees, advice that would allow us to word the amendments properly, to determine whether in fact they were acceptable to the government.
They were not even prepared to allow that process to take place because they were so anxious to ram through this bill. They were intent on bringing it forward and reporting back to the House on Monday.
I think that is a real abandonment of duty when there are amendments before a legislative committee. The responsibility of a legislative committee is specifically to review in detail the provisions of a bill and to recommend back to the House what if any changes should be made to that bill. It is the obligation of that committee, whether government members or members from this side of the House, to review every clause to assure themselves that that clause is proper, that it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, and that it does not put in place something which in fact is going to defeat an otherwise worth-while objective of the legislation.
However, government members of the committee chose not to do that. They quite blatantly said that they did not want to take the time to look at these proposed amendments. They did not even want to consider the representations of the alliance that represents over
160,000	Public Service employees; that is over half the people who work for the Government of Canada. They did not think they had anything worth while to say to us

on this. That is certainly not the way the Official Opposition feels about it.
Instead of the careful and due consideration that the Standing Orders require them to give to the bill, government members said that if we wanted to suggest these for consideration they would agree that they be considered and that the appropriate wording would be developed by the government.
We saw yesterday how much consideration they got. The fact is that these amendments were put one by one for discussion by the committee. In every case there was agreement that they would be considered, that an appropriate wording would be worked out, that members such as myself from the opposition on that legislative committee would then have the opportunity to move those amendments in the House, and that perhaps by then the officials of the Treasury Board, of Transport Canada and of the Justice Department, having had due opportunity to consider those amendments, might in fact be prepared to support them.
My hon. colleague across the aisle has suggested that something quite different happened at that legislative committee, but we did have an agreement-and it is recorded in the minutes-on each and every one of those motions. I know because either myself or my colleague from Dartmouth put forward each and every one of those motions for consideration. We did have an agreement that they would be considered and that the wording would be seriously reviewed by the government as to whether they could be incorporated into the legislation. The parliamentary secretary himself made it quite clear that there was no real and serious objection to these amendments.
We obviously have seen that those assurances to the opposition members of the legislative committee really were not taken seriously by the government members of the committee. If they were, we would have had quite a different outcome yesterday afternoon on the amendments and we would have had quite a different bill before us today.
I have dealt with some of the points made by my colleague opposite.
I think it is fairly important in this House that we all try to reflect as fairly and as openly as we can what
Government Orders
discussions really have taken place at various times, and not in any way to have a convenient lapse of memory so that we can place our colleagues in an undesirable situation or attempt to place them in an undesirable situation simply to save our own necks.
I want to go now to the words of the Minister of Justice, the hon. government House leader. I took his comments of Monday, December 11, at approximately 11.20 a.m., quite personally because I have been involved in the issues related to this strike since last April, shortly after entering the House of Commons, as Public Service employment critic for the Official Opposition.
The hon. Minister of Justice demanded to know what a member from Ottawa could possibly know about the situation on the east coast, about the situation on the Seaway, about the situation in veterans' homes and hospitals across the country. He demanded to know how the Liberal opposition could possibly be opposing this bill when it should understand, if it had any responsibility at all, how important this bill was.
The member for Ottawa West knows because she listens, something this government does not do. This government could well learn a lesson about listening. This government could well learn a lesson about listening to Canadians when it comes to the punitive effect something like the goods and services tax would have.
I cannot believe that I heard the Prime Minister of Canada stand up in this House today and say that it is okay if well over 1,000 fish plant workers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and throughout Atlantic Canada are without jobs because we are giving them better unemployment insurance. They do not want unemployment insurance; they want jobs. They want this government to do something to stop its destruction of the fishing industry, its destruction of their livelihood, and its destruction of their very communities. They do not want better unemployment insurance because unemployment insurance is a pitifully low level of income to live on. These people want to live with dignity and they want to know that their government is doing something to save Atlantic Canada from being lopped off from the prosperity that a good part of Canada enjoys and set adrift in the Atlantic Ocean. The government could be listening to that.

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
The government also could be listening to people when it talks to them about the clawback of seniors' pensions. It could be listening to people who are saying: "We have saved all our lives. We have paid through our taxes for our old age security. We have made plans for our retirement. We have invested in certain ways so that we can enjoy retirement in comfort and not be dependent on the state to support us in our retirement".
It could be listening to pensioners who say: "Yes, I get a little more than I need right now but I know that the likelihood that I am going to die before my wife is veiy high and I know that my pension dies with me. I know that that leaves her dependent on nothing but old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and, if that is all she has, that still leaves her at a poverty level income".
The government should listen to the pensioner who says: "I have provided for my old age. When my children were little they did without things. When they were in high school they did without things. We lived in a smaller house. We did not have a car. We sacrificed so that now in retirement years we would not have to face poverty". He says: "I do not want my wife to face poverty after I am gone".
What the pensioner says, and what he wants this government to listen to is: "I want to be able to take what I have now that is over and above my immediate needs and to be able to ensure that my wife does not become one of the two-thirds of elderly women who are alone who are living in poverty". This government is robbing those pensioners of that opportunity to provide for their spouses after their death. That is another example of where this government does not listen.
On Monday morning the Minister of Justice challenged my ability to understand the situation. I suggest that it is the Minister of Justice who does not understand the situation. If he and the government understood the situation they would have taken far more seriously the need to negotiate and reach a settlement with their workers, they would have known that the daily cost of this strike is far more than the yearly cost of settling this strike, having these people back to work and happy to be there because they know their government has recognized their right to a basic and decent wage for the work they do.
The member for Ottawa West knows what this strike is about because she listens. She also understands basic democratic rights. These rights are enshrined in the International Declaration of Human Rights. They are rights that are enshrined in other conventions to which this country is signatory. We see those rights being shattered here. They are rights that apply right across this country, whether it is in Bull Harbour on the north tip of Vancouver Island, or in Cambridge Bay where that imaginary line comes down and if you dock on one side of the dock you get $1,600 less for doing the same work than if you dock on the other side, or if it is Hamilton Harbour, the right of workers to organize, to negotiate and, if necessary, to withdraw their services so that they can negotiate for a proper recompense for the work they do is not something that applies to, or depends on, or should depend on, the whims of this House or the whims of the government of the day. These are basic human rights.
They are a basic human right because there are times in every labour situation when the right to withdraw your services becomes the only means of equalizing the balance of power between the employer and the employee. The employer has much power over the employee, the right to hire, the right to fire, the right to promote, the right to lock out and the right to pay less than is required to provide for one's family or for one's own survival. That economic power is a tremendous power. The government has that power over these workers. The only thing they have to counterbalance that power is the right to say "this isn't fair, this isn't just, and I choose not to work for those kinds of wages in those kinds of conditions for this employer".
The member for Ottawa West understands this situation because she recognizes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She recognizes the right of people to be paid the same for the work they do if the work they do has the same value. She recognizes the right of women to be paid the same as men for doing the same work. That is one of the fundamental issues at stake in this strike. Without that issue there would be no strike.
Finally, the member for Ottawa West knows enough to listen to her colleagues who have spoken eloquently in this House. If there is any misapprehension on the part of the government, any member of the government, the parliamentary secretary or the President of the Treasury

December 14, 1989

Board, that the position taken on this side of the House is in any way to continue to prolong a situation that is becoming increasingly grave by the moment, then the minister and the government do not understand the situation.
If there is any misapprehension that somehow my colleagues from Atlantic Canada, the west or along the St. Lawrence Seaway are somehow being dictated to or bludgeoned into accepting the debate on this back to work legislation, who want to see the grain moving, of course they do. People want to see their constituents back to work a couple of weeks before Christmas and having a half decent paycheque coming into the house.
The statement by the Minister of Justice suggests that in fact he has not been listening in this House. If he had been listening, he would have heard the people who represent these workers who live by the ocean and know what 10, 20 and 30-foot waves are like, who know what going out on the ocean in 100-mile-per-hour gales is like, who know what going out on the ocean in 16 degrees below zero is like. The people who have spoken in the House know all these things. They know what is going on in our hospitals because they have been in touch with their constituents.
I have been to the veterans home on Smyth Road in Ottawa. I spent time with those veterans, long before this strike was an issue, long before I knew what hospital service workers were. I spent time in that home and I know the needs of those veterans. I know the ones who are confused and a little out of touch with reality. I know the ones who cannot control their own bodily functions and, therefore, need constant care and attention to ensure that they have basic cleanliness. I also know the people who look after them. I know that this job is not done for the miserable $16,000, $17,000 or $18,000 a year they get paid. It is a job that is done out of love and compassion and caring and wanting these people in their retirement years to be well looked after.
There are people at this home who have spent virtually their whole working life there because it is work that is meaningful and matters to them. I can almost believe that the government knows that is the way they feel about their work, that their patients matter to them,
Government Orders
whether they are working in the laundry making sure the sheets are clean, in the tailor shop to keep things in good repair, in the kitchen to prepare nutritious and tasty meals, or whether they are stripping the soiled bedsheets and making sure the elderly patient is clean and comfortable.
I cannot help but wonder if the government does not know that they do those jobs out of love and real concern for those patients and that, therefore, they withdraw their services very reluctantly, and despite the low wages they will continue to work in that job because they are dedicated and committed. For nearly a decade they have been waiting for fair recognition of the value of work they do, despite a decision of the Human Rights Commission in 1987 that these people have been underpaid by, at that time, an interim amount of $28 million. This was not something the government did out of the kindness of their heart. It was simply returning to them what was and should have been theirs by rights all along. The member for Ottawa West understands perfectly the issues before us today and for the last week.
I want to go back to the words of the Minister of Justice on Monday morning. I want to go through them very carefully and point out just how lacking his own understanding is of the issue. He states at page 6725 of Hansard:
I think everyone-except if one lives in a large city in central Ontario such as Ottawa-who has any experience with the weather and the transportation system in this country appreciates the dangers of the oceans at this time of year.
Well, yes we do. All my colleagues from Halifax, Dartmouth, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick have spoken eloquently on this matter. What they fail to understand is why the government does not understand these dangers. We raised these matters in the House before the strike ever began, and several times since and the government has not understood the urgency of reaching a settlement that would get these people back to work.
My colleague from Dartmouth, particularly, asked about the 1,700 lobster fishermen putting out to sea at a dangerous time of year and under dangerous circumstances because there is a great rush to get to those

Government Orders
lobster grounds. It can be dangerous. There is no question about that. The minister was not concerned about that. His reply in the House indicated clearly that he was not concerned. I think that was the day he talked about contingency plans being in place to take care of any eventuality.
It is obvious there were not contingency plans or we would not be dealing with this legislation today. Again, I am confused about whether the ocean became more dangerous before this bill was introduced last week than it had been the day before or the day the strike began, or than it had been two weeks before the strike began when we raised the issue in the House, or than it had been, in fact, two years ago when this contract expired and throughout the two years since when it has been subject to negotiation.
I think we in the Official Opposition well understand the dangers of the sea. The member for Ottawa West has not experienced it personally but she certainly listens to and is supported by colleagues who have.
The Minister of Justice also talked about the possibility of some 41 ships, which would be a record, that could be caught in the seaway as a result of the actions of the Liberal and NDP parties stalling this legislation. The one inevitable result of being a Canadian is that you prepare for winter. Every year winter comes. Every winter it gets colder. Every year ice forms on the waterways. Every year it snows. If there is anybody who lives in this country and does not know that, they obviously have not been outside in 100 years.


John Harvard: You haven't been to Winnipeg, Marlene.


Marlene Catterall: Yes, I have stood at the comer of Portage and Main and I do know that that comer exemplifies what Canadian winters are all about. In case the government did not know that, we made a point of letting them know. We let them know before this strike began. Before the government thought of this legislation, we made a point of letting them know. My colleague from Leeds-Grenville did stand up and remind the government that there is $6 million worth of navigational aids in the St. Lawrence Seaway and that if those aids are not brought in before winter, they are lost. They are destroyed by the ice.
I guess the government did not hear him, or chose not to respond. It certainly had many, many weeks after we were aware of the problems to make itself aware of the problems and to get back to the bargaining table and say: "We had better get these people back to work". It chose not to do that.
The minister on Monday also said: "It doesn't bother anybody from Ottawa because they don't have empathy for the people out on ships." I think I have said enough on that particular point. The Official Opposition well understands that the government obviously does not care about the problems of people out on ships.
Then the Minister of Justice said: "Maybe I could ask the member from Ottawa to have some concern for our veterans and the people in veterans hospitals." If I did not have personal experience at those veterans hospitals, I only had to listen to the co-workers of the hospital services workers from Ste. Anne de Bellevue in Montreal who came to this city yesterday to show their support for the hospital services workers who work with them. These were not the people on strike. These are the professionals-the nurses, the dietitians, the doctors, the X-ray technicians. They are not on strike. They are the ones who are keeping the hospital running. They are the ones who are working 12 and 13-hour shifts, being bribed, cajoled, coerced and threatened into crossing picket lines and keeping the hospital going, working to the point of exhaustion.
They are the members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union whose president wrote a letter to the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board used that letter in this House to imply that the professional workers in that union were in support of this back to work legislation. In fact, what they were supporting and urging was that the government get back to the bargaining table to recognize the legitimate claims of these hospital services workers and to reach a settlement with them.
The people who came here from Montreal yesterday to sit in and watch this debate, to meet with myself and with other members of the Official Opposition, came because they completely understand the value, which the government does not, of the work these workers perform, its importance to veterans in Canada living out their last years in those homes. They understand that

their work as nurses is much more difficult. In fact, it is impossible without the assistance of nurses aids.
The dietitians understand that their work is impossible and meaningless without the support of the dietary assistants who are among the workers on strike. The nurses know that if there are no clean sheets to put on the bed, their patients will not be healthy and will not be comfortable.
They came here yesterday because they have seen those workers on the picket line for two weeks in freezing temperatures. They know them personally. They know how much the families suffer from lack of adequate income. They wanted to show their opposition to this piece of legislation, and their support for the government's return to the bargaining table, where it has not been since Sunday afternoon, and has not successfully been for over two years. They want this strike settled so things in their hospital can get back to normal.
They talked to me about the cost of keeping that hospital running without these workers. The cost being incurred by the government and the wastage of taxpayers' dollars to keep the hospital running without the hospital services workers exceeds the cost of settling the strike.
The Minister of Justice said: "If my hon. friend from Ottawa thinks that veterans should be inconvenienced that way, then I hope members have it in their hearts to think about other people." I challenge this government to think about other people. I challenge the Minister of Justice not to sit there and lecture me about thinking about other people. The Minister of Justice said: "I see some members here who represent ridings with people at risk on the seas, and I don't know how they are going to face their people back home if there are any accidents." The Minister of Justice knows perfectly well that the ships' crews workers on strike, those people represented by my colleagues about whom he was talking, have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have ignored the heartless and arrogant way in which they have been treated by this government in not reaching a settlement. They have ignored all that and put the welfare of their fellow citizens first. They have kept themselves ready 24 hours a day, leaving home to be where they could be ready on a moment's notice to put
Government Orders
out to sea, whatever the weather, and to respond to any emergency calls.
There are people working full time through this strike because they figured out that that was necessary to ensure the safety of those who put out to sea. Do you know what they are doing? They are not collecting their salaries, but are turning them over to the Public Service Alliance. They are accepting strike pay just as their other colleagues who are on strike because they do not want the fact that they are working to protect the public to put them in a better economic situation than those who are on strike and fighting for their rights.
That kind of self-sacrifice has been evident in other ways throughout this strike. It shows that the workers have a better understanding of the needs of their colleagues than the government. The west coast workers have said that they are prepared to accept a wage increase in this contract that is below what the rest of the Public Service is getting, provided their colleagues on the east coast, who take the same risks and have the same responsibilities, get the same wage.
They know that it is not right that one person's life is considered more important and more valuable than another. They know it is not right that if you live in Halifax the responsibilities and the risks you take are worth less than if you live in Vancouver. They know that able seamen in the private sector are now getting well over 40 per cent more than they or their colleagues are getting. They want to see those inequities corrected.
If the Minister of Justice wants to talk about those members who have constituents at sea and to tell them that they "just might think about that", he should be aware that they have just thought about that, thank you very much. I think it is the government who should just think about that.
Then the Minister of Justice chose to talk about Kingston and chose to point out to the members on this side of the House that Kingston is on the Seaway. We know that. We have the member for Kingston and the Islands and the government does not any more.
He pointed out that there is the odd big ship going by Kingston, just in case the members for Ottawa do not know that. Well, we know that because we talk to our colleagues on this side of the House.

Government Orders
Then he said: "In case of an accident-". What has the government done "in case of an accident"? How has it let things get to this stage?
The minister even went so far as to suggest that the member for Kingston and other members along the Seaway might talk to the members from Ottawa and tell them that it may be a big thrill to hold up legislation that puts people back to work, but if you live somewhere where there is risk at sea, you might have a better appreciation for it.
I wonder what kind of big thrill the government, the Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the parliamentary secretary who spoke to us this morning are getting out of hammering people who are earning $16,000, $17,000, $18,000 and $19,000 a year, withholding from them salaries that they are entitled to, salaries to feed and clothe and house their children properly. Is the thrill of the exercise of power so tantalizing that you cannot even see justice in the situation, that you cannot move to give these people justice? Are you prepared to risk the shipment of grains from the prairies? Are you prepared to risk a chemical transport ship in the St. Lawrence? Are you prepared to risk, hon. parliamentary secretary, those people setting out on the high seas from your own community?
I have to ask: where has the Minister of Transport been in all of this? He was not allowed to come before the legislative committee. How strong were the submissions he made to the President of the Treasury Board about the need to settle this strike? Was he anticipating the closure of the Seaway? Was he anticipating more than 100 ships being trapped in the St. Lawrence Seaway or in the Great Lakes at a cost of millions of dollars a day? How did he think he was going to cope with that when he was standing here telling the House that there was no problem with safety and security.
We did not hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Where has he been for the last two years? Has he been encouraging the President of the Treasury Board to settle this strike? Has he been speaking on behalf of the people who run his department's veterans homes? Where has he been while these workers have been dragged through the courts instead of being at a negotiating table and dealt with fairly?
The Minister of Justice, in what my grandmother liked to call "high dudgeon" says: "I did not want to speak for so long." Well, I don't either, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to. The Minister of Justice said: "I got incensed at the insensitivity of members opposite". Where is the sensitivity of the members on that side of the House? Where is the sensitivity of members toward workers who have won the legal right through the Human Rights Commission to equitable pay and still do not have it two years after that Human Rights Commission decision?
The Minister was talking about "political posturing, which may gain some points in Ottawa". If we have ever seen political posturing there has been two years of it through these negotiations and through these people not having a contract settled with their employer, the Government of Canada. There has been political posturing that promises, tantalizingly, that there will be a settlement of this pay equity issue. There has been political posturing, dragging the issue through the courts instead of sitting down and solving it. There has been political posturing that somehow the government thinks the public of this country will support that the lowest paid workers in the federal public service are going to continue to be underpaid, are going to continue to be paid less than colleagues doing exactly the same work. And not a little bit less, but an average of $3,000 a year less.
One person involved in that human rights tribunal settlement was paid $40,000. That is the amount by which that person had been underpaid. That is the amount of money that family had been deprived of and, despite that human rights tribunal ruling, members opposite are quite content to sit there and let that unfairness and that inequity go on, to let those workers continue to be deprived of a fair wage level to which they are entitled. Now that is political posturing.
The minister wondered at the stalling of the opposition parties. We are not talking about stalling. We are talking about a few days of honest and fair debate on this matter. Stalling? I will move on to stalling in a moment and the people can be the judge of who is stalling.
The government has moved closure at every stage of this bill. It has moved time allocation, and used every rule it can use to limit debate to as little time as it can possibly get away with. We are not stalling. We are not the ones who have been sitting at the bargaining table and playing with people's lives. We are not the ones who have been taking people to court and delaying that whole
December 14, 1989

bargaining process even getting started. We are not the ones who sit in a legislative committee and say: "We do not have time to take seriously the representations and the motions put forward by the union that represents over 160,000 people who work for the Government of Canada". This is a shameful example for the largest employer in this country to be setting for other employers.
I want to read a letter I received, because I think this kind of letter speaks far more eloquently than I can. It comes from a person in Atlantic Canada who writes on behalf of herself and her family. She is the wife of a ships' crew worker who is on strike. She writes, "Your speech warmed my heart, to see that someone in government cares about us. The so-called leaders of our country feel that we are the little people and should be paid and kept the little people".
I will just read a few of the more poignant sentences from this letter. "My wish is that the government members who are against us would have to spend a month on strike, especially at Christmas, with no pay and children wondering if they will have a Christmas. This is the time of the year for goodwill, something the Progressive Conservatives do not have, or even know what it is". She says, "I am ashamed that the member of Parliament for the region I live in is a government member and after talking to us voted against us". That is the feeling of the people in Atlantic Canada. I think the parliamentary secretary would know that better than anyone.
I have accused the government of stalling, and I think it is important that I expand on that statement so the members of the caucus can judge for themselves whether they think their ministers, in particular those involved in this whole negotiating process, have acted fairly. I urge them to listen carefully, because if they do not think this is a fair process, they have an obligation on behalf of their own constituents to urge the President of the Treasury Board or through him, the parliamentary secretary, or the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of Public Works, or the Minister of National Defence and the ministers of several other departments for whom these people work, to get to the bargaining table to deal fairly with people, to settle this strike in the way a good, responsible
Government Orders
employer settles it, by negotiating, not by forcing people to work.
If the government does feel people's services are essential to the safety and security of Canadians, it has the legal tool to ensure that those essential public services continue. That tool is called designating people. The government has the ability to designate people as "essential". But in its arrogance, in its sloppiness, in what was called by the Public Service Staff Relations Board its own administrative negligence-and the Public Service Staff Relations Board had a few other choice words-this government failed to do that. Now, that is irresponsible.
The government knows when a contract with its employees is going to end. Most contracts are for four years, so from the moment a contract is signed it knows when that contract is going to end. The government knows that after the end of that contract, when the union has given notice that it wishes to begin bargaining a new contract, it has 20 days in which to designate those employees it wishes to have declared as "essential" employees. That is a tool the government has to keep people from going on strike and to keep them from withdrawing their services as a bargaining tool. Every department involved with essential services employees failed to meet that deadline. Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board failed to make sure that that legal requirement was met.
Once you realize that you have goofed, you admit it and say, "Okay, now what can we do to deal with the situation?" The thing to do is recognize that negotiations have started. And having bungled, you had better dam well sit down at the bargaining table and try to solve your problem another way. In early 1987 the government knew that it had failed to use the one tool it had to stop these people from going on strike. It knew that it had broken the law, that the winter of 1989 was coming, that negotiations were coming and that it had a couple of options.
At that point the government could have said, "Okay, we have goofed. What contingency plans can we put in place to make sure that those essential services continue if we do not reach a successful conclusion, if we do not manage to settle with these people and if they do exercise their legal rights, which we have left them, to go on strike?" That, it seems to me, would be a responsible approach by the government. The government should

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
say, "Okay, the minister should take charge of this". The minister should say, "We have goofed. How are we going to handle our goof? How are we going to make up for it? How are we going to make sure it does not hurt the Canadian people"?
In fact the minister, weeks after the strike had started, was still denying that there was any problem. If there is no problem, why do we have this legislation in front of us? The government did not choose to take the productive path and say, "How can we manage responsibly and how can we ensure that things are done properly and that the public is protected"? Instead, the government said, "How can we get these workers? How can we put it to them? How can we skewer them? How can we prevent them from exercising their legal right"? The government spent over a year and a half doing that, instead of trying to settle this before it became a problem.
The government went to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and said, "Yes, we know we did not listen to the law and we know we missed our deadline but we still want to designate these people. We really do not want to have to deal fairly and up front with people who are on strike because we know we will be under a little bit of pressure to reach a settlement. We did not do what we were supposed to do but we want you to let us do it now". The Public Service Staff Relations Board, unfortunately, said, "All right".
The government has ignored this law before. It said Parliament did not really mean "shall", when it said "shall". Surely Parliament does not mean to tell the Treasury Board what it must do. Surely Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board are above and beyond the laws of Parliament when it says "shall" be done within 20 days.
But this time the union got smart. This time the union took them to court and asked the court to rule on whether "shall" means ''shall" or may, or could, or might if you want to, or if you get around to it, or if you feel like it. This time the court said that when Parliament says ''shall", it means ''shall". It does not mean that it is your option, it is your choice Charlie Brown, do it if you feel like it, but do not worry too much about it because it
is just a law of Parliament. The court said that when Parliament says "shall", it means you must do it. That is what any other normal citizen understands by "shall" in law. It means it is something I have to do, but the government does not seem to understand that.
Despite this, the Treasury Board then went back to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and tried to argue that it should be allowed to designate these people anyway. Of course, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, faced with a court decision said, "I am sorry, but the courts are very clear. You have not done what the law says you must do and therefore you cannot designate these workers as essential workers". It had some very unpleasant and very critical things to say about the way the government had handled this whole situation.
Mr. Speaker, you would have thought Treasury Board, back in June, would have said, "We better get on with the business of planning for a strike contingency. We better get on with the business of sitting down and seriously bargaining with these people". Oh no. Treasury Board controls the purse strings and so Treasury Board was able to say, "How many thousands of dollars-is it tens of thousands or is it hundreds of thousands-will it take us to drag this out for another three or four months and let it get into September before we have to start doing any contingency planning?". So they took it back through the courts to say, "Surely, you didn't really mean 'shall' means 'shall'. Surely, you really meant that we can do it anyway". The court simply reiterated its earlier decision and finally in September said to Treasury Board, "No, we meant what we told you in the first place. When Parliament says 'shall', Parliament means 'shall'. It does not mean you can mess around with it and do whatever you want".
What had happened in that period of time was that settlements had been reached with the Public Service Alliance and the bargaining groups across the country were voting on the aspects of the agreement that pertained to them. It was either late May or early June when the government knew that the hospital services workers said "no" to this agreement. The ships' crews workers said no to this agreement. They said no for some very good reasons.

You would think a wise employer would say, "I had better get serious about this bargaining business and find out what it is they really want and how we can sit down and reach a settlement with them so they will be back to work. We will then not have a disruption of essential services or a disruption of grain shipments. We will not have an undermining of international confidence in the St. Lawrence Seaway. I would think that that is important as we are trying to build up our trade and signing new export wheat deals with Russia and other countries. I think it is kind of important that the reliability of the Seaway be well known internationally and that the international companies and the international markets know they can trust us". Apparently this is not important to the government. Instead of spending June, July, August and September when a settlement of this could have been reached, they chose to again go off to the courts at great cost to the taxpayers of Canada. I am sure you can imagine how these trips back and forth to the courts would poison the atmosphere for negotiations.
Is it any wonder that in October, when a conciliation board was finally appointed to try to reach agreement between these two parties it could not reach agreement? It just said, "The two sides are too far apart. There is no possibility of a settlement here." That is one part of the story. That is the part of the story that applies to both of these groups and, I must say, it also applies to a third group. Remember the welfare program workers, the parole officers inside our prisons, the training officers inside our prisons? They were on strike, too. They were on strike for very much the same reasons. The government had dragged them back and forth through the courts instead of sitting down at the bargaining table and negotiating in good faith.
The other side of the story is the hospital service workers. Although it will not do any good in this debate, because we know that the government has every intention of forcing this legislation through and that there are no open minds, open hearts or open ears even, I suspect, on the other side of the House. This issue of pay equity for the hospital service workers has been around for a long time. Going back to last spring I have had substantial correspondence with the President of Treasury Board on this problem.
The issue really is that people who are doing identical work are being paid different amounts of money, and
Government Orders
substantially different amounts of money. That is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is contrary to the pay equity policy that this government enforces on private sector employers and it is not a matter of debate. Or is it? It has been to the Human Rights Tribunal. It has been decided that, in fact, one group of workers called "hospital service workers" do the same work as another group of workers called "general service workers" but they do not get paid the same. One of the reasons they do not get paid the same is because it is largely a female group.
That is a fundamental problem of pay equity. It is why, in the government, women get paid 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. It is why women do not get into senior management positions at the same rate as men do. It is why, after 10 years, women are still not getting promoted in the scientific and professional categories. They are still at exactly the same state as they were at in 1976 despite policies, laws, and stated good intentions from the other side of the House. That is a reality for women. They do not get paid as much for the work they do.
They pay the same price for a loaf of bread. They pay the same price for a car. They pay more for a haircut. But, for the basic necessities of life they pay the same price as men but they do not earn as much to pay for them. So, they do without things more than the population, in general, does.
I wrote the President of Treasury Board about this first in July of 1989. It is over two years since the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled this way. What has been done to give these people the classifications and the wages they deserve? He wrote back and told me all the bureaucratic hoops that this has been going through for two years. It was, I must say, a very informative and helpful letter that helped me understand why bureaucracies do not always get things done that are fair and just and right.
I wrote back and said: "It does not seem fair to me that in the time these people have been trying to seek justice, many of their children have grown from pre-schoolers to adolescents. They have done without and they have been deprived of many of those things and many of those comforts that children should have as they are growing

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
up, because their mothers and fathers are not getting paid what they deserve". The Human Rights Tribunal has said that. I am not making this up. I am not pulling it out of the air. I am not on some rant and rave about equal pay for work of equal value. We have got the Human Rights Tribunal saying this.
What I was questioning was this idea of equalization payments. I thought when the Human Rights Tribunal said people should get paid the same amount as certain other people, that it meant they should get paid the same amount. But that is not the way they do it in government. They do not give them the wage to which they are entitled. They give them their same old wage and then they add what we call an equalization payment on top. The problem with the equalization payment, of course, is that it does not roll into the contributions to their pension. It does not roll into the amount of pension they are entitled to and it does not, in fact, have the same status as wages.
Therefore, you have these workers, even though they are getting more money through equalization payments, which by the way, they are not getting yet, even two and a half years later. But even if they were getting them, they would still end up poorer when they are old, as compared to other workers doing exactly the same work.
The President of the Treasury Board wrote to me and said: "We cannot deal with wages under the Canadian Human Rights Act, only under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, because that is where wages are negotiated". Well, I kind of knew that. I wondered why these negotiations that have been going on for two years had not managed to come to grips with this issue. That is where these things should be dealt with, at the bargaining table. Yet the employer, knowing full well that this was a crucial issue for which these hospital services workers had been fighting for nearly nine years, that is a fair wage, as the Human Rights Tribunal had said they should be receiving, refused to address that issue in its bargaining. It has known for two years that if that issue was not addressed, there would be a strike.
So do not accuse me of being insensitive to the needs of the veterans in our hospitals. Where have the government members who have veterans homes in their ridings been? Where has the Minister of National Defence been
while the needs of these workers have been ignored? Where has the Minister of Veterans Affairs been while this issue has been sitting on a shelf, going through layers and layers of bureaucracy?
In 1987, $28 million was paid to these people. That was not the gracious gift of a generous government. It is the amount by which they had been underpaid. The President of the Treasury Board stood in the House and said: "We have got another $10 million". Well, that is what he told me in a letter back in August, that there was $10 million, and that the departments had been instructed to get this out to these people as another interim payment, not a final settlement by any means of the problem or the decision of the tribunal, but as an interim payment. It still has not been done. I ask, why not? Is that $10 million being held over their heads? Has it been withheld from them deliberately for over four months, in fact for over two years, as a bludgeon, a pry, as some way of forcing them to accept less than a fair settlement? That is the only conclusion I can come to. It is their money and it should be in their hands. It should be putting shoes and clothes on the feet and the backs of their children and food on the table, not sitting in government coffers gaining interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to interrupt the hon. member but I notice that the clock is working now and according to the order that was passed earlier would suggest that we have to put the question at a quarter to the hour. I am wondering whether the hon. member would indicate whether she is prepared to conclude her remarks so that a member of the New Democratic Party can participate at third reading stage, because the vote has to be put at a quarter to five.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear some members saying that this is not a point of order. Technically speaking, it is not a point of order. It is more in the form of a question to the member who has the floor. I will hear the member for Halifax West. I gather that it is on the same point.


Howard Edward Crosby: In a sense. On the same point of order, if it relates to speaking time, because it may well be that the member from Ottawa West does intend to wind up her remarks. Before she does I thought it might be

important to clarify a matter which has arisen in debate, that is, between the hon. member and myself.


Marlene Catterall: Let him take his turn.


Howard Edward Crosby: I thought you needed a rest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor.


Marlene Catterall: I must say that I do appreciate that the letters from the President of the Treasury Board are always informative, always accurate and always complete. But, I do not always like what they say.
What the President of the Treasury Board said I found quite disturbing. He said, "Unlike the pay equity legislation in Manitoba and Ontario, there is no requirement for a collective agreement to be re-opened and negotiated wages to be incorporated and pay equity to be incorporated through negotiated wages". The President of Treasury Board also says, "Our legislative provisions do not demand a corrective process when there is a matter of pay equity".
I have said this a number of times in this House and I am going to keep on saying it. I think the government, as the largest employer in the country, on environmental issues and on issues of equity, has an obligation to do not the minimum the law demands but the maximum that justice demands. I have no tolerance for a government that says it is not going to be fair and it is not going to be just because the law does not say it has to.
There have been interjections from the other side of the aisle about the problems being created. I shall conclude, when I conclude, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I fully appreciate that the standing orders, the rules of this House, allow the official spokesperson for the Official Opposition to have unlimited time. I accept that as one of the rules. However, we are in a closure situation and I just want to point out that clearly what the Liberals are planning on doing is preventing the New Democratic Party from speaking on this important matter.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to get into an argument with the hon. member, but I could quote a number of instances in the past when a similar request was made but the roles were reversed, and the member who was speaking at the time refused to oblige. He said: I am sorry, but it's not my fault, I have the floor, and I have a few more things to say. So I am not anxious to hear about all the precedents, but there are precedents. That's just the way it is.
Tough luck, but that's life. She has the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think by this action, by bringing in this legislation and by its absolutely intransigent bull-headedness and stupidity over the last two years the government has probably done more for collective bargaining in the Public Service and more for worker solidarity than has been done in many decades. It has brought a cohesiveness to these workers that I think they have never felt before. Often it is true of the lowest paid workers in any environment that they find it hard to come together, to work together and to feel good about their association with each other because they are too worried about the necessities of life. But I think the government by its actions has in fact brought these workers together. They are out there in the freezing cold on the picket lines. They are determined to support each other until there is a reasonable and equitable settlement of these contracts.
That is what happens when you tiy to beat people into submission. I do not know why this government always picks on the lowest paid workers. I do not know why it is always the clerks at the bottom salary scales in government who go out on strike and get left there for month after month. I think it is because the government knows that strike pay is no picnic and you can only survive so long when you earn so little and you have so little saved because everything goes on the necessities of life. So it is easy to pick on these vulnerable workers, the ones who work in the laundries, in the sewing shops and in the kitchens of the hospitals, and the ones who go out to sea

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
for miserable, lousy wages that this government should be ashamed to pay.
We have heard about the problems being created by this strike. We are well aware of the problems being created by this strike. Those problems are on the head of this government because it refuses to treat its employees with decency, with dignity and with the respect of sitting down across from them at the bargaining table with a determination to reach a just settlement.
Private sector employers are learning lessons that this government needs to learn, that bargaining with people and a co-operative relationship with your workers is more productive, more satisfying and a more profit-producing way to go than to hammer them with your power. This government needs to learn that lesson, but it has not. It prefers to treat this like a game in which winning is more important than solving problems.
I do not know who gets the kicks out of this. I do not understand the President of the Treasury Board sitting in this chamber saying: "I am waiting for the union to call me. All they have to do is pick up the phone". He is the employer. It is his responsibility. It is several ministers' responsibility to make sure that service to the Canadian public continues and that people are paid a decent wage for the work they do.
The government has created this problem. I do not think it is fooling anybody when the problem has been in its hands for over two years. It has known it was there. It has chosen to do nothing. It has chosen to waste taxpayers' dollars going to court. It has chosen to leave ships tied up on the Seaway and on the Great Lakes to the tune of $2 million a day. It has chosen to waste $6 million worth of navigational aids on the Seaway by having them destroyed by ice rather than getting people back to work.
I doubt if many members on the opposite side even know that this will cause problems this spring when the Department of Transport will not have enough navigational aids in the spring to start the ships moving through the Seaway. It is irresponsible to suggest that the responsibility for that lies anywhere except with the government side of this House.
Despite this and despite the fact that normally the opposition would not support back to work legislation, but at least assist its quick passage, we have chosen not to do that. We have done that because we know it is the
government's fault that this situation has arisen. We will not co-operate in the breakdown of collective bargaining in the public service.
We did have discussions with the government and the other party in opposition about how we could expedite this legislation and try to use the seriousness of the situation to try to get this legislation improved to the point where we would be prepared to give up a few hours of debate and let it go through. The government failed to do that.
I want to spend just a couple of minutes on the amendments that were wanted to this legislation, amendments that the union representing these employees wanted.
Very simply, it wanted recognition of the bargaining agent as the party to the collective agreement. The government somehow forgot and left that out. In the legislation it sets up the individual employees as the other party with the employer to the collective agreement. That is not what the courts have ruled. The Public Service Alliance wanted what it believed to be an oversight corrected. We thought the government was agreeable to that, that, in fact, it was an oversight and it should be corrected.
The union wanted the ability, which is theirs legally, to agree to the chair of the conciliation board. They did not want to go into a situation where the government had picked two out of the three members of the board. For heaven's sake, who would go into a stacked game like that?
If the government had any fairness and any willingness to send these people back to work with a shred of hope that they might be able to get a decent settlement out of this binding conciliation process, it would have agreed to that.
It would have agreed that the matter of pay equity would be referred to this conciliation board. But it did not.
It would have agreed that parity between the east and west coast workers would be settled before this conciliation board started its work.
It would have agreed that this contract should not be allowed to go on for whatever indeterminate period and it would have amended that clause to make it clear that

this contract had to conform with the other contracts in place in the Public Service of Canada.
We had discussions, and I would not have referred to them in the House today if the parliamentary secretary had not done so. I am going to put on the record what happened in those discussions.
We had discussions throughout Monday to say: "Look, if you will accept these amendments which at the legislative committee you agreed were reasonable, but which we just did not have time to consider the details of, then we are prepared to expedite passage of this bill. We are prepared to agree that it can go through quickly and that the ships can be put back to work, the people can get back to work in the veterans' homes and hospitals with a bill that is not good, not acceptable, not palatable-that is in fact outrageous after the government's two years of bungling-but they can get back to work with a bill that at least gives them a chance of coming out with a decent settlement".
These issues were all agreed to on Monday. We felt that we had achieved for those workers out there changes to this bill that were going to give them at least a half decent chance of getting a fair settlement, not something that was imposed by conciliation boards dominated by government appointees. Do you know what one sticking point was, Mr. Speaker? The President of the Treasury Board was not prepared to unequivocally say that the matter of pay equity was before the conciliation board. This is the question of the wage equity that these people have been waiting for since 1981.
These are the amendments that the government members opposite voted against yesterday. The amendments recognized the bargaining agent as a party to the agreement and set up a fair conciliation board where all parties agree on whom the chair will be. These amendments recognized that all parties are equal in that process. They would have set up a situation in which there would be pay equity, and would get rid of an open-ended section that could have had the contract go on for five, six, seven, eight or nine years unlike contracts in the rest of the Public Service.
The people who really blew it for the workers in this case are the members of the New Democratic Party. I regret very much that members of the New Democratic
Government Orders
Party, knowing that this bill was going to go through by tonight at the latest, were not prepared to say: "We want to get a bill that is better for the workers. We want pay equity on the table. We want the issue of parity between the east coast and the west coast off the table. We want that settled and not a matter for negotiation. It is a matter of right. We want to see a matter for a balanced conciliation board."
We resent that they chose not to send a member of Parliament into those negotiations, but that they chose to send a staff person. That will never happen again.
We resent that the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia was misrepresenting the nature of those negotiations to a couple of hundred ships crews workers in Halifax earlier this week. We resent that the New Democrats were implying-and I want this on the record-that the Liberal opposition was talking to the government without them being involved at all. We had no negotiations and no discussions that they were not involved in. They misled the leader of their party in Nova Scotia. She, in turn, unknowingly misled the ships' crews workers in Halifax.
Those ships' crews workers know who has been standing up in this House fighting for them long before their strike even started.
I regret very much that the members of the government yesterday chose to be vindictive by saying: "We didn't get our way and so we're not going to agree to amendments that we know are perfectly reasonable, perfectly rational, fair and just." They chose to say: " We're going to take our bats and balls and go home because we didn't get our way." That is wrong.
They know those amendments were right. When vindictiveness gets to the point where the minister responsible for the status of women can sit there and not support a motion that is in favour of the issue of pay equity being put before a conciliation board, which is the only place it can be included, then I wonder who in this Parliament and who in this government speaks for the women of Canada and is responsible for the status of women in Canada.
The arrogance, the vindictiveness and the meanness of this government throughout these negotiations and its willingness to pick on the most vulnerable people has

December 14, 1989
Government Orders
become its hallmark. The people out there know that that is what is happening.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed that the hon. member has dared to let me have a minute-a minute-to rebut the charges she has made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: The hon. member who has just spoken at length saying the same thing over again in order to prevent the New Democratic Party from responding to the charges that she laid in this House about what we did and what we said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have a number of points of order.

By seniority, the hon. member for Saint-Denis comes first.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked at the hon. member's insinuations about our colleague's intentions. We all know this is highly irregular and against the Standing Orders of this House, and if he would care to rise in the House and apologize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, December 12, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   HEALTH ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of studying the effects of electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines on human and animal health and reporting the findings to the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the issue of electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines and its effect on human and animal health is one of some interest to
Private Members' Business
Canadians wherever they live when their residences are located near these power lines.
In researching this issue I found that in 1984 the World Health Organization produced a report which concluded that "it would be prudent in the present state of scientific knowledge not to make unqualified statements about the safety of intermittent exposure to electric fields".
The report also indicated: "It is recommended that efforts be made to limit exposure, particularly of members of the general population, to levels as low as can be reasonably achieved". You can see how carefully worded the conclusions of the WHO report are.
In September 1986 we discovered that the New York State health department launched some 16 studies to investigate possible links between high voltage lines and cancer among children living near such power lines. The conclusion of these studies were published in July 1987 and indicated that children with leukaemia or brain cancer are more likely than healthy children to be living in homes where the exposure to the magnetic fields generated by electric power lines is high.
In addition to the increased risk of childhood cancer, the study suggested that exposure to a magnetic field causes behavioural changes in laboratory animals. However, the researchers noted that they could not explain the higher incidence of cancer and that the study did not establish a direct cause and effect link.
In Canada this issue had some repercussions among the population in September, 1985. At that time Ontario proposed a 500-kilovolt line through a part of Canada known as Bridlewood. The line would follow an existing 230-kilovolt right-of-way which passed closed to two parks and a new primary school. The New York State study results, when they were subsequently made public, caused a considerable amount of anxiety, and understandably so, among the families living in Bridlewood.
Ontario Hydro argued then and still does that there is no health hazard posed by its high voltage lines, with good reason, because if a link were to be found the implications for all utilities are enormous.

Private Members' Business
More recently, in September of this year we have the following headline appearing in The Montreal Gazette'. "Deformed rabbits become symbol in British Columbia debate on power line safety".
We learned that some rabbits bom in rabbit hutches stacked near high voltage lines were born missing half or all of their ears with oddly twisted feet or curved spines. There were also a more than usual number of stillborn. According to the owner of the rabbits, these birth defects never happened until the hutches were placed near such power lines.
A spokesman for B.C. Hydro denies any link between birth deformities and power lines but adds that "it is unfortunate the community has been stressed; people are literally terrified by these fields".
In a newspaper story which appeared on November 30, 1989 in The Ottawa Citizen we find this headline: "Scientist finds possible power line-cancer link". From that story we leam that Dr. Genevieve Matanoski of Johns Hopkins University seems to have found a possible link between cancer and exposure to electro-magnetic fields from power lines. Dr. Matanoski is reported as saying that while her findings require further testing, the study results have changed her view of the theory about the cancer link to power lines. She stated: "I thought before the theory was wrong. I am not so sure any more".
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there has been sufficient controversy about this issue so much so that a book has been written about it by Paul Brodeur entitled Currents of Death.
According to a review in The Winnipeg Free Press dated December 2, 1989, Mr. Brodeur details the counter campaign by the electrical industry and the military, stressing that there is no purity in the politics of science and in the interpretation of science by the military and industry. The author concludes that there are sensible steps that we can take to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, including restringing or burying neighbourhood power lines. It is the technology of restringing and burying that needs to be examined closely and would require economic resources.
Only this morning at the environment committee, we learned that the TransAlta Utilities in Alberta is the only Canadian utility among more than 50 utilities participating in a North American study of the occupational health effects of exposure to electro-magnetic fields. Exposure measurements for some 2,000 volunteers are being collected over two three-month periods. We all look forward to the outcome of this study and urge through this motion the Minister of National Health and Welfare to match this effort with a government sponsored study of potential health hazards to people living near high voltage power lines.
Why do we do that, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that a government sponsored study would be the most objective one rather than leaving the study in the hands of utilities that for understandable reasons of course would have a vested interest in the outcome of such a study. Therefore the neutrality of the sponsor is of enormous importance for this particular type of investigation.
In conclusion, increasingly transmission lines affect the lives of literally millions of Canadians and millions of people around the world. It is important to be able to determine whether there is a real threat, particularly with regard to the health of children. In that type of investigation it is also important to find out what remedial or mitigating action or even what avoidance type of action can be put into place. Bridlewood School in Ottawa and the experience in Courtney on Vancouver Island are two examples of the national nature of this issue which therefore requires the attention of the national government.
Evidently there is no clear consensus on the part of the scientific community as to the health effects of the magnetic fields created by high voltage transmission lines. It seems to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has an obligation to study this particular thorny problem which affects Canadians from coast to coast and advise the public, the government and this Parliament on the necessity and the content of the necessity of such a strategy or plan so that action is taken to counter any health threats that such power lines may pose to human health.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us today is to consider the advisability of studying the effects of electro-magnetic fields produced by high voltage power lines on human and animal health and reporting the findings to the House.

Generation, transmission and use of electricity are associated with human exposure to electric and magnetic fields, not only under high voltage power lines but also in homes and offices. On a daily basis, most Canadians are exposed to electric and magnetic fields produced by household wiring and lighting. There are electric and magnetic fields wherever there is electric power. When we consider what effects these fields may have on our health, we must concern ourselves not just with power lines but with all other sources of these fields.
Power lines are certainly highly visible, but our daily exposure comes mostly from the use of electricity in our homes and offices. Even in houses close to power lines people may be exposed to weaker fields than people far away. Many factors determine the actual exposure. Recognizing that we are practically continuously exposed to electro-magnetic fields, it certainly is important and prudent to consider whether these fields may detrimentally affect our health.
Public concern about high voltage power lines developed in the late 1960s as extra high voltage lines comprising large towers were built. The initial concern was about the aesthetic and ecological impacts and various nuisance effects.
The nuisance effects are audible noises, radio interference, and shocks and sparks when people touch ungrounded metal objects such as trucks or farm vehicles close to power lines. By the late 1970s and early 1980, some scientific evidence emerged that electric and magnetic fields could affect living organisms and that possibly some of these effects might prove to be harmful to man.
The Department of National Health and Welfare recognized this problem a few years ago and has done a thorough review and assessment of the existing scientific evidence. Let me briefly review this evidence for you.
Health effects of electric and magnetic fields produced by power lines have been studied in the U.S. and Europe for over two decades with intensified efforts during the last five years. Until recently conventional wisdom has held that these fields pose no threat to human health. Two reasons are behind this thinking.
Private Members' Business
First, the fields are low energy and unlike X-rays and other ionizing radiation they do not break chemical bonds, and unlike microwaves they do not cause heating.
Second, all cells in the body have large natural electric fields across their outer membranes.
However, despite the low energy electric and magnetic fields at power line frequencies can cause biological effects. While very many studies have showed a lack of effects, some research has unequivocally demonstrated that under some conditions these fields interact with biological systems.
Evidence today indicates that electric and magnetic fields can affect critical changes to cells in laboratory experiments. Examples of such changes are the modulation of ion flows, interference with DNA synthesis and RNA subscription, interactions with hormones, enzymes and neurotransmitters and perturbations to the immune response of cells and interactions with cancerous cells. The observed interactions with cancerous cells suggest a possibility of electro-magnetic field effects on tumour development as promoters or co-promoters with other agents such as toxic chemicals.
This hypothesis appears plausible because electromagnetic fields have been shown not to cause genetic effects and cell mutations. What makes it very difficult in evaluation of these effects is that more is not necessarily worse, as we used to think.
It has been observed for some effects that a stronger field does not cause a specific effect while a weaker field does. It must be kept in mind that it is hard to predict whether and how these biological effects on cells in the laboratory translate into health effects on the animal or man.
On the level of studying the whole animal, as I mentioned before, many studies do not show any effect. Most animal experiments were screening experiments looking for all kinds of effects.
Very many studies were performed with very strong electric fields, higher than those encountered under high voltage power lines. No effects were found on blood and the immune system and on the reproductive system of rodents, but malformations in chick embryos were observed under some conditions. The best documented effects in experimental animals are shifts in daily circa-

Private Members' Business
dian rhythms and associated hormonal changes, changes in response to drugs and some changes in behaviour.
Regarding humans, laboratory experiments with volunteers showed that people can usually perceive an electric field above 7 kilovolts per metre, but some individuals can perceive fields as weak as 2 kilovolts per metre. Magnetic fields are believed not to be perceived by people.
In a carefully conducted study it was found that exposure to fields did not change most vital signs, physiological parameters, daily life activities, memory span and fatigue. But small changes in the heart rate, slowing by 3 beats per minute, were observed in some individuals. Also, small effects on alertness and reaction time were observed.
Limited epidemiological studies have indicated an increased incidence of cancer, particularly leukaemia and brain tumours in children living close to high current wires, presumably producing above average magnetic fields in their homes. Studies of workers in so-called electrical occupations have found an increased risk of cancer. Because of limitations of these studies, this evidence can be judged only as suggestive.
It is also known that electro-magnetic fields are used in medical practice for treatment of broken bones which do not want to unite for a long period of time. Other beneficial medical uses are being currently tested such as the prevention of osteoporosis, wound healing and nerve regeneration.
In conclusion, regarding health effects of electro-magnetic fields, we have found the available evidence inconclusive and inconsistent. The emerging evidence does not allow us to categorically assert that there is no health risk, but on the other hand it is not sufficient to prove that there is significant risk. If exposure to fields does not turn out to pose a health risk, it is unlikely that high-voltage power lines will be the only or even the main source of concern. Electrical wiring in buildings, appliances and light fixtures are much more common and could play a far greater role than high voltage transmission lines in any public health program.
In this complex situation we did recognize a few years ago that both more departmental involvement in this area and, even more important, more research was needed. In the fall of 1986 we formed a working group of
electric and magnetic fields. The groups consists of representatives of labour, utilities, academia and provincial and federal governments. The purpose of the group was to assess health effects, to foster research and to educate the Canadian public. In the spring of this year we received their report which will be published shortly. Their assessment of the current status of knowledge is quite similar to ours as I earlier outlined. The report also calls for an increased research effort and departmental involvement.
Another important action that we have taken is the signing of an agreement with two Canadian utility companies, Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec, to sponsor an important animal study. The National Health Research and Development Program has allocated over $400,000 for this study to take place over a three year period. The study concerns effects of chronic exposure to magnetic fields on cancer development. The study will be done by an independent university research team and will be subject to a strict peer review process.
In our laboratories we have also just finished the first stage of a pilot animal study which we are planning to continue. This project deals with the possibility of cancer promotion by magnetic fields.
In summary, this government recognizes the importance of resolving through research the issue of health effects of electro-magnetic fields as underscored by our recent increase in research expenditures. This enhanced level of activity will be assisted also by an ongoing effort in the U.S. and Europe which we are closely monitoring. We anticipate that in the next three to four years a better data base will be available. At that time we certainly will further reassess the score of Canadian research on the issue.
We therefore wholeheartedly support the principles behind the hon. member's bill but we would suggest that the government's activities show a real concern in this area and represent the best route at this time.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the member who proposed this motion. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement from the government and look forward to reading it in more detail to try to learn what it is all about. I appreciate that the government is paying attention to this and I am pleased that the government

is, but I am not exactly sure what it is doing. I would like to, as I say, read that report before I decide.
The member suggested in his statement that it might be that very low voltages or very low amounts of power might do or could do more damage than the very high voltage lines. The whole statement was riddled with this idea that something could happen or could not happen. It might be worse, it might not. Obviously all the member was really saying to us is that they do not know, and we appreciate that. There is not enough known about the subject and that is why the motion was moved, urging that something be done to make sure that more is known about it.
There is concern about this on Vancouver Island. A lady has gained some international fame trying to raise this issue and trying to make more governments aware of just how serious a matter it can be. Can be, I say. It may not be. There may be other reasons for the instances we have heard about, read about, and been told about, where there is an apparent effect on people who live near high voltage lines. That may not be the reason at all. It may be that it is the low voltage lines that are worse than the high, we just do not know.
In these days when people are much more concerned about and much more aware of what we are doing to the environment and the effects of human activity upon the environment in which we are living, it is important to know as much as we can. There is some apparent evidence. We have to examine that very closely. More studies can be done and I believe, from the statement that was just read, that studies are being done not only in Canada but in other countries as well.
I support this motion and urge the government to take this very seriously. We want to know, as soon as we can, just exactly how important this is. We want to know the risks. We want to know what can be done to protect our people, our animals and our plant life from the effects of living near low voltage or high voltage lines. Let's get with it, let's do everything we can to study this issue and let's gather some information that at least can be reassuring or can point out the ways in which we can protect ourselves because doing away with the high voltage lines just is not practical right now. Perhaps there are some ways of protecting ourselves and life in general
Private Members' Business
from what may be the effects of living near high voltage or low voltage lines.
However, let us get the information and let us not say that we have all the time in the world to do this because we are building more and more high voltage lines and it is more and more important that we deal with this as an urgent matter and one that is capable of being studied if we determine internationally that it is something upon which we should work. We should certainly exchange information, co-operate with other nations in the world and try to get as much information and as much real knowledge as we can and then deal with it and make it public.
The statement tells us that all this work has been going on. I have heard, read, and been told about people who have experienced situations which they attribute to the high voltage lines, but until this moment I did not know that the government was studying it at all. Perhaps that is my fault, perhaps I should have known. If the government is doing anything, it is being very quiet, very reticent about sharing its activity, let alone its information with the public generally. Mr. Speaker, we support this motion.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for bringing before the House today this motion that the government should consider the advisability of studying the effects of electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines on both human and animal health and report the findings to this House.
Electro-magnetic radiation is suspected to be damaging to the body's ability to fight diseases and to the central nervous system. Residents living near the lines have long complained about headaches, memory loss, more illness than usual, and a constant irritating hum.
I have to take issue with the parliamentary secretary who pointed out that perhaps there are enough electromagnetic fields in homes with microwave ovens, various other appliances and the wiring of homes to have caused this. I would have to refute that because, if that is the case, why has it impacted on the health of animals that are grazing in close proximity to these lines or living in bams which are in close proximity? Why has the milk production of dairy herds dropped dramatically? When you move these herds away from these lines milk production eventually picks up again. There are also animals which fail to conceive until they are moved away

December 14, 1989
Private Members' Business
from the effects of these lines. There has to be an impact there. We know the signals are there and if it impacts on animals certainly it must impact on humans as well.
The list is really impressive. Often the argument that high voltage lines are responsible is dismissed.
A report of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning in 1980 states:
As in the case of nuclear radiation there is controversy as to whether there is a safe "threshold" level below which there is no physiological effect of whether the effects of exposure up to any level no matter how low are cumulative over a person's lifetime. Until these questions are answered by research, reasonable steps should be taken to avoid the unnecessary exposure of individuals to electro-magnetic fields from transmission lines.
That was a royal commission which made that statement. I believe that the motion before us today ties right in with that recommendation.
Two case studies of the Denver, Colorado area, conducted by Nancy Wertheimer and Edward Leeper found a possible association between chronic exposure to magnetic fields created by high voltage transmission lines and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and adult concerns in 1979 and 1982.
A study in Denver by David A. Savitz, using a completely different set of cases, shows the apparent connection between childhood cancer and exposure.
Thus a growing number of studies suggest that longterm exposure to power line frequency magnetic fields may promote cancer and may accelerate the development of existing cancer cells.
Biophysicist Andrew Marino of Louisiana State University would not live in a house near an overhead power line. The chances of getting sick, he said, are just too great.
A Maryland study of 951 men who died of brain tumours between 1969 and 1982 turned up a high proportion of electricians, utility linesmen and electronic technicians. Fifty of the men, compared to the scientifically expected 18, died of two supposedly rare tumour types.
A civil court in Texas recently ordered a utility company that has complied with all existing state laws to shut down a new double circuit 345,000 volt transmission line
and pay $25 million in damages, holding that the company had acted with callous disregard for the safety, health and well-being of the children in the building 60 metres from that particular line.
In Russia they do not allow these lines within a half mile of built up areas. Andrew A. Merio, Ph.D., Louisiana State University, puts the figure at 1,700 feet for
500.000	volt lines and 800 feet for a 230 volt line. Ontario Hydro states the sphere of influence for the 500,000 volt line is 246 feet.
According to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office spokesperson, to date electro-magnetic radiation has not been considered in their review, although he cautioned that to date no federal transmission project where FEDR has taken place has been near a populated area.
One of my concerns in this whole issue is a proposed line that will run across my constituency. It was originally planned to go through the villages of Alvinston, Inwood, Oil City and Brigden. The line is there already carrying
230.000	volts, but they plan to upgrade that line to a
550.000	volt line. I would hope that we will have studies done by this House in time to put the minds of those citizens at rest before that line is constructed.
One of the things that really bothers me is the fact that this will tie in, not only with the Bruce Nuclear Station and the big transmission lines that come out of that, but will also tie in with the Lambton generating station along the St. Clair River on the west side of Lambton County. That in turn is tied in with the electrical grid of the State of Michigan.
Consequently, we may very well be putting the lives of our citizens at risk in order to tie into a grid that will allow us to export power to another country. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to build these lines in close proximity even to our own communities if the power is to be used within Canada.
I am delighted that my colleague has seen fit to bring in this motion that I wholeheartedly support today. I know that he will have the support of the people in my constituency as well. I want to congratulate him on his effort.
December 14, 1989


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, today we have a motion before the House suggesting that it would be useful to study the effects of electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines on humans and animals, and to report the findings to the House.
Electric power has been in common use for about a hundred years, and its presence has become increasingly widespread and indeed essential.
For more than ten years, public concern has been growing about the possible effects of electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines. I may add that all electrical appliances, both at home and at work, create electro-magnetic fields. We are constantly exposed to these fields. High voltage power lines are only one source of electro-magnetic fields, and if we are concerned about high voltage power lines, we should be concerned about all electrical appliances.
Unlike X-rays, electro-magnetic fields are very low energy. They are incapable of modifying intercellular connections or even of producing heat like microwaves do.
So far, many studies on the effects of these fields on animal cells and human health have been made, both nationally and internationally. On the whole, cell studies have indicated that electro-magnetic fields can produce biological effects whose significance is not clear but which are not thought to be very serious. Some of these effects may cause cancer, although no specific mechanism has been identified to explain the cause and effect link satisfactorily.
There is an interesting hypothesis that has found favour among the scientific community. Today, Mr. Speaker, we know that cancers are created by cancer causing substances, in several stages. There are at least two: the first stage is the induction of the tumour and the second stage is its promotion. At the induction stage, cancer-causing substances can produce a malignant and irreversible change in the genetic systems of several cells. The change may be limited to only a few cells, and be overlooked and remain stable for a long time, even forever. However, at a given time, one may be exposed to certain promoter substances that could cause these malignant cells to multiply. This is the promotion stage of the tumour, when the cancer's presence can be
Private Members' Business
detected. Some substances only act as inducers, other substances only act as promoters, while some substances do both. It is thought that electro-magnetic fields might be promoters of malignant tumours.
There are no valid data on studies with animals, which is unfortunate, since animal testing has been a unique way to provide scientific evidence when investigating a substance that is suspected of causing cancer.
Perhaps I should also mention that some animal experiments have shown well documented effects on the daily circadian rhythms and behaviour of animals.
Studies on humans have concentrated on the health of exposed workers and on children living near high voltage power lines.
In the studies on workers, various occupations were investigated such as electricians, electrical engineers, linemen, power station operators and workers in aluminum plants. Some of these studies show that certain types of cancer increased: leukaemias, brain tumours and melanomas. Leukaemias, however, showed a more consistent increase than other tumours.
Studies of exposed workers were recently reviewed.
In some analyses, the results of all the studies were combined and together they showed a slightly increased risk of leukaemia. Many unknowns prevent identifying the cause of this increase in cancer: workers' actual exposure to electro-magnetic fields is not known because valid dosimetry is lacking; that is, in the group of exposed workers, there might be some highly exposed individuals and some almost unexposed. But it is impossible to know whether or not the increase of cancer lies in the highly exposed workers' environment. This increase could be due to chemicals that are also present in the workplace.
The results of studies on those living near high voltage lines, more specifically, on children, are not unanimous. Some studies show no increase of cancer in children and others show a slight increase. Many methodological problems have been identified which might easily compromise the validity of the results of these studies.
The most recent study done in the United States, in 1987, is considered much more valid than all the previous studies because it corrected the errors of the past. It is based on a population of children exposed in their homes

Private Members' Business
to electro-magnetic fields emitted from electrical sources inside and outside the home.
You see that the focus of this study was not just high voltage lines but electricity in general. It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this study found a slight risk for cancer, particularly leukaemia.
In conclusion, the evidence of increased risk for cancer, particularly leukaemia, is slight, but it cannot be eliminated entirely. Any risk for leukaemia would be slight. But people's exposure to electro-magnetic fields is significant because we must include not only high voltage lines but also all the other electrical appliances that surround us everywhere all the time. What are the implications of all this for health?
Mr. Speaker, we are now at the stage of evaluating what must be done to shed more light on this problem.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has been studying this question for several years and a laboratory study on mice exposed to electro-magnetic fields has already been developed and is nearly complete. This study involves a research hypothesis specifically related to tumours allegedly induced by electro-magnetic fields. As well, we are in direct contact with various international researchers who also work in this field.
The department has set up a task force-it includes spokesmen from government, labour unions, hydro power companies and universities-to organize future research in this field. The task force's findings confirm the importance of closer department monitoring and the need for new research projects. The final report will be out shortly.
Two other major studies are now under way in Canada. The first has to do with the health of workers likely to be affected and it is funded by Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Quebec and Electricite de France. This project focuses on the use of a dosimetre which was developed in Quebec recently to give accurate readings on the degree of exposure of people working in such fields.
The other, sponsored by Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Quebec and the department, involves research on leukaemia hazards in mice constantly exposed to magnetic fields. Researchers in this on-going study will use exposures of varying intensity to determine whether the effect, that is incidence of leukaemia in mice, spreads as the intensity increases.
The project will cost in excess of $1 million, including a $400,000 contribution from the department's research and development program.
This study will be under the independent supervision of a research director chosen from the academic field. Both projects are very important even though the results of the studies will not be available before three years. We are quite confident that they will make a significant contribution to the scientific lore on this issue.
For a number of years now medical scientists have acknowledged that electro-magnetic fields have beneficial effects in the treatment of non-self-curing bone fractures.
Research is going on to assess the effect of those fields in preventing osteoporosis, and in healing wounds and nerves.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the department's views, research on the effects of the electro-magnetic fields on humans is important and relevant. We will be using improved and innovative research methods, Mr. Speaker, and take co-operative actions both nationally and internationally. For at least two years the government has been supporting those essential projects carried out by the industry. We have made a significant contribution to research in this area by increasing our links with universities and utilities.
I believe my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Davenport regarding high voltage power lines and the effect that their electro-magnetic fields may have on human and animal health.
This is a controversial issue and one that is of growing concern to Canadians and, therefore, to this government. I want to assure the hon. member and this House that no issue is of greater importance than the health of Canadians. This controversy was heightened by an article published a few months ago in the New Yorker magazine. In that article there are several serious claims about electro-magnetic fields and what they may mean to human and animal health.
Since then, the author's claims have been subject to much debate. While this is a relatively new area of concern, I would like to take this opportunity to inform

December 14, 1989

the House about what we do know about high voltage lines and their effects on animal health.
World-wide research is under way. As the hon. member for Athabasca noted, studies are being undertaken in Canada, United States, Sweden and in several other countries. To date, these studies have not yielded any conclusive evidence. There is still much to be learned about the specific effects of electro-magnetic fields on animal health, on growth, and on reproduction. I enter this debate not to diminish the concern but to put the matter into realistic perspective and in so doing perhaps relieve some of the unwarranted anxiety that unsubstantiated speculation may have aroused. It is my purpose to shine a light on this issue, to consider and encourage scientific examination.
Work in the United States and Sweden has so far suggested that there has been no ill effects on milk production or fertility as a result of long-term exposure of animals to high voltage power lines. A U.S. study on pigs has also indicated that there are no negative effects on fertility, growth or behaviour as a consequence of exposure to high voltage power lines and their electromagnetic fields. Similar research with poultry has turned up no evidence of adverse effects in these areas.
Experiments have also been conducted under laboratory conditions. Scientists have looked specifically at growth, development, metabolism and the immune system of animals exposed to electro and magnetic fields. For the most part, there has been no effect on these areas or on over-all health of animals.
I would like to assure this House that the government will continue to follow this issue closely. It is the federal government's responsibility to set and enforce standards to safeguard human and animal health. It is a responsibility that we take seriously.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport for raising this important issue and thereby allowing this opportunity to provide the House with information that has been substantiated to date. As more information becomes available, we will take what further action is required.
I think that the debate today has shed an appropriate light on this issue. It is a growing concern to Canadians and one that the government is actively looking at. The hon. member for Davenport has raised an important
Private Members' Business
issue and the debate today has given this House and Canadians valuable information.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us today is to consider the advisability of studying the effects of the electro-magnetic fields produced by high voltage power lines on human and animal health and report the findings to the House.
Public concern about high voltage power lines developed in the late 1960s as extra high voltage lines comprising large towers were built. The initial concern was about the aesthetic and the ecological impacts and the various nuisance effects. The nuisance effects are audible noise, radio interference and shocks and sparks when people touched underground metal objects such as trucks or farm vehicles close to power lines. By the late 1970s and indeed, in the early 1980s, some scientific evidence emerged that the problem is more complex and of more concern.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, generation, transmission and use of electricity are associated with human exposure to electric and magnetic fields, not only under high voltage power lines but also in homes and offices. On a daily basis, most Canadians are exposed to electric and magnetic fields produced by household wiring and lighting. There are electric and magnetic fields wherever there is electric power. When we consider what effects these fields may have on our health, we must concern ourselves not just with power lines but with all other sources of these fields. Power lines are highly visible but our daily exposure has come mostly from use of electricity in our homes and in our offices. Even in houses close to power lines, people may be exposed to weaker fields than people in houses far away from power lines. Many factors determine the actual exposure. Recognizing that we are all practically continuously exposed to electromagnetic fields, it certainly is important and indeed prudent to consider whether these fields may detrimentally affect our health.
Health effects of electric and magnetic fields have been studied in the United States and Europe for over two decades, with intensified efforts during the last five years. Until recently conventional wisdom was held that these fields posed no threat to human health. Two reasons are behind this thinking. First, the fields are of low energy and, unlike X-rays and other ionizing radiation, they do not break chemical bonds. Unlike microwaves they do not cause heating. Second, all cells in the

December 14, 1989
Private Members' Business
body have large natural electric fields across their outer membranes. This way of thinking has recently been revised as new scientific findings have emerged. These new findings show that electric and magnetic fields can interact with some biological systems at lower levels than it was previously thought possible. There are many scientific studies, some showing effects and very many not showing any effects or indeed any detrimental effects.
The Department of National Health and Welfare recognized this problem a few years ago and has done a thorough review and assessment of the existing scientific evidence. In addition, specific actions have been undertaken to address the issue.
To start with, let me briefly describe what scientific evidence we have on interactions of electro-magnetic fields with living systems. In general, the three types of studies have been conducted. These are studies on various cell culture preparations, studies on laboratory animals and studies on human volunteers and human populations. Scientific studies today indicate that electric and magnetic fields can cause critical changes to cells in laboratory experiments.
On the other hand, these fields do not cause genetic effects and cell mutations. Although observed interactions with cancerous cells suggest a possibility that electro-magnetic fields affect tumour development and that they may act as tumour promoters as co-promoters with other agents, such as toxic chemicals.
In evaluating scientific findings derived from experiments on separated cells, it must be kept in mind that it is not easy to predict whether and how these biological effects on cells in the laboratory translate into health effects on the animal or man. What makes this task even more difficult is that for some effects a stronger field does not cause a specific effect, while a weaker field does. This behaviour is contrary to our traditional thinking in the field of toxicology as we are finding that with electro-magnetic fields, more may not necessarily be worse.
Let us review now the studies on intact laboratory animals. Very many experiments were performed with very strong electric fields, higher than those under power lines. Fewer experiments so far have been done with magnetic fields. Some critical systems were not found to
be affected by the fields. For instance, no effects were found on blood and immune systems.
On the other hand, mixed evidence exists in the area of reproduction. No effects were found for rodents but malformations in chicken embryos were observed under some conditions. The best documented effects in experimental animals are shifts in daily rhythms and associated hormonal changes, changes in responses to drugs and some changes in behaviour.
Regarding humans, laboratory experiments with volunteers showed that people can usually perceive an electric field above seven kilovolts per metre, but some individuals can perceive fields as weak as two kilovolts per metre. Magnetic fields are believed not to be perceived by people. In a carefully conducted study it was found that exposure to fields did not change most vital signs, physiological parameters, daily life activities, memory span and fatigue but small changes in the heart rate slowing by three beats were observed in some individuals. Also some effects on alertness and reaction time were observed.
A lot of attention and concern are associated with some of the epidemiological studies. Some of these studies have indicated an increased incidence of cancer particularly leukaemia and brain tumours in children living close to high current wires, presumably reducing above average magnetic fields in their homes. Studies of workers in so-called electrical occupations have found an increased risk of cancer. However, the studies suffer from many limitations such as small populations studied, weak associations, a lack of consistency and a lack of assessment of actual exposures. Despite the limitations, these studies must not be disregarded. At the same time, this evidence can be judged only as suggestive until we learn more.
It is also important to note that electric and magnetic fields are used in medical practice for treatment of broken bones which do not want to unite for a long period of time. Other beneficial medical uses are being currently tested, such as prevention of osteoporosis, wound healing and nerve regeneration.
To conclude, regarding health effects of electro-magnetic fields, we have found the available evidence inconclusive and we have found it inconsistent. The emerging evidence does not allow us to categorically assert that there is no health risk. But at the same time, it is not sufficient to prove that there is a significant risk. If
**
December 14, 1989

exposure to fields does turn out to pose a health risk, it is unlikely that high voltage power lines will be the only or even the main source of concern. Electrical wiring in buildings, appliances and light fixtures are much more common and could play a far greater role than high voltage transmission lines in any public health problem.
We did recognize the complexity of the situation and the importance of gaining better understanding and what risks are associated with our use of electricity. If there are risks, how we can eliminate or limit them. As a consequence, we have stepped up our effort.
Let me give you some examples. Are you indicating my time is up? My time is up. Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to address you and the other members in the House today. I am grateful for the opportunity and thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member for Mercier that there is less than one minute left. The hon. member for Mercier.
Private Members' Business


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for Davenport for raising this issue in the House of Commons, he has excellent information on a matter of interest to us all Canadians. In the opinion of this House, Mr. Speaker, the government should consider the advisability of studying the effects of the actual electro-magnetic fields created by high voltage power lines on human and animal health and reporting the findings to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.16 p.m, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 15,1989