1990-12-11

Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), it is my great pleasure to table today in both official languages Canada's Green Plan for a Healthy Environment.
[Translation\


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to the many Canadians who helped to prepare the Green Plan.

I would also like to underline the commitment of the Prime Minister and all my colleagues to this veiy worth-while initiative that we are putting forward today.


AIR ONTARIO CRASH
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the hon. Virgil P. Moshansky's second interim report into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden, Ontario, and the Minister of Transport's initial response to the recommendations of this interim report.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and, indeed, an honour to have this opportunity to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the citizens of the great city of Kamloops.
The petition points out a whole variety of concerns that the petitioners have regarding the government's intention to proceed with the 7 per cent goods and services tax. They call it a cruel and brutal tax, coming at the wrong time, hitting the wrong people and being the wrong tax along with the fact that is a very regressive consumption tax as opposed to a fair tax reform.
The petitioners are asking that the government reconsider this decision, back off on proceeding with this tax and introduce a comprehensive fair tax reform package instead.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present almost 1,000 names and petitions from residents in the city of London, Ontario, and other places in southwestern Ontario.
The petitioners point out to the government that they are very upset about the ever increasing automotive emissions, the thinning of the ozone layer and global warming. We need to take immediate action to protect our environment and communicate the advantage of using ethanol as an environmentally clean automotive fuel.
The petitioners are equally concerned about the use of MMT as a gasoline additive. The manganese portion of MMT that comes out of the exhaust emissions of automobiles is an insidious neuro-toxic substance that must be banned to protect the lives of the children of this country.

December 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I am very pleased to table these petitions on behalf of the people of southwestern Ontario.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to lay upon the table 10 petitions.
The petitioners reside in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and indeed in communities across the country.
All petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax. In particular, they make reference to the tax which is proposed to be on magazines, books and on newspapers. They would hope that the Government of Canada would see its way clear in removing the goods and services tax, particularly at this time in view of the Canadian-made recession and the various negative effects it is having on Canadian consumers and, indeed, small businesses across this country.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36 I have the honour to place in front of the House a petition from nurses across Ontario who have petitioned with their concerns about the grave implications of future social costs of child poverty and have noted that in fact well over one million children in Canada are caught in lives of poverty and they are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to call a First Ministers' conference on poverty and on child poverty specifically. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table this.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition signed by numerous residents of Toronto and Mississauga. These Canadians are outraged at the government's proposal to place a tax on books and the printed word as contained in Bill C-62, the goods and services tax bill which, fortunately, is being held up appropriately in the Senate to try to save Canadians from this monstrous tax grab.
These Canadians call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Dan Heap (TYinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition under Standing Order 36 from a number of residents of Alberta and other provinces. This petition has been prepared by the Diocesan Peace and Justice Committee and adopted by the Program and Planning Committee of the diocese. It calls on the government to halt all NATO low-level flight testing and related training over lands inhabited and claimed by the Innu and Inuit people, to withdraw Canada's invitation to NATO to establish a permanent NATO tactical weapons training centre in the Goose Bay-Nitassinan area which would vastly increase the number of low-level flight tests annually, and to take steps to protect the livelihood of Canadians who would be adversely affected economically by the cessation of fighter bomber training.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have another petition from a number of residents of metro Toronto who are concerned about the government's legislation for a goods and services tax, and it points out the many unfairnesses and disadvantages of it, and urges the government to reject the proposal, and instead to reduce the bank interest rate by 2 per cent so as to reduce interest rates on the federal debt and increase small business and general employment, and increase employment in such useful work as-and they list a number of badly needed public works across many Canadian cities.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a further petition from a number of residents of metropolitan Toronto, also concerning the low-level flights over Nitassinan, who oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training centre at Goose Bay, and demand that Canada end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada, and redirect the NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and promote sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to revert to Reports from Committees.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
59TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 59th report of the Striking Committee. This report deals with the membership of the legislative committee pursuant to Standing Order 113(1). Upon presentation, such reports are deemed adopted.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 6, consideration of Bill C-84, an act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee; and Motion No. 4A of Mr. Langdon (p. 16404).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of State for Privatization.


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER REPORT AND THIRD READING STAGES OF BILL C-84
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to move:
That, in relation to Bill C-84, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
Government Orders
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of State for Privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will be brief, because I know the opposition will want to rant and rave for a couple of hours this morning and shed great big crocodile tears on how terrible the government is-


Mr. Baker:: I wonder, Madam Speaker, if you could rule that the hon. gentleman is in fact in order by speaking. He has already spoken on moving the motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As the House may have seen, I hesitated before recognizing the minister. I think the hon. member is right.
The minister could have given his speech and moved the motion at the end of his speech. Then automatically his remarks would have been heard and the motion would have been moved, but in the circumstances I cannot give the floor to the hon. minister.
I will, then, recognize someone on my left. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have had to make a speech several times on government time allocation motions, so it is getting to be a bit of a habit.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Prince Albert finds the speeches boring. If he paid closer attention, he probably would be able to glean germs of truth about the autocratic and dictatorial way that this government treats the House of Commons. He is going to get another 10-minute lecture on it this morning, I am afraid to say. I have some facts and figures that I think will amuse hon. members opposite when they consider how dictatorial their efforts have been.

Government Orders
I want to turn particularly to the record of this House during this session of Parliament which has gone on for almost two years, it started in April 1989, so that members can hear the litany of time allocation and closure that has been used throughout the session of Parliament. First of all, I want to look at the raw data. The fact is that in the official statistics produced by the Table, it is evident that 294 hours and 41 minutes have been spent considering second reading of government bills. I will repeat that figure for the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. He looks interested: 294 hours and 41 minutes.
There have been 82 government bills that have received second reading, from my quick count of the records. This means that the average time spent on second reading debate through this session has been 2.14 hours per government bill. That is not excessive, and yet here we have time allocation once again.
On third readings, the total time spent is 94 hours and 27 minutes. Some 53 government bills have already received third reading, and they say we are holding things up. Imagine, 53 government bills which have received third reading. That means 1.7 hours of debate per bill at third reading, and this is considered excessive by hon. members opposite. I find their approach to Parliament absolutely incredible. Their attempts are always to ram things through.
Let us look at the record. I keep citing these figures; they seem to fall on deaf ears. Closure has been used in this Parliament, that is since November 1988, a total of 13 times by this government. Then there is time allocation-and I am separating the two for the purpose of this discussion-which has been used seven times until today. This is number eight. That is seven times previously and eight times so far in this Parliament.
But that is only part of the story. If we look back at the lamentable record of government members since May 1985 when they started using time allocation, they have now used it on a cumulative basis 25 times in five years, from 1985 to 1990. They have threatened to use it on at least four other occasions when they proposed time allocation and then either withdrew it or had it thrown
out by the Speaker, as they did in October of this year, because the Minister of State for Privatization, who got up and once again made an error as he did this morning in not making a speech first, tried to propose time allocation at second reading of this bill. We in the opposition, ever vigilant of Parliament's rights, got up and urged the Speaker to chuck that notice out, and he did. Therefore the minister was unable to move it as quickly as he would have liked.
If we count the attempts-and I see the minister has reappeared-we will find it has been 31 times that the government has either attempted or succeeded in using time allocation in debates in a five-year period. In the 19 previous years, Liberal governments used it a total of 29 times. On any comparison this government has gone hog wild in trampling on the rights of Parliament to debate.
I would like to quote some words. I found some quotations as I was browsing through books last evening. Perhaps hon. members opposite would care to guess whose words these are. I will first quote this line:
Professor Ivor Jennings, the great English authority on Parliament said-and rightly-that "the function of Parliament is not to govern but to criticize, to modify Government policy, and to educate public opinion", lb those who say that Parliament should be turning out legislation in quantity, my answer is that its mission is freedom and the assurance that all the people shall receive justice. It is not a slot machine into which one drops a slug to see the legislation come out.
Who said those words? Was it a great Liberal Prime Minister of Canada? No. Was it one of the members of the present government? No, certainly not. One would not expect to hear those words from the present government, the way it tramples on Parliament's rights. I will tell the House who it was. It was a previous leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and a former Prime Minister of this country, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. He said these words. Let's hear them again. When referring to Parliament he said:
-its mission is freedom and the assurance that all the people shall receive justice. It is not a slot machine into which one drops a slug to see the legislation come out.
Yet this government and in particular the government House leader take the view that if Parliament does not pass second reading of bills in faster than two hours, it is too slow and it had better get on with it, have time allocation applied and jam it through in a day.

That is exactly what we have heard from the Minister of State for Privatization this morning: one more day at report stage on this very important piece of legislation that is selling off part of the purchase of Canadian taxpayers, Petro-Canada, which they have bought and paid for with their tax dollars. The government is selling it off in order to meet its lust for privatization of Canada's assets. I submit that the government is misguided, as usual.
Let us hear some more words from the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker who must be held in some esteem by hon. members opposite. I would be the last to want to quote Mr. Diefenbaker as an authority on much, but on the rights of Parliament he had some very sound ideas and certainly he understood the institution better than the present government House leader and his entourage. In fact I would venture to say that Mr. Diefenbaker was one of the best Leaders of the Opposition that Canada ever had. No one will deny that as a Leader of the Opposition he was outstanding. I do not think anyone will deny that as a Prime Minister he was a disaster. The hon. member for Edmonton East would not deny that.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: I certainly would. The Conservative Party has abandoned John Diefenbaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am sorry that he thinks he was good. He should join the Conservative Party then, because clearly that is where his ghost remains.
Mr. Diefenbaker spoke about the importance of opposition, and I would like to quote again from this speech. I assume it was a speech given in Parliament by Mr. Diefenbaker, but someone with great foresight published it in this book entitled Those Things We Treasure. It is a collection of speeches, and I commend it for reading to the government House leader and his entourage. I quoted from page 46 of this little work:
The need of a strong Opposition is supported by almost every political writer. Among these is Professor Bassett, who has stated that: "The Opposition is not merely tolerated, but treated as indispensable". He emphasizes the existence of an Opposition as an example of the difference between democracy and autocracy.
Opposition is as necessary to the parliamentary system as is the Cabinet. The two are inseparable. One without the other would mean tyranny or chaos. It is commonplace for all governments to view effective opposition as obstruction and this is a view too often and too lightly taken up by critics outside Parliament. An Opposition that discharges its parliamentary responsibilities properly is bound to appear to those opposed as obstructionist.
Government Orders
The weapon of the Opposition is discussion and argument. If the Opposition stand is not justifiable in the opinion of the people, the people are not slow to show their displeasure.
I could go on, but these are words of a former Leader of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister who understood the role of an opposition in Parliament, who suffered at the hands of an opposition in Parliament because it was an effective opposition.
I submit that this government is afraid to suffer at the hands of this opposition, and that is why it keeps closing off debate on the demerits of the bills that the government is continually bringing before this House. Debate on every contentious bill is closed off. I have already indicated the list of over 20 time allocation or closure motions in this Parliament. Never before has closure been used as often as it has been in this Parliament. Yet the government just carries on as though this was a perfectly normal and perfectly standard procedure. The fact is it does not want to hear the truth about the dreadful bills it is producing.
I want to read one more quotation about the role of an opposition, and I quote again from Mr. Diefenbaker:
Without an Opposition, the administration of the day could and would carry on the task of running the country, but such a situation would be identical with a totalitarian one-party state. Efficiency of administration was claimed by Hitler and Mussolini, but freedom died.
That is exactly what is being trampled out here. It is an effort to stifle criticism, to stifle objection, to stifle the legitimate concerns of the people of Canada as expressed through their elected representatives.
We were not sent here to sit and pass bills willy-nilly. We were sent here so we could offer alternatives, criticize proposals, and educate the public on the damaging effects of government measures. Certainly the damaging effects of many of its measures are becoming readily apparent. One only has to look at the unemployment it has created, the high interest rates it has pushed and established in this country, and the various economic disasters with which it has come up. I do not want to go into those matters in the course of my speech, but I do say that in considering the approach to the public this government has an obligation to listen to the people of Canada, to listen to their representatives in Parliament, and to give us a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Government Orders
We have had one day on report stage of this bill. There were many amendments moved. There are many more to discuss, but the fact is that we are now being limited to one further day and third reading on a very contentious bill is going to be limited to one day. I call it a disgrace and I call on the government to withdraw this motion.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, once again I find myself participating in a debate limiting the time of the House for consideration of Bill C-84. We had the same thing, of course, at second reading. We had a total of three days of debate on Bill C-84 at second reading.
I should note perhaps that the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill, the Minister of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs, sent a letter to one of my local newspapers, the Edmonton Journal in which he claimed that in fact there had been four days of consideration by this House of Bill C-84 at second reading. Of course, he neglected to point out that one of those days was taken up with the debate on the time allocation motion so that in fact there were three effective days of debate on Bill C-84 at seconding reading, approval in principle of the scheme to privatize Petro-Canada and thereby to alienate from the Crown assets worth, depending on how we wish to calculate it, somewhere between $2.3 and $6.7 billion.
Having been rushed through this House, like an over-large bride to the altar, the bill wound up in committee. In committee, we had an organization meeting a week before we were to start hearing witnesses. This meant that the witnesses that those of us on the opposition benches did manage to convince the government majority to invite, had a week or less to consider whether or not they could make the time to appear before the committee at the times made available to them by the committee; consider whether or not they had the time to prepare the presentation that would do justice to their beliefs and considerations; and consider therefore whether or not it was even worth-while to make the venture.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that several of the witnesses that even the committee in its stingy wisdom decided to invite had to decline because they were unable to make the necessary arrangements at such short notice. Although there was no closure or time allocation in the committee, the effect was the same.
Consideration of the bill in committee was truncated. That too has led to inadequate consideration of this bill.
Ten days were devoted to the study of the bill in committee. They were October 31, November 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 29. In those 10 days we heard a total of 11 witnesses, of which all but six were government witnesses. We heard six witnesses representing themselves or groups, including the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc., the Energy Clean Air Caucus of Alberta Friends of the Earth, an investment counsellor by the name of Mr. Gobert, the Council of Canadians, Professor Hershel Hardin. That is about it; $6.7 billion in assets, six non-government witnesses. That is more than a billion dollars a witness. We rushed them through there.
Now we find ourselves at report stage. Several amendments are being proposed. We have had one day's consideration. After one day's consideration, the government has determined that that is enough. It is time to bring down the axe and move this thing off into the final day of report stage consideration and then one day at third reading. That will be the equivalent from the start of second reading to the conclusion of third reading, with all steps in between including all the days spent in committee, to authorizing that expenditure or that alienation of the assets of $6.7 billion at the rate of roughly $400 million a day. That is big spending. It certainly makes me uncomfortable.
I do not believe that this House and its committee has given anywhere near the careful consideration to the bill that it warrants. It is the largest privatization ever undertaken by the government and ever likely to be undertaken by the government. It means the selling off of the one major Crown asset in what, virtually everyone agrees, is a strategic resource area. It is proposed to be done through a regime that will see the Canadian people recoup nowhere close the full worth of their assets.
Why, Madam Speaker? It cannot be haste, arising from the need to have the legislation itself in place because once the proposed legislation passes third reading in this House, it will go the other place. Most people around here are of the opinion at this point that the other place, being consumed with the matter of the GST, will undertake little or nothing else, while that is being considered. Further, it is expected that that consideration will conclude and the sound and fury will finally subside sometime before Christmas. Do you know what happens then, Madam Speaker? The House prorogues and all things on the Order Paper die.
December 11, 1990

So one of two things is going to happen, Madam Speaker. Either this bill will be stuck in the Senate and die with all the other unfinished business there, in which case what is the point of ramming it through the House? Or the GST fight will continue in the Senate, in which case we have plenty of time in this place to give this bill the full consideration it warrants.
But the government is determined that this massive alienation of the assets of the people of Canada, this turning off of those opportunities which Petro-Canada could represent to the Canadian people in the future, those opportunities to diversify our energy base away from the traditional hydrocarbons of oil and gasoline into far greener pastures, should be accomplished with a haste that is at least unseemly and, in my less charitable moments, I would characterize as obscene.
It is clear that the government is not to be dissuaded from this path. It is clear that, as is the case with most other matters that it has brought before this House, at least in my experience here, it is unshakeably convinced of the near divine wisdom of its proposals and is thus uninterested in consideration of either alternatives or of nagging problems within its own proposals. Presumably it believes them not to exist. But I must tell the government, Madam Speaker, that the Canadian people believe them to exist. The Canadian people can see what is going on in this House, they can see the overweening pride with which the government conducts its business in this place and the Canadian people, in the long run, will not tolerate it.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal, just briefly, with some of the statistics that were being used to indicate that there has been a lot of use of closure and of time allocation. Unfortunately, the member is correct, there have been a number of occasions when these were used. But I think if we look back to the period from 1980 to 1984, there were 25 different times that the government of that time, the Liberals, used time allocation and twice that they used closure.
Government Orders
In the subsequent four years, 1984 to 1988, this government used time allocation on 20 occasions and used closure on two occasions. But there have been, in this last two years, as the member has indicated, an unusual number of occasions when closure and time allocation were used. I think a person has to ask why.
Madam Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is obviously considered by the opposition to be good strategy on their part to force the government to use closure or time allocation because it makes them look strong and they have the appearance of opposing. But the reality is that the government must pass its legislation. The people in this country demand it.
They do not understand why it takes so long for us to move legislation through the House. There are a few other things that people of Canada understand, but it is sometimes difficult to get the opposition to understand.
There is good reason for this bill to be passed now, and I will try to address that.
There has been good coverage through the legislative committee. It did have several days of second reading review. I think this government is fully cognizant of the fact that there are many members in this House who would like to speak to this bill.
In endeavouring to satisfy that demand, because we feel it is a legitimate one, we offered to extend the hours last week. That offer was refused by both opposition parties.
I think that tends to speak a little bit to what I consider the seriousness of their desire to really speak meaningfully to some of this legislation.
I would like to address briefly why it is necessary that we pass the bill now. As the hon. member from Edmonton has indicated, it is the largest privatization in terms of dollars that we have undertaken in Canada. Many members would like to see it delayed, because they actually disagree quite aggressively with privatization.
We heard a number of witnesses in the legislative committee who directly addressed this. They told us as a committee: "Yes, you should get the bill through. You should put the minister in a position where he can deal with those shares as early as possible."

December 11, 1990
Government Orders
One of the witnesses, a financial analyst, termed it as a window of opportunity. The bigger the window we provide PetroCan and the investment community, the better their chances of returning optimum value for those shares to the Canadian taxpayers.
I think that is of great concern not only to the taxpayers but to every member in this House. It is a real window of opportunity. The witness talked about some of the current situations in Canada that we know affect the oil industry. We know it affects the share values.
We all know there is a crisis in the Middle East. Nobody knows exactly what the market response will be to it, but it is critical according to this witness that we set our affairs in order so that PetroCan, the government and the Canadian taxpayers can take maximum advantage of that window of opportunity.
I will keep it very brief, because my colleague has already discussed this. We held nine or ten committee meetings. We heard from 10 or 11 different witnesses and groups. There were a lot more people and we did group them, but we consciously tried to hear those people across Canada who the committee felt it was imperative that we do hear from.
We wanted to hear from people representing the environmental lobby groups, and we did that. We wanted to listen to investment dealers, and we did that. We wanted to get some legislative expertise advising the committee as to the PetroCan legislation, and we did have that.
In fact, we had a couple of visits from experts in that area. The committee desired to hear, and we were able to produce, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who gave excellent testimony to the committee.
We heard from the executive officers of Petro-Cana-da. We heard from two labour groups; one representing the Energy and Chemical Workers Union and the other from the Canadian Labour Congress. We heard from a number of other groups, including the Petro-Canada International Assistant Corporation, the Bureau of Competition, the Commissioner of Official Languages who wanted to express his desire to see the French language provisions stretch further than what the bill allowed and what we were suggesting.
We had other consultants and representation from the Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association who were encouraging us to eliminate some the restrictions that we had on the bill. We resisted that effort.
It was an excellent cross-section that the committee heard. We heard testimony for and against, but most of the evidence against the bill tended to address the concept that Petro-Canada should be used as a policy instrument. They felt that somehow or other to understand and to control any of our resources or any of our major industries, we have to own and control a full cross-section of that industry. The logic escapes me, but it seems to be so obvious to others.
That implies to me that, if we want to understand and control the forest industry, the government should be out there acquiring and owning interest in an integrated forest industry company that controls resources in different parts of Canada. People in the industry and across the country would say we would be insane if we felt that that was the only way we could get a window on the industry.
Another major industry I could mention briefly is the food industry. There is nothing probably more important, except the forest industry in Canada. It would imply that for the government to understand, to know what is going on and to control it, we should be owning large tracks of farms and ranches and food processors. Heaven forbid that we should end up investing in the golden arches across Canada so that we have a window on that industry.
With reference to the witnesses we heard from, the Minister of Energy, for one, spoke to it elaborately. I realize I do not have time to cover it completely. Bill Hopper is another. One of the most interesting witnesses was the former minister who I understand had a part to play in the original creation of Petro-Canada as a government agency, Marc Lalonde. Just recently he was asked if we require Petro-Canada as a window on the industry? His response was: "We have developed in the government in the Department of Energy and the National Energy Board certainly a much greater knowledge about the industry than there was in the sixties and seventies." I could go on.

He covered consumer protection, energy prices, and the public policy role. His answer was: "No, no, no. We do not require PetroCan as a window on the industry or for us to know and understand this industry."
I realize my time is up. We do need to get this bill through. The window of opportunity is now. We have heard from the experts and I look forward to the ensuing debate.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on time allocation on a very important Canadian bill, one which marks the demise of Petro-Canada in Canada.
I say this because we are debating at present the rights of Parliament to have a debate. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands has already spoken about the time that has been spent in debating this bill. We have not had ample opportunity in my opinion to do away with Petro-Canada.
This government does not care about the rights of Parliament to debate. It does not care about the rights of Canadians, through their parliamentarians, to have a say in the policy of Canada. It was only 10 years ago that the very issue of the election was Petro-Canada and our National Energy Program. Canadians said yes to Petro-Canada at that time.
By using time allocation, the government is beginning to show Canadians why it has made Parliament an useless instrument as far as Canadian policy goes. I think that in this bill there should be an open vote. I think that Canadians should be able to tell their parliamentarians what they want from the government and they do not have that ability. We do not have an ability in the House to have a vote of all the Atlantic members together against an issue that the government may be proposing.
We only have a right to get up in two hours of debate and say that the process is wrong. It is wrong that the government cuts out the debate on such an important national company. It shows the complete disregard that the government has toward any process here in Canada. I would go on to say that it shows that the government is intent on destroying everything that has been made to make us a country called Canada.
Government Orders
In six years of government this Prime Minister has brought forward policies that have ended our ties as Canadians and brought about an adversity in regions that our ancestors in this hallowed place worked hard against. It was to try to make a place called Canada.
Petro-Canada had that very goal. It was brought into force at a time when Canadians needed protection in the oil and gas industry. We still need that protection, but the government says: "No, we will privatize everything or we will get rid of it."
Take the trains, for example. They went east and west, or west and east. We do not have them. Thke Air Canada. The government privatized it. We used to have an airline that was first around the world, first in Canada for service and for safety. What do we find now? We do not have even two airlines that can exist in Canada because the policy of the government has been to go right along with the U.S. and deregulate.
The government has done it in the fishery, a natural resource that is now privatized. To what degree? My colleague from Newfoundland can tell me how much he thinks, but I would venture to guess that the fishery in Canada is probably privatized to about 80 per cent if one took the whole range of fish. The government is forcing our fishermen on the east coast in less than a week to make a decision on the livelihood and the role that their enterprise will play. Boats under 45 and boats over 45 must choose from a package of 100 pages sent out to them last week. They have not seen it before and they must choose by tomorrow as to what will become effective January 1. Of course they are confused, but that is exactly what the government wants-confusion in the west, confusion in Ontario, confusion in Quebec, confusion in the east, and it will govern. It will sell Canada short. That is what is happening in this bill.
Why? The Prime Minister does not come in to answer the questions on that. He will give you a smoke and mirrors discussion on what he sees as the role of Canada.
I think we should be given time to go home over Christmas and the government members should be made to ask their constituents whether they want to see Petro-Canada, the only oil company left in Canada, go to the U.S. We are giving 25 per cent ownership in this bill to foreigners.

Government Orders
We used to have expertise in air. We used to have expertise in oil and gas. We were respected around the world for our policies that made us Canadian, from east to west, north and south. But we had a goal as Canadians. The government is tearing that goal apart.
In the east we do not know where we will be after June 1990 because this Prime Minister does not want to give us any direction as to where he wants to see Canada go. He wants to see everything gone. He wants to see his big friends in the United States take it over, just like Petro-Canada and just like what is going to happen to our airline industry, in the end, with a minister who will bring in open skies that will go north-south instead of east-west or west-east-north-south within Canada. This government is tearing everything apart.
Let me just repeat that in our process-and it has certainly been shown up in six years-there has been no consultation with the Canadian people. There is no consultation by this government with its big majority to put an onus on the government back-benchers to go home and ask the people if they approve of the policies that are coming forward.
We are going to have so many parties in Canada that it will destroy Canada by making it into small regions instead of a strong federal system that can compete with all countries of the world. We used to be able to compete with all countries in the world. In oil and gas, we had a spot, not because of Mobil or any of the big U.S. multinational companies, but because the government had given Petro-Canada the ability to sit at the same board tables as the multinationals.
But not this government. This government says: "We'll privatize it." It will privatize it at a time when we are going through a potential energy crisis in the Middle East; when we are in a recession so that only the big income earners, who are not here in Canada except for the few millionaires who are friends of the government and for whom it has provided over the period of six years; when Canadians themselves are having increased oil and heating costs on the east coast that are incredible; and when incomes are going down as people are being laid off because of the readjustments that are happening as a result of the free trade agreement. The manufacturing sector is going out the window, just as this government likes to see all its policies go-out the window and down into the United States.
It is time Canadians started to know that every one of us have a constituency office and every one of us should be listening to our constituents. I would offer that every one of us in the House should be telling our constituents the exact position that their member of Parliament feels on a certain bill. If we were honest with the Canadian people and told them what the objectives of this legislation are, we would find a greater result right across Canada in terms of a bill such as this and in terms of a cut-off on such an important issue as a natural resource that is ours in Canada.
This government does not care about resources. It says: "Whoever is the highest bidder, we will give it to them, as long as they are our friends. If they are not our friends, we will give it to the second bidder. But we are not going to look much further than that."
In the two years that I have been back, I have seen it in the Post Office; I have seen it in the CBC, and I blame the CBC to a certain extent for some of their own cutbacks- I have seen it in Air Canada; I have seen in it with the trains; I have seen it in the fishery which is at our door-step. The government cares nothing about the policy as long as it can privatize a resource.
I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly about a time allocation that the people of Canada will not have an opportunity to voice their concerns because their members of Parliament are perhaps not even explaining it to them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning with regard to Bill C-84 and the privatization of Petro-Canada.
I also had the opportunity of being a member of the legislative committee that reviewed the bill clause by clause. Indeed, we heard from quite a number of witnesses.
What I would like to bring to your attention today, and to indeed the attention of all my colleagues in the House, is that we had about 35 names of witnesses that were proposed from all the members on the committee, which we reviewed very carefully.

We did submit invitations to many of those witnesses. It was unfortunate that some could not come, or were unable to come for reasons which I will not refer to today. Out of the group, we did hear from nine. It was quite a balanced group.
There were some who were very much against the privatization, and I would like to review some of the reasons that they felt the company should remain in control of the government. Of course, there were some witnesses who were for the privatization.
I happen to come from Calgary which is in Alberta and happens to be one of the main producing provinces with regard to fossil fuels, mainly oil and gas. I guess we could say that 90 per cent of our oil and gas does come from the province of Alberta. We are particularly concerned that the total petroleum industry in general is a very healthy one and one that runs with no government intervention.
I speak of no government intervention. Let me clarify that the environment is very important. As we heard earlier-about an hour ago-the Minister of the Environment brought forth the green plan, and I have to commend him for it. Obviously fossil fuels in the emissions are problems.
No matter if the company is a Crown owned corporation or, indeed, if it is a privately owned corporation, it is going to be subjected to the same rulings, constrictions, hearings, observations, criteria and laws of the country.
Whether it is a Crown corporation or private, it will not make any difference. That was one particular issue that was brought forth with regard to the committee hearings.
In another area, it was mainly the fact of security of supply and a Crown corporation could guarantee security of supply. Actually, it is quite the reverse. A Crown corporation cannot guarantee security of supply. The one thing that is so very important is the capital that is needed to explore, develop and produce the hydrocarbons.
It is very expensive, more so with the synthetic type of oils, oil sands and, of course, in our frontiers it is more expensive than the western sedimentary basin.
Aside from that, the fact is that security of supply depends upon the petroleum companies exploring, de-
Govemment Orders
veloping and producing. Petro-Canada presently is quite strapped for funds, and a privatized company would really enable them access to financial markets.
In that case, it is going to make them directly more competitive with the industry. They are going to be able to become more aggressive in pursuing business opportunities.
I know it is hard for some people on the other side to understand, but just one little small word of wisdom is that these companies are in the business to sell oil and gas. When a barrel of oil or an MCF of gas is sold, it has to be replaced.
In order to replace it, a great deal of capital is required. What we are doing here, after a great deal of consultation, is allowing Petro-Canada the freedom to go out and access the capital. We are certainly cutting the apron strings to the government with regard to the financing.
That is not really new, because its mandate was changed in 1985 when it was told to operate within the private industry with no more government funding.
For security of supply, it has a far greater opportunity. With regard to the environment, it will be subjected to the same rules and regulations. I heard an hon. member just a few moments ago speak about Canada selling itself out. There is nothing further from the truth. In Bill C-84, there are qualifications for foreign ownership at 25 per cent. Indeed, no one person can own more than 10 per cent. So, I think the minister has done an excellent job in maintaining control in Canadian hands.
As to accusations that this government is selling out Canada, nothing could be further from the truth. The open skies project that the hon. member mentioned is not a fait accompli. We are holding consultations across the country on the open skies, as is the U.S. The consultations include people from all industries, labour unions, municipalities, airports and provincial governments. It is through these consultations that the ground rules for negotiations will take place. We have not said that there will be open skies. What we are doing is formulating the basis for negotiations, and if it is not good for Canada it will not go through. There is absolutely no way that we would sell out our industries.

Government Orders
We know in the airline industry that perhaps there is not a level playing field, but do not get the idea that because of a proposal, it is a fait accompli. That is simply not the truth.
In the other area about selling out Canada, I remember in December, 1988, the debates on the other side with the free trade deal. Madam Speaker, you know perfectly well that the free trade deal-and it is actually better management trade with the United States-is probably the greatest thing this country has.
We have watched over the last few weeks as the negotiations at GATT failed because of the high subsidies coming from the European market. But, what did we hear in December 1988? "Go to the GATT. That is where you should handle your international trade obligations, put all your eggs in one basket". We said: "No deal, we are not putting all our eggs in one basket. We will look to our greatest trading partner, which happens to be south of the border and you will live to see the day that this country and all Canadians will be grateful that we do have a Canada-U.S. trade agreement".
Not only that, but as the Europeans gather together in 1992 to form a trading bloc, you will see the western hemisphere pull together. When you put 400 million people with the 300 million people in North America, that is 700 million people to compete with the 350 million in Europe.
Let us get back to PetroCan, because it is really what we are debating today. I have to say that the prices of gasoline, oil and natural gas have nothing to do with this government or this bill. We have moved to a free market system, which is exactly the way it should be. If the price of petroleum in the free market goes up, the price of Canadian petroleum goes up. If the price in the free market system goes down, Canadian prices go down.
There is one thing I would like to see, and hopefully it may come about through the petroleum industry. This is the change of price at the pump. It is really relatively slow, but in some other countries it is last in, first out. This means that you see the price rise immediately and consumers may better understand why gasoline prices are going up and down. Right now, we have a 60 day to 90 day lag with the oil that is in the pipeline. So, the reflection of price changes are not seen at the pump for 60 to 90 days, and that is difficult for some Canadians to understand.
Moving to a free market system and a freed up privatized Petro-Canada will enable the company to compete and, after all, what this government is based upon is private enterprise. We should certainly not be holding oil companies under government intervention with regard to expanding their industry.
I am very pleased to participate and want to conclude by saying that we heard from many witnesses on both sides of the question in committee. I feel there has been a very fair hearing and it is time to get on with debate.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member from the government side was speaking and saying that there has not really been that great a change in Canada with the government's policy relating to Crown corporations, I was thinking about any number of communities, say, Grand Falls, Windsor, Botwood, or Gander, Newfoundland, and about a person sitting at home, right now, in one of those smaller communities and about what that person is thinking.
Well, the first thing that comes to mind about Crown corporations, since this government took over, is that the government sold the telephone company. It sold Terra Nova Tel. Now, when he picks up the telephone to make a telephone call, it is no longer a federal Crown corporation that he is dealing with. He is no longer dealing with "Information" or an operator who might be just next door. That Crown corporation was sold. This person looks down the street, while he is using his telephone, and he sees the place where the post office used to be. This is another Crown corporation and it has been replaced by an outdoor mailbox that he tries to get open when the weather turns cold. The government now sends around the names of various de-icing fluids and there is a hotline; it is nice that he has a hotline in the middle of the winter, to phone if the de-icing fluid does not work on his mailbox. There is 24-hour service and if he phones that number, somebody comes and opens his mailbox.
So the telephone company, a Crown corporation, has been sold. The post office, another Crown corporation, is gone; it has been replaced by an outdoor mailbox. Now, Madam Speaker, this same person worked in Bishop's Falls, a short distance away, where the railway used to be. The tracks are now being taken up. This is another Crown corporation which has been taken away since the Government of Canada came out with its policies on Crown corporations. He no longer can look up into the

sky and see Air Canada planes flying; that Crown corporation is also gone from his airport of Gander.
As if that were not enough, when it comes to his telephone, that Crown corporation was sold by this government, when it comes to his mail, that Crown corporation has a new policy which means no more post offices, and when it comes to getting to his place of work, the railway has been literally taken up and the tracks have been all stacked, just outside of Botwood, with the railway ties also being taken up. Air Canada is gone from his community. Now that was not enough.
There is only one Crown corporation left that Newfoundlanders now deal with and that is the great job-creator in Hibernia, Petro-Canada. Now we have a bill before the House to sell Petro-Canada. So that is his telephone, his mail, the railway, the airline, and his place of work, gone.
There is only one thing which one can conclude from all of that. With all of those Crown corporations gone, there is one more thing that has to go. That is the Government of Canada, and it is going to be gone in the next election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I must say that if you listen carefully these days-and it does not matter what part of Canada you listen to-you will hear a rumbling going on which people ought to know is the government's effort at a demolition attempt to destroy the country.
What has happened is that slowly but very systematically the Government of Canada is dismantling what Canadians understand and know as their country. There is a growing rage across Canada. It does not matter if you are from British Columbia, Newfoundland, or the Territories; Canadians knows that their country is eroding around them.
They know that one of the most effective ways the government has employed to destroy Canada, or as some people have put it to Americanize Canada, is to eliminate those structures and those institutions that have made Canada different from the United States, that have set us apart, that have been uniquely Canadian.
Government Orders
I am talking about the systematic dismantling of the Canadian airline system through the selling off of Air Canada, the removal and elimination of VIA Rail service through critical parts of Canada, the elimination of rural post offices throughout the country, and the dismantling of CBC. We find today in terms of those people who were in hiding in Kuwait that one of the elements which kept their spirits up and motivated them to hope was listening to CBC International. That, of course, will no longer be with us after April 1. The Canadian presence globally through CBC will be dismantled.
We have seen whole sets of Canadian institutions destroyed, eliminated, curtailed, cut back as a result of this government's systematic sort of methodical dismemberment and dismantling of Canada. That is why when people today are asked, "What do you think of the present Mulroney government", they laugh. This isn't a government; it is almost some foreign agent at work in terms of dismantling what we built up over the decades.
We find that in the government's rush to eliminate one of the most critical institutions in terms of differentiating Canada from other countries as a major oil producer, almost every other oil producing country in the world has a national oil company like Petro-Canada. In some countries, as in the Middle East, their Crown corporations control all of their oil patch. Other countries control portions of it.
There is hardly any oil producing country in the world that does not have a version of Petro-Canada, and for a good reason. They want their citizens to benefit from this fossil fuel wealth. They want to have an eye on the industry. That is why we introduced Petro-Canada. Unfortunately, once the mandate was created, it did not operate as a lot of people thought it ought to operate in terms of being different than Mobil Oil, Chevron, Shell, or whatever.
Then the Conservatives decided to give it a very specific mandate and said: "Don't operate any differently than any of the private sector corporations". Then of course, Canadians wonder why we have this corporation which operates exactly like Shell Oil operates its companies. Other countries do not do that. Other countries operate their Crown corporations differently, and so they provide a whole range of additional services to their citizens.

December 11, 1990
Government Orders
Then government members hear that 60 per cent of Canadians do not want to privatize Petro-Canada, so they quickly start to move legislation through because they know when Canadians hear the arguments against this, more and more people will be mobilized against this government's action like they are against the GST and most other actions of the government.
What do we see? We see the government introducing closure. This government is so used to bringing in closure that it has become a way of life. Closure has now become a regular way of doing business because this government is anti-democratic. It does not believe in a parliamentary system. As a matter of fact, this government finds the parliamentary system an absolute nuisance.
If you find the traditions and the time honoured approach of Parliament to be a nuisance, what do you do? You use closure and muzzle debate. You do not allow members of your own party to talk. You do not allow members of the opposition parties to present their views. You try to manipulate the news and the debate. You try to propagandize all the information that comes out, as we are seeing today with the green paper in terms of the incredibly sophisticated propaganda machine that is already at work.
There were three PR firms hired to put the right spin on the dream paper to give the people of Canada the illusion that the government actually cares about the environment. Canadians are not being fooled. They are bright and knowledgeable people. They can see through all this smoke and mirrors, fancy dancing and propaganda machines that the government continuously tries. If the government would only do a good job, then the people of Canada would support it; but it would rather put fancy spins on what it is doing.
Look at what we are doing today. Once again the government introduced closure. It introduced closure at second reading. My gosh, we only had three days to talk about the principle of dismantling and privatizing the largest Crown corporation in Canada with assets nearly $6.7 billion. After three days, it said that it had heard enough, that it did not want to talk about it any longer. It wanted to jam it into committee and then manipulate it through committee and so on, and it did not work. It tried to get a deal, deal, deal. It tried to roll the dice on this one and tried to make a deal. It wanted us to speak a few hours into the night and so on. It was absolutely ridiculous.
Of course there is no co-operation when it tries to dismantle Petro-Canada. Why on earth would we co-operate and facilitate the dismantling of what has become one of the critical symbols of our whole country? But this is nothing new. Look what the government has done to the GST.
Let me make a prediction that within a matter of hours the Conservatives in the Senate will pull some anti-democratic, anti-parliamentarian, absolute jackbooted, dictatorial, totalitarian technique, as they have done in the past, to jam the GST through the final stages in the Senate of Canada. Look at what they have done in this House with the GST. They brought in closure at second reading and then put it into the committee.
Then we saw an absolute spectacle of embarrassment when the chairman of the finance committee said: "I have to create a whole new set of regulations and rules because there is no way I am going to be able to move this using legitimate parliamentary procedure." He created a whole set of new rules. At least he had the courage to apologize to this House, which he did. He apologized for this unparliamentary behaviour. The whole matter had to be sent off to a committee because it was so irregular. That is how it got to the committee, because he could not use legitimate parliamentary procedure to do it.


An hon. member:: What?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The GST. Then at report stage they brought in closure and then at third reading they brought in closure. Then it went off to the Senate and we saw an absolute abandonment of any shred of concern for democracy' for the parliamentary tradition. Again, the Conservatives in the Senate, after abusing and abusing the parliamentary system in this House, are now doing exactly the same in the upper chamber.
This is a government that dislikes democracy. It dislikes the parliamentary system. It dislikes the traditions and the principles of the democratic parliamentary tradition. It uses what is at its disposal time and time again, more than any government in Canadian history. Over the last few months, it has said that it would impose this unpopular agenda on Canadians, that it would jam this legislation down their throats, and that the best way to do it would be to minimize debate so that it could fool the maximum number of Canadians so that they do not understand what the government is doing. Therefore it is going to use closure at every opportunity.
December 11, 1990

We ought not to be surprised that once again, while debating this incredibly important piece of legislation, the government is going to curtail debate. Here we are, having spent a handful of days, and I mean a handful of days, discussing the most elaborate, massive privatization effort in Canadian history. The minister responsible for privatization has announced that it is going to tolerate only one more day at report stage and one more day at third reading. Madam Speaker, you have given me an indication that my time is nearly up, but in closing let me say that Canadians realize that we have an elected dictatorship now where the government as elected says that it will do anything it wants to the people of Canada for four to five years.
When the people of Canada have had the opportunity, whether that opportunity is in Vancouver Island, in Labrador or anywhere in between, to indicate how they feel about these brutal totalitarian tactics, we have seen them indicate time and time again that they would turf this government out so far as to eliminate the Conservatives from the political landscape of Canada for years and years to come, in an effort to restore what all Canadians feel so strongly, and that is, our parliamentary tradition and our democratic way of life.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Madam Speaker, I must say that one of the more difficult tasks we have here in the House is to listen to the tiresome hyperbole that we have just listened to, talking about dictatorship and tyranny and so forth.
I would like to go back a bit and remind the member for Kamloops that the parliamentary process really begins not with the tabling of legislation here in the House but on the election trail when each one of the parties lays out its platforms and its intentions for a legislative program in the House. That is when we tell people what our agenda is going to be.
One of the traditions we have re-established in this Parliament that our Prime Minister has brought back to this Chamber is that the legislative agenda has a resemblance to what we talked about on the campaign trail, not like his predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, whose parliamentary agenda bore no relationship at all to the election campaign and the sloganeering.
Government Orders
We have brought back the basis of parliamentary democracy in that the campaign ought to introduce the ideas that we would bring forth in the legislative program. The member for Kamloops does not want to pay attention to this. He has a group of people going across Canada talking to Canadians about parliamentary reform. Meanwhile, that party over there frustrates Parliament here in the House by denying the government its legislation.
I was on the McGrath commission with their party representative, the member for Winnipeg-Strathcona. We took a trip to England to talk to members of the mother of Parliaments who said that over there in the election campaign each party has its agenda. They call it a manifesto, and when the party is elected the opposition party says: "Okay, you are now bringing in your manifesto in the form of legislation. You are entitled, on the basis of your election campaign, to your legislation. Provided that your manifesto laid it out and your legislation matches the manifesto, you are entitled to it".
I think members opposite know there is no secret at all across Canada that we have consistently campaigned on the notion that we believe in privatization. That is no secret. I think neither opposition parties will be fooled by any kind of a notion that we did not believe in that. We believe in privatization.
Back in the 1979 government of the right hon. member for Yellowhead, we brought in a program to begin privatizing Petro-Canada. It should not come as a secret or surprise to these people that we would want to do that.
In the United Kingdom, when they want to talk about the legislation resulting from their manifesto, the parties get together in the House of Commons and agree that the government is entitled to table legislation but the opposition is entitled to lay out its philosophy, its ideology, and its opposition. But the government is still entitled to the legislation. They decide how much time should be given to the debate. They decide if it should be four or five or six, not days, not weeks, but hours-five hours for a debate. Debate on the biggest pieces of legislation in the British House of Commons lasts four, five, or six hours.

Government Orders
This member for Kamloops talks about tyranny because he has not had several weeks to debate a bill, even though we have campaigned on it, even though it is an integral part of our philosophy, even though he knew we would want to do this. He does not believe that the government is entitled to its legislation.
I want him to know that this government was not elected to introduce or enact a socialist agenda. His objection to the legislation is that it does not conform to his ideology. He is entitled to his ideology and his beliefs but we were not elected to introduce his ideology. We were elected to introduce and enact ours. Privatization is an integral part of our philosophy and we are entitled to it. As a truly democratically elected majority government, we are entitled to this legislation.
I do not know why he gets so frustrated and why he introduces all the hyperbole, as did my friend from Gander, "Where is Air Canada gone?" I went home last Thursday and my boarding card said "Air Canada" on it. It had the famous red and white colours. I think all the personnel were Air Canada personnel. I think Air Canada is still flying. Why is it any less Air Canada that there are private shares held rather than public? I think Air Canada is there.
By the way, he says, "Where is the post office corporation?" I believe it was the Liberal Party, the Liberal government that privatized and made that a Crown corporation, took it out of the government portfolio and made a Crown corporation out of it. I think it was Andre Ouellet, as a matter of fact, who did it. Now he says, "Where are all the post offices?" I think they are still there. They have not been taken away.
We believe in this. We believe that privatizing Petro-Canada is good for Canada. I remember when the original bill was first brought in. My friend across the way who represents the farming community remembers when it was brought in. It was supposed to be a window on industry. I think the initial capital infusion was $500,000 back in about 1975. That was the window on the industry. Now we are talking about $5 to $6 billion. Some window. We think that privatizing Petro-Canada will be good for the company and it will be good for Canada.
My friend from Calgary who spoke just a few minutes ago pointed out one of the very important needs of Petro-Canada, and that is a cash infusion. We cannot keep injecting new government capital into that corporation. The people of Canada now know that the government-


Coline M. Campbell: They don't need money.


Benno Friesen: The member for South West Nova says they do not need money. Tell Bill Hopper they do not need the money. They need the money. The people of Canada know the Government of Canada does not have the cash to throw into that corporation. However, if we do privatize it, if we allow the people of Canada to buy shares, there will be a fresh infusion of cash into that corporation that it could not get any other way.
I want to ask members opposite a very simple question. What is it that creates this marvellous transformation of a company that if it is a Crown corporation, a government-owned corporation, what is it that creates this great transformation of humanity that makes it so much better if the management of the corporation are all of a sudden government employees? Why are government employees running a corporation so much better than private employees who are subject to a board of directors elected by the company, by the shareholders? What is it that makes the president or the board of directors of a government-owned corporation so much more humane, so much more imaginative, so much more generous than if it were a privately-owned corporation?
Does some magical thing take place when that person takes his orders from the government? Would it not be better to have a company like this removed from the government agenda and let it run its own agenda based on the marketplace, without political input, or in some cases political interference?
Would it not be better to have it market driven and let its agenda be driven by the marketplace rather than by an agenda of a political party, whatever political party is in office? Would it not be a more wholesome company if it were driven that way, rather than by the agenda of some people who are elected and have their own agendas rather than a market driven agenda?
December 11, 1990

I say to hon. members that we have been elected on an agenda of a marketplace economy. I have made that freely known in every campaign I have run in and I have run in five. We have always made that known. We are bringing in a legislative agenda on the basis of our political campaign.
The government is entitled to its legislation. The opposition is entitled to voice its opposition. It has no business frustrating it and forcing the government to bring in time allocation.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate concerning time allocation on this bill.
I have listened with great interest to the speakers. There was an indication that somehow debate is being stifled in this particular matter. The record shows that there have been four days for second reading and approval in principle of this particular bill. There were 18 speakers, nine of whom were opposition members.
The legislative committee held nine meetings and heard from 11 witnesses, as we heard previously. Obviously, nine amendments were also discussed there. There was an opportunity to discuss the various aspects of this bill. Currently, at report stage, there have been 18 speakers; 15 of whom were opposition members.
We have gone through a process, and we will continue to go through a process with regard to this particular bill. There certainly is no intent on the part of the government not to have an orderly debate. Also, the government has the responsibility to get its legislation through and make sure that it is passed.
I look at the particular bill itself, the privatization of Petro-Canada. There has been mention made in the House about the privatization and a comparison made to Air Canada. I had the opportunity on Thursday last to be in Montreal when Air Canada appeared before a committee euphemistically known as the open skies committee.
It was a treat to see a company which is dynamic, ready to approach the problems that will result and the opportunities that will be presented a company that has private shareholders, that feels that it can compete in any market and wants the opportunity to take part in that competition.
Government Orders
There was some reference to certain conditions that they would like to see put forward so that they could compete more adequately in the United States market. They were not unreasonable requests, but they came before us and said: "Yes, we want the opportunity to compete. We feel that we can do it. We feel that we are a vibrant, alive company and we just want the opportunity to be able to compete in any market."
That is encouraging to see. It is not a company holding back, saying: "We cannot take chances. We cannot take part in these opportunities that present themselves." We know that with the globalization of the world markets, more and more competition is coming to the fore. These companies are going to have to be able to respond to that competition.
In that regard, the bill before us will take Petro-Canada into a private situation with private investors throughout Canada. It will give these investors the opportunity to invest in a vibrant Canadian company.
There has been mention about the dismantling of Petro-Canada. Nothing could be further from the reality of privatization. Privatization allows an infusion of capital into these companies. It takes it off the backs of the taxpayers to provide the extra capital that may be necessaiy.
We know the financial position of the federal government at the present time. This privatization is a benefit to the federal government as well as a definite benefit to the company itself. It is better able to compete. It can have a fresh infusion of capital and it can go on and do the things it was set up to do. There will be no dismantling of this company as has been alluded to here, certainly just the opposite.
When we look at the original intent of setting up Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation, we must ask: Is the public policy initiative for this company still necessary? Should it be in a government controlled situation? I would submit that it certainly is not.
The original intent was to increase petroleum supplies and Canadian presence in the industry. Well, Madam Speaker, that has occurred. We moved from an interventionist aspect to one that allows market forces to freely take part and to allow the company to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves.

Government Orders
We have to realize that the world has changed since Petro-Canada was originally set up. It has fulfilled its function, but it can fulfil its function better as a private company. As I mentioned, with the infusion of private capital and the board of directors being responsible for the company, that will occur.
Petro-Canada was also to act as an agent in any state to state trading. Apparently there has only been one contract ever signed, and that aspect has gone by the board over the years. So that particular public policy aspect for the company has disappeared as well.
We now get to what is the final matter. As has been mentioned, the company was to serve as a window on the energy industry. We have the various boards in place now that can monitor the energy industry, that can look into it. Obviously this is an expensive instrument to use as a window on the energy industry.
Petro-Canada has outlived all of its public policy purposes. With the necessity for an infusion of new capital and the flexibility that will bring when it is privatized, obviously it is important that this legislation get through this House and become law. This is what we are talking about with the time allocation motion.
There is also a question of time. This bill gives the minister, or whomever is designated, the opportunity to market the shares of Petro-Canada. Obviously, that has to be something that is looked at and done in a very timely fashion.
There are a number of safeguards built into the sale of shares. No one individual can own 10 per cent or more of the shares of the corporation. No foreign ownership can exceed 25 per cent. We have discussed that as well when the bill concerning Air Canada was before the House.
This is an opportunity for this company to go forward, to be able to compete and to still fulfil all the public policy objectives that were originally set out. It also unburdens the public treasury from any responsibility that it would have in that particular regard. That is very important in these economic times.
It is a very important bill. It is a bill that should go through this House and obviously is the reason for the time allocation motion that we see in front of us.
It has also been mentioned that maybe the Middle East crisis is going to create some difficulty with security of supply. As I mentioned, the whole world is coming to globalization and a market economy. We see that even in eastern Europe when they realized the futility of trying to have a centralized system and trying to control all aspects of what goes on within their companies. They realize that it has been a failure. It has not worked. They must allow the market to take part.
I see that you are indicating that my time is up, Madam Speaker. Again, with the safeguards that are built into this particular bill, with the opportunity for this company to have an infusion of capital and an independent board of directors, and the opportunity to go ahead in the petroleum industry, it is too important a bill to be bogged down in procedure in the House of Commons. There has been sufficient debate and we will have more. I certainly hope that this bill will go forward.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the government's decision to invoke time allocation on a bill which certainly affects the lives of Canadians across the country. Why the government does not want a full and healthy debate on the bill is obvious.
I certainly would like to have had the opportunity to voice my concerns in detail on the privatization of Petro-Canada because this bill is a very complicated and detailed bill. This time allocation is denying me the opportunity to discuss in detail how the privatization of Petro-Canada will affect Canadians.
As my colleague suggested in committee, this bill as written states that Petro-Canada may not sell all or substantially all of either its upstream or downstream assets to any one person or group of associated persons. The question is how is "substantially all" defined. That depends on one's view of this definition. It may well be that medium-sized assets that are of national or strategic importance are being left unprotected by the vague wording of this bill. These assets may lose their commercial importance to Petro-Canada but their sale may well impact on the lives of Canadians across our country.

My riding of Malpeque on Prince Edward Island is a rural riding. Such decisions which may not appear to be substantial can really have a major impact on a small community. Such a decision was certainly made by this government when it closed our CFB Summerside. It may not have been a substantial decision when one looks at the enormity of the Government of Canada as a whole, but it had a substantial effect on the lives of many of us in Prince Edward Island. In fact, the after shocks of that decision are still being felt today.
Just last week when I returned to my riding, islanders were concerned about a decision that had been made by Holland College to discontinue adult education classes at Summerside and Kensington as of January, 1991. These classes had to be cancelled due to a shortage of funds. That shortage of funds is really due to two decisions made by the federal government. The first was the closing of the base. Because of that closure, a number of islanders, in an attempt to put their lives back together, enrolled in the Holland College adult education courses to better prepare themselves for finding a new job. This larger enrollment created an under-funding situation.
The second reason was the government's decision to cut back on the funding to the provinces for education. That also of course contributed to the shortage of available funds. Fortunately, the provincial government came to the rescue and provided the extra funding needed to keep these important educational courses alive in 1991. I commend the Ghiz government for its swift and timely action on this matter.
I also commend the students for having the courage and initiative to go back to school to upgrade their skills and knowledge. But, I certainly condemn this government for its policies which created this crisis in the first place.
I condemn the government today for imposing time allocation and so denying me an opportunity to speak in detail about the effects that this bill will have on Canadians, especially Canadians in eastern Canada.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, as in all provinces in eastern Canada, we are very dependent on imported oil. The continuity of supply of this non-renewable resource is paramount to our economic growth and
Government Orders
prosperity. Across Canada, the energy demand for petroleum is about 41 per cent, which certainly is a significant figure. However, in Prince Edward Island, we are doubly dependent upon petroleum for a total of 75 per cent of our energy demand.
We are trying to diversify the energy mix in my province through efforts in such areas as the biomass energy field which involves the burning of wood chips at very high temperatures. This initiative has provided the Island with an environmentally friendly energy source, along with badly needed jobs. Unfortunately, these efforts have been frustrated by the government's cuts to alternative energy and conservation programs. This is yet another example of the government's complete lack of attention to my province of Prince Edward Island. This bill may very well place Prince Edward Island in an even more volatile economic position due to our dependency on imported petroleum.
I urge the government to consider the ramifications of its decisions on the real people out there. There is more to effective decision-making than simply adhering to the bottom line. This bill requires a thorough and full debate due to the complexity of the subject matter itself.
This morning I expected that we in the opposition would have an opportunity to address the concerns of our constituents, concerns that the government is ignoring and which the government is not allowing to be heard in detail in this Chamber.
It is no wonder that Canadians have lost confidence in this government. I certainly regret not having the opportunity to speak in full detail today on the privatization of Petro-Canada.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am pleased with having to speak on time allocation today, but I want the opportunity to do so because I think that we are faced here with an approach by the government to push through the privatization process of Petro-Canada as quickly as possible. It recognizes that there is a growing wave of discontent across the country relative, not only to this particular bill, but to many other government actions.
This bill is the largest privatization in the history of this government or any other government and covers assets of $6.7 billion on which it will take a loss. There is no way that, under the structure that is being established in this bill, it will get this amount back.

If we had a concern for Canada's well-being, or if this government had a concern for Canada's well-being, it would be sure that there was ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of this bill before we got rid of Petro-Canada.
The resource that we are exploiting in Canada, the oil that is being exploited by Petro-Canada and other private corporations, does not belong to those corporations. It belongs to the people of Canada. It should be exploited in the best interests of the people of Canada.
We do not believe-many people of Canada do not believe-that Shell, Esso, Standard, and all the multinational oil companies that do this exploiting are doing so in the best interests of the people of Canada. They do not believe that getting rid of Petro-Canada is the best way to have at least some inkling into what is there.
We recognize that Petro-Canada has, to some extent, ceased to be an instrument of public policy. But this also is a planned approach on behalf of this government.
This company which has a good solid commercial base and more assets than most other companies do have in Canada has not showed up as being as possible as Shell or Imperial because the government has made it a policy approach that it should not show up as being entirely competitive with these companies. The only way it could defend the sale of it was if it was not making a return on its investment.
It has not been a particularly good investment, but it is very difficult at this time to say that we should sell this company. Judging whether or not Petro-Canada has some reason for being in the future, as far as the Canadian people are concerned, it is very difficult to say yes or no to that, because we, as legislators, must be sure before we make that kind of a move that what we do is in the best interests of Canada. We have not explored the possibilities. We have not spent the time necessary to do so.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources did a fairly comprehensive study on Petro-Canada. Indeed, in the process, it made the recommendation that the privatization of Petro-Canada not be proceeded with until the federal government has completed the process begun in energy opposites and has articulated an energy policy.
That is why I suggest that we, in this House, as the Parliament of Canada, are proceeding with this bill much too quickly. In fact, I think that the time allocation should be turned around to the extent that the government should withdraw the bill until it knows whether or not it really needs Petro-Canada as an instrument of public policy.
In the six years that it has been responsible for Petro-Canada, the government has failed to use it. It has directly used it as an instrument of public policy, and it has directed Petro-Canada to operate as any other private sector oil company, except that it was not supposed to make any money.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will interrupt the member at this time. There will be 5 minutes left should he with to continue with his remarks after Question Period.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the beautiful riding of Beausejour, Jean Chretien and the faithful, local Liberal Party fashioned a great victory.
This is a victory for a courageous leader and also for all Canadians who are desperately looking for integrity and fairness in government. I say to these Canadians: Do not despair, in a few years the misery will be over. This is a victory for all Canadians, hoping for a real leader, one who will not hesitate to stand up for Canada and Canadian values, whether in western Canada, the north, the Atlantic, Ontario or Quebec.

This is a victory for all Canadians hoping for a real leader who will stand up for Canada and Canadian values. This is a victory for all Canadians who want a leader who will refuse to pay homage to American destiny by being head-waiter to the President of the United States. This is a victory for all Canadians who believe that the people, not the national media, are sovereign in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed in reading about the current case before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal challenging that province's electoral boundaries. Nine university professors want to rewrite the political map based on representation by population. This would have serious repercussions in rural Canada.
It is often stated that our country's strength lies in our resources. Mr. Speaker, it would be more correct to state that the heart of Canada lies in the people who develop our natural resources. Our regions and its people are the essential part of this country that creates our wealth.
Throughout the ages, we have enjoyed representational democracy in this country, not rep by pop, but a hybrid of it. The Canadian democratic process has always allowed for a consensus among those regions of this country.
It is vitally important, whether we are talking about resource management, the environment, or the deficit, to have effective input from the heart of Canada.
We must resist the notion of rep by pop, Mr. Speaker, for the more responsible Canadian solution that has made this country strong and our parliamentary democracy an envy of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment promised Canadians a green Christmas present. What we received today, with the tabling of the green plan, is a snow job.
As a public relations exercise, the green plan is a great success and, in view of the money spent on promotions, this comes as no surprise. What is surprising is that the government actually expects Canadians to believe that this expensive ploy will miraculously make Canada a world leader in environmental policy.
In an effort to instil a warm feeling at Christmas time, the government has hired not one but three public relations firms. Under the fagade of consultation, the government spent $6 million on a glitzy, cross-country PR caravan.
The big sell on the environment, begun by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, has become a big bust. The green plan is part of the supposed "good news agenda". Canadians see no good news in a document designed purely to deceive. The Conservatives have once again demonstrated that when it comes to governing, nothing beats a good ad campaign.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, last week, Mr. Yves St-Germain, the Montreal Urban Community's chief of police, stated that one of the causes of family violence was that men were shocked to see their wives leave the family home to go to work. His statement is one of many attempts to put the blame on women who work outside the home.
Mr. St-Germain's comments, which were made at a conference organized^ to coincide with the anniversary of the tragedy at the Ecole polytechnique, prove that a typical male prejudice that would blame women for all men's misfortunes is still alive and well.
Mr. Speaker, coming from the chief of police of the fifth largest police force in this country, such statements are intolerable, and I demand the resignation of Mr. St-Germain.


BEAUSEJOUR AND YORK NORTH BY-ELECTIONS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in central and Atlantic Canada, Canadians re-elected Liberals to the House of Commons. Our thanks and appreciation go to the people of Beausejour and York North for their confidence and support.
Congratulations to our leader, the hon. Jean Chretien, and Maurizio Bevilacqua for their great electoral victories. In both ridings, despite the multitude of candidates, the Liberals won with more than 51 per cent of the vote.
There are many members of this House who would have liked to receive that much of a vote in their own ridings in the last federal election.
Aboriginal people, westerners and northerners welcome back their long-time friend, Jean Chretien.
From north to south, and east to west, the Liberals will continue to fight for Canada and the people of this great land.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in lnuktitut.]
Jean and Maurizio, well done. The best is yet to come.


GREEN PLAN
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, here are some of the measures proposed in the Green Plan. The government will reinforce existing partnerships and create new ones with aboriginal people and non-governmental organizations, including environmental groups. The same will apply to Canadian industry. Individual initiative will be encouraged, and funding for the Environmental Partners Program will be increased. The Environmental Choice Program and National Environment Week will also be maintained and reinforced. A national youth advisory committee on the environment and development will be established.
Furthermore, a Canadian youth secretariat on environment and development will prepare young Canadians and other young people for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Brazil in 1992. To support scientific research, a five-year action plan on environmental sciences and technology will be established. And Mr. Speaker, this is only the beginning. Congratulations!


BEAUSEJOUR AND YORK NORTH BY-ELECTIONS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, two by-elections, two exhilarating victories for the Liberals in Canada: Jean Chretien in Beausejour and Maurizio Bevilacqua in York North.
The NDP's "Rae" of hope faded in Ontario last night with the Liberal landslide victory over the NDP in York North. Liberals are not only alive, but thriving.
Is the Conservatives' showing at the polls in Ontario an omen? Are they about to tie their rate of popularity to the rate of the GST? The by-election proved that the only things less popular with Canadians than the GST are Tories.
Liberals won both by-elections with over 50 per cent of voter support. This is the trend of the future. There is hope for Canada.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's green plan, tabled in the House of Commons this morning, is little more than a feeble attempt at dealing with critical environmental issues facing Canadians today.
Despite the fact that the green plan is vague and promises business as usual for the immediate future, the essence of the plan hinges on adequate environmental assessment legislation. That legislation, Bill C-78, is currently in a House legislative committee where, to date, every single witness has criticized the government's bill, calling it inadequate and fundamentally flawed. There are plenty of reasons why Bill C-78 should be withdrawn and redrafted into a strong and enforceable environmental assessment bill.
None is more important than the fact that the green plan now relies on it for environmental protection. What we have here is an environmental plan that rests firmly

on top of the San Andreas fault of assessment legislation. Without stronger initiatives for the assessment process, the inadequate green plan is meaningless.



Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Green Plan was bom out of a process of public consultation which began in March 1990. Canadians participated in information sessions in 41 cities and towns across the country. Recommendations were made by many representatives of the provinces and territories, municipalities, industry, unions, environmental groups, youth, natives, academics and religious organizations. In all, this process allowed for 10,000 people to present their views to government.
Canada's Green Plan is a strong response to the views and concerns of Canadians. It effectively adopts some 80 per cent of more than 500 recommendations that emerged from the national consultative session held in Ottawa in August.
The plan encourages participation of all Canadians. Canada's Green Plan will ensure a healthy environment for ourselves, our nation and our planet.


GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Green Plan will bear fruit. This is what we can expect in the months to come.
We should see tremendous progress in cleaning up our air, waterways and soil.
We should be able to reduce waste production very substantially and be far more careful in how we use our sources of energy.
There should be a definite improvement in the protection of wildlife and national parks. There should be better protection for the fragile environment of our northern regions.
In their development plans, companies will have to consider the impact their activities will have on the environment, just as today they would consider the cost of capital investment, manpower and equipment.
We are convinced that, on the basis of the criteria I just mentioned, the Green Plan will be very successful. Mr. Speaker, this is an action plan that will produce results, which will be a genuine test of our Canadian Green Plan.


BEAUSEJOUR AND YORK NORTH BY-ELECTIONS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien is back!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sergio Marchi: Back in the House of Commons which has been home to him for many a year.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sergio Marchi: Yesterday's overwhelming victories were confirmation of Mr. Chretien's vision for a proud, independent, and above all, united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Bravo.


Sergio Marchi: His campaign was a campaign for Canada and a call for Canadians to still believe in themselves and in their country-


Some hon. members:: Call the election.


Sergio Marchi: -despite the cynicism and despair they hold for their national Tory government.
Yesterday's winners were Jean Chretien, Maurizio Bevilacqua, and the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sergio Marchi: By contrast, the loser was the Prime Minister of Canada who, as Leader of the Conservative Party, did not even have the courage to field a candidate in Beausejour, and whose candidate in York North roughly equalled the same 7 per cent level of his GST.
Canadians spoke last night loud and clear. On behalf of the Liberal Parliamentary caucus, I welcome our two new Liberal members of Parliament, made in Canada for Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the Green Plan is a giant step we must all take together to guarantee sustainable development that will benefit both the environment and the people of this country. The Green Plan focuses, organizes and channels efforts being made across the country to protect the environment.
During the next five years, additional funding totalling $3 billion will be released under the Green Plan. With the budgets for existing programs, this will mean a total of nearly $10 billion in federal spending on the environment during the five years following implementation of the Green Plan-


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: -in other words, a 50 per cent increase in federal funding in this area. This new budget is a clear demonstration that the Government of Canada considers spending on the environment as an investment in the health and economic future of this country.
Congratulations to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of the Environment and to the government!


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, forestry initiatives in Canada will suffer because of the lack of support for our forests and this government's green plan. In British Columbia, we were told to wait for the green plan to get an additional $300 million for forest renewal.
Instead we get recycled promises and no specific measures to help our forests.
The Tories have sold B.C. and other provinces a bill of goods, and in B.C. the forest minister took it hook, line and sinker.
The green plan's proposal for a personal contract to plant trees recognizes what Canadians already know: the Boy Scouts plant more trees than this government. The government should get on with the job of renewing expired forest agreements immediately.



Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Green Plan makes history today in marking the first occasion that our country has committed itself clearly and comprehensively to the environmental imperative.
In so doing, we are recognizing that life in today's world demands two such imperatives-one environmental and the other economic-within which disciplines we must sustain our future development on earth.
The green plan identified eight strategic areas of priority and more than 100 specific initiatives to be aggressively addressed over the next five years. It truly is an action plan, but it is more than that: it is a profound statement of principal and philosophy about how we must live our lives on this earth if mankind is to survive.


HON. JEAN CHRETIEN
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, today is the beginning of the end for the Tory Party: Hon. Jean Chretien is on his way, and to quote Mr. Chretien: "We are going to start working to get rid of this terrible government".
Our leader will once again prove it is possible to be a francophone and be at home anywhere in this country. It is possible to be a French Canadian. Welcome to our new leader! Tories, on your guard!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I want to say what a pleasure it is to rise on behalf of a caucus that as of last night was strengthened by a factor of two: York North where the NDP's ray of hope was dashed and Beausejour where we elected the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Today, after much huffing and puffing, we have finally received the green plan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Its basic message is that of the Cheshire cat. How dare they clap as the environment of this nation goes down the drain.
Only a Tory party would clap over a plan that has the rest of the country crying. The basic message of this plan is straight out of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland. It says, and I can almost quote from the plan: "If you do not know where you want to go, then any road will get you there."
This plan has no vision. It has no coherence, and it has no legislation. This is not an action plan. Everything in the plan is subject to 18 months of consultation. Nothing is firm, and it is all subject to approval.


Some hon. members:: Right on.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: All the Tories are doing, Mr. Speaker, is asking Canadians-


Some hon. members:: Question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, they are asking us to trust them. They told Canadians to trust them with day care. You failed us before. Why should we trust you now?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this morning we tabled the green plan for Canada. It is a comprehensive plan. It is a plan that was done in full consultation with Canadians. We had over 11,000 Canadians involved in the consultation process. It is a five-year action plan. It is a revolving plan. After year one, we will add year six.
It is a plan that addresses the concerns that we heard from all those Canadians who took the time and effort to participate in the consultations. It is a $3 billion plan: $3 billion of fresh, new federal money. That plan has been approved by cabinet and will be implemented.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, "$3 billion", said the Minister of the Environment. New money invested in the Green Plan-and I quote-"-represents 1/2 of 1 per cent of government spending over the next five years". Furthermore, all
Oral Questions
funding promised in the Green Plan is subject to cabinet approval, which means further discussions. There is no guarantee that the Green Plan will not vanish in to the fog, like the commitment to a national daycare program.
Next year, the government will invest more new money to implement the GST than to protect the environment. That is where its priorities lie. And now for my question: How can the Prime Minister justify spending more money next year to clean out our pockets than to clean up the environment?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to clean up is a situation that was neglected by the previous Liberal governments for 60 to 75 years.
I think Canadians will understand that when a government makes a formal commitment to cabinet to invest $3 billion-that is, three thousand million dollars-in a plan that is clearly defined with specific objectives, that government is taking the kind of action those people in the opposition have never seen before.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the plan in front of me. For a year now every time this minister or his predecessor has lost a battle in cabinet, every time they have had to eat crow, they have come before the cameras to mouth words which are not their own. Then they would lamely tell us to wait for the green plan.
Today we have the green plan, and it is the environment that has lost. Once again the minister is mouthing the words but the voices are not his own. They are the voices of the minister of energy, they are the voices of the minister of finance, they are the voices-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Given the fact that the minister is unable to voice his own opinion but has to voice that of other departments, will he tell us in a Tory government what is the difference between a Tory Minister of the Environment and Milli Vanilli?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when the member opposite was standing on his feet, he was waving what he claimed to be a copy of the green plan. It is a summary. I would be happy to send the hon. member a full copy so he knows exactly what we have in the green plan.

Oral Questions
What is the difference between a Tory environment minister and anybody else in this country, particularly somebody from the opposite side? We care about the environment. We have done our homework. We have made the commitments. We have taken the action, and we have something to clean up the environment after all the years of neglect.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
At Geneva in September and again today in the green plan the minister soft-pedals the urgent threat of global warming and ignores the overwhelming consensus of scientists that we can and must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2005.
Why does the minister's plan contain action to help Canadians prepare for global warming instead of stopping it dead in its tracks and committing Canada to cut our emissions by 20 per cent by 2005?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada on this issue is well known. It is one that is leading most of the industrialized countries around the world.
We are going to make sure that emissions by the year 2000 are no higher than they were by the year 1990. We are moving to encourage international partners to reach a convention and protocols simultaneously at the Brazil conference in 1992.
We are one of the countries that is funding less developed countries to develop the necessary research so that they can be at the table as equal partners. We are right at the forefront of that. We have made the direct commitment in Geneva that we fully recognize that we would have to go further after the year 2000. We want to go further, but with all the rest of the international community following because this is an international problem.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Somebody has to lead, and it is obvious it is not going to be Canada now that this plan has been released.
The government has green words on alternative energy and conservation to slow down greenhouse gases, but it has a grey record since 1984 of savage cuts from $500 million to $50 million on alternative energy and conservation. We have a green plan today that is full of surprise packages which are full of hot air.
Is there one concrete action, one concrete funding program that has been approved by cabinet, now to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to improve the use of alternative energy and conservation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about grey words. On global environmental security, we are talking about $575 million of new money to deal with the issue. To my mind that green paper means something in this community.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
For decades Canadian governments, led largely by the Liberals and now today by the Tories, have refused our repeated demands to get tough with corporate polluters. This failure, as the government knows, is a major contributor to the environmental crisis that we are in now.
This government had an opportunity through the green to change that. It had an opportunity to come out strong for some kind of enforcement, yet it proposes to give taxpayers' money to those very corporations that pollute our environment.
Will this government abandon voluntary compliance, bring in real legislation with real enforcement, and make the corporate polluters pay?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the NDP had read the green plan carefully, she would have found that in the Green Plan we are talking very specifically about four new pieces of legislation and fifteen new areas of regulation.
Having said that, I believe, while they are required, that we have to go further in inciting Canadians to work as one. We have to work as a federal government with provincial, regional and municipal governments, with the private sector, and with Canadians as a whole to reach the purposes that have been set out in the green plan. Regulations, yes. Legislation, yes. But co-operation first and foremost.
December 11, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
I have read the plan of the government very carefully. Where the document states that we have to rely on voluntary compliance and that self-regulation is better than government regulation, that means there are no regulations, no environmental auditor, no staff assigned to monitor legislative regulations. It is this reliance on voluntary measures that has created the mess we are in, and the minister knows that.
In the last year, under the Environmental Protection Act, we have seen three prosecutions. Will the government announce today that it will bring forth whistleblowing protection legislation so that workers in this country, if they want to act environmentally responsibly, will have their jobs protected? That would be a real directive.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the green plan we talk about the Drinking Water Safety Act, the Canadian Oceans Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protections Act, the National Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Act. All of them are time targeted. All of them have been committed to by this government. All of them will be before this House in the very near future.
The green plan does promote a number of legislative measures and a number of regulatory measures, but the act also affords a measure of faith in Canadians. They have responded well in the past and will in the future because Canadians want their environment cleaned up.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, everyone wants the environment cleaned up, including the workers in this country who simply want protection so that they can participate in that cleanup without risk of losing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. It is clear that like the previous government, this government has no intention of prosecuting companies that pollute the environment. Will this government at least announce the creation of a charter of environmental rights, so that Canadians can do what this government is not prepared to do itself?
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, what this government has done is table a concrete action plan for the next five years which involves new federal funding totalling $3 billion. That is what Canadians have asked us to do and that is what we have delivered. That is what it takes to get all Canadians at all levels of society involved, with us, with you, in a genuine environmental program.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He keeps talking about the $3 billion in the green plan, which in fact is 40 per cent less than he had previously promised.
Isn't this $3 billion really an empty shell because not one nickel of that $3 billion has been specifically approved by cabinet for any of the projects mentioned in the green plan and, in fact, if any of these projects come before cabinet, they could well be axed by the Minister of Finance of the President of the Treasury Board and never actually see the light of day? Is that not the truth?


Mr. Andre:: Three billion dollars means nothing to those guys.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, a $3 billion empty shell must be a very huge shell indeed. We are talking here about $3,000 million of fresh new federal money for the environment, associated with a program that has been fully approved by cabinet. I am not sure where my hon. colleague is getting the information that he is using for his questions. This is fresh new money. It fulfils a major commitment of our Prime Minister and of this government to ensure that our environment is protected for the years to come.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is fresh new money, but in fact Canadians will know it is the same old stuff from this government that cut the Canadian Wildlife Service by 25 per cent and cut $40 million from the energy division of the National Research Council, so it is the same old thing.

December 11, 1990
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister of the Environment this question. The minister in his green plan asks Canadians to be friendly to the environment, yet he fails to exempt any environmentally-friendly products or services from the GST. How can Canadians take the government and its green plan seriously when the government intends to slap the GST on even environmentally-friendly products and services? Does this not show the government simply is not credible when it talks about its new-found belief in a clean environment for this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take the question because it gives me an opportunity to congratulate my hon. friend on a job extremely well done as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party who will be entering the House very soon.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, ever since the leader was replaced in June, the popularity of the party has sunk from 53 to 30 per cent. So the question is going to be, "Can Herb really be replaced?" I wish him well and congratulate him on the excellent job that he did for his party and for all of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Herb, Herb.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asked his usual incisive question. He expressed a legitimate fear about environmental programs being-and I quote him-"axed by the Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board".
This is presumably based on experience, because the federal-provincial water management program was cut. Grants to universities for water resources research were cut. The Pollution Abatement Technology Program was cut. The Arctic marine pollution program was cut, and the Wildlife Habitat Acquisitions Program involving purchases of land for habitat protection were cut, all on September 8,1978, by the then Minister of Finance, Jean Chretien.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, while we are in a congratulatory mood, maybe we ought to congratulate the Prime Minister for his marvellous performance at the polls last night.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ms. Copps:: Where is your deposit, Brian?


Roger Simmons: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The government's green plan is to focus national attention on the importance of the fisheries. It says it is going to have detailed federal strategies and operating procedures in place after 1992, all of which is commendable.
What I and thousands of fishermen and plant workers in Atlantic Canada want to know is what are his immediate strategies between now and 1992, particularly this winter, to deal with the very unprecedented crisis those people are facing through no fault of their own.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: When the hon. member congratulates the Prime Minister on the results at the polls, I remember the poll of November 21, 1988. We thought they were excellent. Those that matter he tends to win. I like that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, concerning the important fishery issues to which the hon. member refers, as he knows, we have been consulting with the industry, the fishermen, the unions, the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, along with my colleagues who have been trying to find ways to help this winter.
It is important for those fishermen this year that we take measures to ensure that the groundfish management plan is adopted. We must also ensure the future of the fisheries in that part of Canada. We fully intend to do this.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my good friend the minister is smart to reflect on November 21, 1988 because that is the most pleasant electoral experience he and his crowd are going to have for a long time.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: The Fraser River in British Columbia, as the minister will know, is home to the largest salmon run in the world. I noticed with pleasure that the minister has plans to double the fish population in that river over time. That, itself, is a commendable goal.
Will the minister make a similar commitment to work towards the doubling of Atlantic groundfish stocks over the same timeframe?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, by the way, I remember some predictions in May of 1987 about the November 21 election of 1988. Again, I saw the results.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would probably invite me to make a statement that I, this government, or the scientists, can double the fishery in Atlantic Canada.
Unfortunately, I am not a Liberal. I do not work miracles. We have to keep working hard with the fishermen and scientists to try to do what is possible. What is possible is to sustain the fishery. That is part of the green plan, to sustain the fishery in Atlantic Canada. With participation, we can all do this together.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
I am sure he is aware that the corks are popping in the boardrooms all over the country. This is a government that is standing by, without having an environmental assessment of any of the major megaprojects coming forward in this country. The green plan was supposed to be $5 billion with tough new anti-pollution laws. Unfortunately, it shrank and it has been deformed into a unsecured $3 billion political slush fund.
Will the minister explain the $2 billion that has been cut from the plan, and why the government has opted for voluntary compliance and self-regulation of polluters when that mindset is precisely what has brought about the decline and destruction of Canada's environment.
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to explain the disappearance of something that was never there.
We have a $3 billion, five-year action plan. This is a plan to support other initiatives that this government has taken on the environment, such as Bill C-78, one that my hon. colleague has not been too swift to approve in this House or in committee.
This is a bill that will be very helpful in terms of environmental assessment. It comes on the back of a record that would be enviable for any industrialized nation in this world in the matter of environment.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. It seems that for over three years now, the Union des municipalites has been requesting $5 billion in order to improve municipal infrastructures, namely sewers and water systems. We don't see in the Green Plan any reference to that. Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us, first, how much money will be used to improve municipal infrastructures? Second, will he give us a schedule showing when this money will be provided to municipalities? Is the Green Plan only an empty plan?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Green Plan does address questions like the ones my friend raised. I believe he should know that municipalities are creatures of the provincial governments from a jurisdictional point of view and a constitutional point of view. This question has been raised many times and our gouvemment has frequently answered requests from municipalities.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, this government's green plan is nothing but a garbage heap of reused and recycled propaganda with reduced commitment to the environment.
As an example, this government's drinking water safety act does not apply to a single drop of drinking water flowing into Canadian homes and communities. The standard only applies to federally-controlled water sources. It does not apply to water treatment in 99 per cent of the communities across the country.

Oral Questions
My question to the Minister of the Environment is this. Why did the minister not provide the leadership in obtaining federal-provincial agreements to protect drinking water for all Canadians?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about a recycled plan, that the only thing that is recycled in this plan is the paper that it is printed on. Everything else is new and meaningful.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the municipalities have been pushing this government for years to adopt an infrastructure program which would clean up sewage and water and share the responsibility among the three levels of government.
Instead, this government's answer was to provide and offer to sponsor a conference. Worse still, it wants to force another tax on drinking water of somewhere between 200 to 300 per cent.
Why is this government ignoring its environmental responsibilities and ignoring the co-operative approach in dealing with water and health concerns of Canadians?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be very clear for the record. One hon. member opposite says that we do not have taxes in this plan and another says that we intend to increase taxes by 300 per cent.
The record can read very clearly that we are not proposing any new taxes in this green plan. We are proposing a comprehensive action plan for Canadians for the next five years. The plan will evolve. We will add year six after year one and year seven after year two. It is the most comprehensive environmental plan for the country that has ever been put before the House ever since Confederation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. Canadian farmers are anxious to build an industry less dependent upon chemicals and pesticides. Other countries such as the Netherlands have already implemented specific positive measures. Yet today in your green paper all you can assure Canadians is that there will be another report in 1991.
Why the delay? Why are you continuing to put this industry at risk?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. We are not putting the industry at risk at all. As recently as last Saturday, I have had meetings with the industry. It is very concerned about the chemicals it uses in agriculture, and it would like to work with us to figure out the best approaches to deal with the issue.
The chemicals are pollutants and the agricultural people in this country are conscious of that and they want to work with government to find the best solution. That is exactly what we intend to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would want to put the question through the Chair. The hon. member for a supplementary.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. On page 28 of the green plan there is the following incredible statement:
Native people are particularly at risk from environmental hazards
due to traditional lifestyle patterns and food sources.
They are not at risk because of what they have done. They are at risk because of what we have done.
Why did the minister not deal directly with those companies and provincial Crown corporations which take turns in destroying our aboriginal communities?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all the interpretation of that quote does not do justice to the statement in general that was made in the green plan about the plight of aboriginal people. We are addressing the concerns of aboriginal people in the green plan.
In terms of their traditional living habits, obviously there is a problem. There is a problem because the food chain for aboriginal people is quite different from that one would find in a city such as Ottawa, Montreal, or Toronto. We are concerned about that. We need better science. We need more help. The aboriginal people have pointed that out to us and we are working very closely with them to come to the best solution possible.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the green plan projects new spending on energy conservation, renewables, and alternatives to counteract global warming of an average maximum $115 million a year.

Added to current spending, that will bring us up to about $155 million a year, just a little less than is spent on the nuclear industry all by itself, and less than 40 per cent of what was spent in these areas in 1984.
Given this unmistakable, unconditional surrender on global warming, will the minister agree that the green plan's section entitled "Anticipating and Preparing for Global Warming" represents the government's real strategy-do nothing substantive to stop it, but try to cope with it when it happens?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has made mention of energy efficiency. In fact, I recall just in the last committee meeting that he and I attended when we were discussing the Petro-Canada privatization bill that he in fact commended the government and the department for the leadership we had taken in alternate energy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and also relates to global warming.
In response to another question in the House this afternoon, the minister responded by alluding to Canadian leadership on reduction of CO2 emissions. Yet the document, the green plan, states that the target is going to stabilize carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. In the same document it states the government is going to have difficulty meeting the stabilization targets.
How is the government going to achieve this goal?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have restated the goal in the green plan. That is a goal that we have committed to internationally at Bergen, repeated in Geneva, and expanded upon, as a matter of fact, in Geneva. It is a goal that we feel confident we can meet.
Oral Questions
From a scientific point of view, we know exactly how we can reach most of the goal. We are very confident in this area, as was the case, for example, with CFCs and the ozone-depletion problem that we will probably be able to surpass the goal.
The science has to be developed further and if the hon. member looks at the green plan carefully she will see that there is a very significant part of the Green Plan that deals with research and development and scientific work in the field of the environment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of the Environment is costing $2 billion in losses for those who are concerned about the environment. We can see that the departure of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was a very costly proposition for the environment, Mr. Speaker, just to end up with a series of pious wishes. Can the Minister of the Environment tell me whether the provinces have been consulted and how much of these $3 billion are earmarked for Quebec?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell my colleague from Richelieu that the Green Plan was drafted in full consultation with 11,000 Canadians. In addition, we did have consultations with all provincial governments, and I can assure my colleague that this new $3 billon appropriation is a lot more than anything that had been envisaged in a plan such as this one. The funds will be distributed equitably to all regions of the country so that we may all do our share to reach our environmental objectives.


Louis Plamondon: My supplementary is for the Minister of the Environment. I said something about consultations with the Quebec government, Mr. Speaker, but I did not get an answer and three points needs to be clarified. For example, the report provided by the minister has precious little to say about research and innovation. And then PCBs will be dealt with in 1995, not 1992. I should also remind the minister that back in 1986 we were talking about investing $1.5 billion in wildfowl protection, but now we are down to $175 million for threatened species and historic sites and centres. Is a fire-sale priced environment the only thing the minister has to offer to Quebecers?

December 11, 1990
Government Orders


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that I did not answer his first question. I will give him a much more specific answer. Not only did I meet with the Quebec environment minister along with others, but I got to talk to him personally. I gave him an outline of the Green Plan and the Quebec Minister of the Environment was quite satisfied. There were further consultations about the finer points of the Green Plan and the Government of Quebec was satisfied with the approach taken by the central government.


HOUSING
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to Minister of State for Housing. Recent newspaper reports indicate that the Government of Quebec is not particularly enthusiastic over federal policies concerning subsidized housing. Can the minister tell us why the federal government would favour Ontario to the detriment of Quebec when it comes to funding subsidized housing?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that Quebecers will get their fair share of available resources and that Quebec is not short-changed to the benefit of other provinces or territories. In 1990, Quebec got 26.9 per cent of all housing units, against 25.2 per cent for Ontario. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to help any low-income family find decent living accommodation wherever it happens to live.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, CBC President Gerard Veilleux said today with respect to its cuts that "politicians, and in particular the cabinet, have the responsibility for keeping the CBC alive".
Will the Prime Minister admit that neither he nor the Minister of Communications even bothered to meet with the CBC President? They did not even bother to lift a little finger to do something to help the CBC before the savage cuts took place and were announced? Will the
Prime Minister tell us why he and his cabinet abdicated their responsibility with respect to the public broadcasters?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Since 1936, Mr. Speaker, all governments, including this one, have assumed their responsibilities towards the CBC. Moreover, I met Mr. Veilleux on many occasions following his appointment as President of the CBC. He never mentioned that he wanted to discuss with me how the CBC budget should be spent and how the president and directors of the CBC should administer their own budget.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it would make a very interesting exchange between the Prime Minister and Mr. Veilleux to find out who was correct in this particular situation.

I have a supplementary question. This morning, the CBC was unable to assure hon. members that there would be no further cuts nor any other closing of television or radio stations. The Minister of Communications did nothing to protect the CBC at the Cabinet meetings. Would the minister admit that he did not even lift a finger to help the artistic community in Canada? If you did, what did you do? Tell me!


Marcel Masse: Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, this government on many occasions increased the budget of the CBC. As for the future, Mr. Speaker, only the Liberal Party knows it.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, forest resources development agreements have not been mentioned in the green plan, yet they are fundamental to the survival of the forestry industry in Canada. The minister announced that he proposes to plant 325 million trees in our towns and cities.

Government Orders
Is the minister not confusing his priorities when there are some 220,000 hectares of harvested land that will not be reforested in Canada because they are not included in the green plan?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. colleague is mistaken concerning the Green Plan and the regular programs. As far as reforestation is concerned, I suggest that the federal-provincial FRDA agreements have been quite successful so far.
The Green Plan is something else, an innovation which will benefit the Canadian people as a whole. Surely forestry was taken into account, but I would not want my hon. friend to confuse the resources allocated under the various federal-provincial FRDA agreements with those allocated under the Green Plan. It is something which is entirely separate in an effort to improve the situation. It is new money which is made available to Canadians for the development of forestry resources and for the use of the Canadian people as a whole. That is the intended goal of the Green Plan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Réginald Bélair: Must I remind you, Mr. Speaker, as well as the government that there are in Canada six forestry development agreements which are essential to the survival of the forest industry in this country which have not been renewed. Why were they not included in the Green Plan?


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend was when we signed forest resource development agreements with New Brunswick and when we increased the budgets. Each and every Canadian province has received an offer and is currently looking into the federal proposal.
I can tell my hon. friend that contrary to what his party has done, since 1984 we have increased the forestry budget by 300 per cent, we continue to develop the Canadian forest and the Liberals are certainly in no position to tell us what to do in this area.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!



Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the minister's green plan hinges on strong, reliable and credible environmental assessment legislation. But, every witness appearing before the C-78 legislative committee has said that that legislation is flawed, inadequate, needs substantial amendment, or should be withdrawn and redrafted.
Is the minister prepared to go back to the drawing-board with Bill C-78, or is he content to let the future of his green plan rest on this San Andreas fault of environmental assessment legislation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, and particularly when I tabled Bill C-78 in the House, if there were some meaningful and constructive amendments to be brought forth, the government would certainly be interested in studying them.
Recently, I have met with my critics on the opposition side and we will be meeting shortly to talk about a potential amendment to Bill C-78. The important thing is that the bill goes much further than most environmental assessment bills that you find in any industrialized country. We need it badly. It is a tool that this country cannot do without. We will improve the bill if we can. We are open to ideas and constructive criticism of the bill and I will meet with the opposition parties very shortly to discuss it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to have the opportunity to make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-84, the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.

December 11, 1990
Government Orders


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Chair would be kind enough to indicate to the House how much time is remaining with regard to this particular debate and the time allocation motion on Bill C-84.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am advised by the Table that there are 17 minutes left to debate before I must put the question to the House.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, again I would like to start and I understand we only have roughly 17 minutes left in this debate.
First reading of this bill was on October 1,1990. Second reading took place on October 10,1990. with a total of six speakers. Three of those speakers were opposition members. Again, on October 11 there were three and two. On October 23, three and one. October 29, six and three, for a total of 18 speakers, nine of whom were opposition members.
The legislative committee which met with regard to Bill C-84 held nine meetings and heard more than 10 witnesses and groups of witnesses. The Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also appeared before the committee. I should refer to the fact that the minister for privatization appeared there twice. The bill was then amended on November 30 at report stage. As of today, there have been 18 speakers, 12 of them from the opposition parties.
While listening to the debate in my office I heard an uproar over the fact that again the government has moved time allocation. If you go back between 1980 and 1984, you will find that there were 25 time allocation motions and two closure motions moved. This party, between 1984 and 1988, moved 20 time allocation motions and two closure motions.
I now want to deal with the facts with regard to Bill C-84 and some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. On October 23, 1990, CBC radio network, Momingside, former energy minister Marc Lalonde with regard to the privatization of Petro-Canada said that it was never the purpose of Petro-Canada to protect us against the various parts of the market.Nobody ever guaranteed that the assistance of Petro-Canada would mean cheaper oil. Petro-Canada had to buy the oil product and produce its oil and sell it for the price it carries in the marketplace.
This statement is quite interesting when you think back. October 28 is a black day on the calendar of western Canadians. That is the 10 year anniversary of the national Liberal national energy policy. It is a memory that will go on for many, many years for western Canadians and, in fact, for all Canadians, when the government of the day brought in its National Energy Program.
It was interesting to hear the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Chretien, who was elected last night, a former cabinet minister, admit that the National Energy Program was wrong. He stated in Calgary that it was a mistake. Just what the position of the Official Opposition is going to be on this issue, I do not know. We are already starting to see policies of yesterday when he was in cabinet. It is now going to be: "I am sorry, I made a mistake. We are going to try to do it over again".
It is interesting to talk to individuals such as Ian Smith, then of the Canadian Petroleum Association. He recalls: "I remember driving home with a Canadian oil company president. It was warm. His window was down. So was mine. He said, 'This is the worst day of my life'. People everywhere were saying 'They cannot be doing this to us'. He watched the TV. It was one blow after another; Allan MacEachen reading it out."
We all know that the hon. member now is in that other House and he is doing it again to Canadians. Now it is with regard to another piece of legislation that is going to move this country forward. The Liberal Party always loves to see us in a recession, whether it is caused by the national energy program which crippled this country, or through the debt which the Liberal government brought Canadians that we are now paying.
When we see what is going on, we understand our objectives which were largely anticipated from 1984 until now: to promote efficient development in the use of Canada's energy resource; increase the flexibility, diversification and competitiveness of Canadian energy companies; assure security of supply; ensure that energy production and use occurs in an environmentally responsible manner; the private opportunities for increased Canadian ownership and control of the domestic petroleum industry; and finally, to ensure energy contribution to a national reconciliation.

That is basically what we are looking at within Bill C-84, the opportunity for Petro-Canada to move forward, to move into this new decade, to ensure that it has the opportunity, the structure in place that it will be a stable company for years to come.
We listened to those who were before the committee hearings. I would just like to take a moment to read what some of the witnesses said. One of the witnesses from the investment community, Wilf Gobert, a financial analyst, said that "The legislation on privatization should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Whether or not the climate is right or the timing is right, the privatization of Petro-Canada should proceed as quickly as possible. The government ownership of Petro-Canada should be reduced to nil as quickly as possible".
There is an individual who really knows what should happen. He recognizes the fact that Canadians and Petro-Canada must have the opportunity to move forward.
As we hear day in and day out in this Chamber, the opposition are continually asking this government to move into more social programs and to move forward with new technology. There are only so many dollars out there and there are only so many things that we can do. If we are going to allow Petro-Canada the opportunity to move forward with some of its programs and projects, it is only right that we should be moving forward in this House with this bill.
I would like to move on with a couple of the witnesses. William Hopper, whom everyone in this House recognizes, said:
We do not have the adequate funds available to meet our investment needs for the years ahead - . In the downstream we must make multi-million-dollar investments to improve the environmental impact of our activities.
He goes on:
There have not been enough funds left from our cash flow to finance all our 1990 expenditures. We have had to take on more debt this year, lb rely on further borrowing for large capital investment needs, we expect, over the coming years would be highly imprudent.
It is indicating once again by the president and chairman of Petro-Canada that this bill is vitally important to the ongoing process of Petro-Canada, to ensure that they will enhance the opportunities of the company.
Government Orders
I have some of the hearings in which these points were brought forward. It is vital that they be put on the record because they certainly indicate some of the concerns and some of the areas which should be dealt with. I am going to move on to Mr. Hopper and some of the information that was tabled at the time:
Petro-Canada has clearly made a contribution to the security of energy supplies in Canada. What then of our role as a window on the industry?
I think people have tended to read a bit too much into this phrase over the years. Our activities did help government understand the extent of Canada's petroleum resources and the available options for developing them. But Petro-Canada was never formally called upon to provide advice to government. We have not had any formal role in developing energy policy, but were just one of many sources of advice to policy-makers. I do not see any need for a unique role for Petro-Canada in this area in the future. Over the past 15 years, considerable expertise has been built up within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the National Energy Board, the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration and other agencies. And Canadians generally, have a much greater understanding of energy issues today than in the mid-1970s.
I think this type of information is worthy to put on the record. Let us get on with passing Bill C-84 and give Petro-Canada the opportunity to do the job it wants to do.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on the current issues before us.
The first question is shall we allow privatization of Petro-Canada, the aim of Bill C-84, and what I call the product of this debate. My answer is no.
The second question is shall we limit full and extensive debate on this bill, including general public participation and input, as motioned via time allocation. My answer is it should not be.
First, I shall speak on the product. Petro-Canada, until now, has been a Crown corporation whose survival is now at a stage. It is on the list of the endangered species, that is the national species. It is not about wildlife nor our forests, it is about a national institution.
Previously, we had seen this government privatize Air Canada. We have no more public control of our skies in essence. We have privatized VIA Rail and dismantled it. The institutions that bind our land are no longer there. Recently, there was a threat to our Constitution. Federal-provincial relations have been strained.

Government Orders
Even more recently we have seen threats to our social programs: Unemployment Insurance Act amendments that would penalize our breadwinners, the clawback that would penalize our seniors, child benefit program cuts which were made, and even now the threat to medicare.
What does Petro-Canada reflect? It reflects public policy, Canadianism, and Canadian values. What are these values? Canadian ownership and control of the oil industry grew from 1980 to 1985. Three events at the time allowed it to happen. The key is that we have assumed Canadian ownership and control of our energy supply.
The second value is about security of energy supply. Canada is one of the fortunate countries in the world to have a wide range of conventional and renewable energy sources that it can call upon for its energy needs. We believe Petro-Canada is our only remaining energy lever against big, foreign owned energy multinationals.
Today we are facing a crisis in the oil industry due to the crisis in the gulf. We cannot leave things to chance. We must take control of our resources for the benefit of our nation, for the benefit of our future generation. We believe that Petro-Canada serves us as a useful instrument, as a useful insurance. As a national company it has played a vital role in state to state negotiations during periods of uncertainty in the world oil trade as we are now facing. Yes, Petro-Canada has a bright future for us to play as a public corporation. It could play a leading role in the ongoing growth of our nation. It has done an excellent job in the past. We should allow it to continue with the job. Canadians need a voice in the energy industry, and the answer is continuing public ownership of Petro-Canada.
In the remaining couple of minutes, I would like to speak about the process of time allocation. The member for Kingston and the Islands has kindly provided me with information that since May 1985, 31 attempts have been made by this government to impose time allocation. The success rate of this government in so far as time allocation is concerned has been great. It succeeded in 25 times out of 31 in moving time allocation, about 4.6 per year on the average, while the Liberal record on this
note was only about 1.5 a year in the many years a Liberal government has served this country.
When one considers the many events in parliamentary debate during which time this government moved time allocation they concerned vital programs such as family allowances, employment equity, government expenditures, and today Petro-Canada.
As I look back at the problem before us, I would like to quote from the historical summary of Standing Order 78 which governs this particular motion:
From the early years of the Canadian Parliament, it was recognized that complete freedom of debate was impossible and that some restraint would have to be exercised or some accommodation reached in order for the House to conduct its business within a reasonable time frame.
This quotation is from the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1989 Edition. The key words I would like to call to the attention of the House are: "within a reasonable time frame". I submit that we have not been provided with reasonable time for debate of this particular bill in this House. I know there is always a continuing conflict, a continuing competition between the role of the majority and the role of the minority. The real challenge to the majority is to see the hearts of the minority because the minority in this Parliament represents the majority of Canadians across the country.
As I conclude my debate on this issue, let me just say that yes, we are opposed to the privatization of Petro-Canada. The Liberal Party believes that it ought to continue as a national institution. We are equally opposed that the guillotine of time allocation has been imposed on this debate so that Canadians from across the country shall not be heard.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 3.21 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), have expired.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Standing Orders, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
December 11, 1990

Government Orders

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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried, Motion agreed to.

Government Orders


FISHERIES ACT
Hon. Mary Collins (for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-74, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof be read the third time and passed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Debate.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I was a little hesitant in rising, not because I lack enthusiasm for this marvellous bill, Bill C-74, but because I fully thought that, on third reading, my friend from St. John's East or the Minister of Fisheries would have talked to the House at least for a few minutes about their hopes as to what the bill will achieve.


Mr. Reid:: I will. I will, Madam Speaker.


Roger Simmons: He promises that in time he will do that, so I shall forge on with my few remarks on this bill.
The basic premise of this bill is that it ought to improve fish stocks through tougher enforcement measures. The member agrees to that. I think I have his attention. We are on the same wave length as to what the bill ought to do.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Cheek to cheek.


Roger Simmons: We are also cheek to cheek, as he says, on the matter of the need for such tougher measures, because those who stay within the law on this issue have nothing to fear.
The people who this bill goes after, in effect, are those who come into our waters illegally and engage in all kinds of illegal activity, from overfishing to dumping valuable fish resource, to polluting the ocean, and to using it as a dumping ground wilfully and without regard for its consequences and damage to fish habitat and the environment in general terms. These are the people we are after.
We can name them in terms of categories. By and large, they are the fishermen from metropolitan France,
Portugal, and Spain. I have carefully said metropolitan France because I want to distinguish between the fishermen from St. Malo and other parts of metropolitan France, on one hand, and those from St. Pierre and Miquelon on the other.
That latter group of fishermen does not have a voice in the House because they do not belong to this country. But it should be said in passing that in many respects they are our brothers and sisters of the fishery. When we suffer in terms of loss of resource or depleted resource, they suffer. I stand to be corrected, but I do not know of any blatant examples involving the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. I know of many blatant examples of pollution and overfishing, going over many years, involving fishermen from St. Malo and other parts of metropolitan France.
Maybe, in passing, I might mention the relationship that has grown up over the years between the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon, on the one hand, and the people of the south coast of Newfoundland on the other. For example, there are many cases of intermarriage between people from places such as Grand Bank, Point May, Lamaline, and those communities directly facing St. Pierre and Miquelon. I go to St. Pierre as often as possible, usually once or twice a year, to practise my French, Madam Speaker-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: Ah, my friend from St. John's East can laugh.

Perhaps he has much justification for laughing at that idea, but he and I have a hope that one day we will be able to speak to our fellow Canadians in either of the two official languages.
I have a particular immediate aspiration in that about
4,000	or 5,000 of my constituents are French-speaking people whose first tongue is French. So, the onus is on me to get on with the task of being able to speak the other language. I have made a start. My Christmas cards this year, for the first time, are in both official languages. We are getting there very, very slowly-but I digress.


Mr. Brewin:: Do you translate yourself?


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Victoria rears himself awake at this late hour in the afternoon. The answer to his question is, yes, I do translate. The problem is in being able to understand what my francophone friends are saying quickly enough to respond to them, but that will come in time. Now, I digress again.
Let me get back to some other French-speaking friends I have in St. Pierre and Miquelon. I do not represent them, of course. Let it be clear that I represent the people directly opposite on the coast of Newfoundland. But I was making the point along the way that they are not the people who are the culprits who are polluting and overfishing. They understand all too well how finite, how precious, and how delicate is the resource and fish habitat there, and how important is the need to protect it.
Having made that distinction, let me once again talk about the real polluters. They are the French fishermen from metropolitan France, the Spanish, and the Portuguese.
Human nature being what it is, I think it will come as no surprise that from time to time some of our own Canadian fishermen are involved in acts which do not contribute to the future well being of the fishery. Having said that, do not let anyone get off on the kick that somehow, if we can beat all our Canadian fishermen into the ground, we have solved the problem.
There is a particular instance-and I will not get into it, it is not on my part of the coast, nor is it in the part of the coast represented by the gentleman from St. John's East-in Atlantic Canada which is well known to members of the House where there was some flaunting of regulations to the detriment of the well-being of the fishery. But this is not an issue that particularly affects my coast. I am not saying all the people I represent are lily-white, but I am saying that my people in Burin-St. George's are veiy sensitive to the need to have proper conservation. That is why I can stand here and represent them in speaking to this bill and say to you, Madam Speaker, knowing that I have their support and encouragement, that fishermen and plant workers in Burin-St. George's, and I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador, generally, support this bill because, among other things, it seeks to implement better conservation measures through tougher enforcement of the requirements of fisheries related law.
Government Orders
At second reading, in committee, and at report stage, we on this side have said repeatedly that we support the principle of the bill and we support much of what the bill tries to achieve. But at the same time, we have some particular concerns about individual matters addressed in the bill or individual approaches of the bill. It is for that reason that my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls, moved amendments at the committee stage, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan. Both of these members, in dialogue within our caucus, have been very helpful in bringing a perspective to the debate and in our arriving at a position that honestly reflects what the fishermen want and feel is needed while at the same time seeking to accommodate the government. It comes as a surprise, I am sure, that I would even say that. But we were seeking to accommodate the government on a matter on which we believe we are veiy much on the same wave length, that is the need to adequately conserve the stock so it is there for another time.
My colleague and friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, will be getting into some of the detail of that subsequently as well as my friends, the hon. members for South Shore and Labrador.
There are a couple of points which I want to make before I finish. I am getting a signal from my good friend, the hon. member for St. John's East. I am not sure whether he wants me to go on for a long time or for a very short time.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Just as long as you want.


Roger Simmons: I will tell him that, as usual, I will only take as long as is necessary.


Mr. Boyer:: But not necessarily longer.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member will realize, of course, that I have unlimited time. He should know that in my day, I have given two very different kinds of speeches. I stood not far from here in December 1979, just back here on the back-bench, and I gave my maiden speech in this Chamber. Fifteen minutes after I sat down, the government of the right hon. member for Yellowhead fell. Hon. members can see that I have been known to give very powerful speeches.

Government Orders


Patrick Boyer: This is the egocentric version of Canadian history.


Roger Simmons: But I should tell him-


Patrick Boyer: There was another speech.


Roger Simmons: Ah, ah, now the member has made that global leap that he is known for. I said two things: I said I made a speech and I said the government fell. He jumped to that silly and wrong conclusion, Madam Speaker, of thinking one affected the other. That is the kind of mistake he often makes and we forgive him for it, especially since it is so near the Christmas season.
I want to tell him about another speech. It was in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. My friend who is now in the Senate, Senator Doody, was the Minister of Finance and it was my honour to be his critic, in opposition. I was to do the lead-off speech, as I am doing here today, on another matter. It was thought needful at the time to talk at some length. I managed to talk for 16 hours and 42 minutes. So I have been known to give powerful speeches and long ones and, if the member will tell me which he wants today, I will accommodate him.


Patrick Boyer: There is so little time and so much to do, why don't you make it a short, powerful speech.


Roger Simmons: I shall take the advice of my friend from Toronto. I am struggling to remember the name of his riding.


Patrick Boyer: Etobicoke-Lakeshore.


An hon. member:: If you have a memory problem, that is not his fault.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore, apart from being a man who makes mistakes, also is a man of great ideas and he just gave me one. He said that I ought to be short and powerful. I make him a commitment that I will keep at least one of those undertakings. Since my younger son is probably by now waiting in the lobby to go off to the Christmas party, I shall see that it is short and leave it to him to decide whether it was powerful.
Despite the need for brevity, I have a couple of things I would like to say. One of them is that I am absolutely appalled at the way this government is treating the fishery. The Atlantic fishery is what I want to talk about specifically because I know more about it than I do about the Pacific fishery, although my friends, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, the hon. member for Cardigan and I are making some efforts to get our heads together on that issue as well. We three are the critics in this party for the fisheries issues. But let me stay with the Atlantic fisheries because it is something I know a little more about.
We live in a time of unprecedented crisis in the Atlantic fishery from foreign overfishing, from the depletion of the northern cod stocks through some miscalculations by the scientists three or four years ago, from the erosion of the Gulf stocks, and from the complete collapse of the inshore fishery on most of our coasts, particularly in Newfoundland.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: And the incompetence of the minister.


Roger Simmons: All of those reasons we understand in some measure. What we do not understand is the government's approach to the problem.
When the present Minister of Fisheries, whom I have a lot of respect for, came into the ministry, I had great hopes for him and his ability to deal with the issue. I still do, given his competence, his track record in cabinet before, and his passion. I like somebody who has a bit of passion in any job, the kind of passion that the minister of energy exhibits. He tries to hide it most of the time but it beats just underneath and it comes through once in a while. Whether it shows or not, it dictates his actions. That is what encourages me. The same can be said about the gentleman who is the Minister of Fisheries. He engages his commitments with a passion, also with a right mind.
The minister's lieutenant, the member for St. John's East, is no amateur either when it comes to passion or intelligence. He might not agree because he is too modest a man. A good team, I say seriously. A good team. If that crowd has to be in the government-and I have serious problems with that-then I am delighted that the Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary secretary are the gentlemen who are responsible for fisheries. Together they have the brains and the commitment to do something about the problem.
That being the case, why is something not happening? Part of the answer has to be that these guys got their marching orders, or to put it differently, got their orders not to march. They got their orders not to do anything. They got their orders to keep their feet as though planted in cement, to be motionless in achieving any results as far as the fisheries are concerned.
December 11, 1990

This government lacks any priority when it relates to fishery matters, not because the gentleman from Baie Comeau has a hate on for fisheries. That is not the issue. His lack of action on fisheries is incidental to the total issue. The total issue has to do with his deliberately spelled out agenda as it relates to rural Canada. Fisheries, fishermen and fish plant workers happened to have created the sin of living, of being bom and raised and having found their employment in rural Canada, rather than downtown Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto.
I do not get my jollies going after those cities. I love those cities. I was in Toronto yesterday on a very special mission, a mission which I may say was successful, thanks to a lot of people. The mission is known as North York, and the gentleman from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, despite his attempts at denial, will know that it was a fairly successful mission, depending upon the point of view, of course. But I digress again.
Toronto is a great city. Vancouver is a great city. Winnipeg, of course.


Mr. Edwards:: Edmonton.


Roger Simmons: If the member says Edmonton is a great city, I absolutely agree with him.


An hon. member:: What about Prince George?


Roger Simmons: The member is pushing his luck back here now.


Some hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, it is not that we in rural Canada hate the big cities. If that is what turns you on and you like big cities, that is all right, but this government must have an obligation to the cities as well. These obligations to urban centres should never be treated as a trade-off against rural centres. It should never be an either/or situation. A government worthy of its name, a government worth its salt, as we say back home, has to recognize that there is to be a balance in terms of its treatment of all parts of this country.
That is why I have great difficulty. The fishermen and the plant workers also have difficulty understanding that they have to bear the brunt, whether it is in matters relating to fisheries, post office closings, rail closings, transport downgradings, taking the guy or the girl off the
Government Orders
tower in St. John's after 12 o'clock at night. The member cannot agree with that. That is unconscionable. They would not do it in Toronto. These things are happening to rural Canada in the name of restraint, but no such restraint is taking place with respect to opera houses in Toronto or space centres in Montreal.
I am not saying we are against opera houses or space centres. I am saying if some pain has to be inflicted, in the name of common sense and the name of fairness, do it equally across the board. Do not say to us that it all has to be done in St. John's, Burin, Port aux Basques and those places but none has to be done in Toronto where the opera houses go ahead or Montreal where the space centres go ahead, restraint or no restraint. Do not tell me that somebody over there does not hate rural Canada when I see the evidence of it every single day, whether I am talking about the fishery, rural post offices or unemployment insurance gutting. It does not matter what I talk about. If it is rural Canada the code over there is the same. Rural Canada, cut the guts out of it. Urban Canada, that is a different matter.
I hope when one of the members on the other side representing the administration rises and gives the administration's view of reality on this issue, they will take up the issue that I have raised and explain to me if there is another reason why rural Canada is getting the axe at every single turn. I understand restraint. I understand we do not have unlimited amounts of money.
What I do not understand and will refuse to understand, as long as I represent the people of rural Canada in this House, as I have the pleasure of doing, as long as I represent people who live in 158 communities, almost all of them fishing communities along 2,000 miles of coast line in western and southwestern Newfoundland, as long as I represent those people, I will not either by my silence or by my words say: "It is all right, Mr. Prime Minister, to close rural post offices and ask people to drive great distances. It is all right to try to take blood out of a turnip in terms of what you are doing to fisheries spending. It is all right to do that as long as you keep the opera houses going in the Torontos of this world". It has got to be fair.

December 11, 1990
Government Orders
To the degree that I understand it, which is not a very great degree, I love opera houses. I went to one myself one time.


An hon. member:: What opera?


Roger Simmons: The gentleman from Provencher, from Manitoba, is an absolute delight. He knows I feel this. He is in absolute delight because even as I talk about a matter that serious, he can see the human side to it. That is what I like about him. He never ever loses his perspective, despite the crowd he is tangled up with over there. How he stays there, I do not know. That he keeps his perspective while there, I admire. He wants to know what opera. I shall tell him.
I have been to one opera in my life. It was last Sunday. It was a good one. Laugh all you want. It was a good opera. It was called Amahl and the Night Visitors, a special children's Christmas opera. I recommend it to everyone. It is about the Three Wise Men.
Madam Speaker, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking what has this got to do with the fishery. I was asking myself the same question. I think you will agree that I am allowed to say that I have just achieved something that nobody else has ever achieved in this House. I finally got the attention of the NDP. They might not understand what I am saying, but it appears they are listening from the noises coming from that comer.
As I was saying to my friends in the NDP and elsewhere, this government has treated the fishery very, very callously. I now want to make the distinction that I implied earlier. It is not because either the gentleman from St. John's East, the parliamentary secretary, or the gentleman from New Brunswick, who was minister of fisheries, has a hate on for the fishery. These fellows plead the case day and night and plead it well. But for them, the fishery would be in an even worse state than it is. They plead the case well.
They know the problem, but they are too loyal to the party to admit it very openly. The problem is the same problem that the gentleman from St. John's West is having, the Minister for International Trade who with his known candour is less secretive about his view of matters than the gentleman from St. John's East. He is known to be completely fed up with this entire approach to rural Canada. I predict that his days are numbered in that cabinet, not because he will be flicked out but because he cannot stomach it much longer. I would suggest that he
will not be there come May or June. I will tell you that now, Madam Speaker. He is finding out what the gentleman from St. John's East and the minister of fisheries are also finding out, that this government has an agenda that excludes, that precludes, that shuts out forever, as long as it is in power, anything to do with improving infrastructure, way of life and opportunity in rural Canada. That is the problem right there.
I do not know how that can be changed except through change in the government. I think the people of Beausejour and York North gave notice yesterday that they are prepared to do that. They spoke for all of Canada yesterday when they said that they were prepared to change the government as soon as the government gives them the opportunity to change it. That will come in time.
My fear, as it relates to fisheries, as it relates to rural Canada generally, and as it relates to the kind of country that I have come to love and want to continue to help build, is that by the time this crowd is turfed out of office in the next two or three years there will not be enough left of Canada for anybody to govern. The Canada we knew is fast disappearing. The east-west ties are being broken down whether we are talking about the pulverising of CBC last week or the other issues I have mentioned already. There will not be enough of this country left to govern, I say to the minister of energy. In addition to saying his prayers every night, he must cry himself to sleep when he thinks about this. There will not be enough left of this country to govern. My friend from South Shore-


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: South West Nova.


Roger Simmons: How I ever got her confused with the member for South Shore, I will never know. My apologies to both, but mainly to her. It is a matter I am not likely to be soon forgiven for, either. I know she has an important speech coming on and I should not delay her.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we support the principle of the bill. We have done it from the beginning of its legislative path to this House. We support the principle. We have a few difficulties with it. These are well known to the parliamentary secretary. We have
December 11, 1990

debated them in committee. He has been reasonably accommodating. The government eventually used its majority to have its way, but that is not completely within his control. He will have to answer for it in part. We tried to make it a better bill, but we still support the basic premise of the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: For a minute I thought the hon. member was going to start singing Menotti's masterpiece to us in the House today.
Before recognizing the next speaker it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam-Food Banks; the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina-Immigration; the hon. member for Hamilton West-Hamilton Harbour.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have a chance to say a few words in the House today on Bill C-74.
I brought some of my material with me and I have covered my desk with some of the very important documents and reports that we had a chance to take a look at, both in committee and in the House. They will certainly help us as we proceed with discussion and debate on this legislation, which is an act to amend the Fisheries Act. It is a bill that, like the previous speaker as said, we have supported in principle since it first started its trek through the legislative process. In fact, in committee we moved a number of amendments.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Nanaimo- Cowichan, who really started off the debate that we had in this House, for some his work on this legislation in committee.
I repeat a comment that I made at report stage when discussing some of the amendments to this bill. The quality of the witnesses before the committee was a credit to the industry and to the work of representatives from all coasts who had a chance to review the bill and give us some suggestions and advice. In particular, some of the advice was from those who really work day to day in the fishing industry. They had some very valid comments to make.
Government Orders
Bill C-74 is basically legislation that increases generally the fines for a number of offences under the Fisheries Act: ticketing offences or general offences under the act and, most important, an area that I spent some time on as well, that of habitat protection.
In committee some amendments were presented and in fact eventually came through to the House at report stage. I am pleased that two very important amendments were passed to the legislation. The first was a unique amendment that would require a person when convicted, if the court so ordered, to pay for promoting the proper management and control of fisheries or fish habitat.
In the original bill, the question of fish habitat was not involved. This gives a unique opportunity in terms of laying a charge and seeing that our fisheries habitat is protected so that a particular person, company or whatever that commits the offence understands the gravity of the problem and that hopefully Parliament and the courts recognize that it is not just a case of being a cost of doing business, as was repeated to us many times from the witnesses in committee.
The test of how good is the second amendment will likely come next year, because in the legislation we have also asked that the minister of fisheries be required to table in the House an annual report outlining the whole range of convictions and fines that the department has laid over the course of time. That will be an important report to Parliament, because it will give all Canadians an opportunity to see the direction and the impact that these legislative changes are having and that existing regulations are followed.
They will make the minister more directly accountable to the people of Canada for carrying out the Fisheries Act. This is an area of the legislation about which there has been a great deal of concern, in particular on the west coast. In fact many regulations of the Fisheries Act are not being followed and carried out by Fisheries and Oceans officers for whatever reason.
This will give yet another message to those fisheries officers and to the courts that Parliament takes fooling around with fisheries habitats seriously. We are not prepared to let whomever it is go and destroy fish habitat. They should understand that it is not just a $100, $200 or $300 fine, but that it is a serious charge. In fact those persons or operations will be charged to the point

December 11, 1990
Government Orders
where they will have to go out and promote better management and better protection of the fisheries habitat than existed before.
With regard to habitat protection in particular I want to make a few comments. The summary of the information and background material provided to the committee by the minister regarding fisheries violations was very interesting in terms of the number of ticketed offences, some of the habitat convictions, what has happened as a result interventions by fisheries officers, and whether in fact there was any follow through. I ran one particular figure by the witnesses who appeared to see how relevant it was, whether it related to their first-hand experience when it came to the fisheries resource.
In 1988 in the Pacific region there were 1,959 convictions, resulting in about $320,000 in fines. Habitat convictions totalled 11.1 asked virtually all the witnesses concerned about habitat protection who appeared before the committee if this reflected in their view the problem that we are having with habitat protection, at least on the west coast. It was a clear no from virtually all of the witnesses. They said there were severe problems that Fisheries and Oceans officers had in a number of areas. In particular, they said that there was a sense within the department that when officers in their field work come across a skidder running across a creek, damaging a stream or whatever, they are reluctant to charge the particular operator. There is a sense that senior Fisheries and Oceans management will not back them up or support them. In fact it may go as far as Ottawa, that there may not be support there to back them up. If they are in fact charged, just exactly what does happen when it gets into the courts? They are slapped on the wrist, given a $100 fine and off they yet there may have been serious damage done.
That became painfully clear when an internal Fisheries and Oceans memo was released to the public which summarized, in the view of this particular Fisheries and Oceans officer, some of the very clear internal problems within the department when it comes to protecting the fisheries resource. I want to read into the record the particular quote from this memo, because it is clear to me that this officer felt strongly enough about the way the department was conducting itself to write to a supervisor to express concern.
I think it is an important message that we heard in committee and that we talked about in report stage. It has to be repeated today. If we are not aware of how important protecting the fisheries resource and habitat is, we must ensure that the department carries through with any of its concerns. I would like to quote from the memo which reads:
We (DFO officials) have determined that DFO friendly
corporations-will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act.
The memo went on to state:
-it must be appreciated that DFO habitat enforcement has reached an all time high in inconsistency-
The memo went on to state that "it must be appreciated that DFO habitat enforcement has reached an all-time high in inconsistency". The memo states with respect to current violators of the Fisheries Act, that "because of the immunity phenomenon-a large number of violators-are not being properly pursued-It could appear that Alcan-et cetera, are given immunity from the law and we are just after the little guy".
Probably nothing sums up the concerns which people have with the Fisheries Act than that particular paragraph. It should tell this House how important it is that these amendments and this legislation carries through with the kinds of policies and procedures that will ensure our fisheries will be protected.
In fact, even in today's vague plan-not the green plan because it is really lacking in a great deal of specifics. One of the particular parts of the green plan released today talks about the release of the enforcement and compliance document. It is a very important document for this reason, and it was referred to in our committee by witnesses from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
This document is the operating manual that fisheries officers use in their day-to-day field operations but has yet to see the light of day. We see yet another promise in the green plan to have it released. It is very important that that document see the light of day because it speaks directly to the comments made in this weak memorandum that the fisheries officers do not feel that they have the support in their department to cany out habitat protection work and to ensure that those kinds of provisions are carried forward.

I do not think we should talk about Bill C-74 and about habitat protection without mentioning a particularly sad example where the department and the minister failed to protect the fisheries resource and that is in regard to the Kemano project.
Last week the former minister of the environment from British Columbia made a very clear commitment to environmental assessment hearings conducted into this project, which will have a dramatic impact on the salmon habitat and the Nechako, a major tributary of the Fraser River. Yet it has been exempted from the environmental assessment process. Obviously, the former minister from British Columbia has learned that to fool with the environment is a very dangerous thing. He has now had to resign from cabinet, and who knows what he will go to next.
It is clear that that very important fisheries issue is not going to go away, it will stay in the news in British Columbia and across the country for some time to come. We have had a number of fisheries and oceans scientists who have expressed their concerns and will likely express their concerns further when this whole matter goes back into the courts in the new year. It is a very important issue that we cannot avoid. We have asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to conduct a full environmental assessment whenever the premier of British Columbia gets around to appointing a new or an acting minister of the environment. The whole cabinet is probably acting in some capacity or other because there have been so many resignations from the Social Credit government.
I would encourage the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to participate, not just with environmental assessment, but if there is to be public hearings. Are those now out the window because of the resignation of the B.C. minister of the environment who is a partner with this government in helping to destroy the Nechako river and reduce the flows on the Fraser?
Speaking specifically of the Fraser River, a major salmon rearing river in British Columbia, and one that all British Columbians are familiar with, it is going to be probably the subject of more debate to come, more work to come and an integral part of what we are talking about in Bill C-74. It comes to ensuring not just a multijurisdictional approach to resolving a lot of the problems around the Fraser River where all the stake holders are involved, the different resource industries and what have
Government Orders
you, but as well in the commitment that we had, which again has very few specifics.
There is no funding commitment on stock rebuilding and protection of the habit base in the green plan, and of course the commitment to following that monitoring compliance and enforcement measures will be increased. That is essentially Bill C-74. It is important that this be done when it relates to the Fraser River because of the importance of that river to the fisheries in British Columbia.
Our caucus, in particular led by the chair of the New Democrat B.C. caucus, the member for Okanagan- Shuswap, has done some excellent work in preparing a report with our views about the importance of the Fraser River from top to bottom. There has been a management plan for the estuary part of the river that has been generally, not universally, seen as a positive approach and one that should be modelled for the entire river.
Our caucus held the only meeting in the upper end of the Fraser River in Prince George, where the Fraser River coming from the east end of my riding is met by the Nechako River coming from the west and starts its flow south. We were the only group to hold meetings in Prince George to talk about the importance of the Fraser River. As well, there are meetings coming up in the interior and a river boat tour of the Fraser River at the lower end itself. The department has produced what I think is a very revealing document that I certainly would be willing to provide to the parliamentary secretary if he is interested. It is a very revealing document about the concerns that the department and officials have about the protection of the habitat on the Fraser river. It is very revealing and perhaps even controversial. It shows the commitment at the field level from the staff. We hope this commitment is going to carry through all the way up to the minister. I hope it is there and I hope that this bill is going to encourage that that happens.
We have said that we support in principle Bill C-74. We were successful in getting two of my amendments through which the government supported. What is more important than that is I know we are going to ensure that we hold the department and the government accountable. If this bill is going through the House and if we are

Government Orders
supporting it, then in supporting it we have to follow up to ensure that the provisions of the legislation are followed and are acted upon and that the commitment to protect the fisheries resource on both coasts is there; that it is there from the field staff, it is there at the departmental level and it is here in the House of Commons and in the Parliament of Canada.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I spoke on second reading of this bill. I attended one of the committees when some of the witnesses came before the committee. I feel pretty strongly about this bill, contrary to some of my colleagues who will be speaking in this debate.
I think it is very good to have a bill with the primary aim of protecting fish habitat, as this bill is supposed to do. But I have three areas of major concern about the bill. They are, first, the use of penalties to fishermen, to help conserve and protect the fish stocks. The second concern is about where these revenues, provided for in the bill, are to come from. They will come from those in the inshore fishery because they are in the majority. I will discuss each of these concerns at length.
Third, I do not feel that this bill will be equally applied. This stems from my second concern which is that the inshore fishermen are the ones who will bear the brunt of this particular move by the Minister of Fisheries. When I say that I do not think the penalties will be equally applied, I feel that it should not just be the inshore fishermen who will bear the brunt of this legislation. What about the foreigners who are overfishing? What about the offshore overfishing that has been going on?
I would like to say that, when one starts using penalties to force conservation and protection of the fish stocks, one can only feel that the communications or consultation process of this government has fallen down. It is like everything else, it has fallen down. I say that, because there is inadequate effort, on the part of the Minister of Fisheries and this government to arrive at a process of consultation with the fishermen who are going to be the ones who are going to bear the brunt of what we pass in this House. Certainly, there is overfishing. Certainly, there has been inadequate stock assessment.
The department of fisheries has not had the money or the capabilities in the Scotia Fundy area to assess the stocks. It has not wanted to listen to the fishermen. You could catch any number of fish in the Bay of Fundy this fall and this summer, and yet there was no reassessment of the stocks, no support to the fishermen who were looking to that stock in order to gain their living. There is no attempt by this government to reassess or to come back with an assessment of the stocks, an assessment which the industry has called for, I have asked for in this House, and the local communities have asked for. Madam Speaker, I say that this shows the inadequacy of the fishery policy of both the previous minister and this minister.
I will just read a letter which I received last night from a group of dragger fishermen, who have vessels which are under 45 feet long. I am bringing this up because it just happens that Canada's Green Plan mentions this and I will deal with it shortly. The letter states that, in respect of the individual boat quota allocation, it was agreed by the association not to accept the proposal, as is. This is a plea because these fishermen have to accept this by tomorrow. They say that it was agreed by the association not to accept the proposal as is. They got the proposal last week. It is about 100 pages long. They say: "We feel that the individual boat quota, as proposed, would be very destructive to the conservation of our fish stocks."
They go on: "The individual boat quota proposal does not address the problems of possible large-scale dumping of fish". We know that this goes on; the minister is aware of it; and, the department is aware of it. The letter goes on to say that the "problem of select high-grading is not addressed". Select high-grading means that they will take the larger fish and throw out the others. They will select from their catch and throw the smaller fish out. So it does not address that problem at all.
"It allows for dumping and for transhipping." That means if they have put their nets in and come up with too much, they either dump it in order not to meet the individual quota, or they give it to someone else-transhipping.
The association has said the individual boat quota proposal "does not address the problems of possible large scale dumping of fish, or select high grading which would cause dumping and transhipping which would be to the detriment of fixed gear quotas".
December 11, 1990

At this time, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have the capability to curb the above problems which are sure to have serious consequences on our fish stocks. If it does not have the capability, why are we passing an act that, as I said, allows it to go and apply in an unequal fashion?
The association agreed that "more time was needed to implement a fishing plan that would better serve the fishermen, industry, and communities, again emphasizing better methods for conserving our stocks of fish". This is what this act is supposed to be about. They are asking for consultations.
In determining individual boat quotas, and I am reading again from the letter: "Using history, we feel an injustice has been done." This is the question that the fishermen are asking me, as well as other members of the House, I am sure, who come from inshore communities. Why can the government not listen to the fishermen? It has all this consultation. Why can it not listen to them that such a proposed quota policy is not going to work.
Yet today in Canada's Green Plan, it states at page 76, under "Domestic Action":
Individual quotas, sometimes called "boat quotas" or "enterprise allocations", are an important feature of the management of several Atlantic fisheries, including groundfish and offshore scallop. They are shares of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), or fleet allocation, assigned to individual licence holders. Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) take the approach one step further by allowing transfers among licence holders. This provides greater flexibility and promotes more efficient utilization of fishing capacity. ITQs have been implemented in several domestic fisheries and are in place in other parts of the world, including the fisheries of New Zealand and Australia.
Just on that point, we had Mr. Nichol from the west coast come before the Fisheries Committee recently. He mentioned that 85 per cent of the fishery in New Zealand was now privatized. But the ownership was not in New Zealand. It was with multinationals. It did not belong to New Zealand any more. What was theirs in their waters did not belong to them. It had been privatized because of the individual transferable quotas.
But it is stated in the first fisheries item in the green plan:
Government Orders
Accordingly, in consultation with the fishing industry and the
provinces, the government will put in place a system of Individual
Transferable Quotas (ITQs) for various fisheries.
There are two things in that statement by the Minister of Environment. His counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries wants to see individual transferable quotas in various fisheries. To me, various fisheries could mean the lobster fishery, the crab fishery, or any type of fishery, capelin or whatever.
I have just read from a letter from a person in desperation to the Department of Fisheries saying that it was not consulting. Nobody in the industry wants individual boat quotas. No boat that I know of under 65, wants an individual boat quota without-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: You better check your facts.


Coline M. Campbell: My colleague says that I had better check my facts. I can guarantee you that the only ones who want an individual boat quota are the minister's officials. I do not know why they want it. Is it for their rich friends who can then buy those individual transferable quotas, and eventually we will have a multinational company of the fishery on the east coast?
The government uses that example, and then comes back to this act and states that "we are going to use individual boat quotas for conservation and protection of our fish stock." The whole being of this bill before us, Bill C-74, is to conserve and protect fish stock.
It does not make sense when there is a group saying that they would like to consult with the government, giving the things that they would like to see addressed, such as a management plan and consideration of under utilized species 4WS, east of Halifax on the mesh side, size of fish, fuel costs, and gear costs. Those are all good ways of looking at conservation.
With regard to mesh size, for instance, the sector applied a mesh size this year in that area, and it worked. They had been asking the department to put in a mesh size for years, and it worked. We got a good sized fish.
Now, on top of all of this and without any consultation, as of January 1, 1991, we are going to have new regulations that are going to affect every inshore fisherman whether in P.E.I., New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia. The penalties are going up.

December 11, 1990
Government Orders


Ian Angus Ross Reid: For those who break the law.


Coline M. Campbell: The maximum penalties on summary conviction for a first offence-I come to my second point.
The parliamentary secretary over there is hollering at me, but I would say: Where are they getting the revenues?
Let us face it. The bulk of their fishermen are in the inshore. It does not apply to overfishing.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The bulk of them obey the law.


Coline M. Campbell: Any good legal person would tell you. Who are the people who cannot afford the lawyers? Who are the people who go in and plead guilty?
There is nothing in this act that separates a small, under 42-foot boat, an under 45-foot boat, an under 65-foot boat, or an over 125-foot boat. There is nothing in this act that distinguishes 1,000 pounds over, 500 pounds over, or 200,000 pounds over, which one might see. There is no distinction.
Because of that, we will find that the ones who can afford a good lawyer will probably get off. I am a lawyer. I know that. If they can afford a good lawyer, they are probably going to get off.


An hon. member:: Fancy lawyers.


Coline M. Campbell: Fancy lawyers is right.
The bill does not distinguish between a big and a small infraction of the law. It does not say that the big can afford a defence lawyer, and the small are probably going to plead guilty. It does not say that the Department of Fisheries has the discretion to pick and choose whom it is going to go after, because it is overworked.
If it was applied to everybody, then people would say: "Well, everybody is going to get it." But they are not going to apply it to everybody. They are going to go to the easiest port or the easiest harbour and apply it to whomever happens to be there. It might be the one guy who happens to have a few more fish in his boat on that particular day and who never offends a law.
The department does not seem to be able to go after those people who break the law. Most fishermen would say it should go after them. For some reason, those are the people who get away.
As I said, it does not distinguish between the big and the small, between the big companies that can pay penalties and can get the benefits of having maybe thousands of fish over a long period of time-they may be caught once, get a good lawyer and get off-and the fisherman who may have that one catch for the first time over the limit is caught. He probably goes into court scared, and pleads guilty.
As I said, Madam Speaker, this bill does not go after some of the culprits who are out there. We give our under-utilized species away. We give them away. Just like we do not have a stock assessment, we do not have a program that helps the fishermen or the industry get into the under-utilized species. We just give it away and give a bi-catch that the foreigners can overcatch, dump, or select and throw out. We are not going after them.
We are not going after the Americans who come over on the Georges Bank side and take the fish when our fishermen are not allowed there because of stock protection.
This bill has many things in it that are bad for an inshore fishery. I can support the basic concept of protecting the habitat. I can support the oil-liner or the tanker that goes by and cleans out its oil tanks as it is leaving being penalized. That person should be penalized. Maybe there is not enough within the act to penalize that type of destruction of the habitat.
I cannot support a process that is just encouraging the minister not to consult with the industry and not to have letters come here stating that it has not consulted and that it is forcing people to take a ballot tomorrow. There is not one fisherman to whom I have spoken who was pleased with the results of lack of consultation or that whatever they had put forward had not been listened to.
I say to all my constituents who are fishermen, and I feel bad, that they should be aware that this bill will probably pass and be in force on January 1, and that the offences and the penalties are very serious. I say that because I am sure that it will be the inshore again which bears the brunt of this Minister of Fisheries' lack of putting into place a proper management plan that reflects that we have a natural resource. If there is a
December 11, 1990

good assessment of stocks, then there will be fairness in the fishery. There will also be an understanding by the players in that field that once the stocks are taken, then the fisheries should be closed.
This is not the way it is. The government is saying: "We are going to catch you, no matter what you do, whether the stocks are still there or whether the quota has been taken. If you come in that day over the limit, you have had it."
My time is almost up. I cannot say that I can support this bill. Given the opportunity, I will be voting against it. I think it shows policy that has no consultation with the industry, particularly the inshore. Again, the government is privatizing, using fines and penalties to overcome its ability to go out and consult with the people of Canada as to the viability of a natural resource, the fishery.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity, now that the questions and comments are in place, I would like to assure my friends opposite that indeed I will speak in this debate. I look forward to being able to put forward the government's point of view and to be able to respond to some of the very good suggestions that my friend my Prince George-Bulkley Valley has made and as I am sure some others will.
I would like to comment very briefly on what our friend from South West Nova has just said. First, the premise that we must operate under is the people that will be paying penalties or fines under this act are only people who have broken the law of Canada, who have been charged and convicted. They are not the lion's share of my fishermen, and the fishermen whom I know, who do not break the law. They are so concerned about the management of the fishery that they, themselves, take into hand the law to preserve the fishery.
On the question of consultation, and I stand to be corrected, but I do not remember one witness, and I was there for every single one of them, who complained they had not been consulted. I should also point out that those witnesses said everything from, "throw the book at them" to "nail them to the cross" and that "what we needed was toughness". The way to address the question of equity between large and small was quite simply to take away their licence, an equal application.
Private Member's Business
I realize that time is there, but it is important to correct the record on a couple of points. I wish I had longer. I could certainly use it.


Mrs. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-14, an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Kenneth David Atkinson: Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent that I be allowed to replace Mr. Nicholson for this particular bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Kenneth David Atkinson: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Kenneth David Atkinson: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make these remarks on third reading of this bill. The member for Niagara Falls has been looking after this bill through the House of Commons as he did with a similar bill in the 33rd Parliament. He cannot be here today. If I may I certainly would like to wish him and his wife well as they await the birth of their child. This is the reason I have replaced him here today, Madam Speaker.
This bill amends and clarifies the law in Canada prohibiting marriage between related persons. It reduces the number of prohibitions to two. They are brothers and sisters by whole or half-blood or by adoption, and lineal ascendants or descendants.

December 11, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Today in Canada there are approximately 30 couples coming within the prohibited degree of relationship. As similar legislation has failed to pass in previous Parliaments when Parliament prorogued or dissolved, it is certainly my hope that you will find disposition in the House when the question is put that members would unanimously support this bill.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak just a very few words to follow my hon. friend in connection with Bill S-14 which has come to the House of Commons after many years, approaching seven or eight years of attempts to create a bill which would improve the general law dealing with the prohibition of marriage for individuals who are related at various degrees.
My friend has mentioned that 30 or so couples are waiting pending a resolution of this bill in the House of Commons and in the Senate. It appears as though the many years of waiting have been worth it and we on this side of the House are pleased to acknowledge the work of the several individuals in the Senate and the House of Commons who have finally made this bill a reality and will firm up the federal government's jurisdiction in the field of marriage.
We are pleased to support this bill at third reading.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House at this time, as I see that members are present, to call it six o'clock and to proceed with the adjournment motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
In accordance with Standing Order 38, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved.

Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, on October 16, 1989, I rose in the House and put a question to the Minister of Finance on the matter of poverty. The question pointed out that the Vancouver food bank provides 3,200 bags of food weekly; Edmonton's food bank feeds 11,000 people each month; Regina's food bank provides 5,500 meals, and 6,000 boxes of food a month come from Regina's food bank; and Toronto's food bank feeds 84,000 people a week. A Montreal study shows that one in five kids are hungry in this country. Food banks in Canada are becoming institutionalized.
I asked the minister if he was planning to wait until food banks in Canada bar their doors to force this government to act or is the government going to provide adequate financial support for Canada's hungry.
The response was:
-during the course of the last five years we have demonstrated-
We, meaning the government.
- a very dear commitment to addressing the problems of those in lower income brackets.
The minister went on to say:
Let me enumerate some of these matters.
He said, referring to the government again:
We have increased the size of the child tax credit quite
significantly from what it was in 1984. We were the first government
to bring in the refundable sales tax credit. That sales tax credit has
been increased on two occasions since its introduction in 1986.
He also went on to talk about:
-changes that resulted in 850,000 low income Canadians being put in a position where they would not have to pay tax-
So, in each of these three areas he feels that the government has addressed the problems and the cause of poverty in this country.
December 11, 1990

That was on October 16, 1989. Today is December 11, 1990. When I rose last October and raised the question that we are discussing today, there were 906,000 unemployed in Canada. The unemployment rate was 6.7 per cent. Today, the latest figures show that there are
1,246,000	unemployed workers in Canada. The unemployment rate is 9.1 per cent. Since June some 200,000 more have been added to the unemployment lines.
Since the finance minister has finally acknowledged that we are in a recession, he has to address this question in a far more serious and meaningful way than to just say we have introduced tax credits that assist the poor.
First of all, many, many of the poor already are not in a bracket where they are required to pay taxes. This is a recession of the government's making. These figures that I have just given do not fully convey the depth and breadth of hardship faced by hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Too often we talk in terms of numbers. In this case, I will give one more number. In the last year 1.4 million Canadians have depended on food banks to survive. This 1.4 million people represent the fall-out of a made-in-Canada recession, the fall-out of unemployment, and the fall-out of poverty that is becoming deeper and deeper in this country.
We have to look at those families who are visiting the food banks.
We have to look at what the dramatic and difficult realities are in their lives, the reality of going from a family that is in full productivity in terms of being part of the community, a family that has pride and dignity in work, that lives in a home and participates fully in the community, that becomes unemployed or under-employed and, in fact, finds itself living in a situation of poverty, that because of lost employment must move to another home, moves down in terms of the cost of living and in many cases loses their home. Such a family may indeed be in a position now-and many families who are not unemployed during this recession and have been living the recession throughout the period since I raised this question-of having to deny their children full participation even in the school system, in the kinds of things that their peers and classmates need to do, who are not allowed to participate in extracurricular school activities because of poverty. This makes a difference in a child's life. I guess the most important part is that the
Adjournment Debate
increase in demand in food banks is escalating and children in this country are hungry.
As we look forward to going home to join our families for the Christmas season, again we have hundreds of thousands of families in this country who cannot think in terms of Christmas but only getting through one more month until the cheque comes, who must go to a food bank to ensure that their children get the basic necessities. Yet, Canada is a signatory to the UN's commitment to the UN Children's Bill of Rights which states that children shall have a home, shelter, food and an education and, yes, even the right to play. Yet, in Canada 1.4 million Canadians are dependent on food banks to survive.
All estimates point to a dramatic increase in the demand for service and that demand has no place in a country like ours. Four more food banks have opened in Newfoundland. Food banks in Surrey are receiving 200 new applicants a month and a further 100 people a month are being turned away. In Toronto, food is being rationed because of the high demand. One hundred thousand people in metro depend on a food bank each month.
It is no longer acceptable for the minister to get up and tell Canadians that all these jobs have been created because people cannot live on incomes from McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken or service industry jobs. People in Canada need decent paying jobs and they need full employment.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked if the government is going to provide adequate financial assistance for Canada's hungry. Her question shows quite clearly that she simply does not understand the programs that the government has done and is doing to help the disadvantaged in this country.
The hon. member should know that the federal government actually shares 50 per cent of the provincial expenditures on welfare under the Canada Assistance Plan. It is true that the government has proposed in the last budget that the three richer provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario be subject to the 5 per cent ceiling under CAP. However, the lower-income provinces are not subject to that ceiling. In those provinces the federal government matches dollar for dollar whatever the province spends.

Adjournment Debate
Under our Constitution, the federal government cannot interfere in an area of provincial responsibility. Responsibility for setting welfare benefits at an adequate level rests with the provinces, and I therefore invite the hon. member to point her finger at the provinces, not at the federal government.
While provinces are responsible for the welfare system in this country, the federal government has indeed not shirked its duty in areas where it does have constitutional responsibility. The government has implemented a number of social initiatives to help those Canadians with low incomes.
One of the first things we did upon coming into office was to extend eligibility for spouses' allowance to all widows aged 60 to 64, and more than 50,000 low-income Canadians, many of them who are women, benefit from this provision.
We have taken steps, in collaboration with the provinces, to help social assistance recipients get off welfare. We are spending some $1.8 billion, as part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy to help people find jobs.
The government has also announced a new human services strategy to help Canadians take advantage of job opportunities. The government has implemented tax initiatives to help low income Canadians. The child tax credit has been increased. The federal sales tax credit was introduced. A new supplement to the credit has been introduced for pre-school children. The credit is now delivered twice a year, which we are very pleased about, and some 850,000 low income Canadians have been dropped from the tax rolls, as a result of tax reform.
The federal government has therefore already acted vigorously to meet the needs of low income Canadians, because Canada must be caring and compassionate to those who cannot help themselves. The federal government is quite prepared to do its fair share.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, on the previous occasion when I asked the minister why the Toronto backlog office had decided to bring Caribbean backlog claimants to the front of the line, although
they were distinctly the last to come in, mostly just two years ago at the end of the backlog period, I was told that this was not happening.
Some of the evidence that this is happening was presented to some of us today at an informal meeting with some members of the Black Action committee. Some described their experiences as consultants accompanying a client and the client being asked: "Are you from Trinidad? Yes, okay, we will hear you. Are you from Jamaica? Yes, we will hear you. Are you from Iran? Yes, we will hear you another day". This was definitely sorting out people from the Caribbean as against people who had been here years longer.
In fact, in a meeting on September 9 with representatives of the bar association, Mr. Pirie, a senior official of the department of immigration in Ontario, was quite frank and said: "Yes, we have changed the rules three or four times, since the minister said first come first served. We are bringing in the Caribbeans first". Now the reason he gave was because they speak English and they do not need to take time for translation or to find translators.
Partly as a result of that, yes they have increased the rate at which they are reviewing the backlog cases, but they are still going to have to take up those Iranians or Sri Lankans or Salvadorans. It will take just as long to do these cases six months from now as if they took them in the proper order that the minister directed. The department is not speeding it up; it is only manipulating the statistics, in order to look as if it was being speeded up.
In fact, in the two months from the end of July to the end of September the number of cases that was reviewed increased by 20 per cent. For Iranians it was 5.7 per cent, for El Salvadorans it was 4.8 per cent and for Sri Lankans it was 3.6 per cent, all under 6 per cent, but for Trinidadians there was a 197 per cent increase in the number of cases they brought in and for Jamaicans there was a 35 per cent increase. Clearly, the program is not being run the way the minister directed it should be run, the way the minister has said it is being run, both in this House and when she came to meet with the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. This is a very serious matter.

There are three possible explanations as to why they are bringing the Caribbeans first. One is the given one which does not wash because, as I say, it will take them just as long to do them all together when they have done the Iranians and the others who cannot speak English.
Another is that practically all those people are black skinned, more or less black; not white anyway. The minister finds it offensive to suggest that there could be a racial prejudice there. I find it offensive there is evidence of racial discrimination there.
Finally, in fact what Mr. Pirie said is that we are bringing the manifestly unfounded cases first. Contrary to law, Canadian law and the United Nations law, which says that each case will be judged individually if they have claimed refugee status, they are saying that all the Trinidadians are cheaters, all the Jamaicans are cheaters, and "we will whistle them through like that".
Seven Trinidadians have been found by the panel to have a credible basis. By the minister's rules they should be landed. Oh, no. No, the minister has appealed all seven of those Trinidadians cases found to have a credible basis and should be landed, according to the minister's rules.
In other words, the minister does not want it to appear that anybody in Trinidad has a credible basis or a credible claim to refugee status.
I can understand the minister does not have time to sit in hearings rooms and see what is going on. I understand that some of her Ottawa officials have, at best, very little time. But if the minister does not know what is happening in her city-she has a riding just north of me, St. Paul's riding-there are people she can ask, such as reputable lawyers in private practice, some of whom have appeared successfully at the Supreme Court.
This government lauds private enterprise for privatizing all kinds of public industries because private enterprise, according to this government, is the way to go. They regularly condemn lawyers in private enterprise who represent refugee claimants. Most of these refugee claimants have very little money. No lawyer is going to be a millionaire by representing refugees.
Adjournment Debate
Only in refugee law does the government-and I have heard this more than once from officials, from the ministers and from the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board-constantly blame private lawyers for slowing down the process. They constantly overlook the adjournments caused because the department has not brought the translator or the case presenting officer or the adjudicator, or does not have a board room for them to meet in.
There are all kinds of delays. It is about half called by the representative of the department and half called, according to their figures, by the representative of the client. Yet the minister and others only talk about the one side. They are too defensive in trying to defend the indefensible. They had better admit the truth of what is going on, even if it is not what the minister directed.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration to the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina on October 30.
We met earlier this afternoon. In fact we rushed from the meeting here. We probably could have exchanged papers there and saved some time here.
First of all, processing of backlog claims has not been specifically directed toward those from the Caribbean. The ordering principle for processing backlog cases has generally been to deal with the oldest cases first.
As the hon. member knows, claimants from the Caribbean countries form a large part of the backlog population. The time has now come, as everyone knew it would, to process those claimants. Any suggestion that this or any other group has been singled out for special attention is simply wrong.
Although the backlog clearance program was slow to start, in recent months the processing rate has improved considerably. As of October 26, 54 per cent of the backlog of 85,000 cases has been opened and 31 per cent has been decided.
Furthermore, the Toronto backlog office is attempting to maximize operational efficiency by scheduling panel hearings according to language, interpreter availability being considered, background and any other relevant factors.

Adjournment Debate
However, other backlog processing activities continue in the meantime, as does regular immigration program delivery.
It should be noted that backlog processing activities are resourced and staffed separately from the regular immigration process activities. These are temporary resources allocated specifically to deal with the backlog.
To those who want an amnesty or an administrative review, we say that neither is a solution. Canadian experience and that of other countries has demonstrated that such measures simply do not work.
With respect to the new refugee determination system, Bill C-55 is in fact working quite well. Three of the major goals of the new legislation were to reduce the amount of time that it took to render a decision, to render fair and consistent decisions, and to reduce-if not stop-the flow of manifestly unfounded claimants. All of these goals have, to a large extent, been accomplished. There have not been any large scale movements of manifestly unfounded claimants such as was seen with the old system.
There has been some difficulty in moving to maximum efficiency, but this is normal for a new and very complex law. In the first nine months of 1990, 27 per cent more cases were opened than in all of 1989, and 20 per cent more cases were terminated than over the same period the previous year.
While there has been an unfortunate build-up of cases in the system, it must be remembered that cases are being decided in a number of months rather than a number of years, as was the situation under the old system.
The refugee determination system has seen the intake of new claimants almost double in the second year of its operation. Given the results to date, it is apparent that the system is coping quite well with what is coming before it.
The Auditor General has recently proposed a number of changes, and many had already been acted upon. For example, when the Auditor General suggested that steps be taken to reduce the number of adjournments and improve the scheduling of hearings, the department sent out in August, 1990 detailed directives outlining a modified approach which reduces the number of adjournments, and increases the efficiency and effectiveness of scheduling. In December, scheduling supervisors met to
analyze the progress in scheduling and to work out improved procedures to reduce the number of adjournments.
The Auditor General proposed that the first hearing process for cases not contested by the Minister of Employment and Immigration be streamlined. Employment and Immigration undertook two pilot projects in Vancouver and Niagara Falls. It evaluated and simplified the inquiry process, in which all cases conceded that first level hearings would be dealt with by means of a paper process only. Following these pilots, Employment and Immigration moved to implement the process nationally. This is being done right now.
Finally, the Auditor General stated that Employment and Immigration should consider having medical examinations and security and criminality checks conducted promptly following the time a person claims refugee status, given the high percentage of acceptance experienced to date. Procedures are in place to conduct criminal checks on persons arriving at ports of entry whose identity is in doubt. Efforts will be made to speed up medical and security checks.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, to follow up on numerous earlier questions to the Minister of Transport, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the conduct of Burlington realtor, Peter Lush, in his conflicting roles as Chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission and agent for the vendor of pieces of property the Hamilton Harbour Commission was interested in purchasing. Most importantly, I would like to summarize the government's actions which perpetuated the conflict.
Realtor Peter Lush, who resigned his position with the Harbour Commission on October 2 of this year, was initially appointed to the Hamilton Harbour Commission in December of 1986, and subsequently re-appointed in 1989 by Orders in Council.
It was widely known that Mr. Lush had several close friends in cabinet, such as the Conservative member for Lincoln, who, it is reported, encouraged and supported Mr. Lush into becoming chairman.
It is also known that, at the time of his appointment to the Harbour Commission, Mr. Lush declared that he would not have become a harbour commissioner if it meant giving up his real estate listings with J.I. Case that

the Harbour Commission was interested in purchasing. However, the appointment was made anyway, despite the conflict of interest that would have been glaringly apparent to all in 1986 when the present Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity then as Minister of Transport, made the appointment. Mr. Lush had to swear an oath in relation to the Hamilton Harbour Commission's policy guidelines. The objective of the guidelines are clear:
The object of this policy is to conserve and enhance public confidence in the integrity of the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners by establishing clear rules of conduct respecting conflict of interest and to minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between private interests and the public duties conferred upon commissioners."
Not only were sections of the policy breached by Mr. Lush, but the objectives stated above were not even considered by Mr. Lush until three years after his appointment, and only then because the matter was raised in this House. However, his business associations in connection with the harbour commission should have been dropped at the outset of his appointment, as is prescribed in the conflict guidelines. Guideline (d) provides that: "On appointment to office, Commissioners shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising." In short, Mr. Lush should have either given up those listings that the harbour commission was interested in and for which he was the broker, or Mr. Lush should not have accepted the appointment in the first place.
The law firm engaged to report on the conduct of Mr. Lush, commissioned by this government, reported to the minister in connection to this very point:
In order to comply with guideline (d), Mr. Lush had an obligation to arrange to have Lush Realty Corp. cease acting as the vendor's agent for J.I. Case, in its dealings with the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners as soon as he took office as a commissioner in January, 1987, and not over three years later on March 13, 1990. Mr. Lush did not, by simply declaring his interest and abstaining from decisions, avoid or withdraw from the situation that was giving rise to the conflict. By continuing to have his company act as agent for J.I. Case, he was in a position of constant and continuing conflict.
Mr. Lush advised the Minister of Transport on March 13, 1990 of his decision to dissociate his group of companies with J.I. Case lands in Hamilton, which he
Adjournment Debate
should have done much sooner. However, evidence has shown that Mr. Lush did not sever those ties. Notwithstanding, it was convenient for him to declare a dissociation because the final deal on the $10 million property in question was made on March 9, 1990, just four days earlier.
During those crucial days, I drew to the attention of the Minister of Transport that Mr. Lush was in a continuing conflict of interest in his capacity as Chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission. The minister merely challenged me to make my allegations outside of this House, which I eventually did, but he did not address the substance of my concerns. The minister said that there was an allegation made at an earlier time, which was vetted by the counsel for the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
I would like to know how two so diametrically opposed and dissimilar reports could have been issued with regard to the affairs of Peter Lush. The first report into the affairs of Mr. Lush came as a result of one of the commissioners requesting the commission's lawyers to give an opinion as to Mr. Lush's position.
The law firm noted that Mr. Lush was in a conflict of interest, but that he had declared so and refrained from decisions with respect to the properties as a commissioner. The firm also noted that with respect to section (j) of the policy guidelines, that "a commissioner should not -enter directly or indirectly into a transaction of a pecuniary nature either with himself or any other member of the commission", and that, "purchase of land by the commission was not a transaction of a pecuniary nature with Mr. Lush, either directly, or indirectly. The transaction is with J.I. Case, and while Mr. Lush will clearly benefit from the purchase, he is not a party either directly or indirectly to the purchase of the land."
Subsequently, after I asked numerous questions in the House last March, the harbour commission again consulted its lawyers in regards to those accusations and was given the same opinion.
The most recent legal opinion of November 5, 1990, goes completely contrary to the advice given to the harbour commission in 1989. The law firm which the Minister of Transport commissioned set out the conflict in precise terms:

Adjournment Debate
There can be no question that in the negotiations for the sale of lands, the interests of J.I. Case, represented by Lush Reality Corp., were in conflict with those of the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners. J.I. Case naturally wished to sell its lands at the highest prices and on terms most favourable to it. The Hamilton Harbour Commissioner, on the other hand, wanted to buy the lands at the lowest possible prices and on the terms most advantageous to them.
That is the crux of the problem, Madam Speaker. To whom does Mr. Lush owe a greater allegiance? To whom shall he act in the best interests?
Obviously, that was a dilemma of which Mr. Lush did not rid himself, and when I pointed it out to the Minister of Transport, he scoffed. The minister should have known, as a lawyer and former Attorney General of Canada, that it was impossible for Mr. Lush to carry out his public duty when, on the one hand, he stood to gain financially by his position and, on the other hand, he could not have acted in the best interests of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.
The law firm concluded on this point:
-the commissions to be paid to Lush Realty Corp-were to be a percentage of the ultimate purchasing prices. It was, therefore, in the interests of Mr. Lush to reach agreements for the sale of the lands at the highest possible prices. This put his personal interests- in direct conflict with the interests of the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners.
I submit in conclusion, Madam Speaker, that first and foremost the government and the Minister of Transport are responsible for their actions as the appointees, whether they like it or not. The government must make every effort to reclaim over half a million dollars paid to Mr. Lush since those moneys were ill-gained.
Second, I conclude by sa^ng that there must be a better way to ensure that this type of activity does not happen again, including remedies for wrongdoing that result in the termination of the appointment, and if the wrongdoing involves monetary gain that the moneys must be reclaimed.
Finally, if a request is made by a public body to their counsel requesting an opinion as to a conflict of interest by any of their officers, that the opinion be submitted to the Governor in Council for a second reference to ensure government and ministerial accountability.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I would like to say for the record that this government, under the leadership of
the Prime Minister, in September, 1985 brought in the most comprehensive conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders ever brought forward by any Canadian government. The aim of that code was to ensure that public office holders conform to a number of principles that would ensure the integrity, objectivity, and impartiality of government agencies.
As with any new ground-breaking initiative of this nature, the process and application were put forth without complete benefit of past experience.
As we all know, with the benefit of hindsight our decisions would be a lot easier to make. However, with some experience in the field now, we have a greater understanding of the inherent difficulties that are encountered in the day-to-day application of the conflict of interest guidelines. The guidelines are meant to provide a balance between the need to enlist the assistance of competent and experienced appointees to government agencies and the need for those agencies to live up to the highest standard of public scrutiny.
If the criteria were to be so stringent as to exclude anyone with outside business interests, you would agree that we would be hard-pressed to find qualified individuals to sit on many government agencies, boards and commissions.
When Mr. Lush was reappointed on December 16, 1989 to the Hamilton Harbour Commission, all parties were aware of his business interests. During the time of negotiations for the purchase of the parcel of land from J. I. Case by the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, Mr. Lush declared his conflict of interest in accordance with the commission's conflict of interest guidelines and was not a party to the ratification of the purchase and was absent from all commission discussions pertaining to the transaction.
Notwithstanding previous legal opinions which stated that there was no conflict, when the minister became aware of the situation in March, 1990, as the hon. member opposite has alluded to, he immediately moved to ensure a severance of Mr. Lush's interests in the land dealings and was assured this had happened.
The hon. member opposite professed himself to be satisfied with the action taken.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I believed it.


Ross Belsher: When the issue was raised again in October and the minister became aware that there may not have been total severance, he requested and received the resignation of the Chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, Mr. Peter Lush.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member, the minister gave his word to this House that a thorough and impartial review of the facts would be carried out, and he kept his promise. The law firm that conducted the review submitted its report and in accordance with the commitment made to this House by the minister, the report was made available to the public. In addition, the minister has written to the heads of all federal agencies that report to him and asked them to review the opinion of the independent law firm and to bring it to the attention of all persons subject to the
Adjournment Debate
conflict of interest guidelines in their respective agencies.
Furthermore, the Harbour Commissions have also been instructed to seek the guidance and advice of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General when ambiguous situations render the interpretation and application of the guidelines difficult. In view of all the above, the government now considers this matter closed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 12,1990