1990-09-26

['Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like every Canadian to ask themselves three questions.\nOne, should the unelected and unaccountable be the ultimate power in Canada over the elected and the accountable? Two, is this a desperate Senate action by Trudeau cronies to slow down the plunging popularity of Liberal Leader Jean Chretien, the shadow man? And thirdly, why has Jean Chretien consistently refused to state any alternative to the GST?\nAgain, all Canadians must reflect on the words of Stephen Lewis who is opposed to the GST but said: "Do we want a Parliamentary democracy or not?" The time to choose is now.\nOral Questions']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Hon. Harvie Andre, member for the electoral district of Calgary Centre, the Hon. Gilles Loiselle, member for the electoral district of Quebec, have been appointed as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 42, first supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled "An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act".



Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to a special ceremony which will take place on the lawns of Parliament this afternoon around 3.30, the unveiling of the statue of Lester B. Pearson, our former Prime Minister and the member of Parliament for Algoma East for some 20 years.
I hope every member of Parliament will be able to attend this special ceremony to honour the memory of a truly great Canadian who was the leader of a government with great vision, a government which gave us many of the social programs that we enjoy today, such as medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Canada Assistance Plan. He also gave us our distinctive Canadian flag.
A choir from Central Avenue Public School in Elliot Lake, Ontario, under the direction of Lorraine Liss will
sing at this afternoon's ceremony. This choir is an appropriate part of this special occasion because Mr. Pearson, during his lifetime, was a great inspiration to tens of thousands of young Canadians as he represented us as a Secretary of State for External Affairs at the United Nations, as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, as the Leader of the Opposition and finally as the Prime Minister of Canada from 1963 to 1968.
The legacy he left us as we entered our second century as a nation in 1968 was stronger, more compassionate and united nation after his many years of service to Canada.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the government is encouraging price gouging by drug companies at the expense of Canadians suffering from arthritis.
Lederle Cyanamid sells the same drug under two different names, Methotrexate and Rhumetrex. Methotrexate is sold to hospitals for 59 cents a tablet. Rhumetrex, the same drug, is sold to pharmacies for $2.32 a tablet.
This government knows consumers are being cheated but it is doing nothing about it. The Canadian Association of Rhumatologists voted last week to censure Lederle for this practice. Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs respond? Not a word, Mr. Speaker. The Conseil consultatif de pharmacologie du Quebec and the Ordre des pharmaciens du Quebec have both denounced this scam. I call on the consumer and corporate affairs committee to order the minister and this drug company to appear before it to explain this flagrant and repugnant pricing abuse.


THE SENATE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this government was re-elected in 1988 because Canadians recognized that we had a plan for economic renewal. We told Canadians that we would build on the successful foundation that we laid in our first term.

September 26, 1990
Canadians were aware of our program and gave us the mandate and legitimacy to proceed. And proceed we did.
We introduced UI reforms to improve the system and save $2 billion a year. We introduced a large corporation tax to ensure fairness and save another $2 billion a year. These bills have been in the Senate 205 and 173 days and counting. We introduced the goods and services tax to reform an archaic and decrepit system and improve the Canadian economy. We have acted on our pledge, yet at each turn, a foot dragging Senate is thwarting the legitimate and responsibly elected government. Obstructionism in the Senate is adding billions to the deficit. The Senate blatantly brags that it will kill the GST. Such contempt for a responsibly-elected government and its electors is astounding.
To quote Stephen Lewis, "Either we have a parliamentary democracy, or we don't". Reason must prevail. The people of Canada and their responsibly-elected government will not be so easily duped.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in a ceremony later this afternoon the statue of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's only Nobel Peace Prize winning Prime Minister will be unveiled.
I would like to read a short excerpt from the second volume of his memoirs, and I quote:
My own experience has given me a great respect for those who discharge their political responsibility by working for the party of their choice, and especially for those who do so by serving, or seeking to serve, in Parliament or in other legislative bodies. There can be no prouder achievement than to be chosen by one's fellow citizens to speak and work for them in a freely elected assembly.
Those are values that all members of this House share, I am sure. It is a challenge for all of us to instil these values in all of the Canadian public.

Mr. Speaker, today we will honour the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson by unveiling a statue in his honour. A remarkable Canadian, Mr. Pearson's became well known for his peace initiatives and for promoting dialogue
between nations. So far, he is the only Prime Minister to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Bravo, Mike!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this summer Canadians learned much of blockades.
Throughout the summer months my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin was no stranger to the native blockades that affected many of Canada's small towns. I am sure all members of the House agree that while many of the aboriginal demands are legitimate, the use of illegal blockades are not the means by which they are to be realized.
On a national scale, we have been witness to a small group of masked insurgents holding our justice system hostage, a group who do not represent the legitimate concerns or aspirations of the native people.
More insidious than this, down the hall from this very House, another blockade has been put in place, a blockade erected by a group of misguided Liberal senators. Being held hostage behind this blockade is the Canadian democratic parliamentary system that we know and enjoy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, let us take a minute to look at the summer's events in agriculture.
A farm aid package to help boost disastrous farm incomes provided half measures. Over a billion was needed, but $500,000 came.
To meet current needs, another $1.25 billion for grain growers is needed now because of a drop in initial Canadian Wheat Board prices at prairie elevators of 22 per cent on August 1, and increases to the export subsidy program used by Europeans and Americans. The Americans are now over $55 U.S. a tonne and have effectively pushed the world price well below initial prices.
September 26, 1990

At the GATT, our government is negotiating Article XI. At issue is whether supply management for agriculture production can survive. The system eliminates wastage and overproduction, and assures consumers a secure supply of product in return for a fair price to producers.
Cabinet must direct our negotiators at GATT to reject the aggregate measure of support concept that assumes that when a marketing board's prices are above a so-called world price, then the difference be construed as a subsidy. We must strengthen Article XI and maintain the viability of our dairy, poultry and egg farms.


BILL C-21
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, last week Patricia Wong came to see me at my office in Bridgewater. She was eligible for the fee payer program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy and she was accepted into the cosmetology course at the Nova Scotia Community college.
But Patricia Wong and many like her have been disappointed and let down because the funding for that program has been cut off by the actions of the other place down the hall. The Government of Canada believes that the Patricia Wongs of this country deserve a fair break, and a reasonable chance.
I urge the Liberal leaders of the other place to give Patricia Wong and others like her their just due, and to respect the long standing principles of Canadian parliamentary democracy. Pass Bill C-21.
Either we have parliamentary democracy or we do not.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: The Minister of Justice is hosting a meeting on Vancouver Island next month entitled "Women Towards the Millennium", the purpose of which is, according to the Minister, "to explore the position of women in Canadian society."
We do know that 60 women have been invited to this meeting, but who these women are remains a mystery. We also know that neither the Liberal or the NDP critics for the status of women have been put on the list.
Indeed, in speaking with representatives of national women's groups, I could find none who had been invited. Does it not seem unusual that such a meeting is being held without representation of the major women's groups in this country? Is it not equally unusual that not one female member of Parliament from this side of the House has been invited?
I think it is time for the minister to come clean with Canadian women and tell us what this meeting is really about, who is invited to it and why so many who work through their national organizations for gender equity are not on the minister's list.


THE SENATE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are angry, and rightly so. A group of Liberal senators, supported by Liberal Leader Jean Chretien, has betrayed them by ignoring the democratic choice they made by electing a majority government in 1988. Thousands of women are unable to take advantage of the benefits of Bill C-21, including maternity leave, because Liberal senators and Jean Chretien decided otherwise.
Thousands of unemployed workers have no hope of returning to work because Liberal senators and Jean Chretien are denying them the right to training. Thousands of Canadian men and women can no longer hope that reducing the deficit will put this country on the road to economic recovery because Jean Chretien and his senators have decided otherwise.
Canadians ought to know that the unwarranted action taken by the Liberal senators and Jean Chretien will increase the deficit by $8 billion.
Canadians ought to know that all our social programs and our economic future are being compromised by the unwarranted action of the Senate.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has proven to be extremely poor in responding pro-actively

to environmental crises. The warning about zebra mussels fell on deaf ears and now the Great Lakes and its tributaries face contamination.
A few days ago Norwegian MPs appeared before Canada's environment committee and warned of the crisis facing Norway. Due to a major outbreak of parasitic disease, Norway has begun a program to kill all life in 70 rivers. Combined with the destructive effects of genetic pollution from salmon escaping from fish farms, Norway's wild salmon and rivers face extinction.
Let me quote the MPs from Norway, "This is maybe the main ecological problem in Norway, the most concrete we are facing" and "We cannot sit around tables debating while the salmon just die in the rivers." Further quotes are: "In the end the politicians gave in and the import occurred against the advice of the best informed scientists in the country" and "Some of the fish farmers went to Canada. They said we want bigger fish farms, we can do as we like."
Mr. Speaker, Norway is intentionally killing all life in 70 rivers. Failure to act here in Canada beginning today would be a crime. No Canadian river deserves a death warrant due to political negligence.


MISSING CHILDREN'S NETWORK
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the forthcoming World Summit on Children, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the plight of thousands of families across Canada who have suffered the disappearance of a child. It is our responsibility, as representatives of the people of Canada, to ensure that we offer protection and support to the victims and families of this crime.
We must support organizations such as the Missing Children's Network that works tirelessly for the protection of our youth.

Thanks to the perseverance of the Missing Children's Netword, dozens of children have been able to get back to their families. We must help organizations like these respond to the needs of those people in our communities who are confronted with the disappearance of a child.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we read in the papers that the Quebec Chamber of Commerce has rejected the constitutional status quo and wants the Quebec Government to ask Canada, in no uncertain terms, for all the powers it needs for its political, social and economic development.
This group of 60,000 business people feels Quebec has no choice. It must be able to act independently in the following areas: education, culture, communications, employment, manpower, unemployment insurance, regional development, financial institutions, health care, social and urban affairs, and recreation.
Mr. Jean Lambert, president of the Chamber of Commerce and former president of the "No" Committee in Quebec in 1980, made it clear these were minimum demands. I would advise the Mulroney government to reconsider the new approach it seems to have taken to Quebec as a result of pressures, namely from Ontario.
Taking a hard line will be useless. The Mulroney government's refusal to negotiate on a govemment-to-govemment basis with Quebec will merely stiffen the resolve of all Quebecers to get rid of a form of federalism that is no longer worthwhile.
The failure of the administrative agreement on immigration and Mrs. McDougall's announcement that she intends to create unilaterally a national occupational training commission, with no regard for Quebec's demands, and considering the failure to renew agreements.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to invite everyone in this House to participate in the unveiling ceremony of the Lester B. Pearson statue this afternoon.
September 26, 1990

As every member of this House will agree, this tribute is an occasion of honour and distinction. While the monument will remind us of Mr. Pearson's achievements, it should also serve to reinforce our responsibilities as parliamentarians. Mr. Pearson's conduct in the House serves as a model for us all. We should also take heed of his respect for parliamentary procedure, responsibility and tradition.
The current tactics undertaken by unelected senators with respect to passing government legislation would surely be frowned upon by Mr. Pearson. This monument, then, is not only an occasion of remembrance but it is also an echo from the past at a time when the integrity and responsibilities of the elected Parliament are hampered by the unaccountable Senate.
I know all Canadians will join with us in remembering and paying tribute to such a distinguished citizen and respected statesman. The thought, the emotion and the artistic energy expressed by the artist, will form a fitting tribute to the late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and we, as parliamentarians, can share with family, friends and colleagues in honouring "Mike" who contributed so greatly to Canada and Canada's stature in the world.


THE SENATE
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like every Canadian to ask themselves three questions.
One, should the unelected and unaccountable be the ultimate power in Canada over the elected and the accountable? Two, is this a desperate Senate action by Trudeau cronies to slow down the plunging popularity of Liberal Leader Jean Chretien, the shadow man? And thirdly, why has Jean Chretien consistently refused to state any alternative to the GST?
Again, all Canadians must reflect on the words of Stephen Lewis who is opposed to the GST but said: "Do we want a Parliamentary democracy or not?" The time to choose is now.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night the Prime Minister said he would not hesitate to stack the Senate with eight additional Conservatives in order to ram through the goods and services tax.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Prime Minister said this even though millions of Canadians have made representations to parliamentarians saying they do not want this unfair, regressive and damaging tax. In fact, Mr. Speaker, every measure of public opinion shows that the majority, the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want this tax.
Instead of trying to stack the Senate, why will the Prime Minister not listen to Canadians for a change and scrap the GST?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows as well as I do that all tax measures tend to be unpopular and he indicates that public opinion is against the GST.
Public opinion is invariably against any new tax measure introduced by any government. But to run a government, looking out for the interests of the nation five, ten and twenty years from now, you cannot do so the way you run a hotline show and make fiscal policy based on the number of telephone calls you receive in the morning. We were elected with a mandate and we hope to have an opportunity to execute it.
I draw to my hon. friend's attention an editorial in one of Canada's leading newspapers, The Toronto Star, this morning. It stated:
In fact, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney won a parliamentary majority two years ago on a platform that included the GST-
Like a sepia-toned photograph of Liberal governments long dead, the lingering Liberal majority in the Upper House still has enough bodies and votes to defeat the tax. Regardless of the merits of the GST, or what happens to it, one thing is clear: Canadians need one government in Ottawa-not two.

September 26, 1990
Oral Questions
That is the parliamentary government. That is what we have and that is what-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so interested in newspaper articles, why does he not look at the The Wall Street Journal that says: "Canada's Mulroney is leading the pack for title of the most unpopular leader of the western world"?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the proposed goods and services tax of the government is considered so unfair and damaging that three provincial governments, one of them a Conservative government, intend to challenge the GST itself in court, and intend to challenge the right of the Prime Minister to swamp the Senate with eight additional senators.
In 1981 when provinces went to court to challenge the way the then government was proceeding to amend the Constitution and bring it back to Canada, the government of the day withheld its activities and did not proceed until the court challenges were completed.
Why will the Prime Minister not follow this precedent and wait until the court challenges are decided before trying to stack the Senate with eight more GST-loving Tories?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has let the House in on a kind of an embarrassing secret that, in fact, I have become unpopular. I am embarrassed by that, but I am somewhat comforted by the view that so far my unpopularity lasts during the term but it changes quickly during an election campaign when the votes are counted.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last time they asked me to call an election they did not like the results.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could have another try.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All right, Mr. Speaker. In a final try, let me tell my hon. friends who are crying for an election that we are discussing the Constitution and one of the most important things I learned as a student of constitutional law is that a term in Canada is five years, not three.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that for two days in a row the Prime Minister insists he will not call an early election. He knows exactly the same thing that Canadians know, that whenever he calls an election he will not be there after that election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Prime Minister why he does not wait for the court rulings before appointing eight additional senators. Why does he not respect precedents, as previous governments did in the past. This is the same position as the one taken in 1981 by the Leader of the Opposition who is now his Secretary of State for External Affairs and who chose not to proceed until the courts had ruled?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a joker, Mr. Speaker!
The Leader of the Opposition is urging us to respect precedents, yet his political allies in the Senate refuse to respect the most elementary precedent, namely that the members elected by the people must prevail over the non-elected senators.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. One province has already stated that it intends to challenge the federal government's right to act under Section 26 of the Constitution. One individual has already served notice that he is going to do so. Two other provinces may be challenging by this time next week. We are talking about the rights of the provinces here. We are talking about the rights of the people.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: They do not believe in rights for anybody.

September 26, 1990


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


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of Canada are opposed to the GST. We know he is not in favour of provincial rights and he is obviously not in favour of the opinion of Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could hurry up and put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Prime Minister state categorically that he will wait until the court challenges are resolved before he appoints any additional Senators.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in a question that is this important and this unpopular to Canadians, Canadians have the right to hear the opinion of the courts. Why will the Prime Minister not respect this and wait for the court challenge to be answered?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think we have answered the questions very directly. It is quite surprising to see a veteran parliamentarian who has a good reputation in this place rising to suggest anything other than the supremacy of the elected members of Parliament over the rights of the Senate.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the Liberals and the Tories fighting over the Senate. Neither of them did anything for 125 years to give us a legitimate Senate.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am tiying to assist hon. members to get on with Question Period. The hon. member will put his question as quickly as possible.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to right hon. Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister realizes that he is on the brink of pushing the country into another constitutional crisis.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he cannot see the wisdom of not causing a constitutional crisis in the name of an unpopular tax? Why not just withdraw the unpopular tax, save us from the crisis, and get about the business of real tax reform in the country?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the usually thoughtful member of the NDP make an argument that specious in regard to a role in Parliament that his party has consistently analysed in a different manner over the decades.
In fact, his hometown newspaper this morning provided some views that he ought to reflect upon. The Winnipeg Free Press stated that: "The Liberal majority's plan to kill the GST is a perversion of the useful role (of the Senate). It is a dangerous and irresponsible abuse of power which should concern all Canadians whatever they think of the GST". I assume that includes the NDP.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will get nowhere with me quoting the Winnipeg Free Press. They were for the free trade agreement as well.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that we patriated the Constitution in 1982? What he is considering is a step which would put Canada back in a quasi-colonial status, having the Prime Minister go to the Queen in order to solve a Canadian political problem that he could solve by listening to the Canadian people and withdrawing the GST.


Mr. Peterson:: Call an election, Brian.


Mr. Andre:: Is that the same advice you gave your brother?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is the member for Willowdale has been consistently referring to an election that took place in Ontario a few weeks ago and, while I like him a great deal, I did not know that he was a masochist.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have been trying to stay away from it, Jim.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should hear the next question.

Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I never got an answer to my last question because it was taken over by this idle chatter between two representatives of the corporate elite in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona has the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could answer the question as to why he wants to embarrass the whole country by going cap in hand to the Queen and, at the same time, explain why he continues to maintain that he had some kind of mandate for the GST when it was he and his colleagues who shut up the hon. member for Mississauga South when he mentioned the GST in the early stages of the 1988 campaign.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, including November 17, 1988, October 1, 1988 and throughout, there were very specific and lengthy arguments by me in regard to our position on the GST. We said that if we were re-elected in 1988, if we received a mandate from the people of Canada in that election campaign, we would bring in and pass the GST. We have done that. That is the fundamental principle of democracy and I am astonished that a socialist will not stand up and acknowledge that.
My friend from Willowdale and I are being accused by the NDP of idle chatter between the corporate elite. Let me quote a spokesperson for the dispossessed and the downtrodden, Stephen Lewis, on the CBC yesterday morning. Mr. Lewis said: "And I must say that if Brian Mulroney were driven to the eight additional senators, I can't say I blame him. Ultimately, we have a parliamentary democracy and the way in which they are behaving in the Senate really drives me crazy".


MONETARY POLICY
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The minister would know about the recent announcement that there have been at least 30,000 bankruptcies in Canada since the beginning of the year. Monetary policies, especially as they relate to overly high interest
rates, are strangling the Canadian economy. My question to the Minister of Finance is to find out whether at long last the government and the Minister of Finance acknowledge that they must change their monetary policy, let interest rates drop, and lower the value of the Canadian dollar?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that while there are a significant number of bankruptcies, and I do not take any pleasure in seeing that, there have been something like 350,000 new businesses created in 1989. While there are companies that fail, there are considerably more companies that are being created because of the dynamic economy that we have had over the last six years.


An hon. member:: Where?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member says, where. If he would care to look around in any part of this country, he would see that during this period of time we have had over 1.5 million jobs created. We have been one of the leading economies in the world. If the hon. member will not open his eyes to the progress that we have seen in this country over the last six years, there is no hope for him.
I say to my friend that over the past three months we have seen an alleviation in the implementation of monetary policy which resulted in a 1 per cent drop in the prime rate and about a 1.5 per cent drop in the Treasury Bill rate and the Bank of Canada rate. We are reflecting the change in the economic circumstances in the policies we have been following. If there is a continuation of the ease in inflation and of the ease in the economic conditions, that trend to lower interest rates can continue.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canadian business cannot wait. The high interest rate policy is driving thousands of them out of business. If he looks at the job creation he is referring to, he should realize that we are losing jobs in the manufacturing and exporting sector.
Does the Minister of Finance understand that this is just the tip of the iceberg? If he is listening to business in this country, he should realize that the last nail in the coffin of the Canadian economy is going to be the goods

and services tax if it passes. Is the minister going to wake up to the economic realities in this country or not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question would have some legitimacy if he had an alternative to the goods and services tax. His colleague from Ottawa said that the credibility of the Liberal Party would be in shreds if the Liberal Party of Canada, through its non-elected Senate, votes down the GST when it does not have an alternative to put in place.
If the hon. member is concerned about the business community in this country, he will listen to what the business community is saying about the tactics of the Senate. The people in the business community are saying that if the GST is stopped now by the unelected Senate, there will be chaos in the business community. If the hon. member does not want to see that sort of thing happen, he should speak to the people in the Senate and tell them to get on it and pass this legislation in the interest of the people that he is concerned about.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue and it is simply this: Will the Minister confirm for the House today that he has instructed businesses across Canada to begin advance collection of the goods and services tax even though it is not the law of Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: The
answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. If the hon. member would welcome the invitation that I gave him for a briefing, I would be very happy to let him know the rules of C-62.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have already written to the Minister.
In supplementary, Eaton's, for example, has told its customers that according to regulations provided by the minister's department, it is obligated to begin collecting the goods and services tax effective September 1. In view of the fact that the tax is not yet law and that the Speaker has already censured this government for premature advertising about the GST, will the minister today, in the interest of fairness and for respect for law, which we have heard so much about in the last couple of days, instruct his department to stop advance collection of this proposed tax which is not yet law and ensure that it is not
Oral Questions
collected until both Houses of this Parliament pass the law?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I realize the member's disadvantage in being in this portfolio as a critic of revenue a short period of time, but I would want him to very carefully study the directive that he refers to which refers to two things: first, goods sold after January 1, 1991, and second, on the condition that it become the law of the land, which is not yet the case. I hope that he will talk to his friends in the Senate and, on behalf of businesses and consumers in this country, get some sense into those senators who are holding back this good piece of legislation. On behalf of all Canadians, get to work on it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
In his announcement to the House of Commons yesterday, the Prime Minister appeared to make an offer in good faith to the aboriginal people. Yet, yesterday again, the Liberal premier of Quebec rejected a modest three point proposal which would have allowed an honourable disengagement at Oka rather than the humiliating defeat which Premier Bourassa seems to be committed to.
Is the Prime Minister prepared today to facilitate an honourable disengagement at Oka and to finally settle this dispute in good faith in accordance with the gesture he made yesterday?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did indeed make a wonderful speech to this House yesterday along with a number of very, very positive undertakings to the aboriginal people of Canada. All Canadians can be justly proud of the record of this government, which we will continue and supplement on behalf of our aboriginal people.
In fact, when the warriors in the treatment centre put down their arms and come out, we will be able to make great progress on behalf of the aboriginal people of Canada.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


Robert Evans Skelly: A supplementary. The Prime Minister promised to reconsider his government's comprehensive claims policy which most people acknowledge as a key factor in the Mohawk's grievance. Will he take the advice of the Coolican report and the Canadian Bar Association and recognize aboriginal title in a new claims policy? Will he introduce legislation to create an independent aboriginal claims commission? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do to prove his offers were made in good faith and are not yet another set of empty promises to aboriginal people?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the record of achievement of this government on behalf of aboriginal people is far and away more generous and has advanced the cause of aboriginal people far more than any previous government in the history of this country. We appreciate the discussions, the important contributions made yesterday and by aboriginal leaders. We will continue to develop these programs in consultation with aboriginal people.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to his broad, sweeping statements made yesterday to accelerate the comprehensive land claims process.
No specific commitment to changing the outdated claims policy, which is very divisive, was made. This is viewed as being another empty promise. The extinguishment policy which I referred to violates the fiduciary responsibility the government has for aboriginal peoples.
I ask the Prime Minister, will he make a commitment here and now to abolish this destructive extinguishment clause in the comprehensive land claims policy?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I know how deeply the hon. member is concerned about the cause of aboriginal people and the nature of the comprehensive claims policy. We will have ample opportunity to further the discussions which were held in this House these past 24 hours with members of the various caucuses and parties. I will be personally examining many of the fine contributions that were made here in these important debates.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, since I have not received an answer to my question, I redirect this question to the Prime Minister. My supplementary is to the Prime Minister.
If he does want to reintroduce the dignity and trust he spoke of into the process of consultation and negotiation of such items as comprehensive land claims, will he commit to this House and aboriginal groups to changing the outdated land claims policy by accommodating the Penner and Coolican reports on the abolishment of the extinguishment policy here and now today. Yes or no.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the House, as was the hon. member, when the Prime Minister indicated that one of our most significant priorities would be to deal with the claims process in terms of specific claims, in terms of the treaty land entitlements which have not been fulfilled and in terms of changes to the comprehensive claims policy which would allow us to expedite the processing of these claims.
I ask the hon. member to show some trust and confidence that we will be able to make these changes, as the Prime Minister has promised.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: In the absence of the Minister of Immigration, Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration and Minister of State for Seniors.
Figures indicate that federal funds for teaching French to immigrants have decreased by 17 per cent in the last year while the number of immigrants has gone up by 12 per cent during the same time.
Mr. Speaker, some immigrants have to wait up to five months before being able to register for French lessons. Can the minister explain why the government cannot make this program more readily accessible to immigrants who need to learn French to make their transition into their chosen society that much easier?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this question

which enables us to stress again that the government does give priority to immigrant linguistic training.
This is why in excess of $120 million was earmarked for language training in 1990-91, three times as much as in the 1984-85 budget. Still I hasten to point out to my colleague opposite that budgets and programs have to be re-examined every year. We do that in close co-operation with our provincial colleagues to make sure that our programs are indeed tailored to real needs.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, only a few days ago, the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council said in recommendation No. 7 that the Council recommended making French-language training available to all immigrants in Quebec. This morning, the Quebec Department of Immigration confirmed the information we got from the media, namely that there had been a reduction of 17 per cent. Why doesn't the government listen to its own advisory council and immediately increase funding to make French-language courses for immigrants available to all?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I again wish to stress the importance of co-operation in identifying these needs with our provincial counterparts. Speaking on behalf of this government, I am very much aware of the importance of making this kind of training available to immigrants. I want to repeat that $120 million have been earmarked within our budget. We want to manage our programs effectively, and I can inform the House that the programs approved this year are three times what they were in 1984-85. That is quite an improvement.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The ongoing situation in the gulf, which is dangerous and serious, continues to concern Canadians and the people of the world.
Oral Questions
There are authoritative reports that the U.S. intends to launch an offensive attack on Iraq completely outside the terms of the United Nations resolution.
Will the minister instruct the Canadian contingent in the gulf that it is strictly to limit its activities to those which are within the terms of the UN resolution and that under no circumstances is it to become involved in precipitated U.S. offensive action against Iraq?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in assuming that there is a serious international crisis in the gulf. I suggest he is foolhardy in relying on his information through the newspapers as to reports of actions taken by governments.
That being said, I can assure him that before any changes are made to the mission that Canadian forces are involved in at this time in support of the United Nations sanctions, resolution 665, that of deterring aggression, they will have to be consulted and we will have to make that change in Canada. It will not be changed by the commanders in the area.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, among the sources for the suggestion that there is an offensive U.S. policy is none other than the recently fired chief of the air force in the United States of America. This has been supported by all kinds of independent analysts.
I would like to know and this House would like to know what steps the Government of Canada is taking to persuade the United States to give sanctions and the United Nations a chance to get the hostages free and to get Iraq out of Kuwait.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member answered his own question as to his source. A source that has been dismissed is no longer a reliable source, I would suggest to the hon. member.
Let me go a little further and suggest to the hon. member that the actions taken by the ambassador of Canada and United Nations Ambassador Fortier since the outset have been to convince all nations involved to abide by the United Nations resolutions. Canada has co-sponsored on several occasions those resolutions.

September 26, 1990
Oral Questions
Canada has been working consistently since the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to bring about a peaceful resolution through the United Nations.
I suggest to the hon. member that what he sees taking place, the enforcement of the resolutions by the world and that world condemnation, is proof that Canada and other countries including the United States are prepared at this time to work through the United Nations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. We in this House should not forget the plight of Canada's farmers.
Last spring this government took away interest-free cash advances from farmers. That was a horrible mistake, and it hurt farmers.
In the face of the current difficult situation-plummeting prices, lost markets, and high interest rates-I want to know whether the Minister of Agriculture would restore interest-free cash advances.
I think the farmers of this country deserve an answer now.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend that we are not overlooking the needs of farmers.
As I indicated in the House yesterday, we are looking at several options, one being the hope or expectation that we can develop a long-term safety net stabilization program that would provide confidence, stability, and security for our grains and oilseeds sector.
I appreciate the magnitude of the question, and I will certainly take his question as representation.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the answer from the hon. minister lacks precision. The farmers are in a desperate situation and they need answers now.
In light of the horrible mistake that he made, I would suggest to the hon. minister that he swallow his pride and deal with this issue in a serious way. If that means going over and twisting the arm of the Minister of
Finance, I will be more than happy to come down there and help him.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that is not literally physical force the hon. member is advocating. Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


John Harvard: Physical, I do not care.
I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Unfortunately interest-free cash advances are not good enough any more. The farmers of this country need an emergency aid package, and I want to know whether he is considering an emergency aid package now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member's offer should be interpreted as a threat or as a favour but, having said that, the hon. member knows very well that this government provided $500 million in emergency assistance. Some of that assistance is still in the process of being circulated to farmers, and I am sure that is appreciated.
I think it bears re-mentioning that had the provinces been able to comply with matching funds, we certainly would not have been in the same position as we are today. We are looking at what can be done, but I repeat that I hope I can count on the hon. member's support in developing a long-term safety net program which will serve the long-term future needs of the grains and oilseeds sector. I can assure him that we are actively working on that.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the amount of food on the table and the amount of knowledge in the mind determine to a large extent the health of children, and a healthy childhood invites freedom from all types of abuse and exploitation.
Since the Prime Minister is going to New York this weekend to chair one of the most important international meetings, the World Summit for Children, for their sake, is he now prepared to table in this House a comprehensive national strategy that would set the stage for a war on poverty on behalf of the children of Canada
September 26, 1990

to eliminate or significantly reduce this social cancer in our country?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for a very excellent question. He quite correctly points out that the UN World Summit, which will be co-chaired by the Prime Minister, represents a vital advance for the children of the world. This will be the largest get-together of world leaders since the Vienna Congress in 1814.
One of the goals of the summit will be to plan a concerted attack on world poverty among children. One of the commitments of this government is to continue to do everything that we can to reduce the rate of poverty among children.
I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that since 1984 we have been able to reduce by over a quarter of a million, the number of children who are living under the low income cutoffs. We are determined to continue to keep that effort and do everything that we can to reduce the level even further.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, very sadly, there are at least one million Canadian children who are poor and dying. We cannot long endure their continued loss to ignorance, abuse, and ill health. The length of lineups to food banks now extends from Ottawa to New York. In Winnipeg alone, the lineup to food banks has swelled by 30 per cent in the last year.
The Manitoba Child Care Association echoes the fear of all day care supporters across the country, that thousands of children are at risk in life and in health due to an inadequate child care system in the country.
When will this government start providing the now long overdue universal affordable day care to children of Canadian families?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of child poverty, I believe that we have done well but I believe that we can do better in Canada. That is the commitment that we make. We are committed to introducing a child care policy during the life of this Parliament.
In addition, the hon. member could be very helpful to all of us who are committed to providing assistance for Canada's children. As he is aware, at the present time before the Senate there is legislation that provides for a $500 million increase in parental benefits for parental
Oral Questions
leave under unemployment insurance reforms. He could be exceptionally helpful if he would ask the Liberal senators to pass that legislation without further delay.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Transport.
Air Canada has confirmed plans to lay off at least 2,300 employees and rumours suggest that the number may be as high as 3,000. There is also every indication that Air Canada will eliminate several so-called unprofitable routes.
What action will the minister and the government take to protect those jobs and to protect Air Canada service to those communities where it is threatened?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour) and (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his nomination as transportation critic.
In answer to his question, I will remind him that Air Canada is now a private company that operates under market laws and therefore has to conform with the demands.
We will certainly make sure that all employees who will have to be laid off, if there are any layoffs, are properly treated.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture.
Canadian farmers have been left in the position of sitting on a very good crop with excellent quality facing U.S. subsidies which have exceeded $55 per tonne, a change from the days when they were offering $5 and $7 per tonne.
While this contradicts my reading of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement where they had agreed not to offer those subsidies to third countries, I am wondering what the government has done about the reports that Congress is now very close to changing the trade law to

September 26, 1990
Point of Order
permit the extension of export subsidies for the sale of U.S. wheat into Canada.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. It is a very serious one as far as the government is concerned.
He is right. We have harvested a better than average crop. It has come off in good condition. We find totally unacceptable the bill that was passed in the U.S. Senate about 10 days ago, targeting specifically Canadian markets.
We are examining very thoroughly and very carefully the possibilities of pursuing an action under the free trade agreement. Once that advice is complete, we will then be in a position to make a decision.
In the meantime we are making strong representations to the U.S. administration to not see that the bill comes into law because, if it does come into law, there are some very pertinent implications as far as the free trade agreement is concerned that we intend to pursue.



Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. Both dairy and poultry producers across Canada are concerned about the future of supply managed commodity sectors and therefore the future of the Canadian product that is produced by those farmers.
When the Canadian position on agriculture is tabled at GATT on or before October 15, can we have the minister's assurance that the supply management programs will not be jeopardized but will be strengthened by better support in Article XI of GATT and further, that they will not be compromised by any Canadian support for the aggregate measure of support formula?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague knows that the balanced position Canada has developed with respect to our position at the GATT negotiations has
been brought about as a result of extensive consultations with the provincial governments and with all sectors of the agricultural industry. I think it is fair to say that there is general approval for the position that Canada has taken.
We have proposed the strengthening and clarification of Article XI and have outlined the manner in which that will be done. The position we have taken is that we are asking all participating countries to reduce trade distorting levels of support in all three areas. We consider that the aggregate measure of support is a useful tool in terms of monitoring the level of that support. What we are proposing are really reductions that would be considered to be direct support by the government. Of course that would all be conditional upon the other participating countries taking similar action.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Roland Michener, former Governor General of Canada and former Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Dr. Franjo Tudjman, President of the Republic of Croatia and Dr. Zarko Domljan, President of the Croatian Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the unveiling of the statue to Lester B. Pearson later this afternoon. I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That, once the deferred division in relation to Government Business
No. 17 on the Order Paper is completed later today, the sitting of the
September 26, 1990

House be suspended for one hour or until the ceremony unveiling the
statue of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on a point of order.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, whilst we are very happy with this proposal, since it came from this side, I wonder if the government would be ready to suspend the Elouse until the ceremony is terminated? It could be one hour or when the ceremony is terminated.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that when the ceremony is finished the bells will ring to call the members back. That would be fine with us. I should also mention that it is our understanding that the time allotted for this particular event will be added to the clock at the end of the day.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
We had agreed to a one-hour suspension of the sitting. If the House wishes to take an hour of its time to pay tribute to Mr. Pearson, that is fine, but we cannot agree to extending the sitting past 6 p.m.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to enable members of Parliament to attend the unveiling, may I suggest that we agree for the one hour break or as long as the ceremony lasts and terminate this session at six o'clock as per usual.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Government House Leader.


Harvie Andre: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we want to participate in honouring this great Canadian who did say, at the end of the day, the will of the House of Commons must prevail over the Senate. So, let us go and honour him.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the House that there seems to be a lot of consensus around here except as to whether or not we sit for another hour.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in our Standing Order that could allow that. We will look into that.
Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to what I think has been agreed, the House will adjourn at 3.30 p.m. for members to be able to attend the unveiling of the statue. It will be immediately after the vote which should take place shortly.
The hon. Government House Leader.


Harvie Andre: In anticipation of calling the vote, I believe there is agreement between the two whips that there will be a short bell, not the regular 15 minutes and we can have the vote immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we just want to know what has finally been decided. Do we agree to withdraw for an hour to pay tribute to Mr. Pearson, come back and resume sitting until 6 p.m. as usual? Is that what we agreed?


Mr. Speaker:: No. What we have agreed to is that immediately after the vote, we adjourn for an hour or however long it takes to complete the ceremony in honour of the former Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. After that there will have to be some discussion as to whether or not there is provision or we are able to extend the sitting or not, that is a secondary question. I am trying to make it very clear that that is what we have agreed to at the moment.
It being 3 p.m. pursuant to order made Tuesday, September 25, 1990, the House will now resume consideration of the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development respecting the situation at Oka and Chateauguay.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 25, consideration of motion of Mr. Siddon:
[Stage Direction]
September 26, 1990
Government Orders
That this House commends the exemplary conduct of the men and women of the Canadian Forces at Oka and Chateauguay.
That, in the opinion of this House, the laws of Canada must apply on all Canadian territory, including Kahnawake, and that all persons currently at the Kanesatake Treatment Centre should lay down their arms and submit to the processes of Canada's judicial system, thereby encouraging the creation of a constructive climate for discussions between governments and the Mohawk people on land claims and other issues; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
And the amendment of Ms. Blondin:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "ChSteauguay" and replacing them with the following:
"and that this House condemns the complete failure of the government to address and offer solutions to the problems that led to the Armed Forces being deployed; and
That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
And the subamendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "this House condemns the complete failure of the government" and replacing them with:
"this House condemns the complete failure of the current and past governments".
Mr. Speaker:: We will now proceed to the deferred divisions. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the subamendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Mr. Speaker:: As per agreement, the sitting is suspended to the call of the chair for approximately one hour.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 15.29 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 16.35 p.m.
Lake. That is not what I meant to say, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I was referring to Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper who used procedural tactics to defeat the Meech Lake accord. I hope the correctioon will be made in the final version of Hansard. Thank you.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we will have to be careful when members want to make corrections to Hansard. They should indicate the page and the word to be changed. But if a member seeks to change the meaning of an intervention this might create a problem. In that case perhaps the member would have to debate the matter at some time. But I think it is not correct for us today to accept that a substantial change be made to the record. Surely the hon. member can understand that it is impossible to change yesterday's record. Her intervention is accepted for what it is worth today.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is on page 13311 and it does not change anything to the meaning of the speech. Mr. Speaker, I simply do not want people reading these speeches in a few years to conclude that the hon. member for Kootenay West was responsible for the failure. I did not mean to involve him. It does not change anything to the meaning of my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.

.


POINT OF ORDER
Lise Bourgault: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the comments I made yesterday, as reported on page 13307 of both official versions of Hansard. I got a call this morning and was told that I mentioned the Quebec Department of Indian Affairs. I meant to say the Regional Directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs in Quebec. I would like to have the record corrected.
Second, Mr. Speaker, there is another problem. In my answer to the hon. member for Kootenay East I seem to imply that he is responsible for the failure of Meech


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, during the time set aside for unveiling the statue, we had a chance to consult, and if the House is prepared to consider the proposal submitted by the hon. member to the House with respect to the time of adjournment today, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for adjourning at 7 p.m, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 26, of course, to make sure 7 p.m. stands.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member, he is suggesting that we go back to what we had originally proposed at three o'clock which was that we add the time, roughly speaking it would have been an hour, but we would agree to seven o'clock. I think all of the members would be happy with that as it provided two things: one, to unveil

Speaker's Ruling
the statue and, second, to make sure the House does not lose its valuable time.


Mr. Speaker:: The member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan wishes to comment. Agreed?


Iain Francis Angus: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we accept that great compromise.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stand-stead):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is partly related to something that happened yesterday in the Legislative Committee on Bill C-79, the Parliament of Canada Act. You must have noticed the problem since you testified before the Committee.
Briefly, the list of committee members shows me as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, although everyone knows that since May 18,1 have had no further interest, either directly or indirectly, in the party and no longer wish to be associated with it.
It goes further than that, however. It seems that despite my speech in the House on May 18, 1990, my name continues to be associated with the Progressive Conservative Party in various committees, and I make this statement today, Mr. Speaker, to ensure I am no longer associated with this party, either in committee or in any other way.
Furthermore, although nearly 3 per cent of the people in Laurier-Sainte-Marie do not agree with me, 68 per cent will probably appreciate my position.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to get to the main problem which affects my privileges in this House and indeed one of the rights recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I am referring to freedom of association. I would like to read the following-for the benefit of those who might be watching at home, these glasses belong to my friend, Mr. Plamon-don-and I quote: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Everyone has the following basic freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion, of course, but also freedom of association.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but there is no need to read the whole document. The point the member raised is legitimate. I can assure him that the necessary corrections can be readily made. I fully agree with his comments.
Does the hon. member have anything to add?


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege was twofold.
You have dealt with the first part regarding my former affiliation with the Progressive Conservative Party. The second part has to do with my name being mentioned in official documents of the House and especially on air when the proceedings are broadcasted, as it is the case now.
I request, in the name of the freedom of association and pursuant to the Charter of Rights, the right of freedom of association, that fundamental right I had to be associated with my colleagues of the "Bloc Quebecois". I also request that the Canadian people, as well as the people of Quebec and of my riding of Megantic-Compton-Standstead, be informed of my new political allegeance, the political affiliation I have chosen under the Charter of Rights and in accordance with the basic principles of democracy in our society.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that precedents on this subject dating back in many instances 200 or 300 years cannot be put forward, given that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence over any other text or privilege since coming into effect in 1981.
Your ruling will have to be based exclusively on the Charter, setting aside precedents from another era.
This alliance, as you have been officially advised, was agreed to and signed by the new members of a group called "Bloc Quebecois", and must be recognized as such. In fact, what would it mean to recognize the right of association, the freedom of assocation, if you were not to recognize this group and call it by its name. You cannot simply say: You, the member for Megantic-

September 26, 1990

Compton-Stanstead, are entitled to associate with the member for Richelieu, as long as it is kept under wraps.
On this matter, I don't think you can afford to bury your head in the sand. The only thing I ask is that, during debate in this House and the broadcast of the proceedings, as well as in committees and every time my name is mentioned, I be referred to as the member for Megan-tic-Compton-Stanstead of to the "Bloc Quebecois", just as any other member affiliated with one group or another is referred to.
My request, Mr. Speaker, is supported by the most fundamental texts in our country, which are widely recognized in every nation of the world and by all governments and democratic assemblies.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I should like to comment on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think my colleague from Megantic-Compton- Stanstead is quite right, for he speaks for us all. You may recall that all the members who had signed the memo I sent you on September 17 asked or officially advised you of their decision to sit under the banner of the "Bloc Quebecois".
This note was signed by all my colleagues and expressed our common will to sit under that banner. That being so, be it in the various committees-indeed we will have to deal further with this because I imagine the Chief Government Whip will have something to say about it-if the various committees of the House are to be representative of the House it is obvious that we will have to find a solution concerning our participation in the various committees, given the number of us.
If the committees want to be true reflections of the composition of this House we will have to find a solution to that. I would ask you, and the Opposition Whip more particularly, to consider the matter.
Mr. Speaker, this involves not only television and the committees but also all the elements you mentioned with respect to the various proceedings of the House and the ministerial statements when we hope to be able to have the floor, whenever a decision has been made about that.
Since I am on this subject and knowing that your illustrious Board of Internal Economy had a meeting today, at least I imagine it did, I wonder if the House
Speaker's Ruling
might be advised as to whether your board has reached conclusions. This might be a good opportunity because all members of the House want to know to what extent a group which a member has joined freely must be recognized.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, we had practically the same discussion, not exactly the same but almost.

I think it is clear from our precedents in this Parliament, let alone previous Parliaments, that it is the right of members in terms of designation to remove the designation they had when they arrived in this place. If they ran under the Canada Elections Act under a particular party name and they choose no longer to be a part of that, then that is their choice. I discovered through conversations some months ago that no one else can take the designation away from them. That is a matter of individual choice and is well centred in our parliamentary democracy.
The issue the member is raising dearly today is whether or not he has the right to substitute for that designation a new designation of some kind. I am not sure; perhaps it would take a bit of table research to decide whether or not we really have any kind of clear precedents for the power to put a different set of words behind one's name in all of our publications including Hansard.
I do not know if anybody in this Chamber feels negative about the notion that the issue of labelling in our documents be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and that committee members, in their wisdom, hold whatever hearings they need and report back to the Chamber about that specific issue.
In the course of the argument some other issues were raised, for instance the issue of committee membership. The striking committee has not even met to consider the letter that is in our hands. On the issue related to the Board of Internal Economy, it has not met since that correspondence arrived. It would probably be premature to send any of the other matters to committee at this point.

September 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
Perhaps there is a predisposition and it is acceptable to the member and all other members of the House to put the issue of labelling in documents by agreement into the hands of Privilege and Elections, with the sense that it would report with due speed and diligence. It would not be something the committee would just sit on for quite a long time, but it would attack the problem and provide us with advice reasonably soon. If we could reach agreement on that, we could proceed to the business of the day or to the rest of Routine Proceedings and then to the business of the day.
I am not sure if I am detecting positives or negatives on the other side.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we accept the proposal by the Government Whip that this question be referred to a Standing Committee of the House for examination and consideration, with the recommendation to act with the requisite diligence so that this matter can be settled as soon as possible.
There is a problem. Two more issues were raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead in his statement. There is the matter of the designation below the name of the person speaking, and I am referring to the individual's political affiliation. On television we see the member's name, and if I am not mistaken, some indication of the political party to which he belongs. I think we have to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important matter that concerns all members of this House, and I think we will have to determine whether independent groups of members constitute a political party in this House and whether we should refer to them as members of a political party, a political affiliation, a group, a coalition or a block.
That, in fact, is another matter, of some concern to us, and I simply want to inform the independant member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead who spoke earlier that here again we feel that the entire question could be referred to a committee of the House for discussion. We are willing to discuss the matter here in the House, but it is not that easy. In fact, it is a very complex matter. To some observers, it may seem trivial, but for us the designation of a political party, a block, a group, a
coalition or what have you is essentially a matter regarding the organization of this House. Mr. Speaker, we know the British tradition, even in the way the seats are assigned, with the government on your right and the opposition on your left, suggests the existence of a long standing tradition where there is a government and an opposition, and the fact that the latter is divided into parties, groups or simply composed of independant individuals is not important.
But we will have to decide once and for all if a group, a coalition or a block should be designated as a "political Party". That being said, Mr. Speaker, I know that those problems are a great cause of concern for my independant friends from Quebec who recently broke ranks with the traditional parties. But I want to have the opportunity to discuss the matter freely and to deal with it once and for all. If we have a debate, today or in the next few days, I will be ready to take part in it. I have enough notes to talk for almost two hours, but I will not make my speech right now even though I am anxious to have a debate on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the representations made by both the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and the Hon. Member for Shefford.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief introduction on behalf of my party. This is a subject matter of which I think we have all been seized in various ways for quite some time now. I think the suggestion of the chief government Whip, supported by the Whip of the Official Opposition to refer to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-


An hon. member:: House leader.


Iain Francis Angus: I am sorry, I forgot about his semi-promotion.
Anyway, the point is that I think that Privileges and Elections should be seized of this particular matter. I might want to add that we have had situations in the past where a member of the Liberal Party, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Reid, referred to himself as a Liberal Labour MP out in the hustings, but in the House he was a Liberal member. That was a requirement of the rules of the House.
September 26, 1990

It may very well be that the broadcasting procedures may dictate the manner in which the label should be applied. We would have to revisit that, much as we have revisited the whole question of television services outside this House and in committee. I think it is rolled together and we have to take that into consideration as well.
There are other matters, but I think it is better that the committee deals with it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the representations that were made. There is a disposition in the House to refer this matter to the appropriate committee. I have to be very careful here because that may very well be the most sensible approach.
However, there were several matters raised in the question of privilege of the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead. If it is going to go to the committee and is going to end up giving me any assistance, it is very necessary that the matters which the hon. member has raised are those that are included in the terms of reference to the committee.
I am in the hands of the House. I have some doubt as to whether this is really a question of privilege. I have very grave doubt about that. However, it certainly could be taken as a point of order. I do not know whether it would be advisable to ask the hon. member who has raised this matter perhaps just to adjourn the matter, over say this evening, until he has a chance to speak to the House leaders. Then come back and give me some indication as to whether or not there is a meeting of the minds on this. That would assist me. In the meantime, naturally the hon. member's application would stay on the floor of the House and we would return to it. I would be very pleased to give the hon. member the opportunity to discuss this over the evening and if he could, get back to me and give me an indication of how the conversations are going.
Is such a proposal agreeable?


François Gérin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think your suggestion is quite
Routine Proceedings
agreeable, because the points are very important. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that I may not be able to get back to you tomorrow on this issue. But even if we had to wait until next week; I have the feeling that you would have no objection. Therefore, I understand that consideration of this matter is suspended until we return to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead's co-operation. Clearly, there is no need for a solution by tomorrow.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead would not want to take the House by surprise, could he give us his word that he will give advance notice to all Hon. Members before raising this issue again in the House?


François Gérin: If he were to invite me to dinner, we could certainly talk about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that there is a certain level of agreement in the House. I thank all Hon. Members who took part in the debate. This is a major issue.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table today, in both official languages, copies of a document entitled Tourism on the Threshold which is the first ever federal government tourism strategy. This is for the 1990s.
Mr. Speaker, this particular document recognizes tourism as a strategic industry, not as a parenthetical industry, but strategic to our economy. It focuses on strategic plans for the industry and it recognizes that governments, federal and provincial, must co-operate with the industry in order to build a stronger industry. I am very pleased to table this in both official languages.

Routine Proceedings


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official languages.
This report on the National Arts Centre arises from the committee's motion, adopted on May 29. The committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109.
Among many recommendations, it is our firm conviction that the National Arts Centre Orchestra remain as a resident company and it should be renamed the National Orchestra of Canada.
I would like to add that it is our view that this report will contribute to the lessening of tensions in evidence at the Centre and I am grateful to the members of the subcommittee and their staff. All along, their approach has been to foster a dialogue designed to help the Centre as it enters its third decade.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS CONTRACTS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-82, an act to amend an act to provide for the appointment of a port warden for the harbour of Quebec, and an act to amend and
consolidate the acts relating to the office of port warden for the harbour of Montreal and to validate certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I know most of the members of the House are anxious for committees to be able to perform their duties.
We do have a problem with one of the committees of the House, and I have had some discussions in the hopes that I could get the consent necessary for this motion because we do want to see that the committee proceeds.
It is a committee on a very important subject, the subject of the environment. I wonder if I can just read the motion and see if we have consent to proceed with it:
That notwithstanding any special order of the House, a special committee of this House established on Wednesday, June 27, 1990 to prestudy Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process have all the powers Standing Order 113(5) confers on legislative committees.
Mr. Speaker Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to present the motion?


Some hon. member:: No.



PETITIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia who oppose the government's proposed goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out at some length all the reasons why they oppose this tax and why they feel that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time hitting the wrong people. They are asking the Liberals in the Senate to at least filibuster sufficiently so that the tax would not
September 26, 1990

become law, because they do not have confidence that they will actually vote against it.


BILL C-21
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise in accordance with Standing Order 36.
I have a petition duly certified by the Clerk, and signed by 62 constituents of mine from the town of Bonavista.
The petitioners are concerned about Bill C-21. They are particularly concerned that the Government of Canada is proposing to drastically cut unemployment insurance benefits by making it more difficult to qualify by reducing the number of weeks covered.
Also, they are concerned that the government is withdrawing its contribution of, when last checked, $2.9 billion to the unemployment insurance fund, leaving the financing to workers and employers.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this bill.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 317 will be answered today.


$500 MILLION ASSISTANCE PACKAGE-FUR COMPONENT
Mr. Althouse: Has the Deputy Prime Minister proposed a $500 million assistance package that contains a fur component and, if so (a) who will be eligible for this assistance (b) what amount is to be paid (c)by what method (d) are provinces required to match funding or share funding of this program and, if so, in each case, what federal-provincial sharing arrangement will apply?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The 1990 special assistance package of $500 million is contingent upon provincial participation. Federal funds allocated from the $500 million for other commodities total about $50 million. The provinces have agreed to administer the assistance program and they have the flexibility to direct assistance to those producers most in need.
Routine Proceedings
While assistance for grains and oilseeds has been announced, details regarding assistance for the other commodities are yet to be finalized. Provinces are working on ways to distribute funds.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-27 in the name of the hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam is acceptable to the government, except for the documents which cannot be released pursuant to the Access to Information Act. These documents are tabled immediately.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all background papers produced in relation to the evaluation by the Department of Health and Welfare of the Canada Assistance Plan, published between August 1989 and May 1990.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers, No. P-24, in the name of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and No. P-26, in the name of the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents and correspondence pertaining to the decision to admit Francisco Nota Moises to Canada as a convention refugee.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of operational memoranda, directives and other documents referred to by the Minister of Employment and Immigration on May 7 and 8, 1990 (p. 11048 and pp. 11134-5 of the House of Commons Debates) which

Government Orders
outline and give effect to the practice whereby medical attention, in
particular the administration of drugs, is given to rejected refugee
claimants awaiting deportation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. P-24, in the name of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, is not acceptable because it makes requests for personal information.
Motion No. P-27, in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina is acceptable with reservations. Perhaps the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands would ask that those be transferred for debate.


Joy Langan: Transfer for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that Motions No. 26 and 27 be transferred for debate?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, An act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are three motions set down on the motion paper for the report stage of Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto.
Motion Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming are technical in nature as they correct obvious errors in the bill. They are in order. They will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops is also acceptable and will be debated and voted upon separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-44 be amended in Clause 2 in the French version by
striking out line 21 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "de la mer territoriale la oh ce rebord se".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-44 be amended in Clause 3 in the French version
(a)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 at page 4 and substituting the
following therefor:
"(iii) un montant supplemental d'au plus trois cents millions"
(b)	by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 4 and substituting the
following therefor:
"c) des dispositions relatives a la participation de Sa Majeste aux
bnefices nets;
d) des engagements relatifs aux retombees industrielles et aux
avantages pour l'emploi;"
(c)	by adding immediately after line 50 at page 4 the following: "f) les autres mesures que le ministre juge souhaitables."


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment or two about the two amendments, motions No. 1 and No. 2, which were grouped for debate. They are technical amendments relating to wording changes that were not caught at the time of the committee hearings. I will speak more on third reading.
These two amendments are very much in the tradition and nature of the spirit that characterized the work on Hibernia. As we enter this last phase on the debate on Hibernia, it is important for the House to know what actually happened in respect of this long-awaited project. What took place was simply this.
It goes back to the mid-1960s when the then Premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Joey Smallwood, in an act in the best traditions of Newfoundland politics, decided to hire a boat and crew to go to the Grand Banks and used deep-sea divers to place on the floor of the ocean a plaque designating that the resources that some day would be discovered on the Grand Banks. He obviously had visions which others at that time might not have shared. With the placing of that plaque on the floor of the ocean, he claimed those resources for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It was no different, I would suggest, than that which we on the Prairies faced at the time when we entered Confederation and were not seen wither worthy or capable of ownership of resources. In fact, the three prairie provinces did not get ownership to their resources-Manitoba, when it entered Confederation in 1870,
September 26, 1990

and Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905-until the passage in the House of the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930.
In respect of Newfoundland and Labrador, I will not go through a lot of history today. My colleagues from that province on both sides of the House know the history of their province much better than I do, but this summer particularly I have been somewhat steeped in the history and folklore of those people and their province.
With the Atlantic Accord came the dream that Joey Smallwood and, I am sure, many Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans had-the dream that those resources would in fact been seen by the rest of Canada as being a resource, in this case, equally shared between Canada, in the right of Canada, and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is that spirit which has surrounded this bill as it has made its way through the House and its committees.
In the committee, there were quite a number of amendments and members of both sides of the House were very co-operative and I want to thank them for that again. They were co-operative because as we were moving this enabling legislation through the House and the committee, we were also negotiating in Toronto. Therefore I had to make amendments as the negotiations were going on. Generally in this place, as most members with any experience know, it is very difficult to get legislation passed or amendments passed until every t is crossed and every i is dotted in the contractual form. That was the spirit in which this committee worked. These are the two amendments that were not caught that evening and it is in that same spirit that these amendments are brought forward.
At this time, as we enter report stage, it is important to understand what happened in Newfoundland. When the announcement on Hibernia was finally made, obviously the people of Newfoundland and Labrador welcomed this development. I was honoured to be there along with my colleagues and I invited all members of the House to that event. I was there with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade who is the hon member for St. John's East. I have had words with other colleagues from
Government Orders
the other side of the House with respect to what happened that day.
It is important for us to know that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, while the Hibernia project will not bring the kind of wealth or possibly the bonanza that some have always hoped for, that it was seen, as the Prime Minister said, as more than simply another deal. It is more than barrels of oil or economic activity. Rather, it is an issue relating to fairness, equity, and dignity.
I hope that this legislation is seen in that light and, while it benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the first instance as it should, that members on both sides of the House will recognize that it brings the final act in legislative and legal terms to fruition.
I also hope that members of the House from other provinces will recognize why it is important, first, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not want to be recipients of equalization any more than any other province, but rather want to contribute to the financial well being of Canada as they have always wanted to do. So, we must look at this bill as having benefits in the first instance for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also as having great benefits for the residents of other provinces of Canada. I have never known major projects that can ever be isolated or insulated for benefits to only one province or region.
I am reminded of years ago when I was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it seems like years ago, in 1979. I was on a drilling rig in the Beaufort Sea. On the drill floor I met a fellow who must have been at least 135 pounds dripping wet. I asked him where he was from and he said: "From Newfoundland." I said: "Well, what are you doing here?" He answered: "Well, it is pretty obvious. I am drilling for oil."
I always thought of that when I heard people say that the people from Newfoundland would not get benefits out of this project because they do not have either the expertise or the experience. It was my understanding and my knowledge that they had been willing to go to all comers of the world to work on projects such as these. I asked him why he was there and he said: "So I can earn some money to go back home, build a house and get

September 26, 1990
Government Orders
married." I thought that was a fairly legitimate objective as well.
I use that human story to point out that in this place we can very often get tied up with all kinds of legal arguments and political games. Let us remember that this legislation is good, first for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also for all of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. I will then recognize an NDP member and then the hon. member for Richelieu.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say how honoured and privileged I am to rise, both as the member from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception on the east coast of Newfoundland and as the associate critic for energy, mines and resources, to speak to these amendments.
As the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, this is very much a housekeeping amendment and as such I have no detailed comments per se. If I could be permitted, there are a number of comments I would like to make at this point in time.
I would like to say at the outset that, as a Newfoundlander, I am very pleased-in fact, I am overwhelmed- about what this is going to do. Again, as the Minister said, this is not the be all and an end all. There are all kinds of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed. But I would like to make the point that it is good not just for Newfoundland, it is good for all of Canada. The expenditures that are going to be involved and the oil resources and revenues are going to benefit Canada, not just from the participation and the spinoffs economically, but, indeed, reducing our dependence on white oil.
If I can perhaps be allowed a bit of a motion in this particular aspect, I would again look at the Newfoundland benefit. I would like to go back to the reference the hon. Minister made with respect to the Hon. J.R. Smallwood, the first Premier of Newfoundland. Indeed, it is generally well known by anybody who has been involved with Hibernia that he was the first. He sent a diver down on the Grand Banks because he believed in his province and he believed that if we were going to
succeed as a province in the long run we were going to have to diversify from the 1497 comment of John Cabot who said: "Fish were teaming. You can catch them in baskets." It is not quite that way any more.
At about the time that Mr. Smallwood was laying the plaque at the bottom of the Grand Banks, I was a lot younger than I am now. I remember the kind of songs that we used to sing in folklore, songs like Lots of Fish in Bonavis Harbour, Lots of Fishing Around Here; songs like Tickle Cove Pond; songs like The Trinity Cake; songs like A Great Big Sea Hove in Long Beach. Happy songs. Songs that said that although there were always hardships in Newfoundland we could always see through the hardships because there was always the hope that something would come along next year. I remember my grandfather having tough years and good years in the fishing and his father before him. There was always hope that something would come along that we did not have to have these alternatively good and bad years.
Now what are we seeing in Newfoundland just before Hibernia was signed again? The song that is now being sung and understood very much in Newfoundland, if I could be permitted, is a song made popular by the late Stan Rogers, a very well known folk singer. It is a very emotional song. I do not propose to sing it for you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to give you the chorus. The song is called Make and Break Harbour and the chorus is a very sad chorus and it goes like this:
In Make and Break Harbour the boats are so few
Too many are hauled up and rotten
Most houses stand empty
Old nets hung to dry are blown away, lost or forgotten.
Forgotten, Mr. Speaker, because of the state of the economy dependent on the fishery almost as a sole industry. Yes, we have forestry and pulp and paper, but fishery is our mainstay.
In Newfoundland in the last two years-and I do not mean to be political about this but I have to take it from my end and portray at least the 100,000 constituents in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-you have got goods and services tax, you have claw-back, you have got Bill C-21, you have got a reduced, total allowable catch, and you have got foreign overfishing. Wherever you turn around when you get up in the morning, life is not good.

Hibernia represents perhaps a change from the "Make and Break Harbour" syndrome and perhaps a change from the no-hope syndrome that so many of my people report to me and that I have witnessed myself.
Apart from the discussions that will take place here tonight, apart from the housekeeping amendments, apart from all the things that will go on, the one thing that it has given Newfoundland is hope, hope in the midst of despair, hope still for the ocean, but hope in a different aspect, in a different dimension of the ocean.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you could have been in St. John's, Newfoundland on September 14, a week ago Friday. I know the hon. Minister was there. The feeling is very difficult to translate. It did not matter which party you were from. It did not matter what part of Newfoundland you were from. It did not matter whether you had an invitation or not.
The almost 1,400 people who attended that reception in the Hotel Newfoundland was something to behold. The whole thread of hope went right through that reception. That emotion is still with us in Newfoundland. We know that there is more to it than this and we know the spin-offs are not just for Newfoundland. They are for the rest of Canada and we are happy about that. We in Newfoundland are not greedy. We are very pleased to be able to share a project of this nature.
I would be less than total and complete in my introductory comments if I did not admit that the majority of this project, that is the building of the gravity base structure will take place almost in the epicentre of my riding, near Sunnyside, about four miles from it at Mosquito Cove near Bull Arm, nice picturesque words. There is hope.
There is one other comment I would like to make. I have not been in this political business very long, but I have been involved in different aspects of different bills. I must say that it gave me, as a neophyte politician, great hope in the politics and in the business of doing these kind of things in this House, the highest court in the land, when I saw the kind of co-operation we received in getting this bill through. I believe we started first
Government Orders
reading, if my memory serves me correctly, on November 7 last year. We had another round I believe on February 9 for second reading. We got through committee stage shortly after, I think about June 6 or 7.1 remember the hon. minister and his staff making themselves immediately available. It was detailed, it was hard work. We worked into the night and we finished it very quickly and very amicably.
I would also say that I am very conscious, as I know my Newfoundland colleagues are, and I hope the House is very conscious of the personal hard work and energy the the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources put into this. I am sure the hon. Minister of International Trade and others did also. I know they were in the forefront of the very difficult negotiations that took place this summer.
We were hoping to have third reading before the House took recess, but for reasons that I need not get into, it was not deemed appropriate to bring it before the House. As a last resort I asked the minister, and I quote the question:
Is it possible for the minister to give us any indication of the date so
that the people of Canada would have some indication of when they
are finally going to derive some benefits from this mega project?
I do not have the minister's exact reply, but he knows that he said: "Yes, we will continue to negotiate during the summer and work will begin this fall". I believed the minister. I knew he would work hard at it, and I am very pleased to report that the results at this point in time are history. Therefore, I would like to go on record for myself and certainly my Newfoundland colleagues and all my colleagues on this side of the House and thank both ministers. I know the hard work the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his staff put into it. That certainly is to be taken into account.
I know we will be speaking in more detail on this and in depth. I have more detailed comments to make and I know a lot of my colleagues wish to speak to it as well.
At this this particular point in time I would like to say: Thank you for the progress we have made so far and let us hope that we can continue in the spirit of hope and co-operation as we go through to third reading.

Government Orders


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few comments about the bill before the House today and the concerns I have about energy development in this country.
The bill before the House today is important for the taxpayers of this country. What we are looking at is the expenditure of $2.7 billion of taxpayer's money from the federal taxpayer, wherever that federal taxpayer may live in this country. Mr. Speaker, $2.7 billion is a fair amount of money for the taxpayers of this country. Later on in this debate the House leader of our party will be moving an amendment that will make sure that the federal taxpayer has accountability in terms of adequate annual reports being made to this House about the Hibernia project, and what it he is doing not only for the province of Newfoundland but indeed for the people of this country.
We want to know for example, Mr. Speaker, what would be the net direct and indirect economic benefits in each Canadian province that will result from this Hibernia project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that we are now speaking on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We are not on the main bill. I would just like to bring that to the attention of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we will be moving further amendments because we are concerned about how they spend the taxpayers' money in this country, and as an Albertan I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would be greatly concerned as well.
I have seen the polls from the province of Alberta where your party, Mr. Speaker, is now running fourth. I am sure you will be very sensitive as to how government money is spent. I do rise to speak on the amendments that are before the House at this time saying that the main concern in our party is accountability, to make sure that money is well spent, to make sure that taxpayers' money is not wasted, be it a taxpayer from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, or Cambridge, Ontario. It is important that we keep a close watch on the expenditure of money.
I am also concerned about an intention of this government that I want to raise on these amendments as well, because it is very relevant, to privatize Petro-Canada very shortly. I think that is also going to be a waste of the
taxpayers' money, a corporation that has now accumulated assets of around $5 billion in this country. It concerns me that the government across the way is going on an ideological binge to satisfy their friends in corporate Canada. They want to privatize Petro-Canada. They want to make sure they have made some very good economic deals like having a Hibernia for some of their rich and powerful friends in corporate Canada. That really concerns me as a New Democrat, concerns me as a Canadian, as a Canadian taxpayer. I am sure it concerns Newfoundland as well. That is being done for ideological purposes.


Mr. Reid:: What has this got to do with Newfoundland?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure the member from Newfoundland who was so active in the constitutional debate, in his heart of hearts being a red Tory, would not favour the privatization of Petro-Canada.
I am sure he would recall that the public institution was formed back in 1974-75 because of an OPEC crisis in the world and the escalating oil prices and because we had a minority parliament where the NDP insisted that we have this public co-operation which would be a window on the oil industry in this country. That is why we had Petro-Canada.
It strikes me as ironic that at the time when there is another crisis in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf this government would want to privatize Petro-Canada. I think it is very important that we mention that in this debate on Hibernia.
We have to deal with these amendments before the House, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we mention that at this particular time because the people of this country must be made aware of the ideological blinders on the government across the way.
It is like the province of Saskatchewan where the premier a year or so ago tried to privatize the Saskatchewan Energy Corporation and the opposition New Democratic Party walked out of the legislature and let the bells ring. The people of that province, my province, rebelled and forced the government to withdraw the bill to privatize the energy corporation of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, I perhaps want to give you advance warning that when the privatization bill for Petro-Canada is tabled in this House in a few days, we intend to make that a fight across this country and show the people
September 26, 1990

of this country what the Conservative party is planning to do with their money.
The people of Canada do not agree with the Conservative Party of Canada. That is very obvious with recent polling results and recent election results and when they try to privatize Petro-Canada, there will be another catalyst, another warning gong to the Conservative party across the way. Come the election campaign in 1992-93 the Conservative Party will go down to a very resounding defeat.
It is short-sighted to embark on some of these policies. It is very short-sighted. We are running out of resources in this country. Under the free trade agreement we will be exporting more and more gas and oil to the United States, and it seems to me very unwise that they have moved to privatize Petro-Canada. I raise that at this time in the Hibernia debate because this is only part of the energy policy of the Conservative Party. What they have done here is they have signed a sweetheart deal that will benefit in the main some of their wealthy friends in the oil industry. I just wonder whether it will be of great benefit to the people of Newfoundland. How many jobs will this create in Newfoundland? How many long-term jobs in Newfoundland will this create? I just wonder. I am really curious about that and I am sure you are too, Mr. Speaker.
I see many of these megaprojects that cost millions of dollars for the creation of one good long-term job, millions and millions of dollars. If it would create a lot of jobs for unionized workers, I would be very happy and very surprised, but I am sure that will not be the case.
When we discuss these amendments, I hope the Conservative Party across the way will look very seriously at amendments that we are proposing and we are moving which will demand more accountability. I hope that they will also come to their senses and not table a proposal in this House in a few days to privatize Petro-Canada because if they do that, that will just put a few more nails in their coffin.
I am sure you remember, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, back in 1979 when the then Prime Minister Joe Clark decided to privatize Petro-Canada. That was one of the reasons why the people of this country defeated the Conservative Party with a resounding vote on Febru-
Govemment Orders
aiy 18, 1980. I know the minister across the way, the Minister of Energy, agrees-I can see him from here shaking his head in agreement-because he was part of that government and he was defeated because of the insensitivity of that party across the way. Increasing oil prices by 18 cents a gallon, do you remember that, increasing oil prices when John Crosbie, the then Minister of Finance, said that we needed this short-term pain for long-term gain. Then the agenda was to privatize Petro-Canada and give more and more breaks. It just shows the Liberals-


An hon. member:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know there are times when we are not really relevant to what the motions are but when you start getting a little off that, I think that I should intervene. I think the hon. member's time has expired in any event. I will recognize the hon. member for Richelieu.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, the Hibernia project has been around for quite some time. From the outset a number of Canadian companies, including companies from Quebec, had shown considerable interest and in fact had high hopes for this project. As you know, a consortium headed by Marine Industries had been formed, to maximize Canadian content. Companies in Montreal, Toronto and the Atlantic Provinces established a consortium to include companies specialized in platforms and ensure there would be more spin-offs for Canadian industry.
Of course, the new Hibernia project raises a lot of questions, especially for Quebec workers at Lauzon and MIL-Tracy. First of all, one unit, one part of the contract is being built directly in one province, without tenders and without the assurance that local expertise is available to carry out the contract at the best possible price.
The second aspect, which may come as somewhat of a shock andurprise to Canadians and Quebecers, is that federal funding available from the so-called Eastern Canada energy development fund is being used to build infrastructurtes and set up companies that will compete with existing Canadian companies. This is a flagrant denial of the principles of free enterprise and the principles of a Conservative Party that has always stood for private enterprise and keeping government interven-

have a research budget, we will be more than happy to provide a typed copy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You might be able to come to my office and I will let you have a typewriter.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, the energy critic from Edmonton East, and the officials for the work that has gone into developing this legislation and getting it to the point where we are today. Hopefully we will reach third reading of this legislation by the end of this week.
I would like to make a couple of points. I had the opportunity to be involved in this project for a great number of months. I had the opportunity to be in Newfoundland 10 days ago to understand firsthand how important it was for the residents of Newfoundland, for residents of eastern Canada, and for all Canadians. It will probably be, in my life as a member of Parliament, one of the most key pieces of legislation that has been put forward.
It is going to help economic development across Canada, not only in the province of Newfoundland. I would like to say that it was a great honour to be part of that project, and again I thank my colleagues for the great detailed work they did in this regard.
The member who spoke previously on this amendment mentioned work and the way that parts of this work should be spread across Canada. It certainly was, Mr. Speaker. After my address I would like to send a copy of this release dated November 14 to my hon. colleague. It is entitled "The MIL Group Anticipates Key Role in Canadian Offshore Projects" and in part reads:
Montreal, Quebec-As Canada's most experienced fabricator of offshore structures, The MIL Group is pleased at the go-ahead announcements for the Hibernia Offshore oil project in Newfoundland -Robert Tessier, President and CFO of The MIL Group, commented, "The MIL Group has been working closely with the international offshore industry for more than ten years. I am very confident that The MIL Group will be able to successfully compete for a wide range of the project content."
Government Orders
The communique goes on, but I would like to condense parts of it because I think it is veiy important to all members in the House and all Canadians to understand that this is not only a Newfoundland project. This is a Canadian project from which all Canadians are going to benefit.
In closing the communique reads:
Current MIL estimates project a potential of over 2 million
manhours of work accessible to The MIL Group and its associates
over the next few years from the Hibernia-projects.
For the benefit of the residents of the province of Quebec who will be paying a key part of this, it is worth $1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, with this piece of legislation the Government of Canada under the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the groups, the consortium, have done their utmost to ensure that all Canadians will have the opportunity and the benefits directly and indirectly in this project.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I presume we are on dealing with the amendment moved by the member of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Richelieu, one of the new kids on the block.
I would like to put a couple of things on the record. I was not intending to say anything during this debate, but I can see what the members are up to. They will be moving motions to delay this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that when the motion was moved the hon. member kept referring to work in specific locations in one province, namely the province of Quebec. He kept referring to the province of Quebec. He kept saying that the entire intent of this motion was to say that Quebec was not getting enough out of this deal. That is the entire intent of this motion.
There will be another motion, there will be another motion, and there will be another motion. We are going to be here day after day after day dealing with motions put by these members who are saying that one section of this country-


Jean-C. Lapierre: No, Canada.


George Baker: Read over his words, Mr. Speaker. Every single reference to employment was either to a specific company or a specific city. Let us get it straight here. Newfoundland is the poorest province in Canada. We already passed an act in this House that set out the benefits from the Hibernia deal. And where do they go, Mr. Speaker? Do you know that under this deal right

September 26, 1990
Government Orders
now, not one petrochemical plant industry can be built in Newfoundland from the offshore petroleum resources until existing industrial capacity is satisfied in three other provinces in Canada under an agreement between the Province of Newfoundland, under the former government, not the present government and this government in legislation passed before this House.
Imagine if the Government of Canada had brought in legislation when the tar sands projects were being negotiated, and said that we are going to contribute to this, but the oil that comes from here will have to go to existing industrial capacity in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec. It would be unheard of, it would be laughed out of this Chamber. But that is what we have had to put up with under this Hibernia deal just to get it going.
And we have to put up with hearing the minister announce 1,100 jobs when the thing gets going. We have had to put up with an agreement that says that only the Come-by-Chance oil refinery can be served by all this offshore resource for all time if the Come-by-Chance oil refinery was operating at capacity on the day of the coming into force of this act.
Just imagine what we have had to put up with in Newfoundland. Where do all of our energy resources presently go? Let me put it on the record of the House. We sell it to Hydro Quebec for $8 million and it sells it for $800 million to the United States. So let us keep things in perspective here, let us keep this record straight and let us have it on the record that Newfoundlanders are fed up with this. They are fed up with giving this away and that away and something else away and being told, well now this has got to go to this province, this has got to go to that province. And now we have a group of people down here, the "bloc head" is not here today but the new kids on the block are here. They are the guys who are saying this is not good enough for the Province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we say this is not good enough for Newfoundlanders either, but we want this project started and we are not going to put up with these stalling tactics by this group of members down in the far corner.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some remarks on this motion as well. I just want to answer the question asked by the hon. member from Newfoundland. He asked where all their energy resources had gone. Under the previous Liberal government, the Trudeau government, they all went to the federal government and at least the Conservatives have split it fifty-fifty, between the provinces and the feds in terms of control and so on. He should at least concede that the Province of Newfoundland had a worse deal-well it had no deal because Hibernia did not happen-in terms of sharing energy resources. I am sure I will hear the old kid on the block on this later on.
I also want to point out to him that the Premier of Newfoundland is lukewarm to this deal. As I understand it, he is saying, "Look, maybe we are not going to get all these things that we thought we were going to get"-


An hon. member:: They will lose equalization payments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and as my colleague points out, they will lose equalization payments in return. Let us be careful of who is benefiting from this.
I do not want to get in between a dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec here because you cannot win on that-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, no. I was just going to say something that you might consider sensible. With respect to the Hydro Quebec deal and the Newfoundland deal, if we were really sensible people and Quebec was sensible- and I put the blame on Quebec mainly-it would renegotiate that deal. It is not fair. I say that and I am from British Columbia. It is not fair. It is part of the reason for bad blood between Newfoundland and Quebec. We are going to have to create some good blood and one way is to renegotiate that deal. I can say that because I am an outsider to this but I know a little bit about it. Second-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
September 26, 1990

Government Orders


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not so fast! Wait until I finish. Provided the platforms are built by Canadian, not Quebec but Canadian companies. If Quebec is not in the Canadian Confederation: no jobs, nothing, no Canadian companies in Quebec.

So if they leave, they do not get any jobs at all. They are gone. This is entreprises canadiennes. Some of them may be in Quebec-

I want to see Quebec.


An hon. member:: United.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, but Quebec in Confederation with Canada.

Perhaps there will be a new relationship but in here. You know, if Quebec leaves, I tell my friends, there will not be any jobs. I tell the member from Hull none of his constituents will be working over here, my friend, so perhaps he had better deal with that.
But, Mr. Speaker, the real issue is perhaps highlighted by what the Minister of Energy told the committee. Hibernia is a big, fat subsidy to the multinational oil companies. We have given our major oil find to Mobil Oil and its friends. It is unbelievable. We are guaranteeing $1.7 billion in loans and we are giving a grant of $1 billion. That comes to $2.7 billion for the oil companies, the very companies that say, "Let's go by the market". Nice market, eh, if you can have it subsidized by the Canadian government and have it guaranteed by the Canadian government. That is a free market? Well, that is rather a different definition of the free market.
Here is the minister in front of the committee. The NDP member for Edmonton East asked him:
What is the department's best estimate of the percentage of Hibernia production that will be shipped to foreign market and never seen in a Canadian refinery?
In other words, are they going to refine it here. I asked the minister to respond to this in the House. He said in committee:
Mr. Chairman, it is possible that some of the production over a given period of time entirely could go to a refinery other than Canadian-

My friends, this means not Quebec or Newfoundland, but New York and New Jersey-

-where the home companies are.
The minister continues:
- primarily refineries in the northeast United States. It will depend quite frankly on Canadian refineries bidding on the sum of that crude.
We have to bid for it and we have to depend on Mobil and Exxon. Do you know where they are going to send it? They are going to send it to their own. We will not be coming by chance. There are no chances in this one. They will go to the parent.
Hibernia represents practically the greatest giveaway in the century of Canadian resources. The reason is that Mobil and the oil companies have control. Petro-Canada should have been running that entire operation or some other Canadian company should be running it.
When I sat on the energy committee as NDP energy critic for eight years and went up and down the national energy program, we studied a thing called sourcing. It was Bill C-48 in those days. We had witnesses from all over the world: from Norway, the United Kingdom and other countries that were involved the North Sea. We learned that you have to target your sourcing. You have got to require sourcing.
That is why it is a good amendment for Canadian companies-and I say it again.

We should get some of those. We have to guarantee that some of those platforms will go to Quebec, that all the oil will be refined in Canada, and that the benefits will go to other parts of the maritimes and spread out into Ontario and the rest of the country. It just does not happen because Hibernia is going to be run by Mobil and the other companies. There is the minister's own testimony. The government is guaranteeing the project and giving vast loans. It wants to tackle the deficit. What a giveaway that is. Then it bribes the people.

Government Orders
The people of Newfoundland are poor. They need jobs and they need aid from the federal government. They say: "There is a billion dollars". It is balderdash. "It is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Don't really diversify your economy, Newfoundland; just get this big megaproject and you will be all right".
This is all very well now when the price of oil is going up, but if the price of oil goes down-I predict below $40 Canadian per barrel on Hibernia because I think that is what it will cost to get out of there-what will happen is that taxpayers will be left with a $2.7 billion plus debt.


An hon. member:: You are sounding like the Tories.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The member said I am sounding like the Tories. I am just sound fiscally responsible. We are in Ontario, you know.

I tell them, before they clap, to remember that this enterprise is Canadian. This makes it a guarantee of Canadian sources. We in the NDP want Canadian sources. We want Canadian control of Hibernia. We do not want a government, in false promises to people, guaranteeing jobs that will not be there or guaranteeing a project that is not going to benefit all Canadians.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate this afternoon. I had intended to speak briefly.
I was first involved in this project some 15 years ago, and ever since then in one way or another, either in this life or other lives, I have been involved in Hibernia. Through the development of what initially was discussions about the imposition of regulations by the Newfoundland government, there have been huge changes as the project has changed, as the science has changed, as the corporate world has changed, as the political world has changed. We have all had things that we have wanted and things that we have desired. We have entered into major economic battles. We have had huge political
battles over control of the resource and whose responsibility this would be and who would pay for that.
We saw the Atlantic Accord. We have seen the signing of principles. At the beginning of this month we saw the signing to start the project, but as I sit here and listen to this debate and listen to my good friend from Gander-Grand Falls and my friend from British Columbia, I think of all the things we would like to have.
Yes, we would like to see this project proceed with no subsidies. We would love to see this project proceed, developed by just Canadian companies, and all the work done just in Canadian shipyards or with Canadian products. We would love to see no giveaways for Newfoundland- everything Newfoundland wants it gets, and everything Quebec and Ontario and New Brunswick want they get. That would be great, except there is only one problem: there would be no project.


An hon. member:: That is not true.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: It would not happen. If you can tell me that after the work that has gone on between two successive governments at each level, a variety of CEOs in a variety of companies, after 10 years, we have come up with an agreement that all of us feel we can live with, that none of us love, that none of us are fully content with, we now have a project. We may have the oil, but it is no damn good to us in the ground.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I resent sitting here and listening to our friends from rich British Columbia telling us: "You know, we are giving it all to the oil companies and poor old Newfoundland." Well, let me tell you, the iron workers who built New York City, who live in my constituency and who leave Newfoundland every year or maybe if they are lucky go to Gander for four months, they are fed up with your unemployment insurance and promises about what they are going to get and what they are not going to get. No, this project is not perfect but a lot of people have done a lot of work and are risking a large amount.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mobil Oil.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: That's right, we are. The people of Canada are finally saying to all the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is your turn. We are willing to invest in your futures. We are not talking about Hibernia with one gravity based system and one platform with five supermodules on top of them. We are talking about Hibernia. Then, we are
September 26, 1990

talking about a series of six or seven other projects that are ready to go, Wild Rose, Ben Nevis and numerous others. We are not just talking about cement and steel and putting steel together and putting it on a big platform. We are talking about engineering.
We are talking about the capacity technology development and transfer gives us. My hon. colleagues opposite question whether the people who work and live in Newfoundland and Labrador have the skills to do this work. Can you believe that? My Newfoundland colleagues are horrified at the thought because we, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the skills that have kept cities like Cambridge, and places like Thompson in northern Ontario and across the west working and building for years. Well, now it is our chance to build our own home where people can live and work in the place where they grew up and want to live. They will build their futures for their kids.
If that is what $2.7 billion gets us, then it is a damn good investment for the country now and in the future.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I didn't even look at my notes.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt my friend from St. John's East who admits he did not look at his notes. I am waiting to hear what he is going to do when he actually checks what he was really going to say.
Like every Newfoundlander who sits in this chamber, I am pleased that the Hibernia project is going forward. At the outset I want to do what I have already done publicly, to congratulate the gentleman from St. John's West, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Energy for the effort they put into this. I know that behind the scenes my good friend from St. John's East was in there batting, too. We are proud the project is going ahead.
I was following the proceedings in my office a minute ago. There is not much need to deal with this issue because my friend from Gander-Grand Falls dealt with it admirably, but I did hear the gentlemen from Richelieu when he spoke a few moments ago. Don't desecrate
Government Orders
the new kids phraseology, it is the new heads on the block.

-waiting for the guillotine.

As one of the new heads on the block was saying a moment ago, the gentleman from Richelieu-and my friend from St. John's East touched on it just for a moment-he was taking about this condescension. He said that we cannot do it. These poor, stunned Newfoundlanders cannot work a few bolts or put a few pipes down the ocean or pour a bit of cement. Now that kind of nonsense-


Louis Plamondon: I never said that.


Roger Simmons: Read the transcript, that is exactly what the gentleman from Richelieu was saying.


Louis Plamondon: No.


Roger Simmons: If he knows as much about the other causes he espouses as this particular one, God help the cause he is espousing!


Louis Plamondon: I never said that.


Roger Simmons: Denial, denial. That is the other plank in their platform: deny everything.
Mr. Speaker, I give you notice and I give the new heads on the block notice, I give them all notice, I give everybody notice that this project within the parameters as it has been spelled out will be a first-class project, done the way that Newfoundlanders do everything-with class and with pride. There is no doubt about that.
Let us not hear again from the gentleman from Richelieu or anybody else about the quality of the project and whether it can be done. If that is what he is losing sleep over at night, he should sleep soundly tonight.
While we have my good friend here, the Minister of Energy, I want to put something else on the record. Yes, we are glad this project is going ahead. Yes, we admire what the Minister did and the Minister for International Trade did and, on the other side, the Premier, Mr. Wells, and the Minister of Energy, Mr. Gibbons, did. We admire what they did. But let us understand the parameters within which they were operating. Let us understand

Government Orders
that all four of these men went into this exercise with their hands tied behind their backs because, you see, they had to negotiate a deal within the parameters of the 1988 Statement of Principles.
I recognize that the Minister of Energy and the Minister for International Tirade not only had their hands tied behind their back, but participated in the tying a couple of years ago. The project does not give to Newfoundland all the largess that one would be led to assume by listening to the rhetoric in the House in the last hour or two. Newfoundland, under the Statement of Principles, got very badly robbed on the issue of equalization. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is taking it out of the left pocket to put it into the right pocket. Never let it be misunderstood for a moment. We were very unhappy and I sat in the Newfoundland chamber at the time when the premier of the day, Mr. Peckford, came back with the Statement of Principles. We were very unhappy then and we continue to be unhappy with the parameters on which this whole agreement has been built.
This is not a day for recrimination or for talking about what might have been. I just wanted to get it on the record. But having said that, I laud without qualification with what the Minister of Energy has done in respect to bringing this to a final agreement and what the gentleman from St. John's West has done and, of course, my colleague, my friend from St. John's East, I am sure has played a role in this. I laud that and it is a good day for Newfoundland. It would have been a much better day for Newfoundland had it been done right in the first place, but that is a story really for another day.
I want to raise a an issue or two with the Minister while we have a few minutes.


An hon. member:: Ask him where it is going to be refined, Roger.


Roger Simmons: It is one of those days when I need a good script writer. I am going to the gentleman from B.C. He has a job articulating these ideas, but he puts them on paper well and one of these days I am going to turn to him-if I ever can afford him-the smart, transplanted lawyer from Toronto who found a good thing in B.C. and stayed there. Now, Mr. Speaker, getting to the subject at hand. I hope the minister at
some point, maybe at third reading, will address something that was not really adequately addressed in the agreement. That is the possible impacts. On this I really want the minister's attention, just for a moment. I hope he will address the possible impacts on the fishery should the unthinkable happen.
In that respect, he will know that in the last few weeks there has been some effort by the fisheries union to open some dialogue on this particular subject. I know he cannot negotiate in public, but I hope he would give it some indication of the framework in public. Will he tell us in at least some general terms what kinds of safeguards there are because this is an industry that is going to be with us for 20, 30 or 40 years.
We have an industry that has been with us for 500 years. I have in my riding alone 17,000 people, men and women, who make their living either in the boats or in the fish plants throughout the riding of Burin-St. George's, 17,000.
They are just part of the total number throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, so it would be a disaster not only in economic terms but in cultural and way-of-life terms too. This would be an unmitigated disaster. I want to have on the public record some of the preventive steps that are being taken and some of the compensation, if you can ever compensate should the unthinkable happen. I want to hear in some detail from the minister what the ministry and the government have in mind should all not go as well as one would like.
There is another issue here that I want to raise. I am covering several subjects quickly because I am not going to be in the Chamber tomorrow. I will be in my riding. I am not sure when the bill might get through. If it is around next week, I have some other things I want to say. I want to get one of those in the record. I hope we have not tied our hands behind our backs in another respect. I hope in getting a labour piece agreement for this project, and that in itself was a commendable effort, I hope we have not short-changed the opportunities for people with skills who are close to the project in terms of where they live but who happen not to have a particular union card. That is going to be a very difficult, frustrating issue if there are people whose only sin is that they do not belong to a particular union.
September 26, 1990

An important issue that spins off from that is what happened to the union at the Marystown shipyard. As a result of a decision on jurisdiction that went against them in the period leading up to the culmination of the agreement, there will be a situation for people in my riding and the town of Marystown.
The Marystown shipyard will fabricate certain items for the project. At some point in time, as is often the case with these large items that have to be built at one site and then transported to another site for integration of the over-all project, they will have a situation where all the work will not be able to be done at the Marystown shipyard. It will be desirable to do some at the GBS site, in this case at Great Mosquito Cove.
They have been told, as the minister will probably be aware, that any work they do on that item that they will have contracted must be done at Marystown, and once it moves to the other site they have no participation in the finish of that particular work.
That, in my view, is an absolutely mad scheme. I see my time is up so I will clue up for now. On behalf of the people who are directly affected, the workers at the Marystown shipyard, at Cowhead in particular, I make a plea. If there is a way to moderate that in some particular fashion, I would appeal to him to use his best efforts to do so. I may come back to that later if there is a further opportunity, but I realize my time is up.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the amendment and possibly cover some of the points that members opposite have been making. I, first of all, want to speak about the benefits. I thought we might get into the benefits argument a little later but, in respect to the amendment that has been moved by members opposite, that brings me to that point right now.
What has to be understood is that in any project in which extensive negotiations are going to take place, you are going to win some of the points that you put on the table, some of them will be modified and some you will not win, but at the end of the day there is a contract, an agreement. We have another step and that step is right here in the House, passage of legislation.
Government Orders
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam says other countries do it differently, and I want to take him up on that challenge. I would think it would be fair that when we look at a project, we should compare offshore projects to offshore projects not compare, for instance, Hibernia to Nugrade in Regina, which this government also helped to subsidize, but I have never heard a peep from the NDP. I am just wondering if it is because it is a co-op refinery. Probably they will now come to their senses on it.
Second, if one looks at the first projects on the North Sea, the first offshore projects, what they call the national content, either for the U.K. or for Norway, the percentage of domestic content was 35 per cent. I do not know if the hon. member has been to Stavanger but take a look at what has happened in Stavanger. That was 35 per cent of the first projects. In the statement of principles of July 1988, there was a 45 to 50 per cent Canadian content. That is what we had to negotiate, almost double some of the first offshore projects that came in on the North Sea.
The hon. member said that I had to negotiate with my hand tied behind my back. Maybe I did, but we still had one hand and the agreement that we signed now gives us 55 to 60 per cent Canadian content in Hibernia. I think, when one looks at negotiations honestly and fairly, that is not bad. That is not bad.
I want to comment on the remarks of my friends opposite in respect of Quebec. At one time they were members of other parties, at the time the statement of principle was brought into this House, and they agreed. At that time there was zero for the rest of Canada. Funny how things change. Now they want to get into these debates. Let the truth be known. There were 2 million hours guaranteed for Newfoundland and zero for the rest of Canada in metal fabrication. There was 8 million for the rest of the world, on which we could bid, in the agreement that was signed and we had a change, if members are honest. We had to change the entire topsides configuration and move from a multiple module system to a supermodule system and we did. We guaranteed for Newfoundland that they would retain those 2 million hours. I did not want just that they were going to be pouring concrete. I wanted technical jobs as well. I negotiated that on behalf of the Government of Canada and I would think for the people of Newfoundland as well and we got 2.1 million hours out of the two.

Government Orders


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You're tough, considering we own the oil-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My friend, if you were so smart, why did you not develop it on your own money?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are developing with my money, $2.7 billion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And you know all about the LRS too. Secondly-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know a sell-out when I see it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member is exercising his mouth. Is his brain attached to it?
Second, Mr. Speaker, we got for Newfoundland 2.1 million hours against the 2 million hours and for the rest of Canada from zero we got 2 million hours. That gives you the content that I refer to, but I do not hear the hon. member when he talks about North Sea, I do not hear him today for example complaining that out of the North Sea we draw 350,000 barrels of oil for imports into Canada every day. I do not hear him complaining about that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We do not refine it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, we do. I am saying to the hon. member that he cannot have it both ways. In terms of Canadian content, I think the figures stand up for themselves.
I want to look particularly now at Quebec. One of the arguments was, how can you guarantee it because for Newfoundland obviously we are going to do the GBS and if you are going to do the work Great Mosquito Cove, near Bull Arm-I am starting to learn those Newfoundland words-and if you are going to do at Come-By-Chance and Maiystown, obviously there is going to be a lot of work in Newfoundland. Why? Because it is being done in Newfoundland. That is where the project is. I think that even makes some sense. That is why it is being done there.
On September 14 when we announced the final contractual agreement, literally hours later, the consortium announced two major contracts. One was for the GBS, the gravity based structure, and the work relating to the gravity based structure. That contract came in at
$1.3 billion Canadian. Of the five members of the consortium that were the winning bid, there are three that each had 29 2/3 per cent of the $1.3 billion in terms of ownership. In large contracts, members will know that consortiums are formed in order to spread risk.
Two of the three major companies are in Quebec and so Quebec companies got 59 1/3 per cent of $1.3 billion on the first contract. Most calculations I think will put that well over $700 million. The second contract which was for topside design and project management, high-tech jobs, we had estimated that contract to be worth something like $230 million. It came in at $360 million. It is headed by S and C M Anenko. Eighty-five per cent of the work in Quebec, I am glad that is the case. I am glad it is a Canadian company. I say to my hon. friends, they argue fairness. Be fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dorin):: Perhaps I could indicate to the House that there have been two members seeking the attention of the Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Saint-Leonard. We have time to hear from both members before we adjourn today, if that is acceptable. They will divide the time equally, 10 minutes.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What you are saying to the House is that my colleague the hon. member for Longueuil has been on his feet three times already. As much as 66 percent of our caucus is here, while in the rest of the House, I do not see many members of the other parties.
I feel the Chair should treat everybody the same way. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you should give the floor to the hon. member for Longueuil. The Liberal member could speak after him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dorin):: As I indicated, if we do not debate this too long there will be enough time for both people to make their remarks, if we move on to it right now.
The hon. member for Saint-Leonard.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu and calling for the contracts to be awarded to Canadian firms.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to establish the fact that for the past six years, Quebec Liberal members have tried to convince of that the Tory government to which the hon. member for Richelieu belonged up to a few months ago.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was in agreement with the government. When we consider the policy of this Tory government concerning the naval shipyards in this country, we realize that it has destroyed almost all of them.
What one should do is look at what is being done in this area throughout the world. All the countries of the world which have shipyards are providing them with subsidies to help them compete on international markets.
How many times have we urged the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, whose parliamentary secretary at the time was the hon. member for Rose-mont, to provide Marine Industries with subsidies to help them compete on international markets.
This afternoon, or rather tonight, Mr. Speaker, they moved a motion which would appear quite normal, calling on the government to protect Canadian firms. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they overlooked the fact that Canada must abide by international agreements.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Come on!


Alfonso Gagliano: If these independent members from Quebec would only listen, perhaps they could learn something. They are trying to make gains in Quebec, so that they can claim they are the only true Quebec representatives. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they forget that some major Quebec engineering firms compete on international markets.
Government Orders
If the House adopted such a motion, these Quebec firms could no longer compete on international markets and would be treated accordingly. While trying to make political gains, they could cause serious prejudice to some major Quebec corporations which, like Lavalin, are awarded contracts on international markets.
I cannot see siding with the Quebec-based high-tech firms in this debate as beneficial for the independent members from Quebec. They are only looking for an excuse to say: "We are the real champions of Quebec." But they are penalizing Quebec firms trying to tender on the international markets. Were they really sincere, they would want to help Quebec and to help the shipbuilding industry in Quebec. They should ask this Conservative government to give grants to naval industries so that-


M. Plamondon:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out that it is assigning me motives to state that, were I sincere-to question my sincerity. There is no place for that word in this noble House. I request that the hon. member withdraw his statement.


M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, what I meant was that, if he had been aware of the situation, he would have, as we have for six years now, been calling for grants for that industry. It is done everywhere in the world. Grants are handed out to groups in the naval industry so that they can tender.
To support the MIL Group, which I believe should land very important contracts given the importance of that industry for the province, the Quebec and federal govemements should precisely get together and offer grants to make such groups competitive. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Italians, the French and the others who tender in that industry all get grants from their governments. And that is the positive thing to do: To find a way so that our industries can compete on the world markets since shipbuilding has access to world markets.
But if we want indeed to gain political points in the short run, my colleague may present a motion to the effect that contracts be given to Canadian companies. Naturally, he has give the impression that is standing up for Canadians and Quebecers but, in the long run, it is the Quebec engeneering firms that will pay the price for those political points.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the amendment of my colleague from the riding of Richelieu. It is the first opportunity I have of rising in the House since I quit the Progressive

Government Orders
Conservative Party to join the Bloc Quebecois. It is a new experience for me as I said earlier because, for the first time, today I will finally be able to speak freely, without any restraint, in support of Quebec's interests. I will be able to work without worrying about votes I could lose or win in Newfoundland, in Ontario or in the West. I speak freely for Quebec, without any restraint. That must be clearly understood.
I noted today there was a certain complicity among all three parties Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic. They have decided to unite their efforts to launch a project that seems beneficial to Canada. I do not know how they managed to arrive at a consensus on such a project.
I say I am very reluctant to accept this project. First, Canada is so deep in debt that it is almost bankrupt. This is no secret now Canadiens must realize that Canada is practically bankrupt. We are in debt to our ears.
And so the government launches a project. For some time, a number of experts in this country have been saying the project is not viable. Considering that fact, plus a national debt that is absolutely horrendous, I wonder why all three parties decided to support this project. I intend to support the interests of Quebec. I know Quebec pays a substantial share of income tax and taxes to the federal government, and I have an obligation to defend the interests of Quebec. Speaking on behalf of Quebecers, I say this project is not viable and that we should refuse to go any further until we have tangible proof that the project can make a profit. That is my point. I am not saying we should block the project altogether but I think we should take the time to analyze it and make sure we are not putting our money down a bottomless pit.


Jean-C. Lapierre: All $2.7 billion!


Nic Leblanc: I have the impression, and a lot of Quebecers with me, that we are just throwing money out the window.
Quebec has built a lot of big hydro-electric projects, for instance, for which Canada never paid a cent. We spent billions of dollars on developing expertise in the hydro-electric field, and Quebec paid the whole shot. Meanwhile, here in Ottawa, they where working on major nuclear projects-


Jean-C. Lapierre: For Ontario!


Nic Leblanc: The Canadian government spent billions of dollars on the CANDU which isn't selling at all right now because it is much too expensive. It means all the money spent by the federal development on developing nuclear energy is mainly benefitting the other provinces.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Especially Ontario.


Nic Leblanc: Mostly Ontario. At the present time, Ontario has cheap electrical power, thanks to the federal government which supported these projects. Today, together with Newfoundland, we could develop hydro-electric power again, at far lower cost, a project that would be worthwhile for Canada as well and would require far less investment. That is why today, speaking on behalf of Quebecers and Canadians, I have the impression we are wasting money we don't even have. If we keep investing money right and left in this country, in four or five years we will probably have to send more than 75 per cent of our paycheques to the federal government, and our standard of living might be as low as Mexico's today.
This is a very serious warning. It is appalling to see the three major parties trying to make political gains and defend one another because they have votes to win or lose, God knows where. But if you look at this project coldly you realize that it is not a profitable undertaking.
Because we know for sure we will not win and because we are a minority in this House, we members of the Bloc Quebecois say that if we are about to lose a lot of money in an unprofitable venture the least we can do is give Quebecers and Quebec companies an opportunity to bid freely.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Even Canadian companies!


Nic Leblanc: Even Canadian companies! The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself said that most of the profits flowing from this company or from this major project would go to the United States. The minister himself said that, as reported in this morning's newspapers.
So Quebec is saying that if most of the profits end up in the United States we would at least like to see Canadians getting their fair share of investment capital during the construction of this major project. That would be the least we could ask for. We did not go so far as to say that Quebec should have its fair share. We are quite conciliatory, quite reasonable. We are saying: Canadians

must at least have their fair share. We know that Quebec companies can submit competitive tenders.
It is also regrettable-I deplore the fact that the Canadian government will subsidize junior companies in Newfoundland in fields where Quebec has the knowhow, where Quebec has already spent huge sums of money to gain wide expertise. But now the federal government is about to support Newfoundland companies which, having acquired the necessary experience, will probably fold up.
So, I believe there is a cetain amount of waste there, which is nonsense. If there are investments to be made, we should at least assist existing operations in Canada, in Quebec or elsewhere. First, they should all be encouraged to bid for the job because it would be unfair to subsidize Newfoundland operations, especially in this instance when other Canadian companies already have some expertise in this area. We must be carefull, because our country is already on the edge of bankrupcy and we are in dept to our ears. We must be very careful not to unduly subsidize projects especially when we know in advance that they are not economical.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by my friend, the member for Richelieu, and I thank you very much for your attention. I hope that the people of Quebec have well understood my message and I also hope they will remember that as a group now we can speak freely without having to toe the line of the other parties.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Without having a gag on our mouths!


Nic Leblanc: That is why Canada is courting disaster because we are concerned with politics instead of strictly working on specific projects. And when politics ignore the interests of the country disaster always looms.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dorin):: It being seven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1) this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 27, 1990