1989-06-12

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with Routine Proceedings, there is a matter which I feel I should bring to the attention of Members.
I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members a Corrigendum which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, June 9. This was authorized to correct a clerical error in the English version of the First Report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented to the House on Thursday, June 8.
Let me assure the House that this error does not appear in the printed version of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I again have the honour to present a petition in the House of Commons concerning the Government's plan to cut back on VIA services.
The people who have signed this petition express their concern with regard to that issue. I point out in presenting this petition that there were 65 students and 14 chaperones from The Pas, Manitoba, who wished to go to
Churchill and made bookings in February of this year to go at the end of June. They were told recently that there were no cars available to put them on, even though they had made bookings three and a half months ago. It took the intervention of the office of a Member of Parliament for those students to be able to ride on VIA.
The Government claims: "Use it or lose it". Students cannot possibly use it because the Government of Canada will not provide the necessary equipment.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the Government's intention to eliminate passenger rail service in the country.
The petitioners are drawing to the attention of the Government all the reasons for continuing with passenger rail service. Basically, they are calling upon Parliament now, since the Government refuses to listen, to maintain, to improve and to modernize VIA rail service, particularly in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient and environmentally sound alternative to other means of transportation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on a different topic. It is from a number of petitioners in Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the Government's support for the growing militarization of the Canadian economy. They are aware of a number of countries that receive arms, military or paramilitary equipment from Canada, countries in which there are obvious abuses of human rights. They are asking the Canadian Government to stop this process of militarizing our economy.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 with regard to cuts to VIA Rail.

June 12. 1989
Borrowing Authority
People are particularly concerned about the cuts in the Quebec to Windsor corridor because of the reductions in high-speed railway transport.
On the weekend, our most eminent climatologist, Dr. Kenneth Hare, made the point that this is of particular concern because of the environmental impact that the cuts will have. These cuts make absolutely no sense either in a Budget or in an environmental way.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table seven or eight petitions asking the federal Government to continue in perpetuity the moratorium on offshore oil exploration development in the Canadian Pacific. These petitions have been signed and are duly certified.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present petition No. 342 duly authorized by the Clerk of Petitions. It deals with the concerns people have for the cut-backs to VIA Rail, in spite of Government promises that VIA Rail would be maintained and even enhanced.
The petitioners also express concern with the obvious deregulation of airlines and the subsequent higher expense as well as it being a less safe alternate way to travel. The petitioners ask Parliament and the Government to improve VIA. These are people from Oakville, Toronto, Windsor and so on.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity- Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by a number of residents of London and other parts of southern Ontario who are concerned with the Government's consideration of cutting back or cutting out VIA passenger transportation, contrary to the Government's own promises.
The petitioners point out particularly the need for rail transportation in the Quebec to Windsor corridor, a high density region where high speed railway transportation would be economical as well as environmentally sound. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Marcel Masse (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, as reported without amendment by the Legislative Committee, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Masse: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. The Hon. Member for Halifax West.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I believe I was recognized first by you. I am prepared to initiate debate on third reading. If the Hon. Member has a point of order I would defer to him,
June 12, 1989

otherwise I would like to follow through on the recognition that you made.


Mr. Crosby:: On the point of order. Madam Speaker, I was standing in my place. I think Your Honour was looking elsewhere and possibly looking for the accord of the opposition representatives to third reading. I cannot anticipate what was in Your Honour's mind but I was certainly on my feet ready to be recognized. If there is any compelling reason to proceed with the opposition Member, I have no objection. I just wanted to make a few brief remarks on behalf of the Minister, quite complimentary I might add.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too was on my feet waiting to be recognized. However, because you recognized the Hon. Member for Winnipeg first we should begin the debate with his comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am one of those who opposes this Government with all the energy I can muster. I am also the one who said at report stage of Bill C-11 that it would not be concurred in unanimously. I opposed it at that time verbally. The Opposition is interested in debating anything relating to the borrowing authority of this Government with the utmost of energy.
I saw my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre rising in his seat. We recognize the importance of the Opposition debating these Bills. I did not see the Member from the government side on his feet. I can see why you, Madam Speaker, would see us ahead of the Government. If he has a few remarks to make, as long as they are not too complimentary we will agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair must admit that I had not seen the Hon. Member rising. On the other hand, as I imagine he is rising in the name of the Minister it would be normal for the Hon. Member to be recognized first, with the agreement of the Opposition. I can assure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre will be recognized next. I do appreciate his courtesy.


Howard Edward Crosby: There is an expression, "You are darned if you do and you are darned if you don't." If you rise too quickly you get embarrassed by the Speaker, and then something else if you rise too late.
Borrowing Authority
The point is that I simply want to make a few remarks on behalf of the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mr. McDermid) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who is responsible for the Bill. I want to indicate their thanks and appreciation to the members of the legislative committee who dealt with the Bill in a prompt manner. I noticed the Bill was introduced on April 27 of this year and we are now seeking third reading not too long after. That is appreciated and indicates Parliament and the House can under the appropriate circumstances proceed with some dispatch to deal with the important matter of government affairs.
The co-operation of the committee will assist the Government in moving ahead with the program of orderly debt management by dealing with the substantial cash requirements of the Government of Canada. I, on behalf of the Minister, thank all the Members of the House who co-operated in the manner in which they did to bring this Bill to its present state in a relatively quick manner.
I want to remind the House of the grave financial position of the Government of Canada as represented by the needs carefully outlined in this Bill. We are in a very difficult situation with the $320 billion debt and a deficit in this fiscal year which will run to $30 billion. It is the task of all Members to participate in the reduction of and the appropriate management of this debt.
Canadians, as Hon. Members know, have to make some choices. We would all like to keep every government program intact without reduction, but that costs money and the money can only come either from increased taxation or from piling up additional debt. We want to avoid additional debt. It has become very costly to absorb that over 35 per cent of every revenue dollar which goes to the debt. Therefore, we have to make these choices, but I am sure it is with some reluctance that the Government deals with the realities of the financial situation by reducing government expenditures with obvious effects.
I may point out, as I have on previous occasions in the House, that given the realities of our fiscal situation, some of the regions of Canada which appear to suffer most from any reductions have something to their credit. The Government of Canada has increased very dramatically over the last year the transfer payments to those

June 12. 1989
Borrowing Authority
regions of the country, particularly Atlantic Canada, that suffer as a result of regional disparity.
There has been over $186 million paid into Atlantic Canada as a result of transfer payments. In the case of Nova Scotia, it amounted to 19 per cent more than was anticipated. In the case of Prince Edward Island, it has a balanced budget. In the case of Nova Scotia, it is able to look forward to balancing the budget in the next fiscal year. That is something that the Government of Canada will only be able to achieve after a four or five year period.
There are some rays of sunshine in the financial picture of Atlantic Canada, and I hope that the Government's competent management of the national economy and finances will aid that situation in the future so that at some time, probably many years distant, we will not have to face statutory issues like borrowing Bills for the vast amounts of money the Government of Canada needs to meet its obligations.
As I have indicated, it is the duty of a Government to make the hard financial choices that lead in some cases to tough cut-backs in expenditures, but I am sure that Canadians understand and appreciate that their choice is very simple. They either pay more taxes or receive something less in Government services.
As I talk to my constituents, I find that they do not want to pay any more taxes. They do not want to contribute any more to the revenues of the Government of Canada. They are at the tax limit, so the only hope and prospect for the future of all Canadians is to have better management of the financial situation and the national economy, and that is what the Government is doing, through this very Bill which is now before the House for third reading.
So that Hon. Members will understand that there is hope for the future, particularly for Atlantic Canada, I want to mention the free trade initiative which we think will bring great benefits to Atlantic Canada. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Premier of New Brunswick who received a unanimous endorsement from the electorate of that province said in a recent speech made in the City of Halifax that Atlantic Canada is now part of the over-all economic picture. Atlantic Canadians now have opportunities that they did not have before. The challenge in Atlantic Canada is to take advantage of those opportunities, as Premier McKenna said. I hope Members of the Liberal Party will pay attention to the words he spoke in the city of Halifax
before a group of business people. We have the opportunities and the potential and we have to go ahead and meet that challenge and get the job done. We will improve the economy of Canada through the free enterprise system and through individual entrepreneurship and enterprise. That is how we will get the funds to pay for the services and reduce the need for borrowing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first I want to applaud your discretion and judgment in allowing the Hon. Member to speak first. After his presentation, my job becomes so much easier. He has opened up so many interesting lines of inquiry and examination that we could be here all morning simply discussing the first topic alone, the question of the management of the economy.
The Hon. Member sat down two minutes ago. Now he wants to talk again. It is fascinating how slow his reaction time is. He only thinks of what he wants to say after he sits down.
Through this borrowing authority Bill, we have the opportunity to look at the stewardship of the Government, its management of the economy, its so-called economic blueprint, and we have an opportunity to determine whether the heavy requirement the borrowing authority puts on the capital markets of Canada is justified, if it will be an effective, useful and fair rendering of economic policy and management for Canada as we enter into some tumultuous and turbulent times.
This Government has been a bit lucky, both bad and good, because much of the debate in this House has been concentrated on the fiasco of the release of the phantom Budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the attempts of the Government to cover it up. Much of the attention has been deflected from the real Budget, the Budget that will have a long-term impact on Canada, the Budget which will fundamentally restructure and reorganize the economic fabric of Canada and our attempts to ensure that there is something called a fair political economy in Canada.
If I may, I would like to begin by challenging the Hon. Member who just spoke on behalf of the Government to prove some of his assertions about so-called effective economic management. I think the first criteria for effective economic management by the Government is honesty, telling the truth, putting the facts before the people. If the Government has any responsibility, it is to ensure that Canadians fully understand the economic
June 12, 1989

conditions they face and the options and choices before them.
Less than six or seven months ago during the election campaign, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said that the Government would never touch unemployment insurance, that it is sacred for forever. There was a man of honesty and probity, a man we could trust implicitly. Now, however, we have before us a total and complete chopping apart of the unemployment insurance program.
I read all the newspapers. I am told that the Minister of Finance is a paragon of virtue, that he is the most honest Minister in the Cabinet. They say that he is the one in which the credibility of the Government resides. What happened during the election campaign? He was calling everyone else liars and saying that he had the money in the bank, he was prepared to pay for these programs. He said that these were not promises but commitments because the money was already in the till and everything was going fine. Then in his Budget, he slashed every single one of those commitments.
Day care for children is perhaps one of the most important programs for providing a sense of justice and fairness and for allowing women to have a fair share of the job market. The Minister cut that program. Perhaps I missed something. I was so busy campaigning during the election campaign, perhaps I missed the Minister of Finance telling us that he would cancel the day care program.
I recall hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance saying on television that they were firmly committed to day care. Now, all of a sudden, a few short months later, have conditions ever changed. All of a sudden there has been a revelation. On the road to Damascus, the Minister of Finance had a new revelation. He found that he can no longer pay for day care.
Did Hon. Members hear the Minister of Finance, that paragon of integrity, talking during the election campaign about cutting back on VIA Rail, a program that is essential for many of the regions, including the Atlantic Region, about which the Hon. Member just spoke? We just received the secret report. About 89 per cent of the
Borrowing Authority
lines will be cut in the Atlantic region and 70 per cent of the lines will be cut in western Canada. For the life of me, I cannot recall hearing the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) saying that six months ago. Is it not amazing what has been discovered in six months? It seems to me that on the level of honesty, fairness and judgment, we could expect the Government to at least be consistent.
The question I asked at the beginning of the debate was: Up until November 21, did the Government know what the economy looked like, the drastic and Draconian difficulties that we faced, and simply was not telling Canadians? In other words it covered up, or was it so stupid and totally blinded that the Government and its officials did not know? Either one, when measuring it against the judgment of a Government, does not look too good.


Mr. Peterson:: They are dumb and stupid.


Lloyd Axworthy: Maybe it was a combination. Maybe the Government did not know, did not care, and did not make the effort to find out.
Certainly there has been nothing that we have seen since this session opened in terms of all the announcements on unemployment insurance, day care, and regional programs from which we got the slightest suspicion or inkling back at the time the Government was asking the Canadian people for an accounting. That is the way the parliamentary system should work. A Government stands or falls on its record. If its record was so good, why was it not honest about it? Why was it not fair about it?
Unfortunately that was not only a problem during the election. It is a problem now. That same sense of camouflage, that same masquerade, is perpetrated on a continuous basis. It is fascinating to look at the Budget which stated that Canadians were going to have to sacrifice. We have a deficit in front of us. Members of the House recognize that it is one of the questions that has to be examined carefully and is part of the economic framework of this country. However, surely Canadians have a right to expect their Government to be honest

June 12, 1989
Borrowing Authority
with them about who is going to bear the burden and how fair the apportionment of that sacrifice will be.
In the Budget Papers there was no attempt to describe in any real way who is going to pay for the Government's mistakes. Who is going to pay for the escalating deficits that have multiplied over the last four years? The deficit has doubled in the last four or five years of this Government. We conducted our own study to find out. We got the StatsCan model developed by the Government and ran the figures in the Budget through to see who would be affected.
Those who are going to carry the biggest burden and who will make the toughest sacrifices are families with children. Is that not a real judgment on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada? The people who are going to carry the heaviest burden, pay the heaviest tax load, and lose the most income as a result of this specific Budget are working families with two kids. They will have $582 less income under this Budget than they would have had last year. That does not include the four years previous. A family with two children and an income of around $30,000 to $40,000 will have $582 less. That means that eight out of every ten taxpayers will lose a substantial amount under this Budget.
The Minister of Finance stated that this was a Budget that would take from the rich and give to the poor. Somehow I do not understand why a working family with two children and making $35,000 a year is called rich by the Conservative Government. They are the ones who are carrying the burden of this Government's so-called economic blueprint.
The Minister of Finance also stated that the Government is being particularly charitable to senior citizens. The only people from whom we are clawing back and scratching out the living are those who are very rich, the top 4 per cent. I would be glad to send this study to members of the Tory back-benches opposite. They might want to read some honesty for a change. The real impact is that more than half of the senior citizens, over 2.1 million, will be receiving less income under this Budget than previously. It is not 4 per cent. It is 50 per cent. That is a far cry from the declarations of the Minister of Finance in the House day after day. That is a big gap between reality and what the Minister says is the truth. Now, added to families with children are senior citizens who will be paying a substantially heavier burden.
Fet us look at the poor. The Government has stated that this is being done in order that extra income can be targeted to give to those most in need. Day after day we have listened to the Minister of Finance saying that he really is Florence Nightingale with the lamp. He is going to go out there and give to the poor. Instead, the same study shows that over 800,000 families earning $15,000 or lower will have less income as a result of this Budget. Can that be considered to be targeting help for the poor? We are targeting them all right. We are putting an arrow right between their eyes. We are targeting their limited income.
This is happening at a time when, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, there are more than one-quarter of a million homeless in the country. We are talking about taking money from those people who cannot even afford to find a house. That is considered to be the "lady bountiful" approach of this Government. It is incredible to think of the dishonesty and duplicity that is being given to Canadians in the ad campaigns that are being paid for by the taxpayers. They are not being told the truth.
This Budget zeros in on families with kids, senior citizens, and the poor, yet it does nothing at all on the other side. I read nothing in the Budget whatsoever that would give any reassurance that the quarter of a million families who are homeless would receive any form of assistance.
There is an important trend taking place that should set off an alarm bell in every single Member and should be recognized as one of the great tragedies occurring in our so-called modern society. Fifty per cent of those who are now considered poor in this country are younger people, particularly single parents with children. Fifty per cent of those living below the poverty line are younger families. They are no longer only senior citizens. We are now adding substantially to the pool of poor people, especially those with children.
The new Minister of State for Housing must be embarrassed and ashamed. When he was a member of the government side, from time to time he had the courage to rise and ask his cabinet colleagues: "What are you going to do about the homeless? What are you going to do about housing?" Now he has been appointed to that job where one would have thought because of his previous record in the House he would have tackled it with zeal and diligence, he finds that his budget has been cut back. He has less money to deal with the problem
June 12, 1989

than there was before. He knows that his Minister of Finance is taking money out of people's pockets that could otherwise go to pay for housing projects.
What Government with a sense of fairness would allow that type of discrimination to take place? What values are we telling Canadians that the Government represents when it is prepared to take money from families and money from poor people, yet not provide that money for any more targeting, direction, or services?
The Hon. Member who opened this debate stated that Canadians knew what a difficult time it was. Yes, it is a difficult time, because the Government makes it difficult on so many Canadians. It is creating the difficulties because it is not being fair and honest about the economic conditions being faced by Canadians.
That same gap and discrimination, the fact that the Government is creating a two level society, a society of two Canadas, is becoming more apparent in the regions of Canada, the hinterlands of Canada, and the places where people have less power and growth.
For years those regions have relied on fishing, lumbering, mining, or the basic resources of this country which have been the creators of wealth for more than 120 years. Because one lives in northern Manitoba, in the fishing outports of the Atlantic, or in the sawmills towns of British Columbia, one has to provide for periods of very intense work and then an income support for the other portion of the year.
One of the things I recognized when I was Minister of Employment was that the unemployment insurance program was the essential that allowed our resource based industries and our resource based regions to maintain an effective workforce; to keep people in those regions so they could continue to fish, farm, mine and lumber; and to provide those kinds of resources which are still a source of wealth, with some sense of dignity and with some sense of honour.
They are hard working people, but they can only fish for 14 weeks a year in certain parts of the Atlantic and West Coast. They can only mine during certain parts of
Borrowing Authority
the year. They can only lumber during certain parts of the year. Therefore, there has to be a balance.
One of the ways we did that in the unemployment insurance program was through a particular commitment of the Government of Canada to guarantee an income base through its own investment on behalf of the rest of us. I considered that a program of real honour, as well as smart economics.
One thing this Government lacks is the commitment to the people of Canada. There is no commitment to the citizens who work in the resource regions across Canada to maintain their families and to keep them there. The real basic underlying philosophy of this Government is that that does not count any more.
The Government is prepared to give incentives to big corporations to put in more machinery, to give these corporations capital write-offs and depletion allowances so they can bring in more machinery and more technology, but they can put the workers on the scrap heap.
As a result, what the Government will do is build up the big cities, increase the housing inflation rates in Toronto by 30 per cent or 40 per cent, have overcrowded roads in the golden horseshoe, create a Canada of three or four large cities, and the rest of Canada will not count. It is a strange, perverted, distorted view of this country. It does not fit with the history, tradition, or even the good economics of this country.
The Government does not stop with gutting the public commitment to the unemployment insurance program. It goes on. It does not stop there. What is the next announcement of that the enlightened Minister of Transport who has had such a string of successes as the Pearson Airport, the Gander air crash, and now the cut-backs in VIA Rail? What did the Minister of Transport do? He has had a singular record of disasters unknown in the history of this country. Now the Minister stands up and says: "I had no responsibility for VIA Rail".
The Minister has never bothered to examine, in the slightest way, what the economic impact will be in cancelling the line between Melville and Saskatoon, the line between Winnipeg and Thompson, or the line on the east shore of Nova Scotia. There is no analysis. There is no impact study to ask: "Do people need that form of transportation? What does it do in terms of making sure

June 12. 1989
Borrowing Authority
there is no monopoly? Are they restricted simply to one bus line, which can then charge a going rate?
There has been no attempt to give us in Parliament or anywhere else an explanation for that severe cut-back, no attempt to hold public hearings, no attempt to talk to the premiers or the local municipal councillors to work out a plan. It is going to be an arbitrary initiative, completely and totally unrelated to the economic reality of those regions.
If that were not enough, it goes on by cutting back the bases, the military budget. Let us accept, for sake of argument, that some cuts have to take place and that Departments have to effect them. Surely one would expect that those judgments that are being made by the Government would be based upon some effective or useful analysis, some judgment based upon reality, some decision based upon whether the bases are good or bad.
I will give an example. I was in Portage la Prairie on Friday. I met with the residents of the area, the Chamber of Commerce, and the municipal councillors. I looked at what was happening in that area. The military people on the base itself have yet to receive any instructions, any orders, or any analysis as to why that base will be closed. The community has yet to receive a visit from the Minister of National Defence or any other Minister. The Member of Parliament has not been seen in that area for six or eight weeks.
They ask the question: "What are you going to do with training?" At the Portage la Prairie base, there are three different forms of training. There is training for instructors, helicopters, and preliminary training. The Government sort of spread it around that it was to privatize the primary training. There was no discussion about what it would do with helicopter training or the training for instructors.
What is the alternative? There are only three other places on the Prairies to go to. The base in Winnipeg is already overcrowded and the air space is cluttered. The Moose Jaw and Edmonton bases have the same problem. Where is the training function of the Department of Defence going to go? No one has the foggiest notion. Obviously the Minister does not know. The defence
officials do not know, because they were never asked by the Government to do that kind of analysis or judgment.
The decision was made again in an arbitrary way without any consultation, feeling, empathy, or sympathy for that community which is losing a $50-million investment and 700 or 800 workers. An enormous hole will be torn into its economy, and they cannot even get anyone to talk to them or explain to them what is going on.
That is being repeated right across this country. It is happening in Summerside and everywhere we go. It is simply stonewall. That is the order of the day. The Government keeps a closed mind and closed heart to those kinds of decisions which are being made.
My colleague from York West offered an alternative in a very generous way. He said: "We have a base called Downsview in Toronto. We would much rather turn it into housing for all those people who cannot get housing. Let the functions of that base go to Summerside or Portage la Prairie". The Government does not even listen to him. It just rejects it out of hand and does not even look at the alternative.
I suggested to the Minister of Defence in a letter to begin negotiating with NATO allies to see if they want to do similar kinds of training on these bases. I received a letter back from the Minister of Defence stating: "Sorry, I am not interested". The Minister does not have the least concern about finding an alternative for the people of Portage la Prairie, Summerside, or anywhere else.
I ask why. A Government has some sense of responsibility. The reason the system works is that we are not the same as the private sector. The reason we go through all the rigmarole of having an election and putting people in their seats in Parliament is because the public sector should have a different way of doing things. It should be responsible, accountable, and sensitive to individual needs. The people of Portage la Prairie do not sit in the boardrooms of big corporations. That is why they elect a Member of Parliament. It is so they can have access and feel they have an opportunity to participate in making decisions that are going to affect them in a direct way. I am sure that will be taken care of in the next election. Make no mistake about that.


An Hon. Member:: Four years.
June 12, 1989


Lloyd Axworthy: Famous last words. There are five Liberal Members of Parliament from the Province of Manitoba from the last election. There will be ten the next time.
By the way, Madam Speaker, for the Member who just spoke, I will not bother sending him a Christmas card for the next Christmas party because he will not be here.
The fact of the matter is that it reflects that this is a Government that has lost its sense of governing, its sense that there is a public responsibility, a sense of public service. When Conservatives make tough economic decisions-and no one says that they should not make them-they should do it with sensitivity and nobility to ensure that the interests of the most defenceless, the least advantaged, are not hurt. What we see time after time in the Budget is that this is simply not the case.
I could continue with examples of the way in which this Government, through its economic decisions, is fostering division and separation of Canada into different classes. It is creating a hierarchy of Canadians-those most privileged with the most access who do not have to pay their share of taxes, and those least favoured, least privileged, who are most separated and most distanced from the centres of power. That is a recipe of disaster because we know from our history that the only way we can hold ourselves together and knit a fabric is by some real attempt by the Government of Canada, a strong national Government with some sense of will, to bring it together.
I want to speak about the question of economic management, which is equally critical. The Government must show some sense of competence and effective management. Again, during the election we were told that the signing of the Free Trade Agreement would open the portals of paradise for Canadians. We were told that we would be ushered into the land of milk and honey, that the moment it was signed unemployment would drop and a vast market would open up, that all the problems with the Americans would be resolved, and that we would live in a land of salvation forever.
According to the Jimmy Swaggart of Canadian politics, otherwise known as the Prime Minister of Canada, we were guaranteed eternal salvation for our souls. Let us
Borrowing Authority
see what has happened in the last six months. Interest rates have gone up three points. The dollar has risen by 15 points. Our export market with the Americans is down by 15 per cent, and our imports have risen by 7 per cent. Our current accounts trade balance is the worst it has been in the last 10 years. Those are the hard statistics from the last six months as a result of the Free Trade Agreement that would open up so-called markets. If they are opening so fast, why are the Americans getting them? Why is it a one way revolving door that they come in and we get pushed out?
After the first six months of operation of the Free Trade Agreement, the softwood lumber industry is in dire straits. I see some of the wise sages on the other side shaking their heads. In fact, I can hear them. The fact is that the Minister for International Trade, who was never known for his broad range of views, admitted in the House of Commons that the softwood lumber industry, the largest employer in Canada, is in dire straits because of the Free Trade Agreement.
As a result of the agreement signed by the former Minister for International Trade, the so-called Hawaiian beach pact for softwood lumber, we are now faced with the situation of 2,000 lay-offs in northern Ontario. Sawmills are closing down virtually every day. Export markets are being lost and a major industry in this country is in real trouble. The problem is that the Government signed an agreement and entrenched it in the Free Trade Agreement. Now it cannot get out of that agreement.
Let us look at another regional problem. Just this morning, about an hour ago, I met with unions and workers from the west coast fish processing plants. Again, the difficulty is that the solutions that should have been available to them once the GATT ruling was made is denied them under the Free Trade Agreement. An export tax to protect the right of Canadian workers on the West Coast to process their own product, a recourse perfectly acceptable under GATT, is denied them under the Free Trade Agreement.
Suddenly 2,000 to 3,000 workers are being faced with the harsh reality of losing their jobs because of what the Government wrote into the Free Trade Agreement, thereby surrendering one of the sovereign rights of any country to apply a tax on any export in order to ensure

June 12. 1989
Borrowing Authority
that value added or processing would take place in that country.


Mr. Duhamel:: But they made the Americans happy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Of course, that goes without saying. I expect that promise of paradise made six months ago must ring awfully hollow to those workers in the fish processing plants who are faced with that harsh reality.
One can do an industry by industry study across the country to see where job losses are occurring. Let us consider the printing industry, for instance. There is a small family owned printing operation in Winnipeg which printed the telephone books for 50 years. It is a business which employed 60 workers. It was wiped out because under the Free Trade Agreement a huge billion dollar business in Chicago simply underpriced them and put them out of commission.
The Government's own studies show how in industry after industry, business after business, there are major fundamental structural problems occurring because of the Free Trade Agreement. I am holding a number of studies which I brought with me to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade in order to ask the officials and the Minister how they would deal with these problems. These studies, conducted by the Minister's own Department and the Government, included sound recording, paper products, power generation equipment, paints and coatings, vegetable processing. I asked the officials if they would do something about these problems, and when they would take action.
According to the Budget, there is a dismantling of the programs. As a result of this Free Trade Agreement the Government of Canada has a responsibility to ensure that our industries and businesses can meet those new conditions under which they will have to operate. It will have to ensure that the workers can retrain, that new capital investment can be provided, and that businesses can be defended against harsh and unnecessary attacks. Yet the Government has sat on its hands and refused to take any initiative whatsoever.
The Minister for International Trade has stalled in his tracks. We never see him here because he is visiting the world capitals and bringing the message about how other countries should not sign bilateral trade agreements. I was quite intrigued to read the communique signed by
the Minister for International Trade at the OECD, which warned against bilateral trade. The communique stated: "Ministers firmly reject the tendency toward unilateralism and bilateralism, sectoralism and managed trade".
It is fascinating that our Minister for International Trade, the great apostle of the FTA, is now warning Europeans about the dangers of it. Perhaps the Minister has found his own conversion and that is why the Prime Minister will not let him back in the country or the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister recognizes what a total flop the Free Trade Agreement is, and the Prime Minister will not let him back to tell Canadians about it. He signed the communique and will tell Europeans about it, but he has not yet told Canadians that he thinks bilateralism represents a major threat to world trade.
I agree with the Minister, but we were saying that two years ago. Perhaps he is a late bloomer, or perhaps he finally read the Free Trade Agreement and discovered that it was a mistake. We know that the Government made a mistake, and we are seeing evidence of it every day in Canada.
One of the so-called benefits is to be able to resolve disputes and obtain guaranteed markets. However, there is a major case against the pork producers of Canada, in which the preliminary judgment based upon U.S. trade law is that they will have to pay a new tariff on processed pork products. While that comes as a great surprise, it is even more surprising to realize that rather than give them a resolution to the problem, the Free Trade Agreement created it because according to the FTA we must apply U.S. trade law.
Canadians who read about the hearings before the National Energy Board must be interested in discovering that Canada will guarantee 60 per cent of our natural gas supply to markets south of the border in perpetuity, while our own security of supply and ability to ensure security for Canadian consumers are not equally protected.


Ron J. Duhamel: But it will make the Americans happy.


Lloyd Axworthy: George Bush said that he wanted a kinder and compassionate country, but we did not think he meant he would buy Canada to get it.
June 12, 1989

I want to go to one further reference which I think is perhaps the most serious. It appeared in La Presse. It was a study done by a private consulting firm, Venture Economics. It points out that in the first quarter of this year, the number of take-overs and acquisitions equals virtually all the take-overs and acquisitions of the year before. As the study points out, we now have the greatest, largest, single movement of take-overs and acquisitions in the history of this country in the first three months of 1989. What we are facing is the total and complete elimination of Canadian ownership of its subsidiaries. General Electric and Westinghouse are buying back their subsidiaries. That means that our ability to control our own economy and to make decisions in relation to the way we want to operate as Canadians are being closed off. That is part of the agenda as well.
When we look at figure after figure, and argument after argument, we come up with one very clear lesson. One of the hidden agendas in this Budget and one of the cover-ups which is taking place is that this is the next instalment in the Free Trade Agreement. This is the pay-off for the Americans that they did not get in the first round. We have paid them off in the second round in this Budget. All the attacks and eliminations of unemployment insurance, regional development budgets, transportation and agricultural programs are all designed to meet American complaints and concerns before we even get to the negotiating table.
There is this great hoax that there is going to be seven years of negotiation on subsidies. There will not be seven years, we are giving it all away in the first six months of 1989. What have we got left to negotiate, when the Government has already eviscerated and cut off the question of subsidies to unemployment insurance and transportation programs for agriculture? There is nothing left.
We begin to see once again the willingness of the Government, rather than playing it straight and telling Canadians what they really are facing in terms of an economic blueprint, have painted it over and have cosmetics on it. Instead of being forthright, it goes off and takes some more taxpayers' dollars and pays for an advertising program to tell them how great it really is.
Borrowing Authority
It is not that much different from the kind of manipulation and distortion we see going on on the television screens of China this week where they announce that: "No one was really killed." While it is not severe in terms of the taking of human life, it shows the power of government to manipulate and distort, to create the kind of big lie about what is really going on through the power of its own purse and the power of the media. That is why it is so essential that we somehow try to break through that screen and dissipate the fog, to get down to things that are really of crucial concern.
I want to just touch on one other area which I believe has not received the kind of attention it should have in this House because of all the other things that have been breaking around us. That is the way in which this Budget is savaging those least able to help themselves, the most defenceless of people. We have to talk about the way in which this Government is approaching the serious tragedies occurring in the world around us.
Whether it is in the area of international trade or international aid, the Government is showing a callousness which I think is unreported since the Second World War. It takes us back to the 1930s when governments closed its doors to other countries and thought that it could exist in isolation. It thought it could somehow make itself immune from the rigours and the turbulences of the world around it. That is the kind of philosophy being adopted by this Government.
We look at the savage cut-backs to the CIDA program, of hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not care how much the Minister and the Government tries to dance around the issue, there has been a severe undermining of the basic commitment to international aid. This happens at a time when the situation in Third World countries is getting worse and not better. There are more children dying of malnutrition. There are more schools being closed down.
The wages of workers in Third World countries are falling. When the ability of those countries to invest in roads and basic industry is being reduced, this is a government which cuts back in its aid. The reason is because we are absolutely complicit. We are part of the international conspiracy to force many of those countries to pay back debts to private bankers and to use public money coming out of our treasury to the international bank to recycle back to private vaults. As a consequence,

June 12, 1989
Borrowing Authority
we put the most severe extortion on the lives of the people.
If there is any one sort of embarrassment it is that we are so silent about the subject. The Minister of Finance goes off to the meetings of the OECD, or the G-7, all those great international bodies, and whether it is the Brady plan or the Baker plan, they are all designed basically to prop up the private banks of North America and Europe. At the same time, the countries of the Third World are having to totally distort their economies and ruin their environments simply to pay back those bills. We are aiding and abetting in that cause. We then compound the problem by cutting back on aid at the same time.
The North-South Institute, which I think is one of the most respected organizations in this country, and who no one would accuse of being partisan or having a political axe to grind other than the truth, what does it say about this? It says it represents probably the single most important issue to be faced by this Government. It says it both for reasons of what has to take place in the international economy, and also our own economy.
By allowing that kind of failure of the international economic system to continue, Canadians themselves have lost close to $27 billion worth of exports and a 130,000 jobs, simply because we have such a limited perspective and closed point of view. We do not understand that what is really going on in El Salvador, Brazil, or sub-Saharan Africa affects us as much as what happens on the plains of Saskatchewan or in the fishing outports of Newfoundland. We have the same kind of results and the same kind of sense of integration. When we talk about globalization, we are just not talking about big corporations running the world. We are talking about the intrinsic linkage which we have with the seven or eight billion people on this earth, two-thirds of whom are now suffering more this year than they did last year, and more last year than the year before.
One would have thought that under those circumstances and in that kind of condition, that when the Government is presenting an economic blueprint, and trying to foresee the future and look ahead a little bit, it might say: "Look, here is a fundamental responsibility of the people of Canada and through their government we
intend to act." Instead, it crashes the Minister of External Aid at the knees, draws down the Budget and goes along with a plan which is designed internationally to extort money from Third World countries, where we take more in than what we give out. We are all guilty by ourselves. We will pay a price in our environment, our economy and simply as our morality as human beings.
That is why the real failure of this Budget simply goes beyond questions of what happens in the fiscal rates next year or next month.
One would have expected in a new mandate the Government would have made some effort to look at the real economic questions. The real economic questions in Canada are not the deficit reduction. That is only a small part of the problem. The real question is the economy of this country, and this country, as part of a much larger system, is undergoing a fundamental restructuring. It is going to require the best intelligence, competence, honesty and openness to bring Canadians to an understanding of what is going on, and by letting them become part of the examination of the problem and part of the solution instead of putting up walls, closing down information, and hiding behind smokescreens. The only way we can approach these very severe economic problems is through a sharing.
Yet we divide the country. There are labour unions which feel that they are totally isolated from any sense of participation in the management of the country. There are people arriving on VIA Rail trains who say that they do not belong to the economy of the country. They feel as if they cannot talk to anyone in the Government. There are Ministers walking out of meetings, refusing to attend others, and not holding public consultations. They try to bluster their way through. They try to crash their way through in the hope that the people will be bought and sold through this propaganda campaign we see on our TV screens every night. It is a campaign which states: "You have never had it so good. The deficit is a problem, and we are looking after it". That just will not fly.
Canadians are smarter than that. They understand. They learned from the last election when we fought out the trade issue. They have an appetite for an understanding that they have a real role to play in important
June 12, 1989

economic decisions. They cannot be bought off by glitz and glamour and heavy public relations or ad campaigns.


Mr. Soetens:: That is why they voted for us.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is not why they voted for you. The fact of the matter is that in the last election they were bought off.
The tactic of the Government is to try valiantly to cover up that type of opportunity and to use modern techniques of propaganda, manipulation and communication distortion to get around it. It succeeds once in a while. It gets by. A negative campaign can be run. One can go around calling others liars. Elowever, the fact is that it is coming home to roost.
We have seen in the House of Commons the Minister of Finance no longer has a shred of credibility left. No one will ever believe again that Minister of Finance. There is no longer any trust or confidence in this Minister of Finance. The only people who do have that are those who lock themselves in to the Tory caucus room on Wednesday mornings and who, through a succession of psychological cheer-leading, get themselves to believe somehow, that the world around them is all right.


Mr. Kempling:: Have you been there?


Lloyd Axworthy: I have never been invited. I would be glad to attend. The Hon. Member has just issued me an invitation. Maybe for the first time Members of the Tory caucus would get some straight facts and honest talk if I were invited to attend.


An Hon. Member:: Can you make coffee?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member asks if I can make coffee. No, I cannot, but I am very good at making hemlock.


William James Kempling: Then take some.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that that is the requirement that we on this side of the House believe has to take place. We really believe at this point in time in looking at the economy of Canada that there is a great deal more to be done than just zeroing in on deficit reduction as is done on the business pages or the Tory caucus room. There are fundamental questions on how to have full employment shared equally across the country in all regions so that people do not feel separated, divorced or that they are being relegated to a hinterland without any sense of concern. Canadians will
Borrowing Authority
still be able to have the right to choose jobs in their own region and not have to retreat or migrate to large urban areas simply to support their families.
We believe very fundamentally that we have a major responsibility to deal with a new reality of international trade and international competition. That will create for Canadians perhaps our biggest test economically. How can we get our research, development and training into some type of effective investment across the country so that we can meet those types of needs without cutting back or reducing those programs?
We believe that in terms of the environment there will have to be some serious judgments made about whether we simply promote unqualified economic growth without seeing that all that growth has very severe environmental costs. It will take some economic reform in the way we make things and do things in order to make sure that those costs will not be passed on to other generations. Those are the economic issues of our time. They are the type of things that we have to examine. We received nothing of the sort in the Budget. We have received nothing of the sort in the economic statements by Ministers. We have seen nothing of the sort in the approach taken by the Minister of Finance.
The Government is asking for approval of a borrowing authority. It needs money. What the country really needs is good, serious economic policy. It needs good management and honesty. It needs some sense of fairness.
We open a session of Parliament with certain prayers. It is probably worth it to close my remarks with a note sent to me by a constituent who puts the calamity and tragedy into its proper religious mode. It states:
Mike Wilson is my shepherd. I am in want. He maketh me to lie down on park benches. He leadeth me beside the still factories. He disturbeth my soul. Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of recession, f anticipate no recovery, for he is still with me. He anointeth my small income with great taxes. My expenses runneth over.
Surely unemployment and poverty will follow me all the days of my life. And 1 shall dwell in a mortgaged house forever.
That sums up properly the economic management style of the present Minister of Finance. What it does not set out is the enormous vacuum that exists in all the other areas of crucial economic policy. What the country is crying out for, something which it has an enormous appetite for, is some real choice, some real sense of the judgment that will have to be applied by Canadians in terms of getting our economy right, making it fair.

June 12. 1989
Borrowing Authority
honest and equally shared. That is what the Liberal Party will provide.


Some Hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague who has just spoken. I must say that when I was here first today to listen to the opening remarks on the third reading stage of Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority for billions of dollars not exceeding $24.8 billion, I assumed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would be here to begin the debate. Obviously he was not here. I understand why he is not. I do not think that he has any credibility left. We hear and read in every financial newspaper of the country that he should resign, consider resigning or that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should ask for his resignation. It is not surprising that the Minister of Finance would choose not to introduce a borrowing authority calling for Parliament to support the borrowing of $24 billion.
However, one would then assume that a senior Minister, or any Minister, would introduce and explain what the Government plans to do with this $24 billion, how it plans to use it in an appropriate way or why it is necessary to borrow so much. However, there was not a single Minister here. I ask why would there not be a Minister introducing this legislation on behalf of the Government.
I now realize why. When you look at the Budget Papers it states the following. It states that unemployment is expected to rise in the months and years ahead. That seems to fly in the face of the arguments we heard during the last election campaign when the Government said it would be taking steps to reduce unemployment. However, the Budget indicates that unemployment levels in terms of the percentage of Canadians unemployed will actually rise in the months ahead.
It goes on to state that economic growth will slow. In other words, the economic expansion that the Conservatives promised Canadians is not going to take place. By
their own admission economic growth will be curtailed in the months ahead.
It also goes on to state that inflation will increase. We know that if inflation is going to increase-and, indeed, the Budget predicts that it will, interest rates will remain high. We know that with the current government policy of interest rates, if inflation is going to creep up, as the Budget says it will, then interest rates will increase as well.
We have to ask ourselves as Canadians why it is that we tolerate interest rates being 2.5 percentage points higher than they are in the United States when we look at the prime rates comparing one country to the other. Perhaps more telling is the rate on treasury bills with respect to which there is a 4 per cent differentiation between Canadian rates on treasury bills and American rates. Why is it that our rates are so significantly higher in Canada? Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, what that would do in terms of reducing the deficit if we simply had interest rates that were more in line with those in the United States? But the Budget says these rates will go up.
All of a sudden I begin to understand why no Minister is prepared to stand up and explain that economic growth will slow down, inflation will increase and that interest rates and unemployment are expected to rise. Why would any Minister want to do that after all of the promises made in the last election campaign?
I want to share with you two or three experiences that I have just had in the last number of days in my constituency. I visited a cattle ranch which was founded at the turn of the century. It has been in the same family now for three generations. I drove up to the ranch gate and the family was in the yard. I walked up and noticed a sense of despondency. It was very clear. Here was a family with two children, the wife worked part-time off the ranch as did the husband. This was a large cattle operation. The family complained that as a result of the high interest rates which they had to pay on a variety of loans, they were no longer able to continue operating. That day they were expecting the salesman to come to the ranch and put up a for sale sign on it. They thought I was the salesman.
June 12, 1989

Here is a third-generation cattleman. Three generations that had built, if you like, one of the most reputable operations. They were highly regarded and hard-working people in the community who worked seven long days a week who never took holidays. They could not carry on because of the Government's high interest rate policy. They asked me why the Government continued on with its high interest rate policy. Or, more important, why there were not some programs to ease the pain. In agriculture if you are paying 12 per cent, 13 per cent, 14 per cent or 15 per cent, you know, Madam Speaker, as well as I and anyone here who understands the farming business, that it is very difficult if not impossible to sustain an operation paying such high interest rates. So they are abandoning their ranch and having the usual auction sale in the weeks ahead after three generations and moving into town. That was one experience.
Then I encountered a group of tree planters driving into town who were pulling up their camp. I stopped them and talked to the group of about 15 young tree planters. They asked why the federal Government had decided not to continue on funding its reforestation programs because the Province of British Columbia was prepared to put up a substantial amount of money in that regard. However, the Province had received word that the federal Government was abandoning, in a sense, the whole matter of reforestation, Canada's No. 1 export industry which requires continuing development. These young people understood that when you cut a tree it needed replacement. As a matter of fact, three trees should be planted each time one is cut out so that over time some of the poorer plants can be culled out. They said that presumably the federal Government had decided not to fund tree planting, reforestation, thinning and spacing programs in the future and asked why. Why would that be when obviously reforestation played such a critical role in the long-term development of that No. 1 export industry of the country?.
Then I happened to drop in on an acquaintance who runs a fishing camp. This operator was at his wit's end. He had just been informed by the news media last week that the federal Government was going to impose a 9 per cent sales tax on all of the services that he provides in his fishing camp. He said, quite frankly, that if he has to add 9 per cent to his costs he cannot continue in business. He cannot continue because it is such a marginal and tight operation. It is difficult to get tourism funding these days. Essentially it is an arm of the tourist industry. He
Borrowing Authority
asked why the Government would do this when he and others are trying to employ a few people and build a critical sector for the future? Why does the Government want to impose a 9 per cent sales tax on all of the services provided.
I told him that the Government had just announced that it was not going to continue to renegotiate its tourism agreements with the provinces. He could not believe it because here was one small area where the federal and provincial governments work together encouraging the development of new tourism enterprises and the Government has announced it will not continue with the shared programs. Perhaps it will rethink this through the Western Diversification Fund although it is being cut back as well. I said I do not suppose you noticed it in the Budget but the Government has cut out a third of the tourism of Canada funding because it said there is not need now to encourage people to visit Canada. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the Government knows something which the rest of us do not.
Why encourage people to come to Canada when one of the major travel vehicles is VIA Rail. On the one hand the Government is cutting out-gutting if you like-the whole VIA program. The cynicism is evident. When you are a country like the United States and see the tourism ads, Americans are encouraging people to come to Canada and travel by VIA Rail across this great country. At the same time the Government is hacking out chunks of VIA Rail service yet using VIA Rail as a kind of incentive for people to visit Canada. The Government is cutting out tourism advertising overseas, Mr. Speaker, by reducing significantly the amount of tourism funding for federal-provincial agreements. On top of that it is slapping a 9 per cent sales tax on all services provided in that sector. As the Conference Board of Canada study said last week, Mr. Speaker, the tourism sector would be the hardest hit of the economy as a result of the new national sales tax to come into force on January 1, 1991.
I have spoken about the fishing camp operator, the tree planters and the cattleman. I could go through another list of people from last weekend's visit to the constituency who find it incredible what this federal Government is doing to them. Senior citizens have given up. There will be 128,000 senior citizens who will either have their whole old age pension or part of it clawed back. In our discussions they told me that they thought that when you reached 65 years of age you could expect the old age pension as a result of citizenship in this great

June 12, 1989
Borrowing Authority
country, that that is what it means to be a citizen of Canada. But that will no longer occur.
What has happened with this last federal Budget? Some seniors who have worked hard, and who have made investments, setting aside money during their years to provide for their retirement will not get the old age pension. It seems to be a strange motivation to us that if you work hard, save for your retirement and have some modest investments that you will not get that old age security cheque.
It is the same with family allowances. Madam Speaker. There are half a million families affected who will not get all of their family allowance cheques because they will be clawed back. All this happens at a time when tens of thousands of large profitable corporations do not pay any income tax whatever; Alcan Aluminum and Hees International to name two. Tens of thousands of profitable corporations do not pay any income tax but this Government says to old age pensioners like my dad, "we're going to claw back your pension."
People are perplexed. They do not understand why this Government is clawing back family allowances and senior citizens pensions while at the same time Hees International, Cadillac-Fairview and Alcan Aluminum pay no income tax at all in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. People cannot believe a Government would do that.
When no Minister of the Crown stands up to introduce this particular third reading stage of the debate to tell people what the Government is doing, I can understand that. I do not think I would want to stand up either. I would not want to remind people that day care had been promised especially when there are two million children who require licensed day care in Canada.
If I were the Minister of Finance I would not want to say that I knew we promised to introduce legislation to take care of that, but we are abandoning that commitment and breaking that promise. That is effectively what the Minister has said. He has said that the Government has broken the promise made to two million children
that it would provide decent child care. How crass, how cruel, how uncaring can the Government get?
The list goes on and on. I do not recall hearing the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, when they were travelling throughout western Canada, saying that as soon as they get elected they would start abandoning support for the regions. I do not recall hearing them say that, but in this Budget that is what they have done. They have cut back on the western diversification fund and are eliminating regional development programs in both the West and the East.
lo make matters worse, the Government is cutting out many of the benefits that flow from unemployment insurance. A fisherman in an outpost of Newfoundland who fishes for a number of weeks of the year should, because of the state of the regional economy, collect unemployment insurance benefits for a number of weeks, but he will no longer be able to collect some of those benefits, and the same is true for fishermen on the West coast. There are fishermen here today who are trying to explain to the Government the realities of the regional economies. The Government is taking the fairness out of being a Canadian by cutting back on unemployment insurance support. It is cutting back on funding for western diversification and funding for Atlantic Canada.
We have heard a lot about the environment in the last little while. The Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister say that they have now been converted into environmentalists. All of a sudden they are concerned about the environment. We must have faith in them and believe that they are telling the truth this time. I have a difficult time believing that they are telling the truth.
What did the Government do about the environment? Hon. Members will recall that the Government eliminated the Canada Oil Substitution Program. That was a program that was attempting to see that we are not so dependent on the non-renewable resource, fossil fuels. The Government cut out that program. Then it eliminated the Canadian Home Insulation Program which encouraged people to insulate their homes properly. The Government decided to remove this encouragement, and it did. Then it cut out the Canadian Energy Audit Program. Many Canadians used this program to have their homes audited to find out if they were energy
June 12. 1989

efficient. The Government cut out that program. Then it cut out the Atlantic Energy Conservation Investment Program, the Solar Energy Demonstration Program, the Remote Community Demonstration Program, the Forest Industry Renewable Energy Program, and the Industrial Conversion Assistance Program.
Of all the programs that have been developed over the last number of years to encourage conservation, the Government has virtually eliminated every single one of them. Yet, it has the audacity to say that it supports environmental issues. There is little evidence of that. The proof of the pudding is in what has been done with the environmentally sensitive programs that have been developed over the last number of years. The Government has eliminated virtually every one of them. Now I understand even better why no Minister rose to explain this program.
What about co-operative housing? Anyone who has visited or lived in a co-operative housing project knows that it has advantaged so many people and that the program is sought after by hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It enables people to live in decent accommodation at affordable prices. What has the Government's approach been to ease the housing crisis through a program that exists from coast to coast? Every major community has developed a popular, accepted and admired co-operative housing program. In its Budget the Government is reducing funding for co-operative housing. It is to be capped this year and reduced significantly in the years ahead. That option for future development and growth has been eliminated.
What are some of the ways for the federal Government to assist small businesses to expand, build new product lines, and create more employment? The Federal Business Development Bank management services have been one of the more positive aspects of the Federal Business Development Bank. There have been a number of concerns about its existing mandate as it is being interpreted, but the management services program was sought after by many people going into the small business sector, particularly those doing so for the first time. The Government announced that it would curtail these services. It said that this program offering advice and encouragement would not continue into the future.
Borrowing Authority
On top of that, the Government decided that it was not necessary to maintain support for post-secondary education. We know unquestionably that the economy of the future will be knowledge and information based. It will require sophisticated skills and abilities in research and development through to production, requiring more education than ever. At such a time, the Government is starting to cut back on support for post-secondary education to the provinces.
I suppose the most discouraging aspect of this lately was the Government's decision to cap programs for young native students who want to obtain training at the post-secondary level. Can Hon. Members imagine anything more sinister than saying to young native people who are qualified and want to go on to post-secondary education that the funding will not be there? The thousands of young native people who want to go to universities, colleges, technical schools, and similar institutes will not have that opportunity because the Government is capping funding for these programs.
I see you are indicating that unfortunately my time is up. Madam Speaker. We oppose this Bill as strongly as we can. The Government that wants to borrow $24 billion is telling us that it will increase unemployment, slow economic growth, increase inflation, and keep interest rates high. At the same time, it is telling us that the deficit will actually go up next year and the year following.
I have to say that this is a Government that has not managed its affairs well. This is a Government that has no idea of where it is going. It does not know where it is taking this country. It is simply dismantling it and handing it over to the United States as a result of the trade deal. After 120 years of building, in just a few short months there has been all kinds of evidence to indicate that our country is being dismantled.
In conclusion, I want to say that Hon. Members should not be surprised when we rise in our places during the vote to oppose Bill C-ll, the Bill that would provide the Government permission to borrow $24 billion.


Mr. Sobeski:: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the speech made by the Hon. Member and about some of the misinformation we were given about Old Age Security payments. Old Age Security payments are not being reduced and the Hon. Member knows that. He knows that Old Age Security

June 12, 1989
Borrowing Authority
payments are fully indexed and therefore will increase in future years.
The Hon. Members know that individuals receive their Old Age Security payments monthly and that they all cash their cheques without any means tests. These payments have been subject to income tax for many years. The Budget, as the Hon. Member is also aware, is using the tax system to recover payments from high income Canadians. Those measures will improve the security of our social safety net by ensuring that our social programs provide assistance to those Canadians who need it and do not subsidize high income Canadians who do not need assistance.
At the present time three million Canadians receive the Old Age Security cheques each month. Of that number 4 per cent have annual incomes in excess of $50,000. However, only 1.8 per cent of those Old Age Security recipients, those with annual incomes in excess of approximately $77,000, will pay back 100 per cent of their Old Age Security payments. One can imagine the amount of income that is needed. A person may have a large pension from work and may have $250,000, $350,000, or $500,000 in the bank in order to earn the investment income to bring their earnings up to the $77,000 limit. Perhaps the Hon. Member forgot to cover those in his notes.
I want to ask the Member a question about VIA Rail. Where would the Hon. Member get the money to cover the $600 million subsidy for VIA Rail? He gave us a travelogue when he started his address. I do not think he was travelling by train. I think that his press agent was driving him around by car.
The Member also talked about the plight of a third generation farm. It is probably a corporation. Is that one of the 80,000 corporations that did not pay tax?
VIA's ridership is 20 per cent lower than it was in 1981. From 1986 to 1988, while VIA's revenue did increase 7 per cent or some $15 million, the increase in operating cost was 10 per cent or $66 million. For every dollar of revenue that came in, the operating subsidy increased by $2.62. In other words, VIA's financial performance is worsening and not improving. I ask the Member to indicate where he would get the $600 million to cover the deficit that VIA is running.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the questions from my hon. friend. I will attempt to answer them, perhaps in reverse order.
Was the cattle ranch that was going bankrupt one of the large corporations that did not pay any income tax? No, because it was not profitable. The 60,000 corporations to which I referred were profitable. For example, Alcan Aluminium, Hees International, and Cadillac Fairview. There are 60,000 corporations like those with profits some years in excess of $300 million that paid no income tax. No, it was not the cattle ranch, because that man was forced to sell his ranch because with the high interest rate policy he could not make any profit.
The Hon. Member asks if I support a means test. I know the Hon. Member supports a means test because he is saying if a person makes more than a certain amount, obviously he or she has the means and does not need to keep the amount of money received in old age pension cheques. I dissociate myself with that view.
There are hundreds of thousands of people from around the world who would love to be Canadian citizens, because they know that there are certain rights and privileges associated with citizenship, as well as obligations and responsibilities. As a Canadian citizen, you can send your children to high school without paying premiums or extra charges. If you are sick, you can go to the hospital and be cared for. Unlike the United States, one does not need to carry a charge card. When a citizen is aged 65, he or she is eligible for a pension.
What we are hearing from the Conservative Government is that this year it is going to claw back the pension from certain senior citizens. It is saying to certain citizens: "You made so much money you do not need a pension cheque." Next year, perhaps the Government will say to certain citizens: "You made so much money you do not need to receive medicare like the rest of Canadians, you have to take your credit card with you, your children now have their high school education paid for through the tax system," or "you have enough money so you can pay extra premiums for your children."
Where does this mentality end? Once you break what it means to be a Canadian citizen, then the whole system begins to unravel. We have to part company at this point and say that Conservatives like the idea of a means test; others of us do not. I do not suppose we can argue to
June 12, 1989

convince one or the other that we ought to change our minds on that.
I now wish to address the matter of VIA Rail. I am sure that my hon. friend did not attend any of the VIA hearings that were held across Canada. If he had attended those hearings, he could have listened to the dozens of experts on all aspects of passenger rail service. They indicated if an enterprise is to succeed, there has to be investment capital to allow it to succeed. If one wants to curtail operations, then do what the Government has done.
When the present Deputy Prime Minister was Minister of Transport, I remember him stating in the House that we can make VIA Rail a viable enterprise. We can make VIA Rail the most exciting transportation system in the world. I remember the speeches time after time of how committed he said his Government would be to develop VIA Rail properly. That would require the proper investment in infrastructure. There has to be decent cars, decent tracks, a decent relationship between CN and CP, and a decent ticketing system. In other words, provide the resources to allow VIA to do the job.
I do not know if my hon. friend has ever ridden on VIA Rail. If he had ridden on VIA Rail, he would know that the frustration that exists with the people who work for VIA is unbelievable. They cannot do the job they know they could do because they have been hamstrung, the resources have been held back, and they have to offer a mediocre service in most parts of the country. Of course, for understandable reasons then, people do not take advantage of it.
As any good business person knows, to be successful there have to be the appropriate investments. The Deputy Prime Minister and previous Minister of Transport knows full well what those investments are. He spent hours articulating them for the previous Liberal Government. He spent hours and hours indicating what had to be done to make VIA a financial success. Then the players changed. The Liberals went to the opposition benches, and the Conservatives went to the government benches, and nothing happened. As a matter of fact, it worsened. There were cuts, cuts, and cuts. It is not
Borrowing Authority
surprising that today we find VIA Rail in obviously very serious economic and financial difficulty.
Over the weekend we had the benefit of listening to Dr. Kenneth Hare. He spoke publicly on the environmental implications of eliminating much of VIA Rail passenger service. He pointed out that, particularly in the heavy corridor of central Canada from Windsor to Quebec City, if good passenger rail service is eliminated in that corridor, it is the only transportation system that is virtually guaranteed against the weather. In terms of future environmental problems, we should be developing a modern, first-class transportation passenger service in that corridor. One of the most eminent scientists on environmental matters that this country has ever seen was arguing that the Government should not proceed with its plans to dismantle VIA.
I do not know if I have answered the questions of my hon. friend adequately. In terms of a summary, no, the ranch was not a profitable corporation that was not paying income tax because it had gone out of business. Yes, I do not believe in a means test for senior citizens' pensions. Give VIA Rail the tools to do the job, give it the time, and, I use the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, "it would serve us well." Other than those points, I do not think I can add much more to the questions of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to speak on Bill C-ll concerning this Government's borrowing for the current fiscal year.
I have spoken at second reading and I have had occasion to pick up from that time when I spoke on the Borrowing Bill. At that time I mentioned what this Government will achieve during this fiscal year in hurting the poorer regions of this country. I mentioned the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, the financing arrangements with the provinces, and the cut-backs.


An Hon. Member:: Hand-outs.

June 12, 1989
Borrowing Authority


Coline M. Campbell: Call it hand-outs. If you come from Edmonton, I am sure you have had a few in the past, too. You may call it hand-outs. I call it what it means to be a Canadian-equalization.


An Hon. Member:: You're not going to-


Coline M. Campbell: I am sorry if that is your attitude; you do not want to hear what Canada is all about from somebody from the East.
However, I would like to say that the fiscal arrangements under the financing program are cutting back moneys to the poorest areas in Canada. As well, at that time I mentioned the fishery policy of this Government.
Today, I had the honour of meeting a coalition of fishermen, representatives from fish plants, and fishermen from the West Coast. They come to us with a very real problem, a problem that, coming from a fishing area in southwestern Nova Scotia, I have to say I can see is a potential problem to the East Coast as it is presently a problem on the West Coast.
What is that problem? The Government instituted a policy that prohibited the exportation of salmon and herring to the United States. If we just take salmon itself, of course we know the history of it. In 1986, the federal trade representative in the United States brought the action to the GATT. GATT said that this was against its principles and that we could not prohibit the export of whole fish.


An Hon. Member:: Do you agree?


Coline M. Campbell: Just let me get to that. I am of the opinion that there are times when the national good overcomes any international institutions.
In this case, I can show you where the Americans can talk with one voice about how good the GATT is and how poor the GATT is on the other side. GATT ruled and the Government succumbed. It lifted the prohibition on the exporting of unprocessed whole fish to the United States. Then our federal Government decided that it would at least not offend the GATT by putting in the landing requirement, that is, that the fishermen who caught the fish at least had to land them in Canada.
On the East Coast we are very lucky. In the Free Trade Agreement it is grandfathered that the fish in the inshore must be landed in a Canadian port. However, on
the West Coast that is what they are presently arguing with the United States. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), who speaks for fish and trade, says that we must land the salmon in B.C. for purposes of management and conservation of our stocks. The United States is arguing that point.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to the government back-benchers over there who want to laugh at some of the problems of Canada that I have recently seen the American Government use the Omnibus Trade Bill against hogs in Canada being exported to the United States. They used this section to impose a countervail on the hog industry. The Americans would not wait for GATT, that was seized with looking at all agricultural subsidies in our international trade. The United States has agreed to wait for that, as has Canada, under the Free Trade Agreement. They could not wait until the Uruguay Round under GATT for the multi-trade negotiations to have analysed at least what was a subsidy within the international agriculture community. The Americans used that Omnibus Trade bill, the one which we thought before the Free Trade Agreement would never be used against Canada. The Americans used it unilaterally, without any discussions, to put a countervail on the hog industry.
The subsidy happens to come right down to the amount of the stabilization program payment to the hog producers. It is just a coincidence. It tears apart our whole stabilization program in agriculture in one decision in the United States that they would not wait for GATT. They would not even send it to the new subsidy committee, if the co-chairman has been picked for Canada. All the other officials and the mechanism are there to study subsidies over the next five year to seven years. They just did it unilaterally. Bingo. By the middle of July we will know whether it stays on or not.
All this Government is asking for is: "Tell us the means by which it got to a countervail. Tell us how you did that." It used to be they had to look at damage. They had to look and see if there was a subsidy first and then damage. Not now. The Omnibus Trade Bill has been used. It has been used against a friendly trading partner who just entered into a free trade agreement with the United States. It has been used against us.
June 12. 1989

We see from the coalition of fishermen and fish workers who have come from the West Coast that the Government cannot even put on a regulation without it being challenged, again by the United States, a landing requirement to manage and conserve the stocks within our 200-mile limit over which we have jurisdiction. That is what our trading partners are doing in our natural resources on the West Coast.
When are we going to say to National Sea or to Nova Scotians that they cannot send those 4,400 metric tons that National Sea sent over to the United States unprocessed last year will that be in violation? What will that violate? Let me explain it clearly.
We can presently send unprocessed fish because there is no regulation which says not to send. This is a year of crisis in the fisheries on the East Coast because there is no groundfish. If the federal Government decided to say that we are not going to send our groundfish whole, unprocessed, to the United States, then again it would be in violation because the U.S. would go back to the GATT.
I say to the gentleman over there that I am for anything that protects our natural resources and anything that stops that type of exploitation by the Americans against the most unprotected areas in Canada. Those areas are not run by multinationals. The fisheries is strictly a Canadian fishery, and we certainly should be able to say whether we will process here or not our fish to the finished point. Yes, if it means taking a ban against sending whole fish to the United States, I agree with it.
I certainly hope that the government will listen to the concerns of this west coast group because it is going to happen continually across our great country that our industry is going to be eroded because it hurts some aspect of the United States. They do not even have the decency to wait for the mechanism of the Free Trade Agreement to come into place or, as we have seen in the hog industry, for the GATT negotiations in Uruguay to finish.
The group that we met with today say that "Canada is the world's largest fish exporter but 4,000 B.C. shore workers and an equal number of Maritime workers face lay-offs while unprocessed fish moves south. Our greatest export industry, the mainstay of our coastal economies, is at stake if we fail to act."
I would now like to move to another area. In a few short weeks of governing, as one has to say about this Government which has been governing since November, it brought in a new program for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. A lot of Members find themselves going home on the weekend and sharing the concerns of the people who put in many hours and whose applications were there for almost a year.
May I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member can continue after the Oral Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in 1937 George Orwell vividly described the life of a coal miner in these words: "In the western world the coal miner is second in importance only to the man who ploughs soil".
He went on to say that most of the things one imagines in hell are there; heat, noise, confusion, darkness, foul air and, above all, unbearably cramped space.
Yesterday, June 11, 1989, was Miners' Memorial Day in Cape Breton. We are reminded of the important role coal mining has played in the history of Cape Breton. Although many mining methods have changed since Orwell's time, the unique character of the miner, the courage and strength that Orwell so well described, have not.
The devastating fire at No. 26 colliery in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, brings home once again just how dangerous a profession coal mining is and how the people of Cape Breton have continually had to struggle against adversity. As we turn back the pages of history we remember the tragic loss of 69 men in 1917 in the methane gas

June 12. 1989
explosion which took place in the Lingan mine, and the explosion in 1979 in Glace Bay. We especially remember the origins of Miners' Memorial Day which arose from a six year series of protests culminating in the strike of 1925 and the death of William Davis.
We can be proud of the coal mining tradition of Cape Breton and at this time we remember the contributions of all miners and all their families and above all, we honour those who lost their lives in those tragic accidents.



RAILWAYS


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of constituents in my riding of Northumberland have presented me with petitions and briefs on how the Conservative Government's cuts to VIA passenger rail service will adversely affect our community. Affordable housing and a better quality of life depend on the growth of non-metropolis areas and VIA Rail is fundamental to such growth and development.
In 1988, over 160,000 passenger rail trips originated and ended at the three Northumberland station stops of Port Hope, Cobourg, and Trenton Junction.
Last week I was presented with a motion from the city of Peterborough who, through their Conservative Member, requested a meeting with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) concerning the outcome of their regional line, Toronto to Havelock. They were informed that the Minister is unwilling to meet with community groups.
Canada's transportation system is a necessity to my riding, to Peterborough and to the nation. By refusing to consult with communities, once again we see the Government's disregard for the democratic process.
The constituents of Northumberland, of Peterborough and across Canada, depend on VIA Rail. We cannot allow this necessary service to become derailed.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, Friday, June 9, was another very positive day for Canada and for my constituency of Ontario.
It was my pleasure to assist in the official opening of a 160,000 square foot enlarged facility in Whitby for Sandoz Canada Incorporated. This plant continues the commitment made by the pharmaceutical industry when the Drug Patent Bill was passed by the Conservative Government in the last Parliament.
Along with outlining the many research and development projects funded by Sandoz in excess of their commitments, their president made additional comments of which I quote:
The commitment of $17 million has given us the possibility of developing our business in directions which were not open before. Now available thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. market could mean a lot to us all. In addition to enhancing our already significant position in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry, we have become a major operation of Sandoz on a world-wide basis.
This is just one example in my riding of good Conservative Government policies creating jobs for Canadians. I look forward to returning here soon to point out many other successes that exist in my riding.



THE LATE CHARLES RUTHERFORD, V.C.

William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada lost another of its great heroes. Charles Rutherford, the last remaining Canadian Victoria Cross winner from the First World War, died at the age of 97.
Mr. Rutherford was awarded the Victoria Cross, the Commonwealth's top award for gallantry, for his actions in France in August, 1918. The young Lieutenant with the Fifth Battalion of the Canadian Mounted Rifles first took on three enemy machine gun crews. That accomplished, he then attacked a pill box containing a Lewis gun section. In all, he took 80 prisoners.
Today's story about him tell us that Mr. Rutherford never talked about being a hero. He was just relieved to have survived the horror that was the First World War.
June 12, 1989

But he was a hero, one of 70 Canadians who were awarded the Victoria Cross in the First World War. They were an inspiration for a nation, the individual standouts in a Canadian force that won so much honour in the First World War.
It has been said that Canada was born as a nation during 1914 to 1918. If so, then we were very blessed in having founding fathers such as Charles Rutherford, V.C.
Our sympathy goes out to his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



IMMIGRATION


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this Government is throwing real refugees back into their land of persecution and obstructing justice before the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 3, the Canadian Council of Churches asked the Supreme Court to declare that the newly amended Immigration Act denies the legal rights of refugees in Canada by violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights. The churches' brief shows how 88 sections of the Immigration Act limit or deny a person's right to counsel, subject certain classes of people to cruel and unusual punishment, fail to provide fair refugee hearings, or fail to protect refugees' life, liberty and security of person.
A consensus of constitutional law experts in Canada made these same objections to the House of Commons and the Senate, but the Government refused to answer with any defence.
Now this Government refuses to give any defence before the Supreme Court. Instead, it asked the Supreme Court to deny the Council of Churches the right to be heard in court. On April 26, Judge Rouleau threw out all the Government's frivolous and deceitful arguments and ordered this Government to file its defence in 10 days. Forty seven days later, the Government still refuses to file its defence and cynically appeals Judge Rouleau's decision. Also, it hurries to deport more hundreds of refugees under this unjust and unconstitutional law. Shame on the Government.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Vancouver, the Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner), announced three major initiatives aimed at promoting improved race relationships in Canada. The first will provide funding for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for a 10 week summer intern training project in Vancouver for 10 visible minority youth to familiarize themselves with the various facets of police work.
The second project involves commissioning Internal Briefing Associates of Vancouver to develop a national action plan for measures leading to improved relations between the police force and minority groups. This will be developed in close consultation with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, its police minority liaison committee, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and other policing officials. This project will be discussed at the next meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for human rights in March, 1990.
Finally, the federal Government will provide financial support to the city of Vancouver to establish the Hastings Institute, a training centre aimed at helping local organizations deal with rapid social and workplace changes. Let us all support these bold initiatives to promote unity and equality among all Canadians.



THE PHILIPPINES


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the ninety-first anniversary of Philippine independence. On June 12, 1898, the Filipino people courageously proclaimed their national identity and reclaimed their democratic heritage. Recent Philippine history once more demonstrated their commitment to the ideals of freedom; equality, understanding and peace.
Events taking place in other parts of the world right now remind us of the value and the fragility of these ideals. Let us salute and join the Filipino people and Canadians of Filipino origin in their commemoration of this historic day. I am sure that we in the House can share in their celebration by re-dedicating ourselves to

June 12, 1989



S. 0. 31

[Stage Direction]
improving the workings of democracy in the Philippines and other parts of the world.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to point out to my constituents in the riding of Bourassa who have written to me on this issue and to all my fellow Canadians that today, Canada has passed a major milestone in its fight against acid rain. After repeated representations by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the U.S. Government for more than four years, President Bush has finally announced new standards for air purity and proposed amendments to the clean air legislation. This initial measure represents the results of many years of negotiations by our Prime Minister and demonstrates his determination to do everything in his power to persuade our neighbours to the South to do their share in the fight against acid rain. I therefore urge our Prime Minister to continue his representations to the U.S. Government, since they have proved so effective.

[English\



RAILWAYS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians need VIA. I rise in the House today to remind the Conservative Government of that fact.
Let me also remind the governing Party that on August 27 of 1987 they legislated striking railway workers back to work. In defending that decision to the International Labour Organization, the Conservative Government stated the following: "The government stresses the unique circumstances which make the Canadian economy highly dependent on rail transportation: -severe climatic conditions, geographic dispersion, and, in many
instances, the virtual absence of viable economic alternatives to rail transportation.
The Government submits that railways have always been and continue to be of critical importance for the welfare of the Canadian public. Numerous small communities are dependent on the railways for their very existence".
Finally, I have a direct quote from the Government of Canada which states: "Without railways there would be and there could be no Canada".
I cannot urge the Government strongly enough to heed its own words, and save our passenger rail system.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Atlantic Canada, I applaud the tough anti-pollution proposals being signed by President George Bush which will result in some of the toughest rules ever in the U.S. Clean Air Act. It has taken extensive efforts on behalf of all eastern premiers, New England governors, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and a new co-operative attitude in Washington to achieve this significant step.
Acid rain has damaged thousands of our lakes and many of our forests and it is encouraging to see this united international effort on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border acting in the interest of improving our environment and reducing acid rain.
We look forward to Canada-U.S. negotiations of a bilateral acid rain agreement and urge the Prime Minister to keep up the momentum begun by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Montreal protocol, the Niagara River Clean-Up Agreement, the tough new rules signed today and soon, hopefully, a bilateral acid rain agreement.




Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Oldman River, the last free-flowing river in southwestern Alberta, is slated to be dammed for irrigation. A few
June 12. 1989

hundred ranchers will reap the benefit, while the environment, the Peigan Nation and the people of Alberta will pay the costs.
The impact of this dam on the native people and fisheries are sufficient to merit referring the Oldman Dam to the federal environmental assessment and review process, a process now mandatory because of the recent ruling by Judge Cullen on the Rafferty-Alameda Dam.
The Friends of the Oldman River laid charges under the federal Fisheries Act against the Province of Alberta for destroying fish habitat. The Department of Justice took over the case, but has yet to proceed with the prosecution. Why is the federal Government hesitating? Why is the federal Government not living up to the commitments it made to a wide range of environmental issues?




Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to bring to the attention of the House the very serious problem of the Oldman River dam project in southern Alberta.
As in the case of the Rafferty Dam in Saskatchewan, the Alberta Government has made very little effort to assess the impact of this dam on the local economy, the local Peigan people and on the environment generally. The dam will destroy a very precious resource, the pristine wild Oldman River. The dam will destroy wildlife, marshland, fishery habitat, cottonwood forest and archaeological sites.
The federal Government must become more active and more involved regarding the questions concerning native relationships with this valley, including the rights guaranteed to the Peigan people in Treaty No. 7.
Environment Canada should provide important documentation to the organization. Friends of the Oldman River, and ensure adequate public hearings take place into this dam project. This dam issue provides the federal Government with an opportunity to go beyond rhetoric and demonstrate a commitment to environmental issues by demanding a full environment and cultural impact assessment of the dam project.
Let this Oldman River just keep rolling along.




Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, today U.S. President George Bush announced he is sending to Congress proposed changes to the Clean Air Act which will reduce significantly acid rain emitting from the United States.
When asked at the meeting of eastern Canadian premiers and New England governors this past weekend. John McKernan, Governor of the State of Maine, had this to say of the role of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in bringing about this new acid rain initiative: [DOT]'Frankly having the support of Prime Minister Mulroney as well as the premiers of the eastern Canadian provinces-has made a big difference in forcing the United States to take this issue more seriously."
I know all Members of the House will join me in welcoming this announcement from the President of the United States and congratulate the Prime Minister for his leadership on this most important issue.



GUATEMALA


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-St-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the violent and unstable situation in which the people of Guatemala are currently living, particularly to the dangers threatening delegates of organizations participating in the National Dialogue.
I am making particular reference to Mrs. Marta Torres of Vancouver, who is in Guatemala as a participant in the National Dialogue. Death threats continue to be directed to Marta Torres and to other Canadian and American participants.
I am therefore calling upon the Canadian Government to request that the Government of Guatemala, including more particularly the Minister of Defence in Guatemala, officially guarantee the safety of Mrs. Torres, of the members of the RUOG, Representation of the Opposition in Guatemala and of other participants in this National Dialogue for Peace.

June 12. 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Finance announced that the Canadian Government was launching a huge propaganda campaign to explain to Canadians the reasons for his sneak attack on the taxpayers of this country. People all over Canada already realize that this hardnosed Budget constitutes an all out attack on the Canadian family.
I have the following question for the Minister of Finance: If he is so convinced that his budgetary measures are justified, is he prepared to come with me this afternoon to meet Canadians from all parts of the country who have come here to Ottawa to tell him what they think of his Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Flon. Member that, yes, I am quite confident of the merits of the Budget and its importance to the future of our country and its ability to maintain, build, grow and develop the social programs which Canadians feel are important.
We all know that the size of the Government debt is too high. The amount of money which we spend each year on interest costs is too high relative to our over-all spending. It is for these reasons that we must get the annual deficit under control.
The size of the Government debt is something that his Leader has talked about on a number of occasions. This is the direction which the Budget takes. This is what we are trying to achieve. We believe quite strongly that this will lead to a stronger and more prosperous Canada.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Minister failed to understand the question.
[English |
We have a group of people here this afternoon who I am sure would like to hear directly from the Minister why he feels so strongly about his Budget.


EFFECT ON LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME CANADIANS
M. Douglas Young: This propaganda campaign launched by the Minister of Finance is an attempt to explain his massive tax grab which will take billions of dollars out of the pockets of low and middle income Canadians, while wealthier Canadians pay much smaller increases over-all.
Does the Minister of Finance think that it is fair that low and middle income Canadians are being forced to pay nearly the entire bill for his mismanagement of the economy over the last five years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that last statement is a gross misstatement of fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is there precisely in black and white in the Budget. In this particular Budget there is $1 billion more tax on corporations. There is a high income surtax on Canadians who are earning roughly $70,000 or more.
The impact of the income tax changes on Canadians is roughly .1 per cent or .3 per cent in the lower income brackets. It rises to over 1 per cent for people who are earning $100,000 or more.
Clearly, we have a very progressive Budget here. It is affecting people in upper income brackets to a much greater extent than is the case with people in the lower income brackets.
Furthermore, there is an increase in the offset to the sales tax changes so that those people in lower income brackets are protected from the changes in the sales taxes in this Budget.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that the national debt has doubled in the last five years.
June 12, 1989


JUSTIFICATION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Minister is as follows: The federal Budget has cut funding to VIA Rail, regional development, post-secondary education, unemployment insurance and so forth. The advertising campaign announced by the Minister which will cost millions of dollars, money that, incidentally, will go to fill the coffers of friends of the Conservative Party, will not succeed in making people accept this unfair and petty Budget.
My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Doesn't he think that the money for the advertising campaign would be better spent helping the homeless and those who are lining up in front of soup kitchens across Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of what publicity campaign the Hon. Member is talking about. We have put out a number of documents that describe the Budget. This is normal practice and something that has been done for many, many years.
If the Hon. Member is talking about the statement made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops, who talked about a propaganda program for the goods and services tax, then let me remind the Hon. Member that there is a unanimous report of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee dated a year ago February in which there is reference to a public information program in New Zealand to publicize the goods and services tax there.
The report goes on to state that this experience underscores the need for good preparation of both the public and businesses prior to the introduction of the new sales tax.
Recommendation No. 4 states that it is important to publicize the details of the new tax, and the relevant social policy transfers.
There it is in black and white. That is exactly what we are doing in the information program for the goods and services tax. I think that Canadians want that sort of information from their Government.


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


RATE OF GROWTH
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance was really interested in reducing the deficit why did he not propose measures to increase economic growth and promote full employment to increase his revenues rather than cut back on essential programs for the aged, the sick and the unemployed?
With over one million Canadians still unemployed and the Minister himself predicting an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent in 1990, which the Conference Board of Canada says will make the situation worse and promote a recession, why is he going in the opposite direction? Why does he not promote growth and full employment instead?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I must say again that this Budget is designed to avoid a recession. It is designed to put a better balance in our economic policies between interest rate policies and budgetary policies. The result is that this Budget will put in place the flexibility to allow the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates. Surely that is something that the Hon. Member wants. Surely even he understands that low interest rates will lead to greater economic activity right across the country.


THE PROBABLE RECESSION-MINISTER'S POSITION
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, are all Canadians wrong, except the Minister? You have the Conference Board of Canada, Wood Gundy and Associates, the churches, the unions, social and community groups that have all criticized the Budget and are predicting an economic recession for 1990.
Why does the Minister insist on following this economic policy, when we will have a recession next year? Why?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that there have been predictions made by other people about

June 12, 1989
Oral Questions
economic statements and Budgets that I have introduced but that the projections have been wrong.
The Hon. Member's Leader said of the Economic Statement of November, 1984, and the Budget of 1985, that thousands of jobs would be destroyed. I think his number was 100,000 to 150,000 jobs. His seat-mate, the Hon. Member from Winnipeg, also said 100,000 to 150,000 jobs were going to be destroyed.
What happened? We have had 1.5 million jobs created since we came into office in September of 1984.
I ask the Hon. Member about the unemployment figures of last Friday. What was the unemployment rate? It was 7.7 per cent-one of the lowest rates in about seven or eight years.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, you may also recall the Minister forecast interest rates of 7.8 per cent this year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: So much for projections, Mike.


RAILWAY TRANSPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I think that the Minister is aware that many Canadians have arrived in Ottawa today from throughout Canada to demonstrate against the Budget which is unfair, the tax increases and the cuts in services, including VIA Rail.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Can the Minister now confirm that his decision to cut VIA Rail was made even before the government study of VIA Rail was completed?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Finance Minister's Budget was presented in April and it was always agreed, as everyone has been aware, that VIA Rail would present its report in June.
This report has not been presented, but it should be in by June 30, normally. And when I have the report in hand, I will be able to make recommendations and decisions. Until then, again, I think that this whole kind of question is premature, until we have the relevant documents.


SUBSIDY TO VIA RAIL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious decision being made before the government commission report itself is even completed.
In light of the fact that I understand that this secret VIA '89 study commissioned by the Government itself says a high-speed link in the central corridor of the country would be environmentally sound, much more economical than air travel and would likely displace around 94 trips a day from Pearson International Airport making air travel safer at the same time, and in light of the fact that I have here in front of me thousands of names on petitions signed by people who are travelling VIA Rail this week, would the Minister now come to his senses and reverse his decision and reinstate the one-half billion dollar subsidy to VIA Rail for passenger service?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very brief. I do not have more money today than I had last Friday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL CUT-BACKS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who is probably calling the shots on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
I am sure he is aware that Mr. Kenneth Hare, who is a world renowned climatologist, said that the Government in making these cut-backs to VIA is making a very serious environmental mistake. He predicted that the federal Government will be forced to reinstate full service to VIA Rail within 10 years because of increased pollution from automobiles and airplanes.
In light of that will the Minister now reconsider his decision and reinstate the one-half billion dollars he has cut in his Budget from VIA Rail? Will he do the intelligent thing in terms of sustainable development and reinstate passenger service?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have already said many times in the House and outside that Canadians cannot afford any more to
June 12, 1989

put that much money into a service which is used by 3 per cent of Canadians.
Once again, 97 per cent of Canadians do not use VIA Rail services. We maintain a level of subsidy which has to be viewed in the context of what Canadians can pay.
Once again, we have a transportation system to build in this country. How can we build a system on something which represents 3 per cent of the ridership? It is the kind of policy that could be set up by the NDP, not by this Government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is about the situation in China. I believe that on the weekend, the Minister met a delegation of Chinese Canadians and told them he was considering a decision to recall our ambassador for consultations and also as a sign of protest against the excessive repression exercised by the Chinese army against their own people. Has the Minister made a decision in this respect?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I had a very useful meeting with some representatives of the Chinese Canadian Community here Thursday evening. We discussed various issues. They wondered whether it would perhaps be a good thing for Canada to have its ambassador here. I said that I wanted to consider the question. It is now our intention to have Mr. Earl Drake, our ambassador in China, return to Canada for consultations. He will be here near the end of the week. He will have consultations with the Government, and I imagine that the parliamentary committee would like to take advantage of his presence here. I would like to point out that it is our intention to have Mr. Drake return to China after a period of consultations.
Oral Questions


CRISIS IN CHINA-REQUEST TO RAISE THE QUESTION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. On June 5 this year, a week ago today, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister whether he intended to ask Mr. Fortier, our representative on the UN Security Council, to raise the matter of the situation in China in the Security Council. At the time, the Minister said that he wanted to consult with other countries and other representatives. Have these consultations been completed, and does the Minister intend to raise the matter in the UN Security Council as soon as possible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, consultations at the UN level are continuing. As the Hon. Member is aware, I think there are various obstacles to raising the issue in the Security Council. First of all, there is China's veto, which it imposed from the outset, and second, there is also the question whether it will really have an impact on the events in China. What we are doing now, in consultation with other Member States of the United Nations, is trying to find ways, through the UN and other instruments available to us, to urge the Chinese Government to respect the democratic spirit, a spirit that was obvious in the demonstrations by the students and other Chinese citizens.


CHINA-SPECIAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Immigration, I also direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On June 6, in response to my question to his colleague in the House, in terms of the need for special immigration measures, the Minister said: "We will pursuing every avenue that we can in humanitarian terms together with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs."
Now that the Minister and the Government have had a chance of discussing with the Canadian Chinese community the dilemmas and circumstances and have had an opportunity to review the Government's options, is the Government willing to establish a special immigration program that would ease the family and assisted family class criteria so that Canadian Chinese families in Canada may more easily and expeditiously sponsor their

June 12, 1989
Oral Questions
relatives from abroad so that they can be reunited quickly in this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the House and the Member will understand, there are several aspects of our policy with respect to China that the Government wants to consider very carefully. Our preoccupation to date has been with trying to get Canadians who wanted to leave China out of China. To date some 550 Canadians who wanted to leave have left.
I should say in passing that I am very proud, and I think the House should be very proud, of the work that officials of the Government of Canada have done in facilitating the Canadians who wanted to leave China.
We will be looking at longer term policy changes over the next few weeks. In the meantime, announcements have already been made with respect to the visa situation of the students who are here.
Another matter that I discussed with leaders of the Chinese Canadian community on Thursday night was the financial problem that is faced by many of the students who are here. We have initiated discussions with all the provincial Governments to see if there could be some co-operation between federal and provincial authorities to meet that financial problem. I was also very pleased to note that representatives of Chinese Canadian community themselves are prepared to embark upon a fund raising campaign to help meet the needs of Chinese students who are in Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Government's actions for those who are in this country, but as we have done in the past for man made and natural disasters, we have been very generous with various special programs, and I urge the Minister to apply this equally to the Chinese situation.


INSTRUCTIONS TO EMBASSY IN BEIJING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the last few days the Chinese Government has pursued those who were involved in the peaceful demonstrations with vengeance and intimidation, thereby forcing those people underground and even in some cases those seeking refuge in the American Embassy.
Is the Minister prepared to instruct our Embassy in Beijing to consider and accept refugee claims from Chinese citizens who can clearly demonstrate that they
are being persecuted by their own Chinese Government for simply participating in what were peaceful and democratic demonstrations?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is a question that has broad implications as the Member would know. He and the House would understand that my colleagues and I would want to consider it carefully. We will do that and we will consider it seriously.


UNITED NATIONS DEBATE ON CHINA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I think all of us here are conscious of the fact that the mandate of the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, is limited with respect to the internal affairs of other countries. However, the Minister himself said in the debate in the House that what goes on in China cannot for very long be considered an internal matter given the sheer magnitude of the country.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider calling for the debate at the Security Council? He has mentioned the veto power. Why not make that call, make it strongly, and if China decides to veto that particular suggestion, then let China do so? Let that be on the heads of the Chinese Government and not on the Canadian Government or other members of the Security Council.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, an option and we will consider that. I know the Hon. Member shares my view that it is important that the United Nations be effective in actions that it takes.
What we are trying to do now is examine every possible instrument available to us through the United Nations, whether it is ECOSOC, the human rights committee, or some other agency that might allow us to do more than make a statement. The statement has been made by this Parliament and by others.
The statement made by this Parliament has indeed, as the Member knows, been conveyed by the Prime Minister to the Secretary General of the United Nations. I would welcome suggestions as to practical ways in which we can make the United Nations effective in influencing the attitudes of the Chinese Government from this point
June 12. 1989

forward. I give the Member my undertaking that we will consider seriously all suggestions of that kind.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the Minister to say more about what he envisions these other agencies of the UN doing. Obviously there is a large degree of concern among Canadians in general but particularly within the Chinese Canadian community.
If there will not be a call for a debate at the Security Council regardless of whether or not that call would be vetoed, just what does the Government have in mind? I think the Minister owes us a brief elaboration of what he sees these other agencies, that the consultations are going on about, doing with respect to China.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, obviously part of what we hope to do through the United Nations is create some standards of performance which will have some influence upon the activities of the Government of China. We have to work with the United Nations institution as it is, and we have to take a look at other instruments that might be available to us.
One of the reasons I am calling our ambassador home for consultations is that I think it would be very important for him, for Members of this House, and for other Canadians who are interested in and knowledgeable about China to turn our minds to actions that we can take now, either as Canada or as a member of the United Nations, in trying to effect the course of events from this point forward in China.
I think it will be valuable to have that kind of discussion with the standing committee. I would not intend to limit it there. I am examining the idea of trying to bring together a group of people who have reason to be called experts on China to consider, during the time that the ambassador is home, actions that Canada might take that would have effect.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Regional Development Agreement between Canada and Quebec was signed a year ago. Despite great speeches by the Quebec Minister responsible for regional economic development and his PR operation at socio-economic conferences, where he has thrown money at regional projects under this agreement, could the Minister tell us what the present status of this Canada-Quebec agreement is?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the $820-million agreement for regional economic development in Quebec is now more than a year old. Unlike previous subagreements signed with Quebec, the federal Government has the ability to deliver programs alone. There are also Quebec programs and joint programs. I wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that all federal programs are operational or in the process of becoming so. Unfortunately, the Quebec and joint programs are still not in effect. After a year of waiting, we hope that Quebec will set up its programs as soon as possible so that they too can concretely support Quebec's regional development.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of State for Privatization. In his absence, perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Prime Minister or to my bosom pal, the Minister for International Trade.
The chairman of Air Canada has said that 25 per cent of Air Canada's shares will be set aside specifically for foreign investors. I believe the Minister will agree that

June 12. 1989
Oral Questions
this represents a major departure from the original sale agreement which precluded foreign buying until Canadian demand for the shares had been exhausted.
Why did the Government ratify or agree to this change? Does this mean that Canadians will be prevented from buying more than 75 per cent of the shares of Air Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the National Transportation Act provides that no more than 25 per cent of the shares of any transportation company, including Air Canada, can be owned by non-residents. The company has in place a system to control that.
During the course of time since the original offering of Air Canada shares, there has been some acquisition by non-residents of shares of Air Canada. In this particular transaction, the sale of shares that is coming up shortly, we felt it was appropriate to continue to offer shares of Air Canada, always subject to the over-all provision of the 25 per cent limitation.


Roger Simmons: I thank the Minister for his answer.


MONITORING OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be aware that the 25 per cent limit on foreign ownership of Air Canada shares is fast approaching. I would like the Minister to indicate how the Government foresees that Air Canada will monitor the foreign ownership of shares, keeping in mind that shares being traded over the counter can be broken down into smaller batches to avoid detection and thereby slip past the 25 per cent statutory limit. Or, was the Government's real agenda from the outset, to sneak it past the Canadian public while loudly protesting to the contrary like the Minister did in his original answer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the law is the law, and 25 per cent is the maximum of any transportation company that can be owned by non-residents. That law will be administered by Air Canada in the control of any share transfers that take place in the share register. Air Canada advises us that it has the systems in place to do so, and it will abide by that law.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I pose a question to the Minister for International Trade. By way of compliment, I would say that I noticed his signing of the communique with other OECD members in Paris, condemning the use of bilateral trade agreements as a threat to the international trade system. I compliment him on his conversion on the way to Paris last week.
In the same constructive vein, I wish to raise a question about the west coast fishery. My colleagues and I met this morning with representatives of the 5,000 workers in the fish processing industry. They made very clear that the landing regulations introduced by the Minister and his colleague last April would do nothing to protect against the export of raw fish to the United States and the export of Canadian jobs thereby.
Notwithstanding the position taken by the United States, will the Minister undertake to introduce tougher, stronger, more effective regulations to protect the jobs of processed fish workers on the West Coast and to protect that very valuable industry for Canada?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be back to answer the questions of the Hon. Member from Winnipeg Soft Centre.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: He surely must realize that regulations that were in place up to last April were found by a GATT panel to be inconsistent with the GAIT and inconsistent with world trading rules to which Canada has now subscribed since the GAIT was originally initiated, with the full support of the hon. gentleman's Party and with the full support of the New Democratic Party.
The plain facts are that we cannot have regulations that simply prohibit the export of raw fish lor the purpose of protecting jobs because that is contrary to the world trading system. However, we can have regulations
June 12, 1989

and have enacted regulations that will give us proper management control over the British Columbia salmon fishery and will enable the Government to administer and manage the B.C. salmon fishery properly through these new conservation and management controls. They are in place, and we think they will do the job and are consistent with the GATT.


PROTECTION OF JOBS AND ENVIRONMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the people in the industry, the companies and the workers, say very clearly that the regulations will not do the job, that we will lose employment, and furthermore that we will substantially lose our ability to provide for conservation and management of the valuable fish resource on the West Coast. Surely in light of the serious problems we face on the East Coast, we should do something to keep the same thing from occurring on the West Coast.
The Minister has the responsibility to provide for protection for those workers in that industry. Will the Minister bring in effective, meaningful regulations to protect jobs and to protect the environment of the west coast fishery?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of the GATT. We are not proposing to leave the GATT. We propose to observe the fair trading rules that the international organization known as the GATT binds all its members to. We are now engaged in an intricate trading negotiation known as the Uruguay Round with the full support of Parties opposite, and so we must comply with the GATT.
We think the regulations we now have in place are consistent with the GATT and will enable the B.C. salmon fishery to be properly managed and controlled. That, as it is, has been challenged by the United States. We are now going before a panel under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which will look at these regulations to see whether or not the panel finds them consistent with the GATT. We think they are, and we hope we will have the support of all Members of the House in our arguments before that panel.
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


UNITED STATES CLEAN AIR LEGISLATION
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Today the President of the United States introduced so-called clean air legislation which will cut acid rain emissions by less than 50 per cent by the year 2000. This U.S. legislation ensures that our forests, our lakes, and our rivers will continue to die over the next ten years.
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs accept this half-hearted attempt at acid rain reduction?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my only conclusion is that the Hon. Member cannot take yes for an answer. We have been working for years to get progress from the United States on the acid rain question. We in Canada have taken active leadership to clean our own hands so that we could go with authority to the United States. That has been done by the Prime Minister, by Ministers of the Environment, and by others.
We have had today an announcement by the President of the United States that gives an historic step forward for Canada and an historic protection for our air, lakes, and citizens.
We in the Government are very pleased at this proof that hard work over time by the Government of Canada can pay off to preserve the environment of Canada.


IMPACT ON QUEBEC AND ONTARIO SITES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, some sensitive sites in Quebec and Ontario are presently receiving 40 kilograms per hectare of acid pollutants, while they are only capable of handling 12 kilograms per hectare of acid pollutants. This legislation will dump 20 kilograms per hectare, and is this the Government's response. What is the Government going to do about those sites?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the situation is that before today there was no agreed stated policy by the Government of

June 12, 1989
Oral Questions
the United States to deal with the acid rain that it produces.
Today, as a result of active leadership by the Prime Minister of Canada and several representations by this Government over a number of years, the United States has changed its policy to meet Canadian goals. That should be celebrated in this country by people who are serious about the environment.
# * ^


HEALTH CARE
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, given that Canada is facing an ever-increasing ageing population; given that a well educated workforce is essential for competitiveness in the industrial world; and given that transfer payments to the provinces is a social contract and essential for health care delivery, post-secondary education, and research, how can the Government reconcile its commitments to care for the health and social well-being of all Canadians, including seniors, and to develop a strong, well educated workforce in Canada, with its decision to cut the transfer payments to the provinces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has it wrong. We are not cutting. We are increasing substantially our payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care.
The Leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, Sharon Carstairs, has stated that the reason the Manitoba Government is in a strong financial position today, is because of the size of those transfer payments to the provinces.
Over the next five years we will be transferring to the provinces, in aggregate, some $25 billion more than was transferred over the course of the last five years.
That is a clear demonstration of our commitment to support post-secondary education and health care, but to do it within the over-all constraints of getting our deficit down and dealing with the national debt, which I remind the Hon. Member is a strong concern of his Leader who keeps talking about the size of the government debt. Surely he should support his Leader and our efforts to get the deficit under control.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Government admits that it has reduced the rate of growth of transfer payments to the provinces. By 1994-95 it will amount to an approximate $23 billionm revenue shortfall. This is still a decrease to the provinces.
Is the Government prepared to continue its pachyder-mous insensitivity to the health care, educational, and social needs of Canadians from all regions of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member now agrees that we are not cutting and in fact we are increasing our transfer payments to the provinces.
We have committed to transfer at a growth rate that is no less than the rate of inflation. The areas of health care and post-secondary education are clearly priority areas for the Government of Canada. That is why the growth rate in those areas of spending by the Government will be one of the highest of any area of government.
* *


VIA RAIL
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On December 5, 1986, the Prime Minister stood in his place and stated that as long as his Government was in office there would be no second-class citizens in Canada.
Something has changed. This Government, through its manipulation, is now arranging the shutdown of VIA Rail operations in large sections of the country.
Will the Minister of Transport now pledge that the run from Sydney to Halifax will not be cancelled, thereby assuring that the people of eastern Nova Scotia will not become second-class citizens?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that I made no commitment last week-and I certainly will not do so this week! Especially since the lines-my colleague knows very well that VIA Rail decides which rail lines. The recommendations to be made to the Minister of Transport concerning the future of each rail line-whether to keep it or
June 12. 1989

not-will depend on the corporation and will be made to us by VIA Rail.
So, once again, it is quite obvious that this has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizens, but, Mr. Speaker, with VIA Rail's abilities to manage the routes it will keep.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail will make the decision this Government wants it to make, because it is holding the financial gun to the head of VIA Rail by reducing its budget in the amount of $400 million.
Concerning VIA Rail, the Deputy Prime Minister stated: "Use it or lose it". The ridership on the run from Sydney to Halifax has increased by 20 per cent in the last year.
Will the Government honour the pledge of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister and say now that that run from Sydney to Halifax will be continued?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I will pledge here today is that I will face, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, the reality of the financial situation of this country. That is the reason that the Minister of Finance, whom I fully support, has decided to cut $500 million from this corporation.
I repeat what I stated previously that this corporation is not used by more than 3 per cent of the population, even in Atlantic Canada. We face a problem of ridership. The Opposition is talking about a 30 per cent increase. For $26 million more revenue, there were $94 million more in expenditures. We cannot manage a corporation in this manner.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and it concerns the Young Offenders Act.
Last Friday, the Minister met with his counterparts in Prince Edward Island. I understand the Young Offenders Act was on the agenda. He will know that I con-
Oral Questions
ducted a survey in my riding and 6,000 people replied. Some 99 per cent want changes to the Act.
I would like to ask the Minister what was discussed. What are the proposed changes? More important, what changes does the Minister think he will make and when will he make them?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, federal and provincial officials have been working on amendments to the Young Offenders Act since February.
The Ministers of Justice reached unanimous agreement on certain amendments on Thursday last week. Those amendments relate to transfers from youth court to adult court and specifically to the appropriate sentence for murder.
We are going to begin consultations with the Bar, with provincial Ministers responsible for youth, and with other interested parties.
We think that we should be able to complete those consultations by early fall and have the legislation before the House next fall.


FINANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he would confirm, as reported last month, that a meeting took place in March this year between officials of this Government and Rothchild's investment dealers to discuss the privatization of Petro-Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say one way or the other. I am not aware of the meeting. If the Hon. Member had given me the opportunity to check before Question Period, I would have been able to give him an answer.


COMMITMENT SOUGHT FROM MINISTER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this report was precisely set out. It was a report which was carried across the country. I have to ask the Government, since we have already lost tremendous control of our energy policy through the Free Trade Agreement and since we see the chance of further loss of energy policy control through this sale of Petro-Canada, can we get from the Government a clear commit-

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
ment that there will not be privatization in any part of Petro-Canada which belongs to the people of this country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have not lost control of our energy. In fact, the Hon. Member should have his attention drawn to the recent decision made by the National Energy Board that did not give the full licensing for export which was requested. It was done on the basis of the National Energy Board's examination of natural gas reserves. So the dire predictions he has made, when the Government moved to a market oriented energy approach, simply is not being borne out. The regulatory agency is there and everyone abides by that, including the companies, and that is the manner in which it should go.
If the Hon. Member feels that energy should not be used as an economic generator for exports to other countries, primarily the United States, for natural gas, oil, uranium or coal, then of course the Hon. Member does not understand a lot about economics and especially does not understand the need to raise money in order that the social programs, at least that this side wants to expand, can be met. That is the undergirding of the national program we have for energy and not the interventionist program which did not work and which the Hon. Member has always advocated.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In his absence, I will put it to the Minister of Finance. It is about tax deductions for expenses associated with the free trade debate.
The Minister knows that fears have been expressed that the tax system is being used to punish the opponents of free trade and to reward its supporters. The Minister of National Revenue has said nothing to allay these fears. I would invite the Minister of Finance to satisfy Canadians that both opponents and supporters of free trade are being treated equally.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, to make the suggestion that we are punishing someone or other through the Income Tax Act is absolute nonsense. The Minister of National Revenue made that very clear the other day. He said there are
provisions in the Act which provide for the treatment of expenditures and whether someone is for or against free trade has nothing to do with how the application of that particular section of the Act is applied. That will continue. The suggestion that the Hon. Member has made is just ludicrous.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table copies of a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and several related Acts, and I ask that pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(2) that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said Ways and Means motion.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to formally designate tomorrow as an allotted day for the consideration of an opposition motion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker:: Before giving the ruling on Bill C-2, I want Hon. Members to know I have received a request from an experienced Hon. Member in this House to argue some aspect of this procedural ruling. I want to say to the Hon. Member that under the circumstances I do not think it is appropriate, at least at this time. The Hon. Member will know that some of the amendments proposed have been accepted on his behalf. The others that were not had been rejected at committee. I do want to try to stay with the practice which Hon. Members have supported, which is to work these things out in advance
June 12, 1989

and not necessitate procedural arguments on these matters. I hope the Elon. Member will co-operate.
The ruling is on Bill C-2.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that under the rules and in accordance with the indulgence of the Chair that before the Chair makes a ruling, Hon. Members are entitled to comment about the procedural admissibility or non-admissibility of any given Bill or amendment before the Chair rules. That is all I was asking for, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is, of course, strictly correct. We have been moving toward the adoption of that approach in the interest of proceeding with business more expeditiously. However, I will hear the Hon. Member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be brief but I want to submit, Sir, that I would fully accept the procedure you initially outlined if there were some consultation between the clerks at the table and law officers of the House and Your Honour with Members involved from all Parties. That would then maybe suffice, rather than doing anything from the floor of the chamber.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am aware of how you plan to rule on Motion No. 1 and I would draw something to the attention of the Chair in the hope of persuading the Chair to reconsider. I ask the Chair to examine the title of the Bill, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.
My motion No. 1 deals with extra-provincial bus undertakings and extra-provincial truck transport. That means interprovincial and international bus and trucking endeavours. Mr. Speaker, if those endeavours are not part of Canadian transportation, I am a monkey's uncle. It fits within what the title of the Bill says the Bill is all about, namely, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety. Further, Mr. Speaker, constitutionally interprovincial and international trucking and bus undertakings come under federal jurisdiction. The only thing that has gone on since 1867 is that the federal Government has allowed the provinces to administer the federal jurisdiction over interprovincial and internation-
Accident Investigation
al trucking. Because it is Canadian transportation, interprovincial and international, it therefore is not irrelevant to the Bill and does not go beyond the legislation.
Similarly, Sir, with Motion No. 2. A highway occurrence. For example, we were informed in the committee that if a semi-trailer transport loaded with dangerous goods collides with a trans-continental freight train, there was indecision and uncertainty as to who was going to investigate. Would it be one or two provinces, the federal authority, or all of them? This simply means that a highway occurrence in a federal jurisdiction, whether it is interprovincial, international, within a national park, along the St. Lawrence Seaway or on a federal airport, will be investigated by the Federal Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.
I have made these points many times before with various Speakers. A precedent does not become one of the ten commandments, because sooner or later precedents are broken. It seems to me that within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada, amendments such as this to any piece of legislation dealing with matters that are constitutionally and properly within the jurisdiction of the federal authority must be at least permitted to be decided upon by a decision of the House of Commons. I respectfully request that there must be some room for the Chair to reconsider. I am asking for that as sincerely as I possibly can.


Mr. Speaker:: First, as I mentioned earlier, the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) is a very experienced Member of the House and on this subject is clearly an expert among us. I have heard him, as is his right to be heard, but I had given this matter very careful consideration. The Hon. Member will know that three of his motions have been allowed but Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are, at least in the opinion of the Chair, not in order. I do not think I have the discretion to go beyond that.
In any event I have heard the Hon. Member. No doubt he will be able to work some of his views into argument on the three motions that have been allowed in his name, and perhaps in others.

June 12. 1989
Accident Investigation
I want to render the ruling on Bill C-2, and I remind Hon. Members that there are 11 motions on the Order Paper and Notice Paper offered in amendment to Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. I am referring to the Bill by its new title.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden causes the Chair misgivings because the amendment is attempting to add definitions of "extra-provincial bus transport", "extra-provincial undertaking", "extra-provincial truck transport" and "extra-provincial truck undertaking ", thus trying to bring into the Bill new concepts.

These are concepts that were not envisaged in the Bill when it received second reading. It is my view that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill as read a second time by the House. Paragraph (1) of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition stipulates:
(1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrevelant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.

Thus, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill as read a second time by the House. Further, the amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause of the Bill. I would refer the Hon. Member to paragraph 10 of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 233:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a Bill.
In addition, this motion was moved in the Standing Committee and ruled out of order there.

Consequently, the motion is out of order and will not be selected.

Motion No. 2, also standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden also causes concern to the Chair for much the same reasons as mentioned in relation to Motion No. 1. The amendment seeks to bring into the Bill the concept of "highway occurrence" and this is clearly beyond the scope of the Bill. This motion
was also moved in the Standing Committee and was also ruled out of order there.

It is with regret, therefore, that I must inform the Hon. Member that I must rule the motion numbered 2
out of order.

Motions Nos. 3 and 4, standing respectively in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) and the Hon. Member for Regina- Lumsden seek to increase the number of board members and this clearly infringes the Royal recommendation. The chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport ruled both these amendments out of order for that reason when they were moved in the committee and I must tell Hon. Members that the Chair is of the same opinion. Therefore, I must rule Motions Nos. 3 and 4 out of order.
[ Translation ]
Motion numbered 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) is similar to a motion that was debated in Committee. However, the Chair is of the opinion that this motion is sufficiently different that I will allow it to be put to the House.
Motion numbered 5 will therefore be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 6 and 7, standing respectively in the names of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: a, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 7; b, a negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 7.

Motion numbered 8 in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) caused the Chair to reflect since a similar motion was moved and negatived in the Standing Committee. However, the Chair is of the opinion that this motion is different enough to allow it to be put to the House.
June 12, 1989



Motion No. 8 will therefore be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 9 and 11 in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) and Motion No. 10 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden are in order and will be debated and voted on separately.
To recap. Motion Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are out of order and will not be selected for debate.
[ Translation \
Motions numbered 6 and 7 will be debated together but voted on as I outlined earlier.

Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be debated and voted on separately.
The House will now deal with Motion No. 5.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 10 to 13 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"as full-time members persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, after consultation with members of the transportation industry, are knowledgeable about one or more of the following modes of transport
(a)	air transportation
(b)	marine transportation
(c)	rail and commodity pipeline transportation."
He said: Madam Speaker, my experience in transportation both before and after becoming a Member of this House has caused me, along with others, to raise a lot of concern about the ability of members of various boards and commissions to take on that responsibility. We believe there should be at least some provision to ensure that there are board members who have at least some if not complete expertise in each field of transportation accident investigation and safety covered by this legislation.
This will ensure that when a director of investigation makes his or her report to the board there will be at least one person there who is knowledgeable in that field. I am not submitting that we could not get individuals from other sectors of our community, such as the business community, the trade union movement, universities or even from consumers' associations or some individual
Accident Investigation
citizen who has taken many years of interest in transportation matters. Of course we can get someone like that. But this amendment tries to ensure that at least some of them will have some expertise.
We also want the appointment of the Governor in Council to be made after consultation with various organizations, transportation companies and transportation unions. I think of the Centre for Guided Ground Transportation at Queen's University, Transport 2000 and of the Canadian Association of Consumers. After consulting with that wide range I would hope that they would appoint members-and I am not submitting that it should be all of them, but at least some members who come out in one form or another from the transportation industry-who are knowledgeable, not even experts but knowledgeable about one or more of modes of transportation, air transportation, marine, rail and pipeline.
I have seen too many times-in fact we just had one recently when we got the Budget and the cuts to VIA Rail. Was it the Department of Transport and transportation experts who made the submissions on what should be in the Budget about VIA Rail? No, Madam Speaker. It was the gnomes in the nether regions of the Department of Finance, who would not know one end of a locomotive from the other.
There was no knowledgeability or expertise on transportation, and particularly on rail passenger transportation, that went into the decision-making about what would be in the Budget on VIA Rail. Even more ridiculous, as I remember a famous appointment of a person to the board of directors of Air Canada, an alderperson in a city in Canada. When asked what expertise, knowledgeability the person could bring to the board of directors of Air Canada, the person said: "Well, I have flown several times." That ain't good enough. That is just not good enough. If the person had been knowledgeable about air transportation and the operation of airlines from the perspective of The Consumers Association of Canada, fine. But to pick out a citizen for other reasons than knowledgeability of Air Canada's operations, mostly political reasons if not entirely, is surely no way to subject a board or a commission with that kind of personnel on its board.
We have had the same thing happen with Canadian National. That has been one of the problems, particularly with rail transportation in Canada, CN, CP and VIA. The decision-making has been done mainly by corporation lawyers and chartered accountants and very few practising, practical railroaders, whether it was on a

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
board of directors, whether it was in the Department of Transport, Department of Finance or anywhere else.
That is what this amendment seeks to do. It could be an appointment of a good Conservative, a good Liberal or a good NDPer, but provided he had some knowledge and at least a minimal amount of expertise in one or more of these modes of transportation.
I have had some bitter experiences in hearings before the CTC with commissioners questioning us or trying to cross-examine us who knew absolutely nothing about what we were talking about. They were relying on their own legal and accounting staff. That is most frustrating. They did not really know. They had never been there on the ground themselves. In fact, as the farmer said: "They never had any manure on their boots." They had never been there.
When you go in front of a board or a commission with the knowledge that those are the kind of people who are going to hear you out, and know not what you are talking about, it is pretty frustrating. I submit it is very unfair, both to the board as a whole and certainly to the people of Canada. We dealt with this at some length and heard from numerous witnesses in the Transport Committee when we held hearings and when we dealt with the Bill clause by clause. Many witnesses wanted this to be the case. Some did not. Some did not think it was necessary.
I recall most of the witnesses who appeared from all sectors in transportation thought that that should be in the criteria for the appointing of members to the board. I hope that my colleagues will agree. My amendment does not go to the length where it has to be someone who is a real expert with credentials as long as your arm. When we say knowledgeable, that is a word used by the Government in an earlier section of the Bill. It is somebody who has some reasonable, however modest, knowledge about one or more of the modes of transportation that this board will deal with. Surely that is not unreasonable. I do not want to see a board with four out of five, as they say in the railroad, who could not find their backsides in the dark if they used both hands, when it comes to transportation.
I am trying to safeguard that because of the previous experiences I have had, as have many others who have complained to me and to the Government. Certainly the media has, when they looked at the qualifications of appointments made by the government of the day. This is a small and modest attempt to correct previous practice.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Member for Regina- Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin). There is no question that the amendment put forward by my colleague is an important amendment. In fact, I would submit it is fundamental to the Bill. Members of the House should be aware that what this accident investigation and safety board will do is replace all other accident investigation boards currently at work for the Government of Canada and on behalf of the people of Canada.
For the moment, we have accident investigators operating independently in the air mode, in the marine mode and in the railroad. Of course, the pipeline mode is handled by the National Energy Board. What we are proposing is to consolidate all of those accident investigators in one body and one authority. Whereas for the moment we have perhaps two or three dozen boards made up of two or three dozen board members, what this new Bill will do is just give us five board members for all modes. Hence, the title multi-modal agency. In that instance it becomes not only important but critical that the board members who are appointed not only enjoy the confidence of the Government in the normal way but also have a level of expertise in at least one of the modes covered by a multimodal agency.
We will be proposing a little later this afternoon an amendment to Clause 12. In that amendment dealing with quorums we are asking that a quorum shall be not only three to five members but that at least one of the three must have some expertise in the area of transportation occurrence that is being discussed. It goes without saying that unless there is a guarantee of expertise to begin with-hence the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin)-it is pretty difficult for the latter amendment that we have put to have any meaning.
June 12, 1989

On this side of the House we certainly embrace the notion that the Government, that is, the Cabinet, ought to be directed in this legislation to ensure by legislative requirement that the people who are given these jobs for a period of seven years be not just people who enjoy the confidence of Cabinet but who, after consultation with the transportation industry, are appointed on the basis of recognized and demonstrated expertise. The period of seven years came about as a result of an amendment made in committee.
One would hope-in fact, one would expect-that whether or not this amendment is in the Bill, this Government or any other Government would make appointments of individuals who have that kind of expertise. However, if it is the expectation of all Members that board members will have expertise and will not merely be friends of the Government of the day of whatever stripe, then let us put it in the Bill. Let us ensure that the people who answer ultimately to Parliament and on behalf of all Canadians for the operation of the multimodal accident investigation board are people who are there as a consequence of their expertise and for no other reason.
I submit that given the history of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, given the general level of lack of confidence by the public in that board because of the controversy and split in the board over Gander, it is more important now than ever before that we not only assure Canadians of a qualified board but that we demonstrate it by insisting upon those qualifications in the Bill.
For that reason I support the amendment which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I want to stand in support of the proposal of my colleague who proposes that board members shall be collectively knowledgeable in the modes of transport covered by this Bill.
I wonder why the Government would not have accepted what is obviously a very reasonable amendment. Why would the Government not accept an amendment that seems so obviously reasonable? That is to say five people to investigate accidents, be they marine, air, rail or pipeline. One would think that it is only logical that
Accident Investigation
the five people appointed by the Government ought to be expert in their field.
That leads one to think what is at the back of the mind of the Government. History will bear me out on this. It wants the ability to appoint a bunch of hacks and flacks to these commissions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Like the Liberals did for years.


John R. Rodriguez: We will get to what the Liberals did in a minute.
I want to say that we were impressed by the appointment to the Air Canada Board of Directors of a person who said her only qualification was that she had a driver's licence. We were all shocked by that. We saw how the Government rewarded all the Tories who did not run in previous elections, or all those who were defeated, finding them little niches on the Parole Board, or on some board or commission paid for by the taxpayers.
We remember Erik Nielsen getting his nice cushy appointment after taking flack in this House over the Sinclair Stevens fiasco.
The Government wants to continue the pork-barrelling politics which it learned from its predecessors in the Liberal Party who were in the Government before.


Harvie Andre: Are you talking about Ian Deans?


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member mentions one person.


Harvie Andre: How about Stephen Lewis?


John R. Rodriguez: Does one appointment allow you then to make 5,000 appointments of Tory hacks and flacks?
This is clearly a reasonable amendment. Canadians would wonder why the Government would not accept an amendment like this which comes from someone so well versed in transport matters. God knows that we cannot depend on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to give us guidance in this whole question of matters pertaining to transportation. Thus I urge all Members in the House to support this motion because it is eminently wise and well thought out.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of the amendment and say how shocking it is that the Government is unwilling to accept an amendment which should be so obvious. It would be unnecessary to move such an amendment if it were not for the fact that the Government has a record of appointing people who do not know anything about anything to preside over something that one ought to have a great deal of knowledge about

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
before one is appointed. This is the raison d'etre for the amendment. It is also because the new board arose out of a board that was concerned primarily with aviation accidents. We should make special provision in the legislation that people knowledgeable about rail, for instance, be on this board so that we do not have a bunch of people whose expertise is looking at airplane crashes trying to figure out derailments. I know enough about railroading to know that there are things that only people who work on the railways know about.
What the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) is about in moving this amendment is ensuring that there are people who know one end of a boxcar from another, and who know the difference between a knuckle and a draft gear, and about what is a hand brake and all the other things that need to be considered when one is trying to figure out what may have happened in an accident on the railway.
Finally, the fact of the matter is that this Government has a record not only in its appointments but in itself of having people who do not know the first damn thing about railways or passenger rail making decisions about the future of this industry. The current Transport Minister is the best example I can think of.
He got up today and talked about people not using the trains. If this guy knew anything about trains, he would know that if he wanted to use a VIA train tomorrow, or if he wanted to use the Supercontinental at any time this summer he would have a very difficult time just booking a coach seat, never mind a sleeper. The trains are packed to the gills with people.
For him to stand up in the House to say that there is only a 3 per cent ridership and that people are not using the trains is a travesty of the truth. It is all the more reason why we should have absolutely no confidence in anything that the Government does with respect to transportation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.

We now go to motions 6 and 7.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 38 to 43 at page 6 and lines 1 to 11 on page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) The Governor-in-Council shall appoint one chairperson who shall have demonstrated an understanding of the role of an investigatory body, have knowledge of law and due process and not be an expert in any individual mode covered by this Act.
(2) The Governor-in-Council shall, in consultation with the Board, designate one member to be the Vice-Chairperson of the Board.
( 3) The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Board and subject to paragraph (a) hereof, shall have the responsibility for the administration of the Board and such powers and duties as are delegated to him by the Board:
(a) In exercising the powers conferred on him by subsection 5(1), by the Public Service Employment Administration Act, the Chairperson is subject to and shall act in accordance with the general policies, resolutions, rules and regulations of the Board.
(b) In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson has and may exercise and perform all the powers of the Chairperson."
June 12. 1989


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) moved:: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out line 43 at page 6 and lines 1 to 3 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"sponsibility for"
(b)	by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 7.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance and direction. I note the ruling of the Speaker that both of these motions shall be debated together but voted on separately. Of course both are a variation of the same theme but, nevertheless, two separate and important amendments. I just seek the guidance of the Chair as to whether or not Members are restricted to a total of 10 minutes on both motions or 10 minutes per motion however debated together. Would The Chair please so advise?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: No. There is a 10 minute total period allowed to each Member. As has been said before, an affirmative vote on motion No. 6 obviates the question being put on motion No. 7.
The Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I thought my hon. friend from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) made an excellent point. They are two separate motions being debated together and I was hoping that 10 minutes would be proper on each one. However I respect your decision.
May I say this about Motion No. 6. The main thing this motion is trying to secure is that the chairman of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board will not have powers delegated to him by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Transport which make that chairperson of the Board a czar, one who can do almost anything he or she wants to do in exercising that supreme authority bestowedby the Governor in Council and the Minister of Transport by regulation.
Surely the fundamental principle of a board is its collectivity, that a decision is by the board and not by somebody outside the board. It is sufficient that the Minister has the prerogative to choose and appoint a chairman. Except for what is in this Bill, surely all other authorities and rules have to be decided by the board as a whole. The chairperson of the board will be governed by those rules, will work within that framework and not be a
Accident Investigation
czar with the rest of the board members merely rubber stamps. There must be a collectivity of the entire board in the devising of the rules of the operations, the rules of investigation, rules regarding the allocation of duties and what not. Without that you end up with one or more rubber stamps on the board.
In relying on some of my own experience years ago appearing before the Canadian Transport Commission, the chairman of the Commission had supreme authority over all members of the Board. I can recall one occasion when we were dealing with transcontinental passenger trains as they were then operated or not operated by CN and CP. A group of three witnesses appeared before the Commission in Regina. The chairman kept interrupting the witnesses, commenting and editorializing on what was in their submission.


An Hon. Member:: Was that -


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, that was Jack Pickersgill. Finally, after continued interruption, the witness who was then speaking said to the chairman said:"What is in this brief is our opinion based on some knowledge, investigation and research. Whether you like or dislike our opinion is beside the point." The chairman of the CTC then said: "Don't you realize I can hold you in contempt?" The witness replied: "Mr. Chairman, I wish you would because that is it exactly."
When you have a person chairing a board of that stature, he cannot be operating without the approval, authority and will of the entire board. Otherwise the Minister and the Government do not need a board, all they have to do is appoint a one-person board. Let him do the whole works. Give him a staff of 300 to 400 people and one person can decide if you follow the present reasoning in the legislation. We also say that the Minister and Governor in Council in consultation with the board will select a vice-chairperson. While we agree with the Bill, we state in our amendment that:
'The chairperson is the chief executive officer and subject to paragraph (a) hereof, shall have the responsibility for the administration of the board and such powers and duties as are delegated to him by the Board" -
If it would require an Order in Council to make those powers and duties legal, that would be fine, but they are to be designated by the board. Of course there will be consultation between the Minister and the Minister's officials and board members and board staff in arriving at those powers and duties. It should be a collective

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
decision of the entire board, a frame of reference under which the chairman must act.
It seems to me that what this amendment seeks to do is so obvious that there should be no difficulty having it accepted. The amendment of my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon is much shorter than mine, but I think it essentially means almost the same thing. Perhaps it does not mean quite as much, which is why I suspect the Chair ruled that the amendments be debated together but voted on separately. I believe my amendment is more all-encompassing than the amendment of my colleague, but his does go some distance toward accomplishing what many of us on the committee and what many of the witnesses were after.
In exercising the powers given to him by the board, the chairperson of the board still has to take into account other laws that affect the operations of the board, including the Public Service Employment Administration Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Board legislation, the Canada Labour Code and a whole host of other laws by which not only the chairperson but the members of the board will be governed. I hope the Government, having had some second thoughts, will agree that this is one amendment it can accept. It received some discussion in committee and it certainly held the attention of a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee. My colleagues, including the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) who led the way for us in the committee are of this opinion, as are many others in the transportation sector of Canada's economy, as well as experts from outside the transportation sector, including universities and the Consumers' Association. They all think that this is a good, sound way to set up the operations of a board of this magnitude with this volume of responsibility.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I rise to support my motion, motion No. 7, and I compliment my colleague from Regina on his remarks about motion No. 6. That motion is very similar in content and intent.
I suggest that fundamentally what my colleague from Regina is attempting to do and what I am attempting to do today through this motion is to make the wording of the Bill more simple than it is at the present. I agree with the Hon. Member that during the committee meetings,
at which we heard many witnesses, one of the fundamental concerns about this Bill was with regard to the dispute under the previous legislation, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act, as to what the duties of the chairman were or ought to have been and what the duties of the board members were or ought to have been. When we reviewed that legislation, we found that there was some fuzziness and that there was no clear intention given to either one or the other as to what its duties and functions were to be.
My colleagues and I, including the Conservative members of the committee whom I compliment for this, were all trying during our deliberations to come up with something that was workable for this clause of the Bill to allow the chairman to pursue his duties without confrontation with board members and for the board members to perform their duties without confrontation with the chairman, something which I am sure both sides wanted to do under the old legislation. That is what we are attempting to do by moving these motions in the committee.
For clarification and for the benefit of my friends across the Chamber, let me deal with motion No. 7, which is fairly simple. The motion provides that the chairperson is the chief executive officer of the board. Let us deal with the concept of a chief executive officer. How would that be interpreted in a court of law? We are trying, for the sake of clarity, to avoid the kind of confrontation that may occur in the courts if certain clauses of the Bill are taken for interpretation.
I think it is implicit to any of us in this room or to any court that a chief executive officer has extra duties over and above those of a general manager or a chairman of the board. The chief executive officer of any corporation, if we make this analogous to a corporation, has many added duties. Many committees report to the chief executive officer about ongoing activities of the board over which he is the chief executive officer.
We often talk about the president of an organization together with the chief executive officer, but they are separate titles. In this legislation, we are saying that the chairperson shall be the chief executive officer. I think it goes without saying that it is still left for the Minister responsible to make that appointment, and we are not debating that, although there was some discussion about it. If I am correct, the appointment of a member from the five-member board was to come from one who was
June 12, 1989

extremely knowledgeable in administrative matters as they affect public institutional boards.
By calling the chairperson the chief executive officer, the Bill already gives that person substantial powers. We are not trying to take these powers away from the board but from the chairman so that they are vested in the board. We are asking our friends to consider taking away from the Bill the reference to managing personnel matters, financial matters and property matters and all other aspects of the internal management of the board. It is our hope that these activities become the responsibility of the board which in turn, through powers given to it later on in the Bill, can delegate them to those responsible should the board decide that these administrative matters or personnel matters should be delegated. It has the power to delegate them and it can delegate those powers to the chief executive officer or to the general manager.
The fundamental point is that once those powers are delegated, rather than coming back to the chairperson, those matters have to be reported back to the board in its entirety, the chairperson be part of the board. It is a board responsibility for the administration of those affairs and the administration of the Act.
With respect to my colleague from Regina-I know that this is the position of our members-by delineating those substantial powers, not removing them from the structure of the committee but removing them from the chairperson's responsibility and putting those functions into the board's responsibility, whoever is fulfilling those functions must report back to the board, it would go a long way to correcting the problems that, in our opinion, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board had in the administration of its affairs, particularly when it came to the investigation of accidents.
That is the fundamental reason why we discussed at great length the differences in the delineation of powers between the chairperson and the members of the board. It is our position that the board should retain those powers. I hope that my friends and colleagues across the aisle will reconsider their position on that point, see the
Accident Investigation
wisdom of our deliberations and our investigation into this area and grant us this motion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 6 and 7 that we are debating today spring from the same general concern over the concentration of power in the chairperson of the board. The feeling of members of the Opposition is that the Government would be well advised to consider amendments which distribute this power in a way that would make the board more of a collective decision-making body in reality and in practice.
The concern with the amount of power vested in the chairperson by the legislation as we have it now without those amendments, is that there will be a tendency on the part of board members, staff, and everyone, as has been the case before with other boards, to defer to the judgment, to the desires, biases, prejudices, however one wants to describe it, of the chairperson. In the final analysis, this is destructive of the collegiality and the collective decision-making that we want the board to be capable of. The Liberal amendment and our amendment, both from two different angles, address that problem.
The Conservative Government has a history of talking about the decentralization of power and not wanting to vest any one bureaucrat with too much authority. Here it has an opportunity to live up to its own rhetoric. What is it doing? It is going down the same old Liberal bureaucratic road of vesting all the power in one appointee who no doubt will know very little about that which he is appointed to preside over. He might be somebody rescued from a parliamentary debacle, such as Mr. Nielsen was when he was appointed to the NTA, and there are numerous other examples. I realize that this is an ad hominem argument. However, given those types of people, and the type of authority that this legislation does give, it is an invitation to tyranny which should be repudiated by Parliament.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi), and by extension to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin).

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
These amendments provide an opportunity for the House to make a straightforward but fundamentally important decision. The decision is, I believe, the crux of the whole debate that we have had in the Standing Committee about this Bill. I submit that the cleanest of the two amendments is the one presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi). However, without one of those amendments, simply put, the new multi-modal accident investigation board will be run by a chairman. As the Bill is currently drafted, the chairman of the board will have all financial power, all powers of delegation, will have the power to hire and fire the chief investigators into major transportation accidents or occurrences, will have the power to set the agenda of the board, and will have the power to decide what board members will do what work. In essence, one individual will have all of the legislative authority required to literally completely run an agency with the responsibility for doing an overview or an investigation of four modes of transportation. That is a tremendous amount of power to put into the hands of one individual.
The other four board members of this multi-modal agency will only be able to function at the discretion of the chairman, and to the extent that the chairman shall allow them to function as independent agents exercising their best judgment and consciences in, first, conducting investigations, and second, reporting to the public on causes of major transportation accidents.
These amendments propose to acknowledge a board of five individuals. Hopefully, they will be individuals qualified for this type of work.
However, as the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon proposes, it leaves it to the board, to five, mature, intelligent, dedicated, and qualified men and women to establish for themselves ground rules as to how they will function, to establish for themselves collectively what type of accidents ought to be investigated and in what manner they should be investigated. It also leaves them to establish for themselves what kind of qualified staff should work on behalf of this board and should have the power collectively to hire and fire.
The question is a very fundamental one. Given the history of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the history of division, the current lack of public confidence
that arose out of dissent, do we respond to what was too much dissent that caused a loss of public credibility in the case of CASB and the Gander crash, and the tragic loss of life, by totally eliminating the possibility of dissent? By having a chairman with an iron fist? By ensuring that members, even if they disagree in the most fundamental way with the workings of the board or the conclusions of an accident investigator, are silenced by cutting off their hands or by sealing their lips? Does one respond to dissent by ensuring that there is never dissent again?
Not one single witness who came before our committee suggested, nor would any serious individual suggest, that dissent of and by itself is a bad thing. That is why there is more than one member of a board, because more than one point of view is wanted, and the possibility of a minority or a majority disagreeing with the conclusions or practices of a chairman. That is the very essence of democracy. That is what this Chamber is about. It is a vehicle for dissent in a democratic society.
It seems strange to me that Parliament would concoct, as important as it is, an agency called the multi-modal accident investigation agency and establish it in a way that would eliminate the fundamental of any reputable agency, that is, that there is the possibility of dissent.
That there is the possibility of more than one point of view being heard so that as we sail Canada's waters, as we fly, through jet aircraft or other means, Canada's skies, as we take the rails across this country, as we sit in our seats and travel, we can rest assured that there is a multi-modal agency that has within it a board that has the power of dissent, the ability for more than one opinion, and the most critical analysis possible to ensure safe transportation.
Failure to adopt the amendment by my friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi), or the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina- Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), leaves us with a possible situation. I am not saying it is certain, but it is certainly possible that one strong-willed chairman will run this board in such a way that it will be the brainchild, the baby, a vehicle for the thoughts and views of only one person and that four other people will act as mere window dressing. As I fly along, as I frequently do back and forth to Newfoundland, I do not find that a comfort-
June 12, 1989

ing thought. I do not believe that Canadians would find it a comforting thought.
If we are not afraid of more than a single point of view being heard on something as fundamental as safety in transportation, let us create a board that is truly a collective board with collective authority. Let us not establish a board with a chairman who reigns supreme, because we know from experience throughout history that that kind of configuration, whether it be for political purposes or in the workings of any kind of committee, leads not to a healthy, open and democratic institution but, rather, to an institution that too frequently ends up resembling the views of one individual. That is not in the interests of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?
The question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte)
moves:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 12 at page 11 the following:
"(3) At meetings of the Board convened for the purpose of discussing a specific transportation occurrence, at least one member of the Board shall be qualified in the mode of transportation which is the subject matter of the occurrence."
Accident Investigation
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset in proposing this amendment to colleagues opposite, who are no doubt sitting on the edges of their seat waiting to hear the rationale for this important motion, that I make a genuine appeal to Members to consider the value of this amendment. I should say for Members who are here in the House today but who were not part of the work of the standing committee, that I believe the work of the Standing Committee on Transport on this Bill reflected perhaps more than the work of any other committee in my memory and time here the spirit of reform as proposed by the McGrath-Ouellet-Blaikie committee.
Madam Speaker, I refer to Members' names only in the context of the reform report because what that committee proposed was that in so far as the deliberations of Members are concerned with respect to creating legislation in standing committees-not here in the House, not before television cameras, not in the context of a partisan exchange in an election, not even in the context of Question Period, but in the context of individual Members with an interest in a particular area, in this case transportation-that we really ought to be not Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives but individual Members exercising their best judgment. That is what the spirit of reform was all about.
In the standing committee, we saw many occasions where both Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative Members disagreed with the Party line. We saw motions proposed by the Opposition defeated, motions that we thought would have carried because they had government support, but because opposition Members did not agree. We saw government motions defeated or opposition Members carried with the support of government Members. It happened repeatedly. The exercise in the standing committee consequently was a very good exercise, not only for Members but for Canadians. They got a non-partisan effort.
I say that because I want Members who were not part of the standing committee to look at the amendments we are proposing in the same light. The amendment. Motion No. 8, proposes to change Clause 12, which essentially sets out the size of the quorum. It states three Members constitute a quorum. We want to add to that by saying that at meetings of the Board convened for the purpose of discussing a specific transportation occurrence-that means an accident-at least one member of the board shall be qualified in the mode of transporta-

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
tion which is the subject matter of the occurrence. In other words, if three members come together to discuss an aviation disaster-God forbid-three out of five, that one of those three must be somebody with aviation experience. It could not be more obvious than that.
If there were an accident on the pipeline side such as we saw in the horrific incident in Russia last week where hundreds, perhaps 1,000 lost their lives, that three of the five who get together to discuss a pipeline occurrence in Canada, one of those three must have expertise in the pipeline area. The same for rail and marine. All we are saying is that if you have a major occurrence in one of the modes, let us not have an aviation expert, a marine expert, or a rail expert discussing pipelines. Let us not have a rail expert and a marine expert, in a third mode, discussing an aviation occurrence. Let us at least require that one of the board members with knowledge and expertise other than the full-time bureaucracy must be qualified to discuss an event.
It seems such an obvious and rational approach to doing the business of the board that it should not require amendment. But I believe it does require an amendment. Everyone would tell us, if Members opposite would stand and speak, that they would not disagree with that. They expect that is the way the board is going to work anyway. It is such a logical thing that no one could disagree. If that is the case, let us put it in the Bill. Let us rest assured that when the board considers a tragic occurrence-and a tragic occurrence translates into loss of life, such as Gander, Dryden, Hibernia oil disaster, to name but three-the job of the board is twofold. It should investigate, tell us what went wrong, and make recommendations so that those kinds of occurrences may never happen again.
Surely, Members using free will and concerned only with making a better Bill, should not be concerned with whether the motion comes from a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Conservative, but concerned only with creating the best legislation possible. They could not disagree with what is such a humble but fundamental proposition necessary to ensure that this Bill is a good Bill, that Parliament has done its job and that the people of Canada are well served.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise to compliment the Hon. Member for the amendment he has moved. The Hon. Member's motion is in some ways a consequence of my Motion No. 5 on which the vote has been deferred, but can also stand on its own no matter what happens with that vote.
According to the Bill as it reads now, people can be appointed to the board because they belong to the frequent flyer plan. People can be appointed for being a frequent ferry user, a frequent shipper and receiver of freight, a frequent passenger on VIA Rail for however long it lasts. That is not good enough.
The motion would require that there be some qualification for one of the modes of transportation under which the investigation of an occurrence is taking place. Again, reflecting on our experience with previous boards and commissions, one cannot have a chartered accountant deciding what happened in a railway wreck no more than a locomotive engineer, trainman or dispatcher can decide on accounting law. This is so self-evident that I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would get up and state whether the Government is prepared to accept these amendments. Perhaps he can give us the rationale for supporting the Bill in its present form and the reasons for rejecting this or any of the other amendments so that people can decide, in light of our arguments and his arguments, which side may have a case.
All Members will agree that the committee had an excellent session dealing with the Bill clause by clause. We heard many witnesses and dealt with them expeditiously. It was a non-partisan exercise, and there were occasions when members of the committee, from both sides of the table, agreed or disagreed with elements of the original Bill. That is how committees should function under the new regime of so-called committee independence.
The Government has not provided sufficient argument in support of this aspect of the Bill. I recall talking to a member of the former Canadian Transportation Commission who was travelling to another part of Canada to investigate a railway accident. We were on the train from Winnipeg to Regina, when we pulled into a siding. He did not know that eastbound trains had priority over westbound trains, which is a fact known to railroaders
June 12, 1989

from management to the workers on the tracks. Ele did not know that first-class trains had priority over second-class trains.
He did not even know the meaning of the green board, orange board and red board on the train ordinal signals beside the tracks. He was unfamiliar with such terminology as clearance, "train order", or "meet or run late" and "run ahead of". Yet this person, who is knowledgeable about other things, was on the board investigating a railway accident. He knew nothing about railroads.
My hon. friend's amendment makes eminent good sense. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would explain why he believes this amendment is not rational. To reject this amendment seems to me to fly in the face of good sense. A board which consists of people who are knowledgeable about the mode of transportation to which there is an investigation would earn more respect from the public. If we ever needed an increase in credibility and stature of an accident investigation board, goodness knows that is long overdue in this country in light of some of the bitter experiences with previous boards and commissions, most recently the Aviation Safety Board. The fact that at least one of three board members investigating an accident is knowledgeable about the particular mode of transportation in question would lessen the likelihood of dissent.
It is true that a majority decision of the board is a decision of the board, and presumably the minority can append their minority opinion, but I believe this amendment would help reduce the number of occasions when there is dissent. The function of the board is to gather the reports on the investigation involved, of which there can be many, to issue interim reports and recommendations, and finally make a decision with recommendations about future policy and, as my hon. friend said, to try to ensure that the likelihood of the same thing happening again is substantially reduced, if not eliminated.
I hope the Government will agree to this amendment. It is worthy of the support of the House. It certainly reflects the view of the many witnesses we heard and I want to make this last effort to persuade the Government to accept the amendment of the Hon. Member.
Accident Investigation


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about this amendment, and about the whole question of safety which presumably this legislation has to deal with. The point has been made that people ought to be knowledgeable about the mode of transportation which they are investigating.
I am just going through my correspondence here and I notice a call that I received from the system's general chairman of the union of Rail Canada traffic controllers whose national office is in Winnipeg. They represent train dispatchers and operators. They are faced with the abolishment by CN of operators, some 20 to 30 so far in Manitoba, and perhaps 50 more by July 31. Their duties are being transferred to dispatchers in the dispatching office in Winnipeg. This is happening across the country. The union had tried to deal with CN in Winnipeg but had a very difficult time in doing so. They feel that safety is being compromised by this policy which CN is pursuing. The additional paperwork which the dispatchers have to do, due to the abolition of the operators' jobs, means that the signal systems cannot be monitored properly, and cannot be monitored in the way which they should be.
They feel that this is a safety concern. They have written to the Department of Transport about this. All they get are answers back saying that this has to do with the collective agreement, et cetera.
I raise this because this is precisely the kind of thing where if there should be an accident as a result of CN's policy of putting too heavy a workload on the dispatchers, it is something that we would want in an investigator. We would want someone who knew something about railroading and something about dispatching, et cetera, and someone who could look back, not only at the circumstances prevailing right around the event but into the policy decisions which have been taken by the company recently which may have contributed to the context in which the accident took place.
I hope in the time since I have heard from this particular union concerning CN's policy that they have made some progress with the company. Knowing what I know about CN lately, I am not going to put much money

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
on it. This is a good example of what is wrong with our transportation system right across the board.
Transportation companies are literally being quite mad in their frenzy to combine jobs and to cut positions.


An Hon. Member:: Deregulation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Also as a result of deregulation. In so doing it creates all kinds of safety hazards, safety hazards which may not yet have manifested themselves in real accidents. We should be grateful for that. However, they are nonetheless safety hazards which are being created as a result of deregulation and as a result of the irrational obsession of CN and other transportation companies with downsizing and the elimination of positions for the sake of elimination, without regard to the heavier workload which is being put on the employees who remain.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Thank you. Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the motion put forward by my colleague for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin). I am going to be fairly short, and emphasize a point. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary who attended all of the hearings will understand that the spirit which was prevalent throughout the committee was one of trying to structure and develop a Bill which was truly operative by the intent for which the Bill was designed.
The intent was: First, to investigate accidents in all modes of transportation in our country. Second, through the recommendation by one of the members which we supported, that for the safety aspects to come forward with safety recommendations the genesis did not necessarily have to come from an accident in order for this board to say to transportation agencies in our country: "Look at, we must prepare or do something because we have an unsafe condition here."
I think that was the spirit which prevailed and permeated the entire committee. I am hoping that that same spirit will prevail as these amendments are considered. The amendment made by my colleague is basic and fundamentally sound. It has its genesis in Clause 4 of this Bill. I want to read that, if I may. It shows the reason why this amendment should go through.
Clause 4 states, among other things, when it talks about the composition of the board:
(2) The Governor in Council shall appoint as members persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline transportation.
That now will pass and become part of this legislation. If we have any meaning for Clause 4, subclause (2), why then do we hesitate to add this amendment which says that the people who we appoint, who must have collective knowledge in certain areas of transportation occurrences in our country, should then not apply that collective wisdom at the board hearing which is investigating that occurrence. It just follows that if we believe in what Clause 4,subclause (2) states about the collective knowledge, and it was spoken to at great lengths at the committee hearing to define what collective knowledge meant, then it only strengthens the point that my colleague is making that one of those people who are appointed to the board must be knowledgeable in the area of the accident or occurrence which is under investigation. If they do not approve the amendment, I challenge the wisdom of putting forth Clause 4, subclause (2).


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, this is an eminently wise amendment. What my hon. friend wants to do is to amend Clause 12 of the Bill. Clause 12 simply states that the chairman shall assemble a meeting at the written request by two or more members and that three people will constitute a quorum. What he is saying, Madam Speaker, is that if there has been an accident on the rails, for example, and the chairman calls a meeting, three people can be assembled for the meeting. There is nothing in there which states that any of them shall have any specific knowledge of rails. It seems to me eminently wise that one of the three people ought to have some specific knowledge about the way in which the railway system works.
We have gone through about five amendments, and I am at a loss at the silence which emanates from across the way. I would like to know why the Government would not accept an amendment which seems so com-monsense.
The Parliamentary Secretary sits over there reading his notes, but he will not get up and tell us why this particular amendment is not acceptable. I think the Government owes it to this House to respond to the commonsense suggestions of the Opposition. Nothing
June 12. 1989

that has been presented so far detracts from the thrust of the Bill. In fact, it strengthens the Bill. It strengthens the confidence of the travelling public and Canadians at large that, in fact, we do not have the fiascos we had with the air safety board. We all recall that. It is actually the genesis of this Bill.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) was so embarrassed by that whole fiasco involving the air safety board investigating the Gander crash and having five different opinions about what happened that he burned the midnight oil over at the transport building and came up with this new animal. We agreed with the concept. We have no problem with that. There is nothing that has been suggested here by my colleague, my good friend from Newfoundland or my very good friend from up in the Lakehead that is radical, although I would support it if it were. There is nothing here that is revolutionary, although I would support it if it were. That is the extent to which I am prepared to be flexible to accept these pussy-cat amendments. I am prepared to accept them. They make sense to me. I think they make sense to all Members in the House.
However, what do we get from Members opposite? Silence. It is like a tomb over there, Madam Speaker. There is no response. In fact, in committee some of these amendments came close to being passed. The Government owes it to the House to express itself on these amendments.
Does the Government not think it is important that one of the three people investigating a particular accident, whether it be on the sea, in the air, on land or involving a pipeline has to be expert in that particular field? Is that unreasonable?
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary this. He seems to be a stand-in for the Minister, albeit it a stand-in with a little bit more hair-or a little less hair. I wish there were a 10-minute question period. I want to ask him this. Does he not think that this is a reasonable amendment? What does he say? Nothing.
I ask the Government to think about these amendments honestly. It looks as if it will have a respite at 5 p.m. We would like to support the Bill totally, and make it a better Bill. We believe these amendments would do that.
Accident Investigation
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to relay the message to Benoit du lac to take it under advisement. Maybe they will come back and accept the amendments of my colleagues in the Opposition.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-2 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 19 the following:
"(17) An employee statement obtained pursuant to a collective agreement is privileged, and no person shall have access to such statements, except as authorizedin writing by 1he person who made the statement."
He said: Madam Speaker, one of the Parliamentary Secretaries suggested as an aside a moment ago that we just vote on these motions and save the House some time. I must be an eternal optimist because I continue to believe that one day it is possible that when presented with a sound proposition, a proposition that can be defended by logic and reason, that somewhere across the way there will be Members whom, if they are attacked often enough by both logic and reason, will respond. I am convinced that Members opposite at some point in time, unlike Pavlov's dogs, will not respond automatically like trained animals to the bell that goes off when the Parliamentary Secretary turns thumbs down on a reason-

June 12, 1989
Accident Investigation
able proposition. One day Canadians will be absolutely shocked and astounded-perhaps some faith in the democratic process will be restored-when Members opposite say to the Parliamentary Secretary when he turns thumbs down on a very sound, reasonable and proper proposition: "No, dammit. We will vote once on behalf of the people of Canada. We are going to do something good for a change. We are not going to take your orders".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is with that perhaps vain belief in mind, with that vain hope in mind that I continue to stand and put propositions that I believe are designed to serve the public interest and hope that one day my colleagues opposite will rebel from this tyranny of a Parliamentary Secretary who expects them to behave like puppets at the direction of his thumbs up or thumbs down.
What does the amendment state? I believe that it should be reread. I would like my colleagues from the New Democratic Party to pay attention to it. It states:
An employee statement obtained pursuant to a collective agreement is privileged, and no person shall have access to such statements, except as authorized in writing by the person who made the statement.
What it states is that in the course of conducting an investigation into an incident, an occurrence, an accident, that in some modes, specifically for the moment in the rail mode, there are provisions in the collective agreement between the company and the employees which prevent statements made by employees to company officials from being made public. In other words, those statements must be kept in confidence.
Members should know that both the industry-these companies in question-and the employees in question on any number of Bills appearing before the standing committee have said that the confidential nature of those statements made by employees to their employers have become extremely important to the safe operation of train companies, that is, CN and CP.
Why is that? It is because both parties know that those statements when given will be kept in the strictest of confidence, that those statements will not find their way outside the employee-employer relationship and that employees making statements having that assurance are completely free to be forthright, honest and aboveboard.
In terms of safety, because there is a guarantee of the confidentiality of that statement, the value of the information given is multiplied 1,000 per cent in the day-today running of the company. Those employee statements are not just information on how the widgets work or on how the technology works, but are also comments on some occasions without prejudice on the performance of fellow employees. As trains hurdle across the tracks with freight and bodies-human beings aboard those trains- we know there is an employer-employee relationship providing for a frank and full exchange of information aimed at ensuring safety.
What this Bill would do unless amended would be to give the investigators the power to subpoena those confidential statements made under a provision of the collective agreement. The second this Bill has the power to subpoena those statements, you can be sure that the nature of those statements will change. Once the employee and the employer knows that those statements are liable to end up as a centrepiece to an investigation, the day-to-day practice and operation of that railroad company, based on the value of these confidential statements, is gone. You will no longer have the kind of openness and forthright comment in those confidential statements that today are a large contributor to the safe operation of the railways.
Now logically the public might say: "Well, you know, if there is an accident I want those investigators to get their hands on every piece of information available. I don't care about a collective agreement.", except you have to be aware that the day you violate the collective agreement those statements no longer have any value. In other words, the kind of material going into those statements will radically change. It will be puffery.
What I propose to do in this amendment is to protect those confidential statements which are part of the collective agreement, to protect the value that they have for the daily running of a railroad not only on the
June 12, 1989

occasion of an accident but day to day, week to week, month to month, year-in and year-out. At the same time, if you look at the wording, it says that the statements shall be protected except as authorized in writing by the person who made the statement. There is nothing stopping an employee who feels that something he has said, some information he has, is valuable to an investigation from making that information available to the Board.
The Bill goes further. What about Clause 30? An existing clause in the Bill says that any information given to the Board by an employee wanting to contribute to an investigation that that information shall be kept confidential from the company. There is already a guarantee in this Bill that if some employee, in any mode of transportation, goes to the Board independently to say: "Look, I think there is information you should have about my company, the way it operates or a fellow employee that is pertinent to an investigation", that that information shall be kept confidential. Again, it is information obtained on a voluntary basis.
If the Bill recognizes the importance of keeping information confidential through Clause 30, an employee who wants to make information available to the Board is given protection as it were, then surely this Bill should also anticipate and recognize the value of the collective agreement clause which provides for confidential statements between the employer and employee and that the value of those statements is lost the day those statements are no longer protected.
Members will well appreciate, although it seldom works as well as we would like, but the purpose of a caucus among political parties is to allow free, frank and open discussion without fear theoretically that that discussion will find itself into the front pages of the newspaper. Occasionally it does. We all know that when it does the nature of our caucus changes dramatically. The same is true with a confidential statement made or with confidential exchanges between an employee and employer. Those are the practical reasons to support this amendment. I have one last point.
Unless we accept this amendment we are arbitrarily and unilaterally, in effect, as a Parliament invading in the most fundamental way on the collective bargaining process. We are saying arrangements that have been
Accident Investigation
worked out and negotiated in good faith by both the employer and the employee are arbitrarily violated by Parliament in the process of drafting and passing this Bill. If that is not a precedent, then certainly it is a very unhealthy and dangerous action. I submit to Members that the Bill is served and, most important, transportation safety is served in accepting this amemdment, in preserving the confidential nature of statements between employees and employers and that ultimately there is within this Bill the power to obtain any information that is required by other means in any case.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of by my hon. friend. It does not go far enough as far as I am concerned, but the distance that it does go I fully agree with and support. It will be argued if anyone were to get up on the government side that there is adequate protection in other places for the confidentially-


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was argued by some in the committee that there is adequate protection for the confidentiality of employer-employee statements-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Employee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -elsewhere in a collective agreement, in another piece of legislation or even in this one. This one talks about statements taken by the investigators of the board, not the company nor the employers. I want to say to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) and the Parliamentary Secretary, that I wish he were spending the entire day earning his keep as a Parliamentary Secretary but so far he has chosen not to. I want to remind him and his colleagues that in spite of what some of them might think-and I know my hon. friend does not think this-the Opposition is not 100 per cent wrong nor is the Government 100 per cent right. We have realized that numerous times in countless committee meetings and in Bills before this House.
1 said that I did not think the Hon. Member's motion went far enough because I think an employer should not be allowed to take a statement from an employee until after an investigator of the board has interviewed and taken a statement from the employee himself. In other words, the employee, like the site of an occurrence, is quarantined as far as the company is concerned until after the board has taken a statement.

June 12, 1989
Technological Change
I submit that a statement taken by an investigator of a board is quite likely to be more forthcoming and open than one taken by the boss. Unless you guarantee the confidentiality of a statement taken by the employer in this legislation, as my hon. friend said, employees will be extremely, shall I say, guarded in how much they say about their own involvement in an occurrence or in the involvement of a fellow employee who might be a good friend. The primary interest of an employee giving the statement is about safety and the protection of all employees and the public. I think the amendment is well made and well taken. May I call it five o'clock. Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]


Ron Fisher: That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Labour Code to provide all regulated workers with the right to create, upon the demand of 10 or more workers, a Technological Change Committee which will be entitled to advance notice of technological change and full information about the impact of proposed technological changes on employment, job content and work processes.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to be a participant in what I understand to be the changed rules of the House for Private Members hour. When I submitted this motion, I had no idea that the Government would come up with a reference to training ethic, which reference occurs in the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is an admission by the Government that the corporate world has some responsibility to society and to its employees.
Training ethic does not express my entire concern insofar as the private sector is concerned. I suggest that
the right of employees to become involved in technological change as it affects them, their workplaces and their communities is an extension of the idea of the training ethic into what I think ought to be described as the total responsibility of the private sector.
Motion 225 brings to our attention the fact that the corporate world is not living up to its responsibility when it comes to the introduction of technological change in the workplace. It is not living up to its responsibilities to employees and to the communities in which it operates.
The motion provides that employees should have the right to a Technological Change Committee with the right to be informed well in advance of changes which could affect their jobs, their health, their safety, their earning capacity, the work processes with which they have to become familiar and indeed the content of their jobs themselves. I say they should be informed well in advance. I hesitate to put a time limit on it, but I would suggest that a minimum time ought to be at least 12 months. In short, the motion provides that workers be given full information about the impact of proposed technological changes on employment, job content and work processes.
Employees and the communities in which they live have a right to know well in advance of changes which, as experience has already shown, affect the employees and communities adversely in almost all cases. The situation with which we are faced is contrary to what we were told at the outset of this technological revolution. I am sure everyone here remembers the glowing terms with which the technical revolution was introduced, the stories which purveyors of new technology told us when it was being introduced into society. New technology was to create a society that would be beyond our wildest dreams, a leisure society in which everyone was able to benefit from the wealth created.
There is no doubt that more leisure time has been created. We see it almost everywhere and we see its negative face of unemployment. There can be no question that the technological changes introduced within the last decade have contributed in no small measure to the very high degree of unemployment from which society is suffering. With the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I would suggest that the level of unemployment will be even higher and more obvious.
June 12, 1989

The wealth has been created too. Over the last decade since the major introduction of technological changes, the corporate world has experienced for the most part an even level of return on investment, but that return has not found its way down, as the monetary theories of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and the like would have us believe. It has not trickled down to the average Canada, or for that matter, to the average person anywhere within the spheres of influence of Milton Friedman's misguided economic theory. Employees have not benefited, nor has society benefited. There are more food banks than one could have imagined at the end of the 1930s and during the economic up-turn of the 1950s and the 1960s. The communities have not benefited.
Motion 225 is an attempt to ensure that the promise of the technological revolution is fulfilled for all Canadians. To that end, it is necessary to look at some of the proposals for employment, job content and work processes in a more detailed way.
First, we must have definition of technological change. This definition must include reference to the work, the undertaking or the business carried on by an employer. It must include reference to any change in equipment or material used in the work, undertaking or business of the employer. It must include any change in the methods utilized in the work, undertaking or business of the employer and it must recognize any change in the way in which equipment or material is used in the work, undertaking or business of the employer.
If we are to protect employees as fully as they ought to be protected from the adverse effects of technological change, we need to have provisions for them to receive adequate notice of the fact that there will be a change in the workplace as defined by technological change. This is important for several reasons. The experience of industrial assistance programs have demonstrated with the more advance notice to employees of lay-offs, and there is the possibility of lay-offs when it comes to technological change and I will deal with that later, the adverse effects on the communities, on the employees and on the employers as well for that matter are far less severe than they are when, as is too often the case, the employees go to work at 8 o'clock in the morning only to be told at 8.05 that their jobs are no longer viable and that by 12 noon they must have cleaned out their lockers, taken their
Technological Change
clothes and equipment home and turned in whatever belongs to the company.
As one can imagine, under such circumstances the trauma is insurmountable. The personal loss and grievance suffered are immeasurable. Notice has to be given of contemplated changes, and that is obvious for the reasons I have already mentioned.
There has to be a disclosure by the employer of the nature and the description of the technological changes themselves. There also have to be provisions that the effect of the technological change is made available to the employees. Issues have to be raised, such as the number of employees who will be affected. In cases where a company has more than one place of operation, the location where those jobs will be affected, the job classes involved, as well as those jobs and classifications that will be terminated or redesigned in such a way that retraining may also be necessary.
The effects on employees also has to be part of the disclosure provisions for the protection of employees. For example, effects on such things as skills and whether the skills the employees have will be adequate to enable them to remain at work. Whether they will be able to exercise the skills they have, or indeed whether they may have to acquire new ones.
It is important for employees to know whether the skills and the seniority they have accrued will enable them to remain as employees of the company. There also have to be provisions to apprise the employees of the effects of the technological changes on their health and safety.
Within the terms of disclosure, it would also be helpful for employees to be able to visit locations where the proposed changes have already been put into effect in order that the committee which will be set up will be able to evaluate whether or not in the first instance the proposals the company is making are realistic, and whether or not the disclosure with which they are in the process of being involved bears relation to what is likely to happen.
An important element, and something which all parties concerned should rightfully be aware of, is the matter of confidentiality. Quite often the implication comes forth that if the company is to disclose its innermost secrets in so far as what it is going to do, the employees will spread that information, or perhaps in

June 12, 1989
Technological Change
the first instance the company will, and by definition that is foolishness. Technological change proposals should involve, quite rightly, provisions for confidentiality.
There should be assurances of job security both for those employees who will remain and for those who will be laid off or whose jobs will be significantly altered. There should be a designation in the original disclosure information put out by the company for those employees it considers will be redundant and for those employees who will no longer be able to remain. Once having made those commitments, those who have not been designated should not in any way be considered as being liable to be laid off as a result of the subsequent technological change. In no case should designated employees be let go before the implementation of the technological change, or before the effective date.
As is often mentioned in relation to workers and employees, training is absolutely essential. There have to be major provisions within the technological change language which ensures that those employees who will no longer be able to retain the jobs that they had will be retrained as a right, and if there are choices for jobs which they conceivably could exercise as a result of their seniority or skills, that they be able to exercise that choice on the basis of their own preference and where they would prefer to go. The whole matter of training is predicated on the assumption that it would be the employer that paid for the training.
There certainly are instances where employees are laid off as a result of technological change, and that has been the long-term experience of many thousands of employees in this fair country of ours. They should be able to exercise the option of taking severance in lieu of training or job guarantees. This is in the interest of the employee as well as the company, because there would be no point in the company forcing an employee to stay against his or her will. For one thing, the employee most likely would not be leaving unless he or she had found employment elsewhere. Who would want to deny them that opportunity? Within the provisions of severance there is also the matter of the employee being able to take a portion of the training allowance as severance pay.
Early retirement may also be a provision that some employees would want to exercise when it comes to the implementation of technological change. Certainly, that is something the legislation ought to take cognizance of. That would certainly be a step forward for some of the older workers within our society, and also in the context of having discussed the aids to older workers in the House within the last few weeks.
The committee itself is an integral part of the whole process. It would have to be involved in the review and resolution of such issues as the need or justification for technological change and the evaluation of the appropriate change. I would suggest that that is a wise thing to do. Often the employees on the floor are able to input knowledge into the operation which oftentimes the company itself has overlooked.
The committee would be involved in the matter of adaptation by all to the proposed changes and the impact on employees. In short, the committee would be involved in the whole process, but not to the point where it would have the final say on the resolution. There have to be realistic provisions for some type of a resolution when the company and the employees are unable to agree and the solution may possibly be that the technological change would not be implemented at all. It may also be that arbitration could be considered.
The matter of surveillance is a very important issue to address. Since my time is almost up, I would point out that as far back as 1972 the Government of Sweden enacted a law which prevented some of the most obvious surveillances. For example, the use of microtechnology to monitor workers and their actions, or as a matter of discipline.
In conclusion, I am sure reference will probably be made to the 10 employees within a company asking for those changes. Some people will say that is not a very large number of people, but I would suggest that there are many, many institutions within our society that can implement changes and initiate actions within our society and foundations with small numbers in relation to the whole.
June 12, 1989

I see that my time has lapsed. I would conclude on the basis that I do hope the House take serious consideration of the matter of technological change and its impact on Canadian workers.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House proposes that Parliament should consider amending the Canada Labour Code in order to provide all regulated workers with the right to create, upon the demand of ten or more workers, a technological change committee. This committee would be entitled to advance notice of the technological change and to full information about the impact or proposed technological changes on employment, job content and work processes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Technological change and the process of adjustment to change are matters of great importance to Canadians as they affect the competitiveness of our industries and the people who work in them. These issues require careful consideration and I commend the Hon. Member for having introduced the motion.
Our economic performance in the world today is of vital importance to the employment and income prospects of Canadians. It will become increasingly so in view of our need to be competitive internationally. Good industrial relations will form an important part of and make a meaningful contribution to our economic performance. For that reason, we should have an appreciation of a number of significant elements of our industrial relations system as set out in Part I of the Canada Labour Code that are pertinent to the motion before us.
The regulated industries to which the motion refers encompasses a broad range of economic and industrial activities. These are the industries covered under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code which include interprovincial and international railways, airlines, interprovincial highways, transport, telephone, telegraph and cable systems, pipelines, canals, ferries, tunnels and bridges, shipping, longshoring, broadcasting, banking and the primary fishing industry. Most crown corporations are also included and certain undertakings that have been declared by Parliament to be for the general
Technological Change
advantage of Canada, including grain elevators, uranium mining and processing, and flour and feed mills.
In other words, the motion would affect a large number of industries that are interprovincial and international in character as well as being of consequence to the national economy and to our national well-being.
The motion suggests that we amend the Canada Labour Code. We should, therefore, briefly review the provisions of the Code, including what it attempts to achieve. According to the preamble to the Code, Parliament recognizes the long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed to promote the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.
It is through its principal elements that the Code establishes collective bargaining as the means through which an efficient and equitable system of industrial relations is achieved.
What are some of the principal elements of our industrial relations system? Part I of the Canada Labour Code establishes a legislative framework of rights and responsibilities within which management and organized labour are to conduct their relations.
The Code grants a legal recognition to the bargaining relationship through the principle of freedom of association and through bargaining unit certification and voluntary recognition provisions. It provides for the settling or adjudication of industrial relations issues of a legal nature by establishing the Canada Labour Code Relations Board to oversee the administration of certain of the Code's provisions.
The Code also sets out the important dispute resolution procedures through conciliation and mediation which assist in the settlement of high profile disputes that have a direct impact on the public interest. These procedures are administered by the federal mediation and conciliation service of Labour Canada.
Investigation of disputes involves, first, collective agreements and complaints of bargaining-related unfair labour practices. These important elements of our industrial relations legislation contribute to a high degree of the stability and industrial relations in the federal jurisdiction.

June 12, 1989
Technological Change
At this point, I would like to make a few remarks about the technological change provisions in the Canada Labour Code. These provisions are not only germane to the motion brought forward by the Eton. Member, but also constitute an important element of industrial relation systems at this federal level.
The introduction of technological change can have a significant impact on individual workers in terms of income and employment effects. While the introduction of new technology may result in lay-offs and lost income, society as a whole benefits from having more productive and efficient economic assets in place.
Under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, employee involvement in the implementation of technological change is accomplished primarily through collective bargaining. These provisions encourage unions and management to meet, discuss and reach agreement on ways to minimize the negative effects on employees of technological change. Where the parties have not made provision in their collective agreements for managing the effects of technological change on employees, then the statute provides for collective agreement in force between the parties to be reopened and those provisions relating to terms and conditions or security of employment to be renegotiated.
The board may also grant leave to a union to serve notice to commence collective bargaining. The effect of such leave is that the introduction of technological change is suspended until collective bargaining results in a new agreement or the right to strike or lock-out is required.
Labour and management are free to include in their collective agreements provisions designed to resolve and address issues related to the impact of technological change. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent the parties from establishing committees, as suggested by the motion, dealing specifically with technological change.
In general, the Code provides for measures that ensure the implementation of collective agreements and for the comprehensive and flexible system which facilitates negotiation of these agreements.
The Government has sought to encourage private sector initiatives to a much greater extent in the Canadian society and to urge less reliance on the Government in achieving economic and social goals. This approach to
government policy places a greater responsibility on management and unions to resolve their differences without government interference. This is precisely the intention of the approach the Government has taken toward labour relations issues in Canada in its support for individual initiative.
In summary, my review of the industrial relations system at the federal level has attempted to illustrate some of the more salient features or relevance to the Lion. Member's motion. In particular, the large extent to which labour and management resolve their collective bargaining differences between themselves directly attests to the appropriateness of our industrial relations policy which seeks to avoid unnecessary intervention.
In this connection, we have to question the need for the introduction of the motion to amend the Code as proposed. We have to ask whether the intervention suggested by this amendment is warranted or justified. I submit that the Lion. Member has drawn our attention to an issue of continuing concern and a matter over which we will want to maintain a watchful eye as the introduction of technological change is an ongoing process with far reaching consequences.
At this present time, I see no evidence that would warrant an amendment to the technological change provisions of the Code.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in support of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Dun-durn (Mr. Fisher). Specifically, the motion requests that the Government consider the advisability of amending the Canada Labour Code. The amendment would provide all regulated workers with the right to create, upon the demand of 10 or more workers, a technological change committee.
This committee would be entitled to receive advance notice of technological change and full information about the impact of proposed technological changes on their jobs, job content and work processes.
The Canadian workplace has been undergoing rapid changes in recent years. This trend will most certainly continue as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. Therefore, it is imperative that Canadian workers are aware of, and receive adequate notice of any technology
June 12, 1989

cal changes that could have an effect on their respective workplaces.
The Free Trade Agreement is certainly not the only reason that Canada is undergoing a structural change in the workplace. Indeed, there are many forces causing businesses in Canada to alter, as they strive toward recapturing markets and improving productivity. The world is in the midst of a technological evolution brought on by innovations in telecommunications and automation. Coupled with the globalization of markets and financial resources, companies must now learn to operate as they would in one huge, open market.
As a result, companies must adapt to the new global realities or they will fall behind others that do adapt. Technological changes in the workplace could thus have a myriad of effects on the Canadian worker, changes which, in many instances, have already occurred. Mainly, the displacement of particular skills by machines; the displacement of some skills by other skills; the development and expansion of some activities and the decline of others, to highlight a few.
Canadian workers are well aware of these developments and realize that they too must make changes. The point of this motion is that they be made aware of any proposed technological changes, as well as the impact of these changes so they can make the necessary adjustments in an adequate amount of time prior to their implementation. It is important to note that in the present Canada Labour Code, an employer must give a union at least 120 days notice of its intention to introduce a technological change into their place of business, a technological change that is likely to: "affect the terms and conditions or security of employment of a significant number of employees".
After a respective union receives such a notice which must include information such as the nature of the technological change, the predicted date of introduction, the estimated number and type of employees likely to be affected, the union may request more detailed information. The union may then apply to the Canada Labour Relations Board for an order that bargaining take place, and until that is completed, the changes may not take place.
The Hon. Member's motion today applies to adequate notification of technological change to a committee of
Technological Change
workers in the workplace. If the workers have direct notification from the employer, they would be in a much better position to evaluate the effects on job retraining and so on so that they can prepare for a smoother and efficient transition. Also, the aforementioned section of the Canada Labour Code does not define what a "significant number of employees" means.
Technological change and the ensuring effect on employment is probably one of the most important concerns of Canadians today. Technological change in the past did not cause significant and persistent high levels of unemployment. Today, technological changes translate into changes in the demand for various occupational skills.
Canadian workers and labour unions are perceived as being against technological change. This perception is based on the notion that workers are worried about their personal welfare by maintaining their jobs and thus security.
I believe workers are well aware of the changes in the global workplace and thus realize that they must change with the times. Not to change would ultimately mean loss of security. What this motion points out is that workers want adequate notice of changes and not last minute notification. Four months notice through their respective unions is not what one would call adequate notice.
In my opinion, workers do not fear the changes in a workplace as much as they are concerned about the uncertainty of these changes. This uncertainty leaves Canadian workers with the feeling of having no influence in a workplace to which they may have dedicated many years of hard work. The older worker, for example, can be left with the feeling that he or she is being dumped for the sake of a more modem way of productivity. We are all well aware that over the past 10 to 15 years there has been a steady decline in labour force participation by older workers, particularly by men in the 50 to 64 age bracket.
When we talk about technological changes in the workplace, a very important variable comes to the forefront. That is education. On average, older workers possess fewer years of formal education than younger workers who are competing in the labour market. Characteristics that older workers possess, such as loyalty, conscientiousness and lower rates of turnover, are often

Technological Change
overlooked for the sake of what a new and technologically trained individual can offer.
Older workers are not against change, they just want adequate notice so as to afford the opportunity to retrain themselves and thus maintain their employment status with their respective employer.
In a study undertaken by the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto in 1986, financed by Canada's Technology Impact Research Fund, the council found a lack of corporate planning for the technological change process. The study states:
Only 39 per cent (55 of 140 firms in the sample) report any corporate or strategic plan for the implementation of new technology. Thus, more than 60 per cent of the firms in the sample were ill prepared for the technological innovations that competition supposedly demands.
Other studies concluded that three quarters of employees surveyed were either in favour of technological change, or at least had no opinion against it.
This, I submit, would be because workers came to the realization that a smaller number of relatively secure jobs is better than having to barely survive in an industry that was declining because technological changes were not made.
National studies conducted by the Canadian Paper Workers Union and by the United Steelworkers of America concluded that there was no resistance to technological change. That would seem to be a non issue.
Labour is reasonably open to technological changes that will improve productivity. At the same time, there are some serious concerns about the process of technological change. What is of concern is how technology and the ensuing new work methods are introduced. Inherent in these concerns are three points: First, are the technological changes necessary; second, the minimization of workplace disruption both in terms of displacement of employees and the protection of individual rights and standards; third, the negotiation of compensation for those affected by the displacement of labour.
These are concerns that would be addressed with the establishment of a technological change committee in the workplace. It is important to point out to the House that in a 1985 survey taken by the Ontario Task Force on
Employment and New Technology, it noted that consultation with labour on new technology is the exception rather than the rule. More direct and ongoing consultation is needed between the employer and employee.
I believe that the motion tabled in the House today would be a major step toward legitimizing both parties' interests. Thus, I support the motion. I see it as a major step between both the employer and the employee as we move rapidly toward an increasingly competitive global workplace.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Dundurn (Mr. Fisher) for having the foresight to bring before the House the important issue of technological change and innovation.
Since taking office in 1984, this Government has made it clear that it had as a priority the promotion and development of technological innovation throughout Canadian society. We strongly believe that Canada's future prosperity largely depends on the country's ability to use technology to its advantage.
We are indeed committed to improve Canada's future international competitiveness through more effective technological application and innovation. We are convinced that workers too will benefit from increasing our competitiveness.
Let me point out that a series of important initiatives have flowed from this priority. It was translated into the creation of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Research, Science and Technology, to provide a continuing parliamentary focus on this vital area of national public policy.
As well, it led to the creation of a national advisory board on science and technology to enhance Canada's standing on the world market and a Department of Industry, Science and Technology with a mandate to work toward a closer integration of Canadian industry with Canadian scientific knowledge and technological skills.
In the last five years, this Government has consistently worked at developing a cohesive and coherent technological policy. In fact, the National Council of Science and Technology ministry was especially created to over-
June 12, 1989

see the implementation of a new national science and technology policy.
Many important programs were established to support this policy. Among the most successful is the InnovAction Program which has focused on such critical areas as: technological diffusion, development of strategic technologies, effective use of technologies, human resources for the use of technologies and public education in science and technology.
A particularly successful program is Labour Canada's Technology Impact Program, TIP, which was designed to study how to deal effectively with the adjustment problems arising from the introduction of workplace technologies. This program stems from this Government's awareness that to maximize the gains from any technological applications, there has to be a greater co-operative effort between those implicated in the change when implementing new workplace technologies. Studies such as those carried out by the Economic Council of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Task Force on Harnessing Change have clearly supported our view that this partnership is critical to the effective use of new technologies.
Indeed, the Technology Impact Program was specifically created to provide labour organizations with the financial assistance to participate actively in the process of change. Projects carried out under TIP not only focused specifically on the human dimension of change but also involved the full participation of workers and their representatives in the process of change.
More important, all these projects demonstrated how vitally significant labour management co-operation could be to the effective use of technological innovation.
The funds have been used by labour organizations as well as other groups, such as women, disabled workers and older workers to ease their adjustment to the new technology and to explore creative utilizations which might improve the quality of their lives. These projects have ranged right across all sectors of the economy: The construction and auto industries, fishing, forestry, printing, textiles and clothing, health care, education and municipal and provincial Governments, to name just a few.
Technological Change
This Government has addressed the technological change and innovation issue through its series of national and regional conferences on technology and innovation. As recently as a few weeks ago, an important conference on the workplace technology, The Human Dimension, hosted by Labour Canada, attracted a large contingent of business and labour leaders who shared their technological change experiences and discussed ways of making the new technology work for Canada.
This successful event afforded all the participants the opportunity to review how management and labour have, and sometimes have not, succeeded in dealing with the issues that frequently accompany technological change in the workplace. The human dimension of such change was sharply kept in focus throughout the discussions. Among the human impacts of innovation considered were a broad array of human needs such as worker autonomy, meaningful work, ergonomics, health and safety issues, skill requirements and better communication between all those implicated in the change. Together, the participants also looked forward to future developments and to the new, unexplored challenges of implementation strategies which would promote a renewed labour management co-operation. The Canada Labour Code fosters labour management co-operation. The climate of trust that currently characterizes Canadian labour relations must not be undermined.
The Technology Impact Program and the recent conference on the Human dimension of Technological Change have greatly contributed to current knowledge and understanding of effective technological application and innovation in the Canadian workplace.
These initiatives underscore this Government's view that if technology is to be used to improve our well-being, both in the workplace and in Canadian society as a whole, it must be implemented in a humane way with the co-operation of those implicated in the change.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, Canadians live in a world of rapid change. We are affected by changes everywhere, in every aspect of our daily lives, and sometimes in very striking ways. The effects of change are probably felt most keenly in the workplace, since new developments in international trade and the changing nature of the labour force are obliging Canadians to adjust and to seek new ways of carrying out their tasks more successfully. Technological

June 12. 1989
Technological Change
change also has a considerable impact at work, and that is why I would like to thank Hon. Members for having brought this very important question to the attention of the House.
Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, the labour force development strategy and the Budget reflect this Government's efforts to ensure that Canada will be able to cope with change and will take the necessary steps to do so. Madam Speaker, here is proof that Canada is forging ahead and that change can be made to work to our best advantage.
The five objectives set by the Government for its second mandate are to strengthen the economy, build a caring and compassionate society, protect the environment, foster values that make Canada unique and continue to promote national unity. Madam Speaker, these are the objectives we are resolved to pursue, confident in the resources of this country and with the conviction that any initiative to reduce the deficit can only further these goals.
Madam Speaker, faced with the challenges and opportunities arising from rapidly changing economic and social conditions, both in Canada and abroad, the Canadian Government believes it is even more important to take advantage of the knowledge and skills, expertise and co-operation of all Canadians. Madam Speaker, the Government is firmly resolved to build and support constructive partnerships in which unions, businesses and the Government will come together.
During the last four years. Madam Speaker, we have witnessed a spectacular change in the relationship between unions and employers in the workplace. We have seen a considerable reduction in the frequency of labour disputes and, also very important, we have seen a new and encouraging degree of co-operation away from the bargaining table. Madam Speaker, unions and employers are finding new and often innovative ways of working together to deal with common issues and concerns. There are new, joint initiatives and a co-operative approach to dealing with problems, and all of this is happening across Canada in various sectors of the economy.
The Government supports these efforts by unions and employers, especially at the sectoral level. In this respect, we have seen the development of a number of new and exciting initiatives by industrial unions to deal with the particular concerns of their activity sector.
The most widely known of these initiatives is perhaps the Canadian Steel Trade and Employment Congress, founded in May 1985 by the United Metal Workers of America and major steel producers. Madam Speaker, Labour Canada helped the union and the companies to set up this joint consultation and research body. The Congress has enabled steel workers and producers to deal jointly with the trade and employment issues affecting their sectors. One of their achievements, and in fact the most obvious one, has been the labour force adjustment program, designed specifically for the sector covered by the Congress with the help of a $20 million grant from Employment and Immigration Canada.
The Congress has also been active on the issue of steel imports, so much so that the Government introduced changes in favour of the industry, responding to its needs. In February 1987, the Congress saw the abolition of the general preferential tariff on steel imports from countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. Madam Speaker, this tariff was unnecessarily favourable to exports from these countries to Canada, despite the fact that they had become very competitive with our own producers. Later that year, a system for monitoring exports, considered by the industry as a way to control steel exports, especially the transshipment of steel to the U.S. market, was implemented.
In the electric and electronic products manufacturing sector, Labour Canada and Employment and Immigration helped a number of businesses and five unions to develop a human resources strategy for their sector. Together, unions and companies in this industry examined training and skills upgrading programs, including a plan for the joint financing of these activities, strategies for implementing technological change and measures to improve the transition between school and work for young graduates.
Such activities will help the electric and electronic products manufacturing industry plan better for, and adjust to the changes arising from increased competition and rapidly evolving technology. The industry will be in a position to train and retrain workers in order to provide
June 12, 1989

them with the skills they will need today and tomorrow. It will be able to introduce new technology effectively, with a minimum of disruption. It will also be able to recruit new young workers and thus provide for the future of the industry. The Unions and the companies will always work together.
Supported by the Government, Madam Speaker, the International Union of Wood workers of America and a number of producers from British Columbia formed the Western Wood Products Forum, in May 1988. This joint research and consultation organization is now looking into important issues such as market access, worker adjustment and the use of forest products. More specifically, the Forum decided that one of its major priorities was establishing a special agreement on plywood. An agreement of this kind would help companies improve a situation that is currently very precarious, and thus make them more competitive on world markets.
In recent months. Labour Canada has engaged in talks and worked to promote new sectoral initiatives with labour and management in a number of industries that are important to the Canadian economy.
The Canadian Steel Trade and Employment Congress, the Western Wood Products Forum and the joint human resources committee of the electrical and electronics manufacturing industry represent a small group of risky businesses, directed jointly by labour and management, that influence unions and employers throughout the country. They represent a trend to greater cooperation and teamwork to solve problems, showing the ability and determination of labour and management to work together, besides at the bargaining table, on questions and concerns of mutual interest.
Madam Speaker, the Government is determined to continue supporting labour and management, to encourage and facilitate dynamic partnerships between unions and employers. In this way, Canadians will be able to meet more effectively the social and economic challenges that we share.
Technological Change


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wildrose):: Madam Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the motion before the House that the Canada Labour Code be amended to allow all federal jurisdiction workers the right, upon the demand of 10 or more workers, to create a technological change committee. It is envisaged that such technological change committees would be entitled to advance notice of technological change and full information about the impact of proposed technological changes on employment, job content and work processes.
Under the Canadian industrial relations system, adjustment to technological change in the federal jurisdiction is dealt with primarily through the collective bargaining process. To support this process, a number of legislative initiatives have been introduced over the years.
Equally important to the impact of railway run-throughs was the issue of the manner in which technological changes were being introduced by management. Recognizing the important labour-management issue involved, the Government of the day established an independent industrial inquiry commission to explore ways to better manage the introduction of technological change in the context of Canada's economic environment and free collective bargaining system.
The approach eventually adopted by Parliament after hearing from both labour and management involved the placement of requirements in the Canada Labour Code concerning advance notice and the negotiation of the effects of significant changes on employees. The negotiation process component under certain circumstances envisaged eventual access to conciliation procedure, and to strike or lock-out rights under the code.
The Canada Labour Relations Board was designated as the agency responsible for determining questions as to whether notice should have been given in a particular situation and as to whether or not a proposed technological change was of sufficient significance to warrant triggering negotiations during the term of an otherwise closed agreement.
Most important, the parties were encouraged to develop in advance of actual changes their own means of coping with technological change issues through specific

June 12, 1989
Supply
provisions in their collective agreements. If an employer failed to agree to contract provisions and procedures satisfactory to the union, then that employer would be vulnerable to having the collective agreement reopened if significant technological changes were introduced during its term.
These innovative changes introduced into the Canada Labour Code in 1982 had the specific intent of providing a period of notice of the intent to introduce a significant technological change and providing a mechanism for adjudication and redress in cases where notice had not been given. They were also meant to provide a means for reopening an otherwise fixed term and closed collective agreement, in cases where a technological change might adversely affect a significant number of employees. Finally, their intent was to encourage the parties in collective bargaining to adopt their own measures, in advance, to cope with technological changes and to offer exemptions from application of the technological change provisions when such measures were embodied in provisions of a collective agreement.
In essence, the approach, which was eventually adopted by Parliament in 1972, preserved the essentially stabilizing features of the fixed term closed collective agreement. However, it also provided an opportunity to bargain when the basis on which the agreement had been originally negotiated was fundamentally altered by the introduction of new technology.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 8, consideration of the motion of Ms. Hunter:
That, in recognition of the importance of contributing to an environmentally sustainable future, it be an Order of the House that:
(1)	the Government introduce by September 30, 1989 an Act to require environmental assessment of major federal projects, programs and undertakings, such Act to provide for the appointment of an environmental officer of the House of Commons whose duties shall include the assessment of all practices of the House .and who shall be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the Speaker on ways in which the House can contribute to a safe and environmentally healthy future;
(2)	the Government table, within five sitting days of the first sitting day after June 30,1989. its plans for the safe disposal of toxic wastes; and
(3)	the Government table by December 31, 1989 its plans to achieve minimal discharge of deleterious substances into Canadian fresh and coastal waters.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Thursday, June 8, 1989 and Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the deferred divisions on the business of supply.
Call in the Members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mrs. Finestone:: Madam Speaker, I just want to tell you how delightful it is to look toward the Chair and see the lovely feminine vista facing us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion defeated.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 9, 1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Tobin:
That this House condemns the Government for its short-sighted
and punitive policies that are designed to eliminate passenger rail
services in Canada despite the essential nature of these services to
the development of communities in all regions of the country.
And on the amendment of Mr. Benjamin:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and that this House further condemn the Government for reneging on the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister, which reads in part, "every step necessary will be taken to ensure that VIA will operate in a safe and reliable fashion in offering good service to Canadians from coast to coast".
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, I wonder if there could be unanimous consent to apply the last vote to the next two motions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There might be some Tories who want to vote with it.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I would like to have my name removed from the yeas on the previous vote. Had there been a recorded vote on this vote and amendment, I would have abstained.


Mr. Kindy:: I would like to register my vote on the amendment as voting against the amendment and abstaining on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Apart from the Members who have advised the table of the changes in their votes, I take it that the House agrees to apply the division just taken to the next two questions.
Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 12, 1989
Supply


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as abstentions in the House of Commons. Therefore, the two Hon. Members who just got up will be shown as absent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.

It being 6.32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
TUesday, June 13,1989