1990-11-19

[Stage Direction]
EDUCATION POST-SECONDARY CREDITS Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider creating a regulating body, through Canadian postsecondary institutions or other national organization(s), and create a standard for the transfer of credits in post-secondary education in so far as:
(a)	the credentials of foreign students to Canadian colleges and universities;
(b)	students changing from one Canadian university to another and one college to another, as well as transferring from a college to a university program, and vice-versa;
(c)	degree students enrolling in a graduate or second undergraduate program; and
(d)	work experience, as it relates to the obtaining of a diploma or degree program in a Canadian college or university.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make as certain as I can that we understand this motion. It is really an attempt to get people to look at the transfer of credits from one institution to another, from one level to the other, as well as look at the work experience one
acquires that may be utilized to obtain a diploma or degree.
It also attempts to address the whole question of having people from other countries come into this country with their diplomas and their degrees and making sure that they are treated in a rational way.
[Stage Direction]
My main concern is to simplify, if at all possible, the process we have at this time, and there is more than one, there are several.
I want to be sure the substance of the motion is properly understood, and I will read it again:
[Stage Direction]
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider creating a regulating body, through Canadian post-secondary institutions or other national organization^), and create a standard for the transfer of credits in post-secondary education in so far as:
Let me deal with this first paragraph: "should consider creating a regulating body". What is intended is that the government assist in the setting up of a body that might look at issues such as:
(a)	the credentials of foreign students to Canadian colleges and universities;
(b)	students changing from one Canadian university to another and one college to another, as well as transferring from a college to a university program, and vice-versa;
(c)	degree students enrolling in a graduate or a second undergraduate program; and
(d)	work experience, as it relates to the obtaining of a diploma or degree program in a Canadian college or university.
After having discussed the motion with a number of people and after having reflected, if I had to rewrite it I would do two things: I would focus or accentuate even more than I have on the idea of acting as a catalyst, the idea of attempting to bring people together to see whether or not we can bring greater rationality and simplification to what exists now in order to reduce certain confusion and frustration being felt by those who are affected.
[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
The second point I would look at is to broaden the whole notion of transfer to colleges and universities, as well to professional organizations and to trade organizations and associations.
The motion's intent is to act as a catalyst to bring about discussion or dialogue; to ensure a greater co-ordination and harmonization of efforts that are currently occurring; and to codify, if possible, the process or processes which we now have serving us. It is to clarify and to ensure greater fairness and equity in transfers of credits in all the areas I have mentioned and hopefully to define a process that people could follow so that they would know whether or not they have been treated as fairly and equitably as they feel they should have been.
What are the objectives?
I really want to reduce, if at all possible, the confusion that exists outside educational institutions and try to introduce a rational element that would help us eliminate this confusion and simplify the process. I also want to reduce the frustration felt by the people involved who often don't understand why some provinces or institutions give certain credits, while others may or may not do so.
If at all possible, I also want to refine the existing process and reduce duplication. I want to make sure that courses are not repeated unnecessarily. I also would like to increase the credibility of the process itself and of all the people involved in these decisions and activities.
[Stage Direction]
I recognize-and I want to stress it-the importance of accepting provincial constitutional responsibility in education. This motion in no way denies that or sets it aside.
I also want to recognize the importance of institutional autonomy, colleges and universities, as well as professional and trade organizations.
[Stage Direction]
I do not question the autonomy or the responsibilities of the provinces and institutions that would be involved. However, I believe they could meet and collaborate more than they are doing now.
[Stage Direction]
Let me talk about confusion, because basically that is the key here. I will give some examples.
As a former deputy minister, a former professor, a former business person, in fact, even now as a member of Parliament, I have often talked to students from other countries who felt that they had not been treated fairly. I did not obviously have a chance to look at every case, but I must confess that in a number of instances there were serious problems. From the information I had at my disposal I could easily conclude there were people who attempted to transfer their diplomas to other colleges and others, their university degrees to our universities. As well, others wanted to have their credentials assessed by professional and trade organizations. They had many stories of people who came from the same countries with basically the same qualifications who were in fact treated differently.
I am not naive enough to suggest that sometimes those situations might have been embellished somewhat. I understand that. One tends to see one's case in the best possible light. However, I am also convinced that there were real serious situations that were not treated as equitably as they might have been, not because people had bad intentions but rather because the rules were not set out; they were not clear. Perhaps they had not been discussed sufficiently.
I have examples in the fields of medicine and law and in technological courses in so far as community colleges are concerned.
Let us look at the whole notion of transfer of credits from one province to another, whether it be at the university or college level. Even within the country there are serious problems. One starts a program, goes to another college or university in another province, and that which has been accomplished successfully is not always accepted, at least in total. Very often a partial credit is given, but the student who has worked very hard to obtain those credits clearly does not see it as fair.
Even within provinces there are serious difficulties. I was approached not long ago by a young woman who had completed two years of an arts degree in a university in a particular province. This young woman wanted to transfer her credits to another university in the same province in the same program. Lo and behold, the receiving university would only accept one of two years. I had to talk to the university authorities who were really quite open about the problem. After some discussion, we were
[Stage Direction]
able to come to some agreement that the two years should be credited. The point that I want to make is that I am not sure this should have occurred in the first place. In fact, I am quite convinced that it should not have happened.
I am somewhat disappointed that initially the student would have had those difficulties and had someone not been able to intervene on her behalf, those difficulties in all probability would have continued.
[Stage Direction]
As for community colleges, there are problems there as well. I know many cases where, for instance, a student had completed a number of credits which he had to transfer to another institution, another community college, where he would be in the same program, and it turned out that not all his credits were accepted by the college where he was going.
There is a community college that offers a three-year program in technology. A student who goes on to university in that field and wants to become an engineer is credited two years at the university level for his three years at community college. In some cases they are credited nothing. They have to go back and start from the very beginning, as though they had done nothing at all. I think that is very unfair.
[Stage Direction]
As well there is the whole question of independent religious degree-granting institutions. They offer arts degrees as one example and in one province this is the situation. One university will not accord any credits at all because supposedly this degree is not from a recognized institution. I understand why they do that. However, at another university, in the same province a substantial number of credits are given. At a third university, under certain conditions, all credits are accepted. This is happening within the same province where one case is treated differently by three parties and which has a significant impact on the student that is involved.
Let me tell you a personal anecdote. An individual who was an outstanding graduate from one of the Bible colleges that I know received a degree with outstanding marks. This person wanted to obtain a masters degree at one of the universities in the province. They looked at his credentials and said, "No. It is not possible because you do not have an undergraduate degree from a recognized university". The student was not to be put
Private Members' Business
off. He decided to go to the United States and register in a prestigious university there, was admitted to a masters program, completed the masters program with outstanding marks, came back to Canada, and wanted to register in a doctoral program. Everything was going well until the receiving university noted that he did not have a recognized undergraduate degree. At this point he was not admitted to the program until a significant amount of discussion took place. Even then there was great reluctance in admitting this particular student.
Clearly, situations like that are inappropriate. They cause a lot of confusion, a lot of frustration, a lot of anger. Surely we can come up with something that is more rational, that is simpler, that is better, that is more easily understood.
There is the whole notion of work experience as well. Some of you will know that at both the university and college level, work experience that is related or relevant is accepted as part of the degree or diploma that one is following. However, it is not always the case. Surely if work experience is relevant in certain situations, why is not relevant in others? If it can count in one particular college or university, why should it not count in another?
Let me give you the example. A gentleman had worked over 20 years in developing nations. Obviously during the 20 years he had acquired a lot of expertise, was a recognized expert in the field with developing nations, was a keynote speaker at a great number of conferences and was also a prolific writer, published in journals and in other publications. Yet when that person wanted to undertake an undergraduate degree, he was told that he had to start at the very same place as everyone else. I find this unacceptable. Surely the person, in those 20 years of dedicated and successful service, had accomplished a great deal. The truth of the matter is he was able to find a university that was willing to give him some credit towards his degree.
It would be unfortunate if I were to give the impression that there has not been a start in this area because there has been an important one. There has been established the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials. Some of you will know that Canada has formally accepted the UNESCO Convention on recognition of studies, degrees and diplomas concerning higher education in the states belonging to the Europe region. This organization focuses on the co-ordination and facilitation of the flow of information regarding
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
international credentials. It is a good beginning and it is one that is to be applauded.
Let me share with you the terms of reference or the mandate of the Canadian International Information Centre for International Credentials organization. I quote:
(a)	Co-ordinate the collection and dissemination of information on academic and professional recognition of foreign qualifications from Canadian and foreign sources.
(b)	To identify and document existing resources and establish an information network.
(c)	lb provide information services on qualification held by persons educated abroad, as required.
(d)	Promote international mobility of students by providing them with pertinent information or referring their requests to appropriate agencies; and
(e)	To make available to foreign countries, international organizations, and individuals, information on Canadian education systems and to take steps, in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, to promote recognition of Canadian credentials abroad.
Quite apart from this organization, in the province of Quebec there is an established system for the evaluation of foreign credentials and this, from all sources from which I have heard, is working extremely well. So there is a model in place already from which we can borrow. I am also informed that the province of Ontario has recently completed a study that looks at the whole idea of credentials from other countries and that it is in the process of making some decisions to respond to that. I have also been told that the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba are in the process of trying to bring some decisions forth in that particular area.
Let me address the final point: what is needed? [Translation]
Exactly what is needed to deal with these requirements? Of course, we already have the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials. If we wanted to, we could expand its mandate or give it a different mandate or even create a different organization. That is not the option I prefer, but it is something we could suggest to the people involved when we ask
them to meet and try and come up with a solution that would respond to a number of needs I identified today.
[Stage Direction]
Yes, we could expand the mandate of the centre. We could set up another organization. I hesitate to recommend that. We could ask the relevant parties such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Association of Community Colleges of Canada, the Association of Registrars of the universities and colleges of Canada, which are three parties that are really significantly involved, to meet and try to push this notion forward. We need to make progress in this area. Not to do so will continue the alienation people feel, the sense of being treated unfairly and inequitably, which leads to frustration and confusion. If we were to move forward we could bring about greater equity.
[Stage Direction]
What I want to do is ensure that the people involved, those who have a direct interest in this area, will meet to discuss solutions. It must be possible to simplify, to identify a process and come up with a solution that will reduce the amount of confusion and frustration that exists today.
[Stage Direction]
What we need is not so much a mechanism but a willingness to recognize that there are problems. We should not feel defensive about it, but accept that there is a lot of talent out there and if we get together and accept these difficulties, these problems, as challenges, we could bring about solutions that would help many, many Canadians.
[Stage Direction]
That is what I want to do: help the people who are involved.
['Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the concerns of the dairy farmers in northern Ontario, in the riding of Nipissing, over the recent proposal made by this government to the GATT concerning our dairy industry. Once again it appears that this government has fallen prey to the illusion that the U.S. is a free trader, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Why else would the government jeopardize our dairy markets by proposing to open up an even greater segment to unfair competition?\nThe U.S. and the Europeans dump dairy surpluses on the world market, forcing prices well below the actual cost of production. They protect their own markets vigorously with trade barriers significantly higher than ours, whereas Canada has the highest level of market access.\nThe premise of our supply management programs is to supply our own market so we do not create huge surpluses to dump on world markets. Unlike the U.S., surpluses in Canada are paid for by the producer and not the taxpayer.\nThe purpose of the GATT is to provide fair rules for global trade, not to create a forum for international price subsidy wars. Indeed, this proposal makes Canada the', 'casualty in the agricultural crossfire between the United States and the Europeans.']
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the motion put forward by the member for St. Boniface today and to thank him for his interest and, indeed, his work in education in this
November 19, 1990

country. I know of his work in Manitoba before he came to this place. It preceded him, and I congratulate him.
We cannot stress enough the importance of promoting advanced education in this country, nor should we underestimate the valuable, indeed vital, contributions that international students can make to the Canadian university system, the national economy and the multinational character of the country.
The government recognizes that Canada must excel in education. It is critical to our social and economic health not just today but particularly to ensure prosperity in the next century. It is for precisely this reason that Canada ratified the UNESCO Convention on recognition of studies, diplomas and degrees concerning higher education in March of this year.
Our motivation for adopting this accord was not simply materialistic or altruistic. It is because we realize that despite the diversity of languages or the differences in economic and social systems from our world neighbours, we have a common responsibility to strengthen our educational ties in the interest of world peace and co-operation.
The intention of the UNESCO Convention is to enable each country to exploit its educational means as effectively as possible, to constantly improve curricula, to ensure that teachers, students, research and professional workers have greater international mobility and to alleviate the difficulties encountered by individuals when they return from abroad after studying, or from training.
In the short time since Canada ratified the UNESCO agreement, it has moved to establish the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, the centre to which the hon. member for St. Boniface alluded. This centre will oversee implementation of the convention, and it is expected to be operational by the end of this fiscal year.
At this point, I would like to address the motion and the initiatives that are ongoing through the centre. A great deal of discussion and consultation have already taken place. Representatives from the provinces and the federal government have arrived at a number of recommendations which have been adopted by the ministers to become the foundation of the centre's mandate.
Private Members' Business
I think it is important that we reiterate once again those responsibilities of the centre: to co-ordinate the collection and dissemination of information of academic and professional recognition of foreign qualifications from Canada in international sources; to identify and document existing resources and establish an international network; to provide informational services on qualifications held by individuals educated abroad; to promote international mobility of students by providing them with pertinent information or referring their request to appropriate agencies; and to make available to foreign countries, international organizations and individuals information on the Canadian education system and to take steps in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs to promote recognition of Canada's credentials abroad.
I want to stress that it is a two-way street. Canadian students wishing to study abroad stand to gain as much from the signing of this convention as international students wishing to come here.
This new centre will act as a central clearing house smoothing out the wrinkles that hampered both our domestic and foreign students in the past. It will not, however, presume to assume authority or control over areas outside its jurisdiction.
Education remains a provincial responsibility. That is why the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials will be jointly operated by Canada and the provinces. Let me also make it clear that the centre will not have any regulatory powers. It will act strictly in an advisory capacity. Colleges, universities, provincial and professional regulatory bodies will continue to be autonomous.
In addition to the government officials, the information centre will have representation from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, and observer status has been granted to the Association of Registrars of the universities and colleges of Canada. It will also receive support from the technical working groups with expertise in areas essential to the centre's success. It is these professionals and specialists who are best equipped to decide what needs to be done and how to go about doing it.

Private Members' Business
In many ways, the centre's tasks will be daunting. The diversity and complexity of various political, social and educational systems around the world will prove to be a real challenge.
At the same time, though, it offers an exceptionally rich, cultural asset. The centre's raison d'etre may be to streamline and simplify information flow, but the ultimate bonus may be a fresh perspective on the operation of educational and training systems in other parts of the world.
There is no doubt that Canada can only benefit from the improved flow of information the centre will generate to assist Canadian students and from the influx of international scholars it will draw.
The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials will also complement several other recent initiatives undertaken by the federal government to support educational endeavours. In particular, I want to mention the Prime Minister's proposal for a task force on human resource development for Canada's international competitiveness in the 21st century, and the Economic Council's study of education and the economy.
Additional federal programs and policies are helping foreign students to better use the time they spend in our country. Employment and Immigration Canada's recent decision to modify the conditions for employment of international students has made it easier for many of them to work on and off campus in their areas of specialty for up to one year after graduation.
For its part, Statistics Canada is now publishing an annual compendium of statistics on international students. As well, the Departments of External Affairs, and Industry, Science and Technology are examining ways to promote Canadian education services and facilities more effectively overseas. All of these measures are aimed at raising the profile of the Canadian education system, both at home and abroad.
There can be no doubt that education is the key to the future. As we leave the industrial era behind us, academics, businesses, and governments will need greater access to ever more data and know-how in the new information age. Any efforts which propel that process must be encouraged and supported.
That is why I believe that the creation of the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials has gone a long way toward satisfying many of the aims of the motion under consideration today. Aside from the constitutional question, it would be a duplication of services, I believe, to establish the sort of national body suggested.
With all due respect to my hon. friend from St. Boniface and his intentions, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that much of the work is already being done, and being done very well indeed.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to make some comments on Motion No. 688 which has been introduced by the member for St. Boniface. The motion draws attention to a problem that has been a burden to students and educational institutions in Canada for quite some time.
I find it most unfortunate that the member of the government chose substantially not to address herself at all to the substance of the motion, although it certainly is true that the UNESCO Convention and the creation of the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials are useful first steps. She did, however, indicate one of the significant problems with the motion before us which would propose some kind of regulatory body in the face of the fact that education is a provincial matter.
As I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for St. Boniface knows, these jurisdictional properties, as it were, can heat up the debate to white heat without solving any problems whenever these jurisdictional responsibilities are confronted in an attempt to bring about change. However, we should recognize too that, although burdensomely inconvenient at times, the fact that education is a provincial matter is useful from the point of view of giving diversity to education in Canada in that it reflects the diversity of the regions of Canada. Quite specifically, of course, there is the extreme case of Quebec which has a different language and different culture. Obviously, it has to have an educational system that reflects those differences, but similar differences apply right across the country.
When one is talking about post-secondary education, even within provinces, the problem encountered is a reflection of the diversity within provinces of post-secondary education and not only diversity in terms of classes

Private Members' Business
of institutions, universities as opposed to the colleges. As well, I suppose I should say parenthetically, when we talk about parallel systems of colleges, in Ontario we are talking about quite a different system than the CEGEPs in Quebec and the community colleges in B.C. There is a great deal of diversity within provinces, classes of institutions that are recognized as post-secondary, and a great deal of diversity between provinces in that respect.
Even in looking at universities, one of the problems of any over-arcing regulatory anything is that it tends to suppress the kind of diversity that is very useful in terms of the development of different approaches to different kinds of curricula and courses, and new thrusts that in the long run can be of benefit to making our educational system more appropriate to the need: the needs of our students, the needs of our society, and the needs of our economy.
It is true that this huge diversity, with each university and each college finding its own way, for example with each professor often teaching a course at the basic introductory level in economics, being different from one institution to the other. Obviously, this creates problems for students who are transferring from one university to another within a province, from a college to a university, from a college or university from one province to another, and certainly a very difficult problem in respect to recognizing the credentials of international students who come to this country to study.
The hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out that this is a two-way street and that very often Canadian students have difficulty having their credentials recognized elsewhere. It is a problem, but it certainly is not a problem that is going to be solved by means of any over-arcing regulatory body, as has been suggested here.
In fact, I doubt whether it is conceivable in the terms that have been suggested by the hon. member that the problem can be solved at all. That does not mean that we should not take seriously the question of transferability. How can it be brought about? It certainly is not going to be brought about by an action by this Parliament. It is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and an area in which we have no power to act.
It seems to me that we could use this opportunity to suggest to the university and college community, and to the ministers of education at the provincial level, that they should attempt to find some way to facilitate the transfer of students from one institution to another; to recognize, as the hon. member mentioned, life experience, as it is called, as a basis for admission; to make it possible for international students to gain reasonable admission to institutions here; and, by the way, to gain appropriate recognition of whatever professional credentials they have.
The problem is that we place too much emphasis on credits. We place too much emphasis on course descriptions and not enough emphasis on what students actually know. It seems to me that we can either go to a different system altogether or use some combination of systems of evaluations to address the problem. I would recommend to the AUCC and other groups involved in the colleges and universities, to have some kind of objective evaluation, not of what courses students have taken, or of what credits they have, but of what knowledge they have earned. Knowledge gained in formal class or knowledge that has been gained by virtue of work experience is knowledge that in some fashion can be measured. We have to confront this problem.
I have confronted this problem as chairman of the board of St. Clair College and as a professor at the University of Windsor. We have wracked ourselves trying to figure out how to resolve this problem. It seems to me that the only ultimate solution is to get around this tyranny of credits and course descriptions to try to find a means of evaluating what students actually know, what those with work experience actually know, and what international students are capable of demonstrating they know as a basis for placing them appropriately in a post-secondary institution of their choice.
It may very well be that some evaluation of credits would be included in the equation. An objective examination and an appropriate interview with those who seek to have their past experience evaluated would seem to me to be one way of approaching it. So, I would suggest that.
If there is any means at all by which the federal government can exercise some leverage, perhaps it would be in respect to EPF transfer payments which

November 19, 1990
Private Members' Business
right now are not specifically directed at post-secondary education. There are no strings attached. Maybe one of the strings attached could be for each province to submit a reasonable proposal or basis upon which transferability could occur fairly.
I have recommended to the House one process that could be used and I have suggested a slight lever that might be employed. I hope that the administrators of colleges and universities and those concerned about fairness in colleges and universities will know about this debate and engage seriously in solving a problem addressed today after some 30 years of repeated attempts to bring about a resolution.
Quite frankly, I would have to admit, in favour of the hon. member for St. Boniface's motion, that up until now the effort has not been serious and, because it has not been serious, it has caused serious difficulties for many Astudents and those who are attempting to become students in our country.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the motion of the hon. member for St. Boniface.
For the sake of the record, I would say that the hon. member did not necessarily ask for a regulatory body, but for a discussion or dialogue in order to simplify the process and make it more understandable. He clearly understood the complexity of the issue and all he is calling for is some sort of discussion to take place.
I was quite disappointed in the statement of the hon. member representing the government when she stated that education falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial government and, as a result of that, we have no business in talking about the issue or dealing with the issue.
Using this rationale, perhaps we might apply and say the same thing about health care. We might say the same thing about the environment, taxation of all types, economic development and job creation.
The truth of the matter is that we can no longer afford to say: "Well, this is your baby. I am not going to get involved in it". The issue of education now, more than ever before, will have to become everyone's business, at the provincial, municipal and federal levels.
Tb back up my statement, I want to state to the hon. member that here in Canada one out of every three youths who enter the high school level do not finish their high school. If we look at the latest statistics from Employment and Immigration, on an annual basis, approximately 100,000 students drop out before they get to Grade XIII.
Between now and the year 2000 we are going to see at least one million Canadian youths out on the street looking for low paying jobs, or having no jobs at all.
If we compare this with what has happened around the world, for example, in Japan, 94 per cent of 17-year olds in Japan are still in formal education or are still learning in schools.
In Germany, 89 per cent of their children are still in schools at the age of 17. In Sweden, it is 78 per cent. Here in Canada, the figures are a lot less. We have only about 72 per cent of our students remaining in school after the age of 17.
This should be an alarming signal to the government to take note of and to realize that the issue of education can no longer be a provincial or municipal issue alone. It has to become a federal issue as well.
Over the years a good proportion of jobs in our society were in the low paying scales and did not demand high skilled employees. Everything is changing as we move into the 21st century. We are going more and more into the areas of high tech and information systems. As a result of that, there is a bigger demand on our labour force to be highly skilled and highly trained. That is why the government has to put a lot more emphasis on educational retraining today than ever before.
If we look at the latest statistics from Employment and Immigration, going back to 1986, they show that the unemployment rate for Canadians aged 15 to 24 with a post-secondary education was 9.8 per cent. This is significantly lower than the 17.7 per cent unemployment rate for the same age group with only high school education. That says that we can no longer afford to shy away from the issue. We have to address it with vigour and interest. We cannot carry on passing the ball to the other levels of government.
In terms of giving an equivalent for a university student moving to another university, I believe it is only fair that a first year math student who takes calculus, for instance, at the University of Ottawa should be eligible to get the credit from the University of York if he is
November 19, 1990

studying the same type of course. Unfortunately, over the years a lot of complication has been created as a result of students moving from one university to the next, putting a tremendous load on their back which they have to deal with.
The suggestion by my colleague to create some sort of a mechanism whereby we cannot simplify the process is only fair.
The former provincial government, a Liberal government, released a report last year called The People and Skills in the New Global Economy. I suggest that many sound recommendations came out of the report, one of which calls for uniformity in our post-secondary education.
I would like to quote from that report. The report concluded that:
-it is time to rethink the rigidities still built into the postsecondary education system. Each step along the educational path should open doors rather than close them. Thus, individuals should be able to transfer smoothly from one institution to another without having to go back to 'square one'. Ideally, the competencies an individual has achieved in one environment should be recognized in others if learning is to be acknowledged as cumulative. And finally, no educational choice should be a dead end.
This is an excellent point that has been raised by the provincial government in Ontario. I might suggest it is high time for other provinces to take the lead and to move forward in this direction.
We need a catalyst, and that catalyst has to be the federal government. We can no longer point our finger stating that it is a provincial responsibility and that as a result of that, we are not going to deal with it, while we are giving, in terms of transfer payments to the provinces, billions of dollars on an annual basis.
If this is the same argument we are going to be using, we should look at the health care system. While the health care system falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, we still have a federal government involvement in the health care system, and we still, from time to time, tell the provinces how we would like to see the health care system run.
To say that it is within the constitutional right of the provinces, I do not think I will buy that. I do not think the
Private Members' Business
people of Canada will buy that because while we are contributing financially to the educational system, we should have a say on how the money is spent, especially when it comes to the issue of educating our children, our youth, the leaders of tomorrow.
I commend the hon. member on his excellent initiative. He spoke about people with university degrees who are coming from outside Canada. I have many constituents who have called me on several occasions to tell me horror stories.
A dentist in the Ottawa-Carleton region who obtained his university degree in England called me. He practised for over 25 years as a dentist. This dentist right now is working as a real estate agent because he could not get the equivalent to his university degree which he obtained in England.
Other students who completed PhDs in electrical engineering or civil engineering are driving cabs. When it comes to students who graduate from other universities around the world and who move to Canada, certainly we are not doing enough to recognize their university education.
The system is not perfect. I hope the government is taking note of this and that it will take the recommendation of my Liberal colleague to heart. Hopefully, it will deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from St. Boniface for bringing this important issue before the House. However let me make it clear that the Canadian government is also showing great concern over post-secondary education because we know that the people of this country can only stand to gain if they are prepared to face up to the challenges of the coming century.
The Canadian government gives priority to education and does not spare any effort to improve conditions in that field. It earmarks a fair share of its annual budget to that end, in keeping with its powers under the Canadian Constitution, yet it shows great respect for provincial and territorial educational jurisdictions and is intent on refraining from expanding or going beyond its jurisdic-

Private Members' Business
tion in that field. It readily acknowledges the expertise of the various governments with respect to education.
Being a former Manitoba education minister, my colleague from St. Boniface is aware of that fact and fully conversant with the post-secondary education issue. Keeping in mind his experience in education, I am somewhat surprised that he chose to introduce this motion.
The better to appreciate the import of the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, allow me to shed light on the situation by explaining how the present system works, for this will enable you to agree with me that the federal government has rather limited leeway.
The provinces were given jurisdiction over education in the 1867 Canadian Constitution. Pursuant to section 93, the provincial education departments hold direct control over primary and secondary schools as well as colleges in Canada. It follows that these departments are responsible for rating academic credits and diplomas awarded outside their respective provincial boundaries at all levels except for university studies.
Indeed universities are an exception to the rule. They are empowered to award diplomas to their students under their provincial charters which also authorize them to set entrance requirements and related procedures. Thus each institution can rate the academic standards of other universities, provinces or countries before enrolling a student. Universities are responsible for establishing equivalence scales governing interprovincial standards or those of other Canadian universities.
The problem raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface is not a major one. Furthermore, most universities recognize job experience and give students points accordingly. Mechanisms already exist at the university level.
In fact, the present system works quite well, which is borne out by the figures. Last year, more than 70,900 foreign students were studying here in Canada. Degree and credit equivalencies were evaluated under the existing system and did not seem to be a major problem. In addition to the impressive number of foreign students, large numbers of Canadians changed schools, colleges or universities and were admitted, on the basis of the credits they had acquired, to another educational institution.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface has a solid reputation in the field of education, and of course, when he was a deputy minister with the Government of Manitoba, his great expertise was recognized, and rightly so. However, like other members of the Liberal Party in this House, he has become obsessed with taking all the powers that belong to the provinces and transferring them to the central government, the Government of Canada. Members of the New Democratic Party have the same desire to abolish the powers of the provinces by transferring them to a strong central government. The Liberal leader has exactly the same tendency to claim that the provinces are not capable of acting responsibly and should be denied certain powers that should be transferred to the central government.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time has expired, and I must say I had some more interesting points to make. Unfortunately, the proposal made by the hon. member for St. Boniface cannot be accepted by this side of the House because we on this side fully respect the jurisdiction of all the provinces of this country over education.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that in this matter of great importance, we too on this side of the House respect the provinces. We also see the need for immediate action on the suggestion of my hon. colleague from St. Boniface, who did not ask for a regulatory body. He asked for the beginning of dialogue and discussion in this matter.
Those of us involved in so-called real politics know that the politics of universities is sometimes even more arcane and difficult to deal with. If we are going to solve this problem in our universities, both nationally and internationally, we must begin as soon as humanly possible, and not let it bog down in discussion in this Chamber or between the provinces. The job needs to be done. We have seen what the problem is. Let's attack it and seek a solution.


Mr. Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
November 19, 1990



It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, no Canadian traveller can feel anything but concerned and uneasy over safety in this country's skies.
This government promised that the brave new world of deregulation would not harm safety in the slightest. Last Thursday that promise was shown to be hollow. A senior Transport Canada safety inspector, Henry Dick, told the inquiry into last year's Air Ontario disaster at Diyden that air passenger safety has been compromised since deregulation. He told the inquiry that deregulation has increased his department's workload by as much as 50 per cent, yet there has been no increase in the number of inspectors. That staff shortage, plus the transition period at Air Ontario, made a thorough safety check-up of the company's planes very difficult.
Where is this government's commitment to safety? When will this government make good on its promises and hire the inspectors that are so desperately needed? The Canadian travelling public needs to know now.


CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe held in Paris this week is breaking ground few of us could have imagined, even months ago.
The CSCE is opening doors to a new relationship between eastern and western Europe and between Europe and North America. Europe is at last liberated from the threat of opposing military alliances and united in its commitment to democracy, human rights, and economic co-operation. Canada has joined 33 other
nations to promote greater prospects of booming panEuropean and trans-Atlantic trade.
The CSCE should complement the work already done by NATO to enhance peace and security in Europe. The CSCE should have a permanent secretariat with a clear mandate to keep communication open and honest throughout the European community.
For the common good it appears that the cold war is truly and finally over.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on August 18,19891 wrote to both the president and the minister responsible for Canada Post asking that a stamp be struck in honour of the 125th anniversary of the birth of Marie Sklodowska-Curie. As members of this House are aware, Marie Curie's accomplishments in the study of radioactivity won her the Nobel prize in physics in 1903.
In response to my letter, I was advised by the chairman of Canada Post that decisions of this sort are made in accordance with Article 3 of Canada Post's corporate policy which states that the stamp advisory committee gives preference to subjects that are primarily related to Canada.
I am sure that executives at McDonald's, having paid $250,000 to have their label printed on the salvage of a series of our stamps, were ecstatic to learn that their hamburgers were considered more in keeping with Canada's interests than a woman who discovered a cure for cancer, benefiting thousands of people all over the world including Canadians.
Maybe it is high time for a rude reminder to Canada Post of our priorities as a country.


GRAIN AND OILSEEDS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Winnipeg, federal and provincial agriculture ministers met to discuss the cost sharing of proposals made by the producer and federal and provincial government representatives who make up the grain and oilseed safety net committee.

November 19, 1990
The guaranteed revenue insurance plan and the net income stabilization account together will provide comprehensive income stabilization for grain and oilseed farmers. These programs will be production neutral and will be tailored to the situation of the individual producer by using individual yield information and individual stabilization accounts.
Farmers will be able to calculate in early spring their guaranteed total returns for each crop. This guarantee will introduce an element of certainty and predictability so that farmers can better plan their business.
Canadian grain and oilseed farmers urge the federal and provincial governments to expedite the introduction of this new generation of farm safety nets.


SECOND WORLD CLIMATE CONFERENCE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, "notwithstanding scientific and economic uncertainties, nations should now take steps toward reducing sources and increasing sinks of greenhouse gases through national and regional actions". So concluded over 700 scientists from 120 countries at the second World Climate Conference, recently concluded in Geneva. They went on to call for a 1 per cent to 2 per cent per year cut in carbon dioxide emissions, starting now.
After the scientists, the ministers met, including the Canadian Minister of the Environment. Unfortunately Canada failed to heed the urgent call for action so that the final ministerial declaration does not contain targets and timetables on CO2 reductions.
As a result, Canada is no longer a leader in global environmental action. We are instead falling in line with a White House agenda, and that is most unfortunate.


CANADIAN COALITION ON ACID RAIN
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, President Bush's signing into law last Thursday of the new U.S. clean air legislation means that the future health of Canada's lakes, rivers and trees is a little more certain. The United States is now firmly committed to reducing its acid rain causing emissions by 50 per cent
by the year 2000, and the new law lays a solid foundation for the finalization of a transboundary treaty between our two countries.
No group is more deserving of our thanks in this long battle than the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain. Of particular note are the coalition's two dynamic co-ordinators, Adele Hurley and Michael Perley, whose intensive and tireless lobbying of the economic and political decision makers on both sides of the border contributed greatly to last week's historic signing.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, at a victory party at Casa Loma in Toronto, to which you and I are both invited, the coalition will celebrate. I say celebrate long and hard for it has earned the gratitude of a nation and that of future generations.
A few moments ago I had the privilege of speaking to our ambassador in Washington, the hon. Derek Burney, and commended him for the great work that he has done in bringing this to a very successful conclusion.


NOVA SCOTIA ARCHIVES
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Archives in Halifax has had a proud tradition of providing materials to students, scholars, writers, and interested amateurs for scores of years. It is accessible both in the physical and the intellectual sense for all who wish to use it. Consequently, the discovery some days ago that all reference cards relating to blacks and to women had been removed by some vandal is a double tragedy. Dr. Frances Early, historian and past chair of women's studies at Mount St. Vincent University, said that the removal of this material and its resulting blow to women's and blacks' research is an assault on the dignity of both groups, as a denial of one's history is a denial of one's importance and one's contribution.
Black history in Nova Scotia includes the Black United Empire Loyalists, as well as being the terminal of the underground railroad in pre-United States Civil War days.
The role of women in Nova Scotia has been documented from the early days of New France at Port Royal to the development of Canada's only women's university.

This particularly horrible manifestation of sexism and racism is all too common in Canada today. It is time for all Canadians to stand and say: "No more of this; not here, not now, not ever".


SOLICITING BY TELEPHONE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, there are days when one wonders what is happening to society and whether anyone is responsible anymore. Numbered companies, unscrupulous people, invite young people and others to call them by dialing a telephone number starting with 976. And what do they hear? An answering machine that delivers a pornographic and obscene message.
Unfortunately, there is a charge for each call, and parents end up with the bill at the end of the month, dumb founded and powerless to fight the system.
Mr. Speaker, where are Bell Canada's sense of morality and professional ethics, when it allows its telephone lines to be used for pornographic and obscene purposes? How can the CRTC remain oblivious to this situation? While people in a position of authority abuse the trust of our young people, other authorities at Bell Canada and the CRTC continue to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators are at it again, promoting their distorted view of the GST. Their latest drivel which was released to every weekly newspaper in Canada last week indicates their total lack of understanding of the GST or their total disregard of the facts. It is one or the other; probably both.
They should exercise some sensibility but they do not. They continue to run rings of confusion around the Canadian people. They are on the losing end of the GST debate and they cannot accept their fate.


CHILD ABUSE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the government once again to commission an independent inquiry into the shocking abuses which took place in Canada's residential schools for native children.
Countless numbers of Canada's first peoples faced abuses in schools that were funded by the federal government. Through an inquiry the government will assist the healing process for the victims of this abuse. More and more native children and adults are coming forward to tell their tales of personal abuse while in residential schools and how it still affects their lives.
Why is the government afraid of this inquiry? These victims require this measure of justice.
Therefore I again want to urge the government to commission an independent inquiry into these residential schools. Until we start listening to the victims of abuses that occurred in these schools, the resulting problems will not go away.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, Raymond Gameau, former Quebec Finance Minister and former Liberal Member of Parliament and Finance critic, thinks that the goods and services tax proposed by our government is probably the fairest one that could be found in the present context of global markets.
According to Mr. Gameau, at a time when we have free trade and global markets, we have to get rid of the old tax and replace it with the GST. Mr. Gameau went on to say that the 13.5 per cent tax had become impossible to administer and that it was as full of holes as a sieve. No government had yet been able to find a way to make it watertight. It was too easy to get around by legal means, with the help of expert lawyers. It had to go.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time Liberal senators respected the agenda of a responsible government.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, today I am wearing my very special suit. I call it my NDP suit, my socialist sackcloth, my comrade-inarms tunic, if you like.
The NDP knows what it is against. It is against the break-up of Canada, as the leader has so often said. It is against dirty, rotten patronage. It is against Hibernia. It voted against it here in this House.
But this suit has a second pocket. The NDP knows exactly what it is for. It is for-and these are the words of the member for Chambly-the break-up of Canada. It is now still against patronage, except of course in the cases of Ed Broadbent, Bob White and Ian Deans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not always easy to draw the distinction between what is fair comment in members' statements and what is personal criticism.
It seems to me the hon. member has referred to another hon. member as being in favour of the break-up of Canada. I think that is a pretty personal attack, and I would want the hon. member to keep that in mind.


Roger Simmons: As I was saying, the NDP is not really against Hibernia. The leader said in St. John's: "Just because we voted against it-doesn't mean we oppose it".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: You see, Mr. Speaker, any NDP suit worthy of the name must have two pockets: one to tell you what you are for and one to tell you what you are against. The problem is you might get the two pockets all mixed up one day.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservative government has come out strongly in favour of rhetoric and bluster and decidedly short on substance with respect to the environment.
This month in Geneva, at the second World Climate Conference, the Minister of the Environment disregarded the unanimous recommendations of the environment committee and gave short shrift to the dangers of CO2 emissions, the greatest single contributor to global warming.
Rather than support international moves to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent or more by the year 2005, the government opted for a vague promise to stabilize emissions at current levels by the year 2000.
The government has refused to conduct a full environmental assessment of the proposed coal fired generating station at Point Aconi, Nova Scotia. The Point Aconi project will produce 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
Instead of taking action on global warming, the government plans to turn a blind eye to a project which will substantially increase Canada's CO2 emissions.
Point Aconi must be subject to a full environmental assessment.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the concerns of the dairy farmers in northern Ontario, in the riding of Nipissing, over the recent proposal made by this government to the GATT concerning our dairy industry. Once again it appears that this government has fallen prey to the illusion that the U.S. is a free trader, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Why else would the government jeopardize our dairy markets by proposing to open up an even greater segment to unfair competition?
The U.S. and the Europeans dump dairy surpluses on the world market, forcing prices well below the actual cost of production. They protect their own markets vigorously with trade barriers significantly higher than ours, whereas Canada has the highest level of market access.
The premise of our supply management programs is to supply our own market so we do not create huge surpluses to dump on world markets. Unlike the U.S., surpluses in Canada are paid for by the producer and not the taxpayer.
The purpose of the GATT is to provide fair rules for global trade, not to create a forum for international price subsidy wars. Indeed, this proposal makes Canada the

casualty in the agricultural crossfire between the United States and the Europeans.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last week, the Conference Board of Canada reported that the confidence of Canadian families in their financial situation is at a record low. What a vote of non-confidence in the policies of this government. Only 7.8 per cent of Canadian families felt that the job situation in their communities would improve in the next six months.
Why does the minister and his government persist with policies likes the high dollar, high interest rates and the GST, that are seriously damaging the confidence of Canadians in their economic future? Why will he not bring in new policies that will create jobs, create economic growth and re-establish the confidence of Canadians in the economy of this country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded to that form of question on a number of occasions from the Leader of the Opposition.
We have an economy that is going through a transition stage, from a period of very high growth to a period where we have to get the levels of inflation under control. I am sure that my hon. friend remembers back in the late seventies and early eighties when the government that he supported did not take these problems seriously and that left us with the very serious recession in 1981-82. If he were to be honest with those Canadians that he believes he is speaking for today, he would not be saying the same things that he is saying right now.
I am not happy when I see the confidence at these levels. I can understand why people are feeling the way they do. What we have been trying to do is get interest rates down to reflect the slowness in the economy. That
Oral Questions
has been happening over the past four months and will continue as the performance in the economy warrants.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada reported that more than half of the jobs lost in the first six months of this year were lost in small businesses.
It is no wonder that Catherine Swift, chief economist and vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: "We haven't seen intelligent government policies to deal with the problems." She pointed to "increasing taxes and artificially high interest rates as poor government management".
Is the minister going to attack Catherine Swift as not being honest? What is he going to say to her and the tens of thousands of small business people she represents?
Why will the minister not bring in some intelligent government policies, get away from his poor management and do things to help Canadian business, especially small business, get out of the economic mess he and his policies have created for this country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I would say to Catherine Swift is that she is looking at a very narrow timeframe.
If she would cast her mind back to September 1984, when we had an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent, the unemployment rate is down considerably from that.
The other point is that there has been over 1.5 million jobs created during that period. I believe about 80 per cent of those have been created by small business. It is very easy to draw these negative conclusions. In the broad timeframe of the last six years, the policies of this government have worked. The policies of this government have resulted in a substantial creation of jobs and a substantial improvement in the standard of living for Canadians. As people have seen, after tax and after inflation, their ability to purchase has gone up by $8,000 for every family in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not explained. If things are so wonderful, according to him, why is the confidence of Canadians in their economic future so low?

Oral Questions

Mr. Speaker, everyone condemns this government's policies. According to Statistics Canada, small businesses in Quebec are those most severely affected by the recession caused by this government. My question to the minister is this: How long will the government let this recession go on and when will it introduce policies to help small businesses create more jobs in Quebec and across the country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that things are wonderful in the economy, as my friend has just said that I did. I am saying that we are going through a difficult period now.
It is important to look at the broad timeframe. The economy has improved considerably since 1984 when we came into office. We have seen 1.5 million jobs created since that time.
I think it is also important for us to look at the position of Canada in relation to the rest of the world. Just the other day, we saw where Montreal and Toronto are right at the top of the statistics of cities in which it is good to live in the world.
We have seen where Canada has one of the highest standards of living when you take into account medical care, life expectancy, and standard of living in terms of income. These are things that are good about Canada. We are committed to improving these. But we also know that we cannot just snap our fingers and wish them to happen. We do know that we have to go through this period to get inflation under control so we can get interest rates down and see a return to strong non-inflationary growth in the future.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and deals with Rafferty-Alameda.
On January 26, the government signed an agreement with Saskatchewan, but forgot to have cabinet endorse it. On September 5 the minister met with Grant Devine, but forgot what they talked about. On October 12, the
review panel resigned. The government sought an injunction. It was refused because the government forgot to appoint a new panel. This morning the minister met with his officials trying to figure out what comes next.
What brilliant moves does the minister have to lay before the House now, or can he remember?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, before all this history happened, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that there was an environmental process conducted. It was challenged in court. The court at that point requested the federal government to appoint a public panel to have public reviews, which we did.
We followed the judicial process. We appointed the panel. We began a full environmental review of the project and we have attempted to date to protect that process. The process is very important. I can tell my hon. colleague that we intend to appeal the decision of last Thursday, to clarify the situation and to make sure that the due process of environmental assessment is conducted on this project as it should be on any major Crown project.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be guessing his way along on the environment.

Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a failure of law, we are dealing with a failure of political will.
As Mr. Justice Muldoon said in talking about this particular government, it should stop seeking ways to evade the guidelines. It should warmly embrace them. It should not tiy to circumvent the law.
The minister has said that he cannot revoke the licence. Well, he can suspend it. If he has any doubt about it, there is not a law student in this country who is not prepared to show him how.
Mr. Speaker, this government is the laughing stock of the environmental community. Will the minister suspend the licence and will he suspend the licence now? He has the power to do so and, if not, will he submit himself and his government's actions to a parliamentary inquiry so we can get to the truth of this matter?
November 19, 1990


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the opposition speaks in very simplistic terms about the licence. A licence, whether it be this licence or any other licence granted by this government, can be suspended or quashed but only under one very fundamental rule of law; there has to be some kind of breach or some kind of violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. I have been discussing this with our legal advisers. There has been no breach or no violation of this particular licence.
We are pursuing in the courts the avenues that are open to us to allow the process to be completed and that is by appealing the judgment that was handed down last Thursday. We are doing that this week. We will continue in that pursuit.
I would like to tell my hon. colleague that the best way to avoid these kinds of circumstances in the future is for him and his party to strongly support Bill C-78, which would finally put some order in environmental assessment.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. As the House will know, three members of the House from the defence committee, including myself, were in the Persian Gulf last week. May I say we were all very impressed with the professionalism, the competence and the innovativeness of our troops who are there.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John F. Brewin: However, we are not quite so impressed with the performance of the government on this issue, Mr. Speaker. On September 26 the Minister of National Defence made a solemn commitment to this House:
-before any changes are made to the mission that Canadian forces are involved in at this time in support of the United Nations sanctions, resolution 665, that of deterring aggression, they will have to be consulted and we will have to make that change in Canada.
This weekend there were reports, apparently clear and documented, that Canadian forces in the gulf were going far beyond the enforcement of the UN sanctions and were in fact involved, albeit in a defensive say, in the
Oral Questions
support of so-called Operation Imminent Thunder, an offensive exercise near the Kuwaiti border.
Will the minister explain why the Minister of National Defence did not keep his commitment to this House?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the hon. member for his very kind and accurate words about the work that our men and women are doing in the Persian Gulf, as I am sure he is aware, having been there, in a very difficult situation. I know those words will be appreciated by them.
I would like to assure my colleague that our role in the Persian Gulf has not changed. Our role is to enforce the UN sanctions against Iraq and to deter aggression. That will continue to be our role. Any change in that mandate would have to be considered by the government and, we would hope, by Parliament.
Yes, we did participate in the exercise over the weekend, albeit, as the member indicated, in a minor role. We assisted in the patrols; we assisted in escorting the U.S. hospital ships; and we participated, as the member has indicated, in a defensive capacity in an air operation to test out command and control capabilities of the multinational forces which are operating in the area.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just confirmed a clear escalation of Canadian policy without consulting Parliament.
I would like to ask a supplementary question. Last week the Prime Minister indicated that there were going to be substantial cutbacks. Reports have stated that as much as half a billion dollars in government programs, presumably further affecting social programs in this country, will be cut to pay for the cost of the Canadian contingent. While we were there it was made clear to us, and this was confidential information, that the incremental costs were nowhere close to that. I would like to ask the minister if she will make it clear publicly in this House the incremental costs of the Canadian contingent in the gulf.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am surprised. I would think my hon. colleague would want to ensure that our men and women are prepared to deal with any kind of contingen-

Oral Questions
cy. As we do here in Canada, as we do in Europe, we participate in exercises all the time to ensure our command and control capability, and that we are prepared to deal with any exigency.
With respect to the cost, yes, I know. I have seen the various figures which have been around in the media. I would just like to assure my colleague that work is being finalized on the costs of these operations. We expect that to be completed in the next few days. That information will be made available to the House and to the Canadian public.


John F. Brewin: Finally, Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that, if there are to be any cutbacks to pay for the cost of the Canadian contingent in the gulf, they will come from the vast over-expenditure that is now taking place in maintaining Canadian forces in Europe now that the cold war is over?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think that raises another issue, as I am sure my hon. colleague is aware.
The signing of the first CFE treaty is a historic event which we hope ultimately will lead to reduction in military troops in Europe of all nations. Canada has already indicated that we are planning to reduce our forces by about 1,400 and will be following the progress of future CFE talks with great interest.
Certainly, at this time, it would be premature to indicate to the hon. member and to the House just what sources may be looked for to ensure that we do have the financial resources available to continue to operate in the gulf effectively and to fulfil our mission there.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
For weeks in the House the question has been whether the minister did or did not reach an agreement with Premier Grant Devine concerning Rafferty-Alameda. In
his affidavit to the court, the minister said: "Not only did
1	not make any such amending agreement I could not have as any agreement to amend the January 26, 1990 agreement would have required the approval of cabinet."
Now we have the court decision revealing that the original agreement had never been approved by cabinet. Therefore, no amendment to it would have required a cabinet approval.
In light of that, does the minister stand by his statement to the court, will he repeat it in the House or correct it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said to the House time and time again.
There was no agreement reached on September 5. There were a number of discussions held. There was a document left for me to study and to have my officials review. It is exactly what I said in the affidavit. I stand by it, and I stand by everything I have said in the House.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister said repeatedly in the House on November
2	that he wants the January 22, 1990 agreement to be respected. We now find out through the court that that agreement was never approved by cabinet and therefore, according to the court, it is unenforceable.
When did the minister learn that this agreement had not been approved by cabinet? When did he know it might not be enforceable? Why did he continue to depend on this agreement for his whole case against Rafferty-Alameda?


Robert René de Cotret: When the panel finally resigned because work was ongoing beyond what it believed to be the safety level, we immediately sought an injunction. It was refused, and I have announced today in the House that we will seek leave to appeal the decision to clarify that situation.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
A few days ago, the Ottawa Citizen reported that a group of public servants was preparing a series of major constitutional amendments to change the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that information today? If that is the case, when will these proposals be submitted to the Spicer Commission?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Citizens' Forum has been established to obtain the views of all Canadians from all parts of the country. It is expected that that process should take place to get a clear sense of what Canadians want and what they believe are important elements in furthering the development of a stronger Canadian federation. It is in that context that we want this process to move ahead.
I think the hon. member would understand that it has not been charged with the responsibility of bringing forth a constitutional amendment. That can only be done by the government of the day in collaboration with the provinces. Of course, I think it would be prudent, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, that we get some expression of feeling from the Citizens' Forum before we embark upon any kind of exercise in proposing further constitutional amendments. That is the position of the government.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple and I ask the Minister to say yes or no.
Oral Questions
Is there a group of public servants working behind closed doors to prepare constitutional amendments while Mr. Spicer goes to the public and pretends that he is listening to them? Is the government doing a parallel exercise behind closed doors? Has it learned anything from Meech Lake?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: What the answer?


André Ouellet: An article in The Ottawa Citizen states that there are public servants preparing constitutional amendments.
My question was veiy simple, Mr. Speaker. Are these people working behind closed doors and, if they are, when are they going to produce their document? Will the Spicer Commission be appraised of what the government is preparing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member wants a simple yes or no. I think I gave him a very simple answer. It would be, in our view, totally imprudent to embark upon a parallel process at this time which would advance suggestions for constitutional amendment before hearing from Canadians from coast to coast.
I agree with the hon. member. Quite simply, the Meech Lake process may very well have failed because of the lack of broad-based public input.


Some hon. members:: What is the answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, the answer is clearly no. The fact of the matter is that we have a process in place. We want that process to work and, if it is necessary to develop recommendations for constitutional amendment, the government will act in a responsible fashion, as it would be expected to do.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench rejected the sworn evidence of Environment Canada that irreparable harm to the environment will result from the continued construction of the Raffety-Alame-da project. There are grounds for the appeal, as the Minister has pointed out, but, like the Oldman dam in

November 19, 1990
Oral Questions
Alberta, the project may well be completed before the court finally rules, making the assessment no more than a coroner's inquest.
Has the Minister asked the Prime Minister to call the Premier of Saskatchewan to ask for a delay, to use the political process instead of the courts, and delay the project to allow for irreparable harm to be assessed? Or, is irreparable harm as acceptable to the Prime Minister as it apparently is to Premier Devine?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have answered to some of my colleagues across the way earlier today, we are taking every legal step necessary to ensure that the full review process be conducted.
I fully understand that there are elements in this case which suggest that we can launch a successful appeal and allow the process of full environmental review to be completed. That is what we are engaged in and we hope to be able to succeed in that effort.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Rafferty-Alameda project is being constructed under a second federal licence under the International Rivers Improvement Act.
Does the Minister really expect the Canadian public to believe that the federal government has no power to amend, to suspend, or to rescind the federal licence, keeping in mind that this is the second one that has been issued by the federal government, in order to allow for an assessment of irreparable harm to the Canadian environment? Does the Minister expect anyone in Canada to believe that irreparable harm means anything and then the government does nothing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the facts in this matter are very clear with respect to the licence. I mentioned them earlier and I will mention them again.
The licence was issued. The licence contains a number of conditions. In fact, I believe there are some 22 conditions to the licence. All of them, to date, have been respected and it is totally illegal for the Government of Canada to move unilaterally to revoke the licence at this point.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, and it concerns Canada's sovereignty in matters relating to our energy policy.

For the second time in as many weeks, Premier Bob Rae has sold out Canada by giving provincial approval for the takeover of Consumers Gas by British Gas.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the federal Minister of Industry if he is prepared to step in where Bob Rae fears to tread? Is he prepared to use his considerable powers, under Investment Canada, to block the takeover of Consumers Gas by British Gas?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say to the hon. member for Hamilton East that I will step in, not only with Premier Rae, but with former Premier Peterson who accepted the deal before he was defeated.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I can only anticipate that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology will follow my advice of last week and instruct Investment Canada to block the sale. If he does intend to block the sale, can he give us his instructions to Investment Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course not, because we consider, as did the Government of Ontario twice, that foreign investors are not a sin for Canada because they can provide a lot of benefits. It was considered as such by both governments in Ontario and we think that they were right. That is why we accepted the deal.
My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East, should know that investments are good for Canada and we would hope that she will support that kind of deal.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr, Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns the continuing conflict of interest by the resigned Hamilton Harbour Commissioner, Peter Lush.
The legal opinion of a Toronto law firm, commissioned by the Minister of Transport, confirms that Hamilton Harbour Commission Chairman Peter Lush was in a continuing conflict of interest from day one.
How could the minister, a lawyer and the former Attorney General of Canada, have stood in his place and repeatedly denied the obvious? Will the minister admit that by ignoring the facts he was, in fact, part of the problem?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the allegations were first brought to my attention last March, we dealt with the situation to the satisfaction of all involved, including my hon. friend who first raised the matter.
When further allegations were brought to my attention, I engaged a lawyer from a reputable Toronto firm who rendered a decision which indicated that, in his opinion, there was a breach of conflict of interest.
I am in the process of writing to all the Crown agencies which have conflict of interest guidelines to apprise them of the report by the lawyer whom we commissioned.
Mr. Lush has resigned from the commission. The report has been made available to the RCMP and an investigation is ongoing. We consider the matter closed.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in fact, what the minister said in a most recent exchange with me was, and I quote: "I looked into the allegations of last March", when I raised the issue nine months ago, "and found them to be untrue". Then he says he will look into this one, and I will bet the same answer stands. And yet, by the transport minister's own hand commissioning a law firm in Toronto to look into this-


An hon. member:: A Tory firm.
Oral Questions


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: -the breach is there.
My supplementary is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Peter Lush has said that he would not have become a harbour commissioner if it meant giving up his listings, but the government made the appointment anyway. Since 1987, Mr. Lush has received over half a million dollars in commission fees while in a continuing conflict of interest. Will the Deputy Prime Minister seek to reclaim those moneys and then dismiss his Minister of Transport?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the report has been made available to the Hamilton Harbour Commission. Any further action of a civil nature would be up to the commission. I am sure that they will review this matter with their counsel.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This government claims that the GST is going to help manufacturing companies in this country. Yet manufacturers which process and re-export U.S. goods, like Dart Machinery and ARD Industries which told me last week that on the contrary, the GST will hurt them badly. Why has the government forced these firms to pay GST when at this stage they do not pay the manufacturers' sales tax? Does the minister not realize that there is going to be serious damage to them in their competition with U.S. counterparts as a result?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it really does surprise me that the hon. member would ask this type of question. He is a member of the finance committee. He has participated in the studies of the GST. I am sure he knows that the GST will lower the cost of capital for all manufacturing companies, and for those manufacturing companies they are selling to.
I should also point out to him that there is indirect federal tax that these companies do not get credit for that they will get a credit for under the GST. This will result in substantial savings for them, a reduction in their cost of doing business and an improvement of their competitive position internationally.

November 19, 1990
Oral Questions
If my hon. friend does not believe what I have to say, maybe he should speak to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which since the middle fifties have been after successive governments to remove the existing sales tax and, most recently, bring in a tax like the GST for the very simple reason that it will improve the position of manufacturing companies in Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps, if the hon. minister does not believe me, he should talk to the dozens of firms across this country which are going to be hit hard as inward processors by this change in taxation. We are talking about thousands of auto parts and machinery jobs. The government has known about this problem since last May. Why has it refused to listen? Why did it introduce regulations on October 29 that make these manufacturing firms pay GST when he knows that this is going to damage these companies, their employees and their communities right across this country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a distortion of the impact of the goods and services tax on manufacturing companies. It is true that manufacturing companies do get credit for the direct manufactured sales tax that they pay on their cost of doing business, but it is also true that the manufacturing companies get no credit for the indirect federal sales tax that they are already paying today.


Steven W. Langdon: You missed the point.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: He says I miss the point. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member misses the point.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The mayors and other authorities of Makivik and Kativik, communities in the Nunavut region in Northern Quebec, are concerned about the implementation of the GST in Northern Quebec. Could the Minister of Finance inform the House today how the GST will affect the people of Nunavut in Northern Quebec?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the GST will be replacing an existing sales tax which already causes costs and prices in northern parts of the country to be increased. There will be credits against the payments made on transportation, transportation costs that are inflated today by the federal sales tax on fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuels.
I should also say to the hon. member that the changes the government has brought forward in relation to the northern benefits allowance for people living in northern parts of the country is also a benefit to a number of people who previously did not receive that particular benefit.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. Canadians from the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Labrador and northern Quebec are in Ottawa today because they do not agree with the minister's concept of what this tax will do to them.
In Canada's northern communities, the cost of living can be up to twice what it is in the rest of Canada.
Given that the GST for northerners is going to be piled on top of their much higher cost of living expenses, will the minister at least be honest enough to admit that the GST is one more discriminatory blow against northern Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat some of the same points I made in answer to my colleague just this minute. There is tax that is already in the cost to people who live in the north. The cost of food as an example includes tax today. That tax will be removed as a result of the GST so my hon. friend is wrong when he only focuses on certain elements of the sales tax system in the country.
I would also tell my friend that because the GST will benefit resource industries, which are important employers in the northern parts of the country, it will improve the economy of northern parts of the country because of the benefits it will have for resource sectors.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when is this minister going to realize that his responsibilities extend to all Canadians, not just his few remaining friends on Bay Street? When is he going to listen to these people who have come to us from the north and
November 19, 1990

who know what the impact of the GST is going to be on them? Will the minister, please, at least listen to Canadians, especially to northern Canadians who are going to suffer most under his tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member completely neglects the impact of the GST credit on people who are living in the north. Many people in the north will receive the benefits of the GST credit, which will put them in a better position after the GST is in place than is the case now.
I say to the hon. member that if he is interested in helping those people, he will go down the hall and speak to the senators because the senators are clearly not listening to Jean Chretien. They are ignoring Jean Chretien. The senators down the hall are holding up the introduction of the GST with the GST credit.


CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE AGREEMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Today, the countries of NATO and the Warsaw Pact have concluded an historic agreement to significantly cut military forces in Europe and have virtually ended the cold war.
As a result of this treaty, I would like to ask the minister what will be the impact on Canada's military and foreign policy. In particular, what are the government's plans to redeploy Canadian forces in Europe, either to bring them home or to give them a new role as a result of these significant changes?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague's question. Again, it is recognized that the signing of the CFE treaty is indeed an historic event. I was there when they started this discussion a year and a half ago. We were all delighted at the outcome.
I think the hon. member also realizes that the reductions provided for in the first CFE are primarily on the eastern European side. On the NATO side, they are not as considerable at this point in time. Although all the
Oral Questions
details are not known, we do not expect that it will actually affect our Canadian troops in Europe.
Nevertheless, we have already decided that we are going to be reducing our forces by about 1,400. We will be looking, as we proceed, with CFE-IA as to what the potential impacts on Canadian military participation in Europe might be. I would also like to advise my hon. colleague that one role that Canada will be playing as a result of the CFE agreement is in the area of verification. We have taken an active part and we look forward to participating in what we think can be very important long-term benefits for the security of Europe through that participation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the government produced a white paper on defence policy which was based on a cold war scenario.
As a result of today's treaty and other changes in Europe, when will the government officially withdraw this white paper and put in place a process to develop a new defence policy consistent with today's agreement and other emerging threats to world security? When are we going to have some changes in this defence policy consistent with today's world?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world has changed dramatically in the past year. These are changes that I do not think anyone could anticipate. That obviously has impacts on our military strategy for the future.
That is why we have been undertaking a very intensive defence policy review and will be continuing that work and, hopefully, bringing it to a conclusion in early 1991.
My colleague will recognize that events in the Persian Gulf have an impact on this. We have to consider our military strategy with respect to Canada and its relationships in the total world, not just in Europe. That work is proceeding and we look forward to discussions with the defence committee and other colleagues, hopefully in the new year.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, section 281 of the National Defence Act calls for a provincial inquiry in a report to the Secretary of State whenever Canadian forces are requisitioned by a province to deal with riot or civil disturbance.

November 19, 1990
Privilege
Is the minister satisfied with the Quebec government's two page typewritten report, in the absence of an inquiry, as meeting the requirements of the National Defence Act, and justifying the expense of 22 million tax dollars, the embarrassment of Canada internationally, and a legacy of bitterness between Canada and its native peoples?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, the National Defence Act does not actually say what kind of a report. The report has been provided. I would not want to comment on that further.
What I want to say is that, as the hon. member knows, our Armed Forces personnel were used to assist in aid to civil order at the requisition of the province of Quebec. They carried out their task efficiently and very effectively so that the very difficult issue at Oka was able to be resolved without further bloodshed.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, compared to the $22 million spent on the military solution at Oka, negotiations in good faith would have resulted in the land claims settlement costing approximately $4 million.
Would the minister not admit that the government's failure to negotiate in good faith, and to fulfil commitments it made to the Mohawks many years ago, has resulted in military costs five times in excess of the costs of the land claims solution, in addition to the unquantifiable costs to Canadian society that will be borne for years to come?
The hon. member certainly knows that we are engaged in a process of negotiation with the people of the Mohawk community, the Mohawk Negotiating Coalition at Kanesatake, and the government. As it was doing before the unfortunate events which commenced on July 15, the government will resolve those matters in an honourable fashion on behalf of the Mohawk people at Kanesatake.


CANADA POST
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton

Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Last week in my riding I met with the residents of Fredericton Junction, a small village in New Brunswick. My question revolves around the four-tenths of a kilometre policy in relation to rural mail delivery. The post office has arbitrarily decided that the residents of Fredericton Junction who live four-tenths of a kilometre outside the village will now have to have rural mail delivery.
This creates some problems. It is a village that has mostly senior citizens. The physical construction of that town will make it virtually impossible for those residents to erect mail boxes. There is plenty of room in the existing post offices for them to continue to walk to the village post office to receive their mail.
Will the minister send one of his officials, a senior official, to Fredericton Junction to look at the circumstances of that town personally? Also, will he examine the flexibility of that system?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post offers every Canadian one mode of delivery free of charge, be it door to door, community mailbox, rural route or general delivery. From time to time changes are made, people move and so on, but the general policy is to provide that which has been provided historically.
If the hon. member is suggesting that the policy is not being offered here in an even-handed manner, I will certainly get in touch with Canada Post and ask it to look into the matter. It is a Crown corporation. I cannot order it to do so, but I am sure it will respond to my request.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On October 22, 1990 the member for Western Arctic presented a motion to the House which was adopted by unanimous consent. The
November 19, 1990

motion called for the subject matter of the events at Kanesatake and Kahnawake during the summer of 1990 to be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
My concern arises from statements made by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to the media following the last meeting. He said in part, and I am quoting from The Hill Times: "I am not saying that somebody shouldn't look into this. I am saying at this stage the committee has a full agenda".
In the reporter's words, the member for Macleod said to the committee that the committee had a heavy agenda and could not deal with every issue. "He has suggested in the past that some issues could be handled by the justice committee".
The statements by the member for Macleod to The Hill Times lead me to the conclusion that he is not interested in having the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs act on the terms of reference presented to his committee by unanimous resolution of the House, or else he feels that someone else should deal with the issue.
I am concerned that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is interfering with the corporate right of this House to require committees to undertake reviews. Such interference can only be contemptuous of the authority of this House.
I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the following questions. Can a committee refuse terms of reference referred to it by unanimous resolution of the House? Can a committee only examine a narrow aspect of the terms of reference assigned by the House rather than the subject matter in broad terms, as stated by the resolution in the House? Third, can a committee give low priority to the terms of reference assigned by the House in unanimous motion?
This is a matter of urgent concern for members. If we were to pass legislation with respect to the health and safety of airline passengers, and the airline or government agency decided not to accept the legislation, or to delay implementation, or to assign the legislation a low priority, members would be clamouring to the Speaker demanding action and respect for Parliament's decision. We should expect no less from our own standing committees and their officers.
Privilege


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on this question as chairman of the standing committee. Of course I await your guidance on this, in response to the hon. member's questions and points.
It is important to note in your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the committees are masters of their own fate in making up their agenda. In fact, the committee had an open public meeting the week before last, in which the topics to be determined or the terms of reference for the committee activity were discussed in public. We agreed at that point to come back at an early opportunity to discuss further the terms of reference of this particular study.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, for you to know that the committee is currently in the process of discussing the terms of reference of this committee in this particular study and other issues on its agenda.
It is also important to note that the most recent meeting was held in public, which meeting was reported on by the media, and that subsequently comments were made by members from all sides of the House. I just wanted to bring those matters to your attention, Sir.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have heard enough. First of all, it is not a question of privilege, but I have listened carefully because I did not know quite where it might finally end up. It is not a question of privilege and, as hon. members know, it is not the place for the Speaker to interfere with committees.
Having said that, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Macleod. The reason that I listened very carefully was that it is clear to me that the committee is still considering the matter.
I have said before that while the rule is that generally speaking, and certainly in most circumstances, it is not for a Speaker to interfere with the workings of the committee, I of course assume, having said that, that the committee is working. The hon. member for Macleod has made it clear that the matter is under consideration.
I am not saying today that if what was brought before me was an absolute defiance of an order of this House I might not have a different view of the matter.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I should rise to inform the House that the city of Vancouver this weekend had a referendum on the GST, and it was 15 per cent in favour and-


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly appreciate the interest of the hon. member to advise the House of what is going on in the city from whence I come, but I do not think that that is a point of order.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period, of which I have given you notice. I have also notified the Minister of Industiy, Science and Technology-
In fact, during the course of Question Period the minister of industry made a statement which was false. He stated falsely in the House that the previous Liberal government had in fact approved the takeover of Consumers Gas by British Gas. We have been in touch with not only the former premier himself but also the treasurer. That is a false statement.
I am sure that the minister of industiy would not want a false statement to remain on the record. I would like to invite him to use this opportunity to correct the record and to put the facts on the table, that his statement during Question Period was patently false.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I said that the Premier- I did not say the government or the Ontario Cabinet- I said that Premier Peterson agreed with the Consumers Gas proposal, and he confirmed this during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that what I said was true. I will make further inquiries, but I repeat, I maintain what I said during Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a false statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members would help the Chair.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. member for Hamilton East has said. I have now listened to the hon. minister. I am going to examine the "blues" carefully and, if it is necessary, I will come back to the Chamber. I may even hear further argument.
I do not need to hear further argument this afternoon. I am going to look at the "blues" and, if necessary, I will hear further argument.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Laszlo Surjan, Minister of Health of Hungary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table the legal opinion respecting Mr. P. G. Lush, former member and chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.


ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
November 19, 1990

Routine Proceedings


PETITIONS
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 33 petitions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table in the House two documents on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The first is pursuant to Standing Order 109.1 table, in both official languages, the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, which was prepared by that committee's subcommittee on international debt and entitled Securing our Global Future: Canada's Stake in the Unfinished Business of Third World Debt.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour, this time pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), to table, in both official languages, the Fifth Annual Report on the Administration and Observance of the Code of Conduct Concerning the Employment Practices of Canadian Companies Operating in South Africa.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I wish to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation which attended the fourth meeting of the Indigenous Parliament for the Americas in Guatemala City from October 8 to October 12, 1990. This was an international meeting of indigenous members of Parliament which provided an opportunity for parliamentarians to meet on matters of common interest.
Four major topics were discussed this year, including the desire of indigenous peoples to become more involved in environmental matters, in particular the UN conference scheduled for Brazil in 1992.
Other resolutions concerned the ILO Convention 169, human rights violations and the fifth centenary commemoration for 1492.
I am also pleased to report that Canada will be host to the fifth meeting of this parliament.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill S-14, an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons without amendment.

November 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings


REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-72
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to chair the legislative committee on Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission. At this time I would like to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-72, an act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.
In passing, I would like to give my personal thanks to members on all sides who participated in the deliberations and hearings of the legislative committee. Members dealt expeditiously with the legislation, which should have important implications for the north and for the Arctic areas.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
Neil Young: I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, presented to the House on Monday, June 18, 1990 be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.


Neil Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that this report should be adopted. Why do we have to debate such a motion if we all agree that it should be adopted?


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is in a sense correct. We all agree with this report. My hon. colleague from Beaches-Woodbine wants to indicate a few concerns that go beyond the report, but we are quite prepared to vote on concurrence later today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my only point is that since we all agree, I hardly see the use of having a debate.
However, if we are going to have a debate, I want to make sure that the member for Hamilton-Mountain will have a chance to make the remarks she wants to put to this motion. I understand that the government wants to put a speaker up also. If we all agree to having the motion now put to a vote, we will adopt it without debate, but if it has to be debated, let us make an agreement that we all have a chance to speak to this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sony to interrupt, but until it receives further notice, the Chair feels it has sufficient grounds to recall that even if the motion has been adopted, a member may speak to it if he so wishes.
I therefore recognize the hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine. First, however, the Government Whip has the floor.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that from the government point of view, the cabinet has reviewed the document and is quite in favour of all the recommendations. All members on our side would adopt the report and we could move on to other business of importance to the nation. When we are all in agreement like this, it does seem to be a bit of a bad use of the $2 million a day, or whatever it is it costs this place to debate something that we are all agreed to in the first place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with a whole set of recommendations regarding the disabled people of Canada, I do not think we need to feel we have to act quickly. A lot of thought went into this.
I have listened to the Liberal and Conservative spokespersons. May I suggest that we have one round of speakers each if they wish.
As a matter of fact we have offered that for many days. This does not come as a surprise. We have clearly indicated that this is our inclination, to allow us to get on with business, and yet have an important discussion by hearing from each of the political parties about the concerns of the disabled of Canada. I do not think that is expecting too much.
November 19, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I appreciate the comments of hon. members, but once again, the Chair has no choice but to apply the Standing Orders, and I recognize the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
First, however, the Opposition House Leader has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chair is in a delicate position, but nevertheless, the NDP House Leader did suggest that we hear one speaker from each party. I think you would find that this proposal would meet with the unanimous consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the House agree with this proposal?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I therefore recognize the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that even the motion itself caused some controversy. We happen to be talking about over three million Canadians who have a disability of one form or another. I would have thought the House would have welcomed an opportunity to say a few words not only about the report of the committee itself, but also of the response from the government to that report.
The committee report I referred to is the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. It is entitled The Consensus for Action for the Economic Integration of Disabled Persons.
This report in a very clear, concise, unambiguous way reflects the frustration, impatience and even the anger of the disabled population in this country. I have been on this committee for some 10 years, since its inception, and it is the first time that I have sensed that deep sense of frustration among that important segment of Canada's population.
What this support does, Mr. Speaker, is not only offer an analysis of what the problems are in terms of government policy, or the lack of it, but it offers very concrete ways in which we can get at these problems. In
Routine Proceedings
that respect, this report has a very short list of six recommendations. It is not a wish list. It is not a shopping list. It is six very clear, concrete recommendations on what should happen between now and next June, National Access Awareness Week. It is as simple as that. It is not a very complicated report. It is very blunt. It is very clear, and it deserves a much more full response from the government than what we got a week or so ago on November 6.
Mr. Speaker, after reading the government's response I really wonder whether the people who wrote that response had even read the report. If they had read it, they certainly did not understand what that report was saying, or what the disabled community in Canada have been saying to this committee, this government, provincial governments, municipal governments and regional governments over the years. This report was not by way of giving advice to the government. It was a report to urge the government to take action over inequities that have existed within this community for at least the last 10 or 11 years since the Obstacles report first identified these problems. That was the purpose of that report.
We have had advice coming out of our ears over the last 10 or so years and this report did not have to give any other further advice. The advice is there for anyone to see. The advice is contained in the Obstacles report, in the Obstacles progress report, in the report Surmounting Obstacles, it is in the National Policy on Transportation of the Disabled, which by the way was adopted by this Parliament in 1983. It was the Amelia report, Mr. Speaker, which you will recall dealt with employment opportunities. It was dealt with in the all-party report again, Equality for All. I could on and on about the countless reports and documentation that has been presented to this House.
I would be the last one to argue that there have not been some changes made in the last 10 or 11 years since the Obstacles report came out. However, I would make the argument that an awful lot of these changes have been marginal at best and very many have been cosmetic. There have been cosmetic changes and very marginal. That, again, is unfortunate and indeed sad.
In the government's response to this latest report, and especially to the six recommendations, they made a positive response on one and that is welcomed; that is to

Routine Proceedings
fund a post-census survey of issues affecting Canada's disabled in the next census. That report is welcomed and it is extremely important because it will finally give us information so that we can talk to government departments and, indeed, cabinet ministers can use that very important information to formulate needed policies and to bring forward programs after they have had that information.
However, on balance the rest of the government's response was, to say the least, disappointing and extremely sad. The government response followed every cliche and argument that has been followed by every other previous minister in every other previous government. I would say it was a lack of response. They used exactly the same language that the previous government used to appease not only the committee but the people who were addressing the committee, who were coming to us with the problems, as they saw it, looking for some kind of redress.
One of the major problems in the government's response has been one that we recognized when we were dealing with the Obstacles report. We initially made those 130 recommendations on what we felt should be done to address the problems that society has, let alone the disabled community, because those problems affect us all. The one central problem is the lack of accountability. It is the lack of action, even if there is an expressed political will among cabinet ministers individually or collectively to do something concrete about these concerns. That is the key problem.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you go back to the original Obstacles report, you will find that the committee addressed that concern. Based on experiences gathered in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, where governments who had been a bit ahead of ourselves in many of these respects had told us that nothing would happen in a very positive way unless first of all a minister of the Crown was given sole responsibility, a policeman if you will, to make sure that not only other cabinet members but people in cabinet offices and in various government departments did what they were asked to do by the politicians. Based on their own experiences over the last 10 or 11 years, I suspect that is the one element that has been missing.
I am not saying it is being done in a bad way, but I am saying that the pressure has not been there. There has
not been a process of accountability set up to make sure that people are doing what they are supposed to be doing. That is why we are still having problems with integration, both economic and social integration. That is the key problem and that is why we took the time to address those concerns in this particular report. The whole accountability question dominates this report. That is why we chose to title this report A Consensus for Action.
In the last year or so, we have heard not only from people in the disability community, but we heard from government bureaucrats, ministers, and a whole range of people in the public sector. We are convinced that there is a public political will to support change. There is no question about that. The problem comes from those people who are supposed to develop policy and make sure that policy is being enacted so that the political will that we have observed is actually carried out.
I have some examples of where the political will exists, at least on paper. The Throne Speech of November 5, 1984, insofar as-it affects disabled Canadians, stated:
It is time to recognize also the responsibility we all share to bring those amongst us who suffer from physical and mental disabilities into the productive mainstream of Canadian life.
That is a clear-stated government polity on November 5, 1984.
Now I will come to October 1,1986. In another Speech from the Throne, the government stated that "Canadians recognize the courage and talent of our disabled citizens. Inspired by the example of Rick Hansen, we are made more aware of the potential for new directions and initiatives to aid the disabled."
On the next page it goes on to state: "Honourable members, you will be asked to consider amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which will represent further progress in the long march of this nation towards full equality."
That was in 1986. The government again, a week and a half ago, said exactly the same thing. What is the problem? Why are we not seeing these amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act? It is a relatively simple demand. It is clearly understood. It is accepted by government. Why not do it? That is the second Speech from the Throne.
November 19, 1990

Now we come to 1988. If one recalls, it was a very short speech because the government had only one item on its agenda at that time. Again, in only two lines it said:
My government is determined to secure the benefits of economic opportunity for this and future generations of Canadians.
That was in 1988. I would assume that that also included disabled Canadians.
Again, on April 3, 1989, it was mentioned. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it was reduced to one-and-three-quarters lines by this time. It stated:
It must make full participants of disabled persons and visible minorities. It is imperative that literacy initiatives, education, training and retraining of Canada's work force, especially our youth, reflect the requirements of a modem economy.
The Liberals before them made the same kind of statements that they wanted to do the same kind of good work for disabled Canadians. Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting. The problem is not just words.
If we wanted words, there are all kinds of nice words floating around. Everybody says nice things about the disabled community. What is absent is action. The words are very nice and they are very welcome, but it would be a hell of a lot better if we had some action tied to these words.
I want to give some examples about what happened and has happened successively since the tabling of the Obstacles report, and the government of the day's response to that report. Here is what the committee report says in reference to that.
Two years after the report was released, a gap showed up between the expectations of those committed to the findings in the report and the will of those responsible for the implementation of the recommendations. Initially, in December 1981, the government responded enthusiastically and made commitments to act on over 80 recommendations of the Obstacles report. In Surmounting Obstacles-that was the government's response- which was released in 1983, the government indicated action or active consideration of all recommendations in the original report, except those that were withdrawn or were outside federal jurisdiction. Where no direct implementation of the recommendations was undertaken, Surmounting Obstacles repeatedly stated that reviews
Routine Proceedings
were being undertaken, that data was being gathered, or that discussions were under way.
That is exactly what the minister's response was a week and a half ago. Exactly the same.
What the committee said in respect to the previous government's response was that this was a polite way of saying that many of the recommendations in Obstacles were quietly being shelved.
The gap between these expectations and the actions has widened ever since. It does not have to be that way.
I want to give a perfect example about what we are talking about here. In the government's response of a week and a half ago, an awful lot of emphasis was placed on how government agencies and departments, et cetera, were working together and what a really great job they were doing.
I want to read a letter that I received from the British Columbia Coalition of the Disabled, dated September 6, 1990. This letter was originally sent to Max Yalden, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It states:
Dear Mr. Yalden:
Re: Access to Crab Park for persons with disabilities-
We are extremely displeased with the Vancouver Port Authority's proposed plan to address the lack of access for persons with disabilities to Crab Park.
The Vancouver Port Authority is a federal agency. The letter continues:
The access design they are recommending is totally inappropriate and has been rejected by the community and professional engineers for some considerable time.
You may not be aware of the thousands of volunteer hours that have gone into seeking an appropriate solution to this problem. Since December, 1986, community groups have organized public meetings, written briefs, lobbied all levels of government, canvassed the surrounding district and held demonstration picnics-
Three years ago, when Ms Joan Meister filed her complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act we endorsed her position and have remained active in the ongoing community and municipal meetings.
According to the professional advice we have received and the consultations we have conducted, the Columbia Street overpass is the only viable solution to the access

November 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
problem. For this plan to be operational it is essential that the Vancouver Port Authority co-operate fully with the City of Vancouver.
In our opinion, the Vancouver Port Authority has been stonewalling the whole consultative process. Indeed, their latest proposal to you is merely another example of their unwillingness to act in good faith.
We are talking about an access to a public park controlled by a federal authority for disabled Canadians. They want to do this because there is an international congress and exposition for persons with disabilities to be held in that location in the spring of 1992. Among many of the dignitaries who will be at that congress, if we can refer to them in that way, will be the Prime Minister. What kind of message are these people sending to the disabled community?
I see it is indicated that my time is up, but I want to end with just one other brief policy area and that is with respect to the refunds under the GST that is proposed.
Many people will remember that the last time we made amendments to the Canada Pension Plan to improve pensions for people with disabilities, the federal Parliament authorized a substantial increase. By the time it got to the provincial level, provincial governments were grabbing the money. They were saying simply that this was a payment that had to be calculated when determining provincial benefits, whether it be welfare or disability pensions, and so they deducted an equivalent amount from the payments the province was paying to these people. It ended up a boondoggle to provincial governments, rather than going to help people who had disabilities.
There is a real fear the same thing will happen with the refunds under the GST if it passes. I asked the Minister of National Revenue a month or so ago what he was going to do about this. He said, and I quote:
- the hon. member will know that the federal government cannot control the actions and activities of the provincial government.
Well, that is true and we all know that, but he can certainly sit down and talk to provincial governments and say to them that we do not want them to do this. At the
very least, the Minister of National Revenue should be doing that. But he is unwilling to do even that.
I would ask every member of the House, not only to support this report in principle, but to sit down, read it, and lobby within our own caucuses to finally get the policy makers to do something in a concrete way about these very serious issues.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot of merit in the motion of the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine, but what I fail to understand is this. He made the motion asking for six recommendations for the government's consideration, I believe on November 7, and on November 8 he received a reply indicating a very positive response. I think that is only in keeping with the government's record.
I take as one example the co-operation with Rick Hansen and the Man in Motion Society to develop a school package for kindergarten to Grade 8, the Discover Together Program. Our government has done all kinds of things for the disabled people of Canada. I think they have come to know this and, in fact, a school is named after Rick Hansen in my riding of London- Middlesex.
Canadians can see the government is committed to those less fortunate and our record speaks for that. In light of that, when the member got those six positive responses, I wonder why he is taking time up today to debate this motion. He knows that we are in agreement for people who find themselves in this situation and, indeed, are doing everything we can to make Canada's society more fulfilling for all Canadians.


Neil Young: Well, if the hon. member had listened to what I said, he would know I said that I think political will existed. That is what I said.
I perhaps should have said at the beginning, and I mean this sincerely, that committee on disabled issues is probably the most non-partisan committee the House has ever seen. There was nothing partisan in me putting forward this motion. In fact, I do not think I used a partisan term or word in the course of my whole 20-minute discourse.
What I do say is that pointing a finger at this little item, or that little item, or another little item, is largely cosmetic. We want to see it become an integral part of government thinking-and I am not talking about just

the cabinet, but the government thinking policy-makers-to consider the disabled community when they are making decisions.
I wonder if the hon. member knows that, in the recent initiative on developing employment opportunities in Canada by Employment and Immigration, the disabled community was not even mentioned and was not even thought of. It was not until they mounted an argument and a lobby that they began to be even included. That is the kind of thing we want changed, not only in the federal government, but in provincial and municipal governments.
If the hon. member sincerely feels that we should not be using the time of the House to debate such an important matter, that is fine with me, he does not have to participate in the debate. But I would urge him to do so because this matter is of so much importance to the way we, the able-bodied, see Canada, that unless we come to terms with these very key arguments, I do not think we will come to recognize the problem let alone the solutions.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of the government today to join in the concurrence in the motion that is before us and to acknowledge the valuable work of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons in their report A Consensus for Action-The Economic Integration of Disabled Persons. I want to underline the government's commitment to the objectives of the economic integration for Canadians with disabilities.
On November 8 the Secretary of State for Canada tabled with the House of Commons the government's positive response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and The Status of Disabled Persons. It was tabled in written form, as is the usual way, but it was also tabled in video form so that those persons who are unable to read the written word are able to appreciate the report also.
Every member of the House recognizes that 13 per cent of our population with disabilities, some 3.2 million Canadians, have a long way yet to go before they can achieve the same rights to access and participation in the life of our society and country that most of us take for
Routine Proceedings
granted. Nowhere is that more evident than when it comes to the question of economic integration. Persons with disabilities are among the poorest members of our society. Sixty per cent of the disabled in the 1986 census reported incomes under $10,000, and their participation rate in the paid labour force is only slightly above half of that of adult Canadians without a disability.
Without economic integration, very few Canadians with disabilities will ever know economic independence, and without that independence, participation in society will seldom be realized.
We know that within the disabled community of Canada there is a resource of talent and ability which, given the opportunity, can not only improve the lives of persons with disabilities themselves, but also contribute significantly to our society's growth and prosperity.
These are the beliefs reflected in the recommendations of the standing committee's report. When the government tabled its response to the standing committee's report on November 8, my colleague, the Secretary of State, clearly signalled its commitment to the chairperson of the standing committee, the hon. member for Oxford. I am so pleased that he is in the House today. He has shown nearly 20 years of commitment to the disabled community and he is to be commended for that tremendous work.
The government also shared in that letter to the chairman of the committee that we would build on the beliefs of those recommendations addressing the needs of persons with disabilities.
Let us look at the standing committee's recommendation and the government's positive response to them.
Recommendation one of the standing committee called for the Government of Canada to work with the committee, the voluntary sector, the private sector, labour and with the disabled community itself to bring forward a national strategy to achieve the economic integration of persons with disabilities.
What was the government response? In no uncertain terms the government pledged itself to the objective of economic integration. It pledged that not only would the minister responsible for the disabled work in partnership toward this goal, but that the Ministers of Health and

Routine Proceedings
Welfare, Employment and Immigration, and Finance, would be partners in that work as well.
The obligation is given in the same sense of partnership through which the government supported the establishment of the standing committee itself.
One might also remember that it was this government which established National Access Awareness Week. That week is yet another model of the partnership called for in the standing committee report and has already, since its inception, led to new initiatives across our society to create better access for Canadians with disabilities.
Let us turn to recommendation two of the committee report. The recommendation calls for an effective crossgovernment mechanism to ensure constant monitoring, advocacy and co-ordination of policy, legislation and regulations on behalf of persons with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the only way to deliver such a mechanism and ensure its effectiveness is to engage the permanent members of the Public Service in the process. That is why we have already responded to this recommendation by establishing a committee of deputy ministers charged with this responsibility.
This committee will review regulations and policy and legislation before they become cast in iron. They will catch errors and discriminatory practices before they are put into effect. The idea is to create a mechanism which is proactive, not reactive. I believe this committee of deputy ministers will forge ahead in this regard.
Recommendation two and the government's response is to reflect the concerns of government, this House and the disabled community to establish a proactive mechanism as the heart of government, in particular for the future.
But what about existing legislation which may not reflect the needs of persons with disabilities; which may even support and sustain barriers between Canadians with disabilities and further integration?
This is the concern of recommendation three of the committee's report, which is addressed by calling for a comprehensive review of legislation and regulations and changes where necessary.
This is a truly mammoth undertaking, and I am sure that the committee, the chairman and former chairman of the committee realize how big a job this really is. It cannot be reasonably accomplished overnight, but it will be accomplished because if it is not, the whole process and purpose of monitoring and co-ordinating policy and regulations on behalf of persons with disabilities is indeed meaningless.
Our objective is to change, and it will happen. The government has already indicated in its response to recommendation three the scope of this review and its objectives. It has also stated that areas of legislation identified by the disabled community itself will receive priority consideration.
Recommendation four of the standing committee report concerns employment equity. I can well understand the frustration of some at what they may see as the slow pace of change within the federal government under employment equity.
I think it is important for all of us not to lose sight of the fact that even though the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1985, it is still only now coming into effect. But after the three-year waiting period and the first annual returns, we are beginning to come to a full evaluation and assessment of the policy and how it is working.
I believe it is working. Two years ago when the first annual report was tabled, only one employer within the jurisdiction of employment equity failed to report. Today, that company faces a $50,000 fine.
On the other side of the coin, however, more than 1,200 government suppliers have now signed certificates of commitment to employment equity.
In the federal Public Service itself, there are also advances. Between December 1988 and December 1989, the representation of people with disabilities in the management category rose some 1.8 per cent and 3.4 per cent in the administrative support category. In the same period full and part-time public servants with disabilities in indeterminate positions rose by 2.8 per cent and 2.7 per cent respectively.
On the committee's fifth recommendation, this government is the first to recognize that if we are to be serious in the objective of achieving economic integration or any integration for persons with disabilities, we cannot afford to ignore the role other levels of government can and must play in this work.
November 19, 1990

Integration happens on the local level. It happens in towns and communities and in our neighbourhoods. Access and participation are not abstracts, they concern the services, the localities of every-day life: transport, housing, recreation facilities, commerce, and the workplace.
It is the responsibility of all levels of government to work together within their jurisdictions to make integration happen. We cannot proceed to make changes and amendments in one area or at one level if we ignore the need for changes at others.
Again, this is precisely the approach the federal government has pursued in the past and will continue to pursue in the future.
As our response to the committee points out, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services are at this time conducting a co-ordinated review of those services as they affect Canadians with disabilities. The ministers responsible for human rights have commissioned a report on employment equity initiatives for persons with disabilities. Our government has established the same co-operative partnership at the municipal level through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the promotion of national Access Awareness Week.
These are all solid initiatives. They are forging new awareness to the needs of Canadians with disabilities. They are also making progress in breaking down the barriers of ignorance and discrimination which have so often in the past prevented persons with disabilities from participating and proving their contribution to our society.
In 1986, the government undertook the first in-depth, post-censal survey to better understand the reality of life for those with disabilities. We learned much from that survey. But with that knowledge, we realize how many questions and issues remain unanswered. It is for this reason the government has responded immediately to the call in the standing committee's report for a 1991 post-censal survey as well. This second post-censal survey is very vital indeed. It is an expensive initiative in itself, $8.2 million, but it will be truly money well spent. It will be an invaluable tool in developing the policies to make integration for the disabled community a reality.
Routine Proceedings
I believe that the government has responded to the recommendations of the standing committee in a forthright and positive manner. I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish, on behalf of Canadians with disabilities, over the last six years.
I have mentioned many of those initiatives, but there are others such as the disability tax credit, which provided Canadian with disabilities over $100 million worth of tax credits last year alone; funding of independent living centres; research into transport systems and to promote accessible transportation under federal jurisdiction; the establishment of the status of disabled persons secretariat; the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program; the endowment of a prototype national fellow program at the University of British Columbia; the Discover Together Program developed in partnership with Rick Hansen and the Man in Motion Society to change attitudes about the disabled among children and teachers in our school system; the job accommodation network which provides over 24,000 ideas to help employers make their places of employment accessible to persons with disabilities; and DISC, the Disability Information System of Canada which links disabled persons from coast to coast with a computerized network of information and services as well as with other Canadians concerned with disability issues. And there is much more.
We know that these initiatives are not by themselves going to achieve the integration, the access, and the participation of our society which is the right of all of our citizens, each of us, those with disabilities no less than those without. It is our determination to work together until these objectives are indeed attained. They are solid achievements on the road to that attainment.
The standing committee was determined to set the government an agenda it could not ignore. The government is determined to meet that agenda at every step.
In my closing remarks I would like to applaud the view expressed in the unanimity of the standing committee that the rights of the disabled and the need to integrate these Canadians into the economic and social mainstream of our country are too important to trivialize by making them the subject of partisan debate.

November 19, 1990
Routine Proceedings
It is in this manner that the government has responded to the standing committee report A Consensus for Action, not on behalf of some Canadians, but on behalf of all Canadians and not least the disabled themselves.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine for moving concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. This is an issue which should be non-partisan. By this I mean that all members should support the idea of a better way of life for those Canadians who are physically challenged.
I would like to preface my remarks with a brief history of our committee and how we come to this debate today.
In 1981 the report Obstacles was issued by the Special Committee on the Status of the Disabled, the first study of its kind in Canada. It was considered to be the most comprehensive study of this issue ever conducted by a parliamentary body. Obstacles made 130 recommendations dealing with a wide range of issues from legal, to social, to economic.
The government of the day took action on or gave active consideration to virtually all of the 130 recommendations.
In 1985 a subcommittee on equal rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs conducted a study which led to the recommendations on access to federal buildings and employment in the Public Service and federally regulated corporations. In the government's response Towards Equity, the government cited that it had recently established the Disabled Persons Secretariat under Secretary of State and passed a piece of legislation now know as the Employment Equity Act as initiatives which would better the community.
Finally, in 1987 the government was persuaded to establish a standing committee to deal exclusively with the issue of the status of the disabled. At that time the hon. Deputy Prime Minister committed that his government would increase employment of persons who were disabled in the Public Service to 3.3 per cent and allot $15 million and 400 person-hours to achieve this goal, an initiative which unfortunately Canadians are still awaiting.
In 1988 the new standing committee issued its first report known as No News is Bad News. The committee stated that persons with disabilities were finding it difficult to access information. It recommended that the government act to make publications available in other than print media and to amend the Broadcasting Act.
The second report of this committee is what we hope to concur in today. Each member of this House has some area of responsibility, whether they be a minister of the Crown, a parliamentary secretary to a minister or a critic of a certain portfolio. Unlike most portfolios, however, the Status of the Disabled deals with several ministries and overlaps many departments including Communications, Transport, Employment and Immigration, Health and Welfare, and the Human Rights Commission. I could go on to argue that all ministries touch this issue in some way.
The point is that with all these areas to consider, one would think that consensus would be next to impossible to achieve. Through the political will of committee members, consensus was achieved through the very report which we now debate.
Before committee members reached this consensus they had to ask themselves how parliamentarians could best serve the disabled community. The first and most important step is economic integration. It has often been said that the best social program is a job. With it come pride of achievement, a sense of purpose, and the ability to provide for oneself and family. No individual wants to be dependent on the state, so why implement programs that create disincentives to work?
Given the great number of barriers to the disabled, the Employment Equity Act was a step in the right direction. Although in theory it is a responsible initiative, in practice the current act needs tightening. As this act is scheduled for mandatory review in 1991, I would take this opportunity to urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to establish this review as soon as possible after the new year.
How can we best achieve economic integration? The committee report sets out the basic steps to begin this long overdue process. While we should recognize that this report does not provide the ultimate solution, we must also consider that the road before us is long. A journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

In its first recommendation, the committee urges the government to make economic integration a priority. There seems to be little point in discussing support services until action is taken on economic integration. The government must recognize that people with disabilities can be as productive as those of us without physical limitations.
Given the ever shrinking labour pool to draw from, employers would be well served to start drawing from this community, and this takes government encouragement.
As I have already indicated, this issue crosses many ministerial borders and in fact is affected by almost every act of this Parliament.
In the committee's second and third recommendations we suggest that all existing acts be reviewed in order to facilitate the 3.3 million Canadians with disabilities. We further recommend that all future legislation and regulatory instruments be drafted with these Canadians in mind.
Employment equity provides an opportunity for employers to see just how productive persons with physical limitations can be. By setting the example through the federal Public Service, it is hoped that private industry will follow suit. We must be careful in this area, however, as recently we have seen federally regulated employers double and even triple counting to meet target numbers.
In the committee's fourth recommendation we urge that an internal audit be conducted to determine exactly how effective this program has been.
Not only does the issue of the disabled and their economic integration cross ministerial borders and responsibilities, but it encompasses federal and provincial jurisdictions as well. For this reason the committee recommends that the issue be placed on the agenda of the next First Ministers' Conference to establish what kind of co-operative efforts and programs may be entered into.
As important as the recommendations I have already covered are, the most important and most fundamental is that of funding for research.
How can we set employment equity targets or tailor specific government initiatives and programs if we do not know what the disabled community needs or wants. This
Routine Proceedings
data is crucial to laying the foundation for effective economic integration.
In 1986 the government conducted a post census survey of the disabled. In this study Statistics Canada conducted interviews with over 112,000 Canadians with disabilities. This research generated the data that parliamentarians, departments, and national consumer groups co-operatively work with today.
In February I asked the minister responsible for Statistics Canada if such a study would be conducted after the 1991 census, and at that time he offered no satisfactory answer.
In early October I again asked the minister, who responded that the government still did not have an answer. Several days later I wrote to the minister and was informed that a post census survey would be conducted after the 1991 general census.
It is difficult to believe that so much consideration had to be given to a survey so fundamental to the employment picture across Canada.
All the individuals from the disabled community to whom I have spoken, as well as the national consumer groups, were very pleased to learn that the government intends to act on this survey; that is, until we learned the details. We understand that the budget for the 1991 study will be only 40 per cent of the 1986 budget.
If this government intends to make this issue a priority one would think that this study, which will provide the information necessary for the next 10 years to design government programs effectively, should be more comprehensive than the one conducted four years ago.
The time for talk is over. As the title of the report indicates, we need action, concrete action. Token initiatives such as Action Awareness Week will no longer suffice. Even the corporations, once great advocates and contributors, realize this point.
Recently McDonald's, IBM, and Esso have discontinued their funding for Action Awareness Week, indicating that research, not television and radio commercials, better serves Canadians who are physically challenged.
I am glad that we are having this debate now rather than last June, when the report was tabled. Now that the

Routine Proceedings
government has tabled its response, it gives us a chance to compare and contrast the report with the response.
After reading the government's response and discussing in depth its contents with the many disabled groups it directly affects, I must tell hon. members that it is vague, patronizing and complacent. These are not my words but the words of the national consumer groups.
The response from the government advocates not action but more study and rhetoric. Members of the Official Opposition support action, and action is what the committee report advocates.
We will concur in the committee's report entitled A Consensus for Action and encourage all hon. members to follow our example.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content.
This petition is signed by several dozens of Canadians who object strongly to the fact that the CBC has always provided a balance of Canadian programming of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and taste while offering Canadians the best of foreign radio and television programming.
The petitioners maintain that the CBC provides programming predominantly Canadian in content and character in English and French, serving the special needs of the geographic regions and contributing to the exchange of information and expression among Canadians.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure, as a matter of priority, that the CBC be further strengthened to serve as a primary
instrument of Canadian cultural sovereignty providing high quality service to all Canadians of all expressions.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from residents of Val-D'Or, Hull and Orleans who demand that the Government of Canada scrap the Hill project under which $68 million would be spent to build an underground parking and shopping centre under the federal Parliament Buildings. Your petitioners recognize the need to preserve the environment and the historic character of the Parliament Buildings and Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Your petitioners also state that members should keep their outside parking spaces behind the Parliament Buildings, just like factory workers across Canada, and that the Government of Canada has more important priorities than providing underground parking and a shopping centre on Parliament Hill for members of Parliament.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 345,350,357,358, 370, 377 and 402.


Mr. Harvard: lb date, what are the costs of the Army operations in (a) Oka,
Quebec (b) Chateauguay, Quebec?
Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National
Defence): The total cost estimate for the Canadian Armed Forces Aid of the Civil Power at Oka and Chateauguay, Quebec to September 26th, 1990, was $60.6 million. Army deployment in Oka and Chateauguay was part of the same operation, and the effect of
November 19, 1990

military movement between Oka and Chateauguay makes it impossible to provide separate costs.


Mr. Waddell: What was the cost up to September 26, 1990 assumed by the Consolidated Revenue Fund under s. 285 of the National Defence Act for the intervention by the Canadian Armed Forces in Oka and Chateauguay, Quebec?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: The total cost estimate for the Canadian Armed Forces Aid of the Civil Power at Oka and Chateauguay, Quebec, to September 26th, 1990, was $60.6 million.


Mr. Simmons: Has the Department of Transport (Canadian Coast Guard) taken any action to develop and put to the test the capability to deal with oil spills or accidents involving hazardous material, as raised by the Auditor General in his Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989 and, if so, what action?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Auditor General's report "focussed on the Coast Guard's contingency planning and its capability to deal with marine emergencies arising from the transportation of dangerous goods through Canadian waters. (He) did not examine the roles and capabilities of other participants in the joint response network."
The Canadian Coast Guard has had a limited capability to respond to spills of "oil and other noxious substances" since the early 1970's. The problem, as the Auditor General suggested, is not the absence of the capability, but rather defining and implementing an adequate level of capability. As the Auditor General's staff were conducting their initial interviews, the Canadian Coast Guard were developing a proposal for an improved capability to respond to chemical spills at sea. This enhanced level of capability should be operating by the end of this calendar year on a pilot project basis, jointly with the federal Department of Environment in the Maritimes Region.
With regard to whether the Coast Guard has taken any action to test the capability to deal with oil spills, the Canadian Coast Guard tests the five area annexes to the joint Canada-U.S. Plan at least once every two years,
Routine Proceedings
and domestic plans every year or more often. These tests include establishing and operating a command post and often involve the deployment of actual equipment at the exercise site. The purposes of these exercises are to test the plan for workability and to provide on-the-job training to responders.
The Coast Guard has placed a renewed emphasis on environmental response and emergency planning. The Public Review Panel Report on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills Response Capability, released on November 2, 1990, contains 107 recommendations for improvements to Canada's spill prevention and spill response systems. These recommendations will be analyzed carefully during the development of a detailed response to the Panel's recommendations. The review, which will include consultations with affected groups, is under way.


Mr. Simmons: Has any action been taken (a) on the recommendation made by the Auditor General in his 1989 Annual Report, to do an overall risk assessment for passenger ferries (b) to set out the Coast Guard's objectives, jurisdiction and safety priorities and initiatives in this area and, if so, what action?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: (a) The Ship Safety Branch, Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), has contracted with Management Consulting for a study of its discretionary, non-discretionary activities to determine priorities for the utilization of its resources based on risk assessment criteria.
The study is ongoing and is expected to terminate in the Winter or early Spring of 1991.
Also, in the wake of the "HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE" disaster in Europe, a team of Steamship Inspectors from CCG Headquarters and regions conducted comprehensive safety audits of representative ferries on the East and West Coasts. A joint govem-ment/industry operational safety working group was established (25 members) comprising representatives of ship and shore management from the five major ferry operators in Canada.
This working group played an active role in the development of Canada's contribution to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Guidelines on Management for Safety Ship Operation and Pollution Prevention. The purpose of these IMO Guidelines is to provide those responsible for the operation of ships with

Routine Proceedings
a framework for the proper development, management in accordance with good practice. The objective is to ensure safety, to prevent human injury or loss of life, and to avoid damage to the environment-the marine environment in particular-and to property. It was found for the most part, that ferry operators already had management practices in place which complied with the published guidelines. During the work of the study group, all major ferry operators in Canada not already complying with the recommended guidelines, agreed to comply.
(b) This subject will be addressed in the Discretionary, Non-discretionary Study presently under way. Also, a Marine Occurence Programs Division has been established within the Ship Safety Branch, CCG, which has as part of its mandate the conduct of independent safety research and analyses, to identify risks and potential safety deficiencies of vessels, including passenger ferries.
In addition, the working group mentioned under part (a) had, as its mandate to: 1) make recommendations on ro-ro ferry safety to the Canadian delegation to the Marine Safety Committee, 56th session; 2) consider the impact of ferry crew practices; 3) review shipbome management practices; and 4) review emergency plans for Canadian ferries.
The working group reviewed the safety audit team's report which indicated that many of the recommendations and some of the criticisms evolving from the "HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE" have already been addressed in Canada. Areas which will require further attention were identified, however, e.g. stability calculations and draught marks to be recorded. It was noted that the list of items requiring attention by the Canadian Coast Guard is not necessarily an indication of serious deficiency in ferry safety in Canada-several of the considerations are not even mentioned by the IMO documents and all of them are now being addressed. Positive comments were also noted such as the good communication between ship/shore management and crews.


Mr. LeBlanc: Will the Armed Forces Pensioners and Annuitants be receiving an increase in their Survivors' Benefit to 60 percent in accordance with the Pension Benefit Standards Act and if so, when?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: A review of the survivor benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is included as part of the Public Service pension reform initiative currently in progress. This and other pension reform matters will be given careful consideration and an announcement regarding the timing and content of amending legislation will be made at an appropriate time.


Mr. Bosley: For the fiscal year 1990-91 (a) what is the government's present projection for the deficit (b) is the government considering reducing spending for the balance of the year in order to bring the deficit down to the original projection?


Geoff Wilson: As indicated in the speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Edmonton on September 17,1990, the Minister of Finance now expects that the deficit for 1990-91 will still be held under the $30 billion mark, but could run $1 billion and $1 1/2 billion higher than indicated in the February 1990 budget.
The government will closely monitor the situation and will continue to manage expenditures tightly to bring the final outcome for the year as close as possible to the original budget projections.


Mr. Althouse: Do Canadian Grade 11 students receive a complementary agenda calendar/time management booklet from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and if so (a) what is the cost of producing and distributing this material on a per unit basis (b) what is the cost of producing and distributing this material on a Canada-wide basis?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: The
Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 367?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Starred question No. 367.


Michel Champagne: Considering the length of this reply, I would ask that it be printed in Hansard without being read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

DEFICIT/NATIONAL DEBT


Mr. Duhamel: 1.	What are the expected figures for the (*ita*ro) deficit (*itb*ro) national debt at the end of the present fiscal year and do these figures include unfunded pension liability for current or former government employees?
2.	For the fiscal years 1982-83 and 1983-84, what were the figures for the (a) deficit (b) national debt?


Geoff Wilson: 1. The budgetary deficit for 1990-91 could run between $1 billion and $1 1/2 billion higher than the February 1990 Budget forecast, but is still expected to be held under the $30 billion mark. The national debt at the end of the present fiscal year is expected to be under $388 billion. These figures include unfunded pension liabilities for current and former government employees.
2. For the fiscal years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the deficit figures were $28,734 million and $32,723 million respectively. The corresponding figures for the national debt at the end of these years were $135,262 million and $167,985 million. These are revised figures and include the accounting changes introduced in the 1989-90 Public Accounts of Canada wich responded to the concerns of the government, the Auditor General, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Canadian Insti-
Routine Proceedings
tute of Chartered Accountants regarding the recording of liablilities for employee pensions.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 52,1 ask for an emergency debate to discuss the consequences arising from the failure of the government's environmental policies.

Our common future demands environmental policies and actions that are clear and, above all, consistent. It is obvious this government has no idea of what is required to protect the environment. It is also obvious that the inherent risks of such a situation are so great that there is an urgent need to debate this question here in the House.

Specifically the House must deal with the government's complete and abject incompetence surrounding Rafferty-Alameda, the failure of the government to exercise its jurisdiction in the case of Point Aconi, in the case of Kemano in British Columbia and the general failure of the government to exercise environmental jurisdiction in terms of native rights and health.
What is particularly worrisome is the fact that day after day the minister has stood up and said that Bill C-78 is this government's basic answer to the tremendous problems facing the environment in this country.
Bill C-78 is a bill designed to give tremendous comfort to polluters across this country. The bill is a weakening of the general guidelines which will apply as a result of

Government Orders
the Oldman and Rafferty-Alameda decisions. If Bill C-78 is this government's response to the problems that we face in providing environmental protection, then indeed we are going to be in a sorry state.
On that basis and given the government's failure to respond to the problems and opportunities before it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order please. I may remind the hon. member that it is incumbent on him to explain to the Chair why urgent consideration of this motion is required, instead of immediately addressing the substance of the debate.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the urgency arises from the fact that there is a series of major projects which are in the process of going ahead.
As was very clear in the Rafferty-Alameda decision, the court said that the reason it would not grant the injunction was that so many of these projects had gone ahead that it made no sense to the court not to proceed. It gave as its second reason the government's incompetence in allowing these projects to go ahead.
That is the reason for the urgency. This applies at Rafferty. It is now about to apply in the case of Alameda. It applies in the case of Kemano and it applies in the case of Point Aconi. Ultimately it will apply in the case of James Bay where the Government of Quebec is threatening to go ahead and build the roads.
This is a matter of extreme urgency. If the debate is not held now, one must fear for the environment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question raised by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard is a very important one, but it does not at this time meet all the criteria provided in the Standing Orders for an emergency debate. Consequently, I cannot accept this request for the time being.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-85, an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-85 which is of great importance to a lot of Canadians, especially to those in big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and across this country.
The government is moving into a state where it wants to sell all our country's resources. This is very important when we talk about privatizing the airports. Terminal 3 in Toronto has been privatized and Huang Danczkay has a cash for life lottery. He is raking in the money every single day. The government said that we were not making any money at the airports, yet last year the Toronto airport made $72 million. Who are we to believe?
Therefore the question is, should we go ahead and let this thing proceed or should we alter it? We of the Liberal Party have certain propositions that we would like to put forward and we have certain concerns.
One concern is safety. If what the government wants to do under Bill C-85 does proceed, would the safety of our passengers at major airports still be very vital?


An hon. member:: There he goes again.


Jim Karygiannis: My colleague from across the floor says, "there he goes again". Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that in 1988 we had close misses at the Toronto airport. The government stepped in and said, "From 140 flights an hour, we are going to take it down to 70 flights an hour". Now they are ready to proceed to boost it up again. Also they are ready to build more runways.

The people around the area of the airport are fed up with the noise and say that we do not need any more runways. Yet the government says they are going to build a couple of more runways and that we will see about the safety. Do they care about the safety? One begins to wonder.
Only a couple of weeks ago there was a near miss at Toronto airport. I see my hon. colleague across the way shaking his head. I say to him that my constituents of Scarborough-Agincourt are very concerned when they go to the biggest airport in Canada.


Mr. McDermid:: They don't fly as much as I do.


Jim Karygiannis: He says they do not fly as much as he does. Perhaps it is because some of them them might not be at the trough as some of our friends happen to be.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made an accusation by inference. I am sure he would want to reconsider exactly what he said. He is suggesting that because a member of Parliament flies often that he is at the trough. I am sure that is not what he meant because he probably flies just as much as I do.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague thought that I said that he is at the trough, absolutely not.
However, Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister of the En Route-CN Express deal. I wonder when I called the minister's office about En Route-CN Express why his staff would not bring forward the papers. What were they hiding? When CN Express was sold to En Route were the people from CN Express not supposed to have a three year guarantee? Bring forward the papers.


John Horton McDermid: What are you talking about?


Jim Karygiannis: What am I talking about? Mr. Speaker, we have seen privatization. We have seen how this government moves into privatization. Yet when it moves to privatize anything it is selling it away.


John Horton McDermid: Poppycock.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, another thing which is very important is job security. This government wants to privatize our airports. Yet we are not sure if the people at the airports who are working for the government will continue to have job security. When the government
Government Orders
privatized Air Canada, 2,900 jobs were lost. My hon. colleague shakes his head. If I am wrong on the figures, then correct me, but 2,900 jobs were lost.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Jim Karygiannis: Thank you. If there were a little bit more, thank you.
The government states that the quality of service provided to the public will continue to be at the same degree of excellence that it is right now. I fear that, if this goes through, we will find that the quality of service is diminished.
It is very important, when we talk about privatization, that we look at this government's record. We have a number of examples such as the En Route-CN Express deal and Air Canada. The government is talking about privatizing the Harbourfront and Petro-Canada. The government's record has to be put forward.
We should look at the books when we want to privatize something, especially something as vital as our airports. The safety of our airports, in the 20th century, is very vital and very important, for the simple reason that by the year 2000 the Toronto airport will be one of the biggest airports in the world. I cannot, for the life of me, understand and comprehend this government's move on this particular issue because I cannot see it as being a safe move and I see that the public will be hurt. Lo and behold, we may wake up one morning and find out that, because of the carelessness of this government's action, we have a major accident. That will have to be taken into consideration.
The other thing that we have to look at is that, right across our country, we have services at major airports that have been diminished. The government is saying that we are not going to have firefighters at airports after 10 o'clock. In Newfoundland after 12 o'clock there is nobody in the tower to make sure that the planes that are coming across are safe.


Some hon. members:: Get it right.


Jim Karygiannis: Members opposite will have a chance to get their glory but I would like to say that this proposal which the government is putting forward is a very dangerous one and we should look at it very carefully.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for St. John's West.


An hon. member:: St. John's East.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have always followed the member for St. John's West.
I plan to be fairly brief in my comments on Bill C-85.1 wanted, however, to put a couple of things on the record. Our colleagues across the way keep falling back to the U.S.-Canada bilateral and also to the question of deregulation. I think it is important to comment on those and a couple of other items.
On the question of the Canada-U.S. bilateral air agreement, I think it is important to recognize that this agreement which was signed in 1974 is obsolete. We recognize that air traffic and air transportation are absolutely critical in economic development and in regional development. I think most of the members of this House will recognize-and certainly those who know something about Atlantic Canada do-that we depend quite heavily on air transportation for passengers and for freight but they also directly relate to economic development and to our ability to expand our economic opportunities in the regions. This agreement was signed in 1974 and does not take into account the numerous changes in the economy, and the numerous geographical changes in the country, that is economic geography obviously, not the physical geography of the country, and the need that new industries have for transportation back and forth across the border with the United States.
Americans already have access to most of our major cities. Meanwhile Canadian carries have access to a considerably smaller percentage of American cities. American carriers handle over 60 per cent of transborder traffic than do Canadians and earn $500 million more annually from this market than do Canadian carriers. That is an important consideration as we look at the renegotiation of this agreement.
We need to ensure that the Canadian carriers can effectively compete in the liberalized regime, and that the ongoing viability of the Canadian industry is protected and encouraged because it is the employment of the thousands of people who work for those airlines and the airports that they service, and the people who depend on those airlines, that we are talking about.
In terms of the bilateral agreement, it is important to recognize that we phasing in a number of the aspects of this and providing safeguards.
A number of my friends across the way have talked about sovereignty. It is important that we recognize right from the start that Canadian carriers will operate as Canadians and U.S. carriers will operate as Americans. National rules of ownership and control will remain in place and the right of establishment in the other's country will not be permitted.
We have had comments about safety. I want to talk briefly about safety. Whatever airline of whatever nationality that flies in this country, flies under Canadian safety regulations, not the regulation of their own country and not the regulation of another country. Any air carrier that flies in this country flies under the safety regulations of Canada. Our safety record is among the best in the world.
I would just comment on this little remark about the tower in St. John's, Newfoundland, what we know colloquially as Tor Bay. From 12 midnight to 7 in the morning, that tower would not normally have air traffic controllers in it. It is a situation that I do not like and a situation that I have spoken out against, but a situation that I understand and a situation that for now, I accept.
But I think it is absolutely critical to recognize two or three things. TransAtlantic traffic and traffic in the region is not handled out of St. John's and therefore will not be affected. Traffic in and out of St. John's will continue to be handled by radio operators who work 24 hours a day in St. John's, Newfoundland.
A great number of airports in the country, including a number in Newfoundland and Labrador do not have air traffic controllers in their towers. Some have no towers, but they continue to operate with flight service support. However, should the category two instrument landing system in St. John's, Newfoundland be needed to bring in the later commercial flights, personnel will be maintained in the tower.
It is important that we not make gratuitous and irresponsible statements in the House pertaining to air safety. I just wanted to set the record straight on that.
Let us go back, if we may, to the bilateral agreement with Canada and the United States. The government since 1985 has been trying to reopen that agreement,

primarily because the existing agreement does nothing to support job creation, does not allow us to be flexible to support tourist development, constricts us in our ability to attract investment, and makes it much more difficult for Canadians to participate in and grow in international markets.
The bilateral agreement is excellent news for a number of cities in the country. It is in those cities that the airport managers and the airport officials, the chambers of commerce, and a variety of individual industry groups and collective industry groups have encouraged the government to open up. Thus, Canadian carriers can develop through this agreement new markets in the United States and carry Canadians to new cities in the United States. Our options can be developed, as opposed to single carriers. Some examples are Halifax, Moncton, Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver, just to name a few.
It is very important to these cities and the cities around them. These are cities where we have seen the development of hubs and that form a central core for regional air traffic.
Halifax, for instance, has become a regional hub for Atlantic Canada. Any of my colleagues who come from Atlantic Canada know every inch of the airport in Halifax intimately and have spent hours and days in the airport in Halifax. Anybody who travels in the region knows it only too well. Some of us even enjoy going there on occasion.


Iain Francis Angus: Where's VIA when we need it?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Believe me, VIA is not the answer. Maybe moving the capital of Canada to the Atlantic would be an approach that would address some of our problems.
Because we are operating under a 1974 agreement, our ability to develop the U.S. markets for our products and services is severely limited. In Moncton, we have a tremendous opportunity for air freight development, but is severely limited. In Ottawa, the business community has to go through Toronto to get almost anywhere in the United States. It is time-consuming and frustrating and does not serve the need of Canada's fourth largest metropolitan area with a booming high-tech industry, with other industries that have grown up in the neighbouring regions, and where access to the United States is
Government Orders
particularly important. This is not to mention the growing tourism business and the attractions that the nation's capital of Ottawa-Hull provide to people in the United States.
In the great city of Hamilton, which is 45 minutes from Pearson Airport in Toronto, there is Mount Hope Airport. I recognize that it is quite flat and wide open and on top of the historical escarpment. Unfortunately, there is very little activity at the airport. It provides an opportunity, if we can develop options into the United States, for what we all know and were taught to believe in Newfoundland, is that the heartland of Canada is the industrial centre of Canada. There are options to Toronto and the Niagara Peninsula, the area to southwestern Ontario. It could be using Hamilton to develop freight and business travel and surely to develop convention travel in and out of Toronto. The options are wonderful. But under the 1974 agreement, an agreement that is 16 years old, that opportunity is not there. Hamilton is a marvellous example of why we need to change this agreement and broaden its parameters.
The economy in western Canada has changed dramatically in the last number of years. In the last six or seven years, we have seen substantial changes in the oil and gas business and substantial changes in the world of agriculture. In cities such as Saskatoon there is a growing high-tech industry. There are cities such as Calgary where there has been a development of a real service industry and where the opportunity to export these capabilities that Canadians have, particularly in the area of services. Manufacturing has grown in the west substantially.
I need not talk again about Vancouver which has this huge tourist potential that was seen with the success of Expo and as more and more Americans recognize that Canada really is the destination of choice and the place that they want to be.
We must be able to address those cities which have so long had a connection with the United States and which have understood the American economy and participated in it in a way that has been very difficult and constrained by the 1974 bilateral agreement. It is those cities and the areas around them that can really benefit economically, that can really grow with access to the American markets, and where we really can see some

Government Orders
opportunities develop, strictly because we have been able to improve our direct air transportation with cities in the United States. Of course, that is not to mention the opportunity to go to Las Vegas. I mean just to go south and gamble it. Life is a gamble enough, but with opportunities like that we must be prepared.
I want to talk a little bit, if I may, about the carriers and their employees. Let us look at the real wrecker of the Canadian airline industry. This is the industry that has encouraged us to open up the bilateral agreement and that has said to us we want to be able to go and compete, we need to be able to expand, and we do have the ability to compete. This is the same industry that we heard such terrible things about deregulation.
I recognize that the regional carriers, particularly, have had problems. Some of them are facing some tough times right now with the increase in the price of fuel. But it was with deregulation, we were told, that we would see a constriction of air travel, particularly in the regions. I need not remind hon. members about my own part of the country where everybody preached doom and gloom and that all the airports would be closed down.
I just want to put a few facts on the record. Among the top 146 domestic city pairs, which account for almost 90 per cent of air traffic in Canada, the proportion serviced by two or more competing carriers rose from 44 per cent in 1983 up to 77 per cent. That is with deregulation. The number of people flying from Cambridge to Waterloo is up from 44 per cent to 77 per cent in that they have two airlines. Among the top 42 communities in the network where about 95 per cent of domestic passengers originate or terminate their travel, all had at least two scheduled carriers in 1989 and half of them were served by five or more airlines.
We have seen the development of hubs and spokes. We have seen the development of competition. Passengers have options in terms of airlines, types of service, cost, frequency, and that sort of thing. It is important. The number of domestic city pairs with direct, meaning non-stop, or indirect, meaning same plane, service increased from 1,088 in 1983 up to 1,729 in 1989. That is up by about 60 per cent by my calculations.
In the top 25 domestic city pairs, the number of direct and indirect flights doubled between 1983 and 1989. This trend was applicable similarly in all regions of the country.
We are talking about the increased level of competition. If there is competition, the consumer benefits. The increased level of competition in the domestic airline industry has seen a broader selection of prices and services.
I have talked so much about central Canada and the cities of Hamilton and Cambridge, but it is important to talk a little about the Atlantic provinces. In Atlantic Canada, for 24 city pairs both jet and non-jet traffic has increased by over 30 per cent just since 1988.
That is two years. Even by my calculations, that is two years. Up 30 per cent. Direct flights in that region are up 25 per cent while indirect flights are up 61 per cent. The total seats available in the sample city pairs increased by 22 per cent. So not only are we seeing an increase in choices, an increase in options and increase in exposure, but we are also seeing an increase in the availability of spaces through all of this process as well. This was after we were told time and time again they are going to close down Deer Lake, they are going to close down Stephen-ville, they are going to close down Gander, it will not exist any more.
Just to give one example of a regional airline. In St. John's when you go out for a flight at six-twenty in the morning, twenty minutes after six, which is ten to five here and in your home, Mr. Speaker, it is ten minutes to five which means that we get up at half past three in the morning to get here by nine o'clock. Now, that keeps the Whip happy. It keeps our staff working. It gets us in the office on time to get some work, but our options are much greater. I used to have basically one choice, you came up in the morning or you came up at night.
If I have the opportunity to sleep in once a year or twice a year, I can come up at noon. I have two choices at three o'clock. This is the old schedule. I could come at two-thirty or I could come at three-fifteen and I got here by six o'clock. If I got a good taxi driver, I could be here for the vote and the Whip would never know I was gone. Or I can leave at five-twenty-five. Now granted I have to spend one hour and fifty minutes in the airport in Half ax, but I used to see my friend from Gander-Grand Falls. He would be coming through. I do not know
November 19, 1990

where he would be going and I do not know where he was coming from, but neither did he so it did not matter much. But we have that range of options.
I know I have been showing a blue timetable. Naturally I show a blue one. The other airline has very much the same kind of options. I can fly from St. John's to Deer Lake on one airline alone four times a day. I can do it to Gander as well and back again. Gander to Deer Lake is about 400 miles by road. In a straight line it is about 90 miles-in a straight line, I could not tell you. It is about 180 miles or something like that.
I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, as we deal with this-


Mr. Rideout:: You guys have never flown in a straight line.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: -and I could talk about the increase, 16 per cent since 1988 in Quebec and Ontario, in 16 cities. I could talk about the 24 per cent in non-weekly flights. I could talk about the prairies and British Columbia, 20 per cent and 28 per cent as well, but I will not, Mr. Speaker, because you are telling me to carry on and my time is up.
I think it is important that we look at these things in perspective, that we look at the bilateral agreement as an opportunity, as a positive thing that our regional cities and our cities outside the great cities, the metropolitan areas of Montreal and Toronto, want the opportunity to trade and expand with the United States in tourism and in industry and the change in the bilateral agreement supported by what has happened in deregulation gives them exactly that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I want to-


John Horton McDermid: Congratulate.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Sure, I will congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East for speaking so highly of Mount Hope Airport in Hamilton. We all know that Mount Hope Airport in Hamilton, according to Transport Canada, is in fact the first alternate designate for Pearson Intema-
Govemment Orders
tional Airport for the future, but we, of course, on this side of the House believe that we have reached the future. The future is now because of the overcrowding at Pearson International.
The hon. member for St. John's East spoke of the hub and spoke system. We all know that the hub of course is Toronto's Pearson International, but the spokes are the 401, the 403, the 400-these are highways-all of them dangerous, all of them overcrowded, all trying to get to Toronto's Pearson International. That is the idea of the government's hub and spoke system.
Time and time again we tried to tell this government that the way we get around the issue of the hub and spoke in the Toronto-Hamilton scenario is quite simple.
The government should have the vision to see that there is a possibility of addressing the situation on a multi-modal aspect. That is when we think about Pearson instead of thinking about building a Pickering airport from scratch, as we have heard this government whispering about.
Take Hamilton airport. That is three quarters there to provide the alternative for Pearson International. We also consider the roads, the rail link so that we can have an efficient system, a hub and spoke system between them that would be completely efficient instead of spending the millions upon billions of dollars for new airports. We have the system in place. Hamilton, London, Kitchener: They are all there. They are ready.
The hon. member addressed the aspect of safety and then proceeded to say that some airports do not have overnight ATCers, air traffic controllers, in the tower. Some do not have a tower at all.
In Hamilton, the situation is this. The tower at Mount Hope does not have an overnight ATCer. It never has.
The hon. member for St. John's East is speaking of safety. Time and time again, when we tour Pearson International we walk through there, and I ask them the question. I say: "Time and time again, we have airlines that are diverted from Pearson that arrive too late to land and are diverted to Hamilton airport because there is no ATCer and are allowed to land."


John Horton McDermid: Yes.

Government Orders


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: "Yes" says the hon. member for Brampton. Good. I am glad he is following me along very closely because the next point, contrary to the point of safety mentioned by the member for St. John's East, is that there is no way to ensure-the ATCers in Ibronto confirm this-that a Cessna, a Piper or some small aircraft that decides it wants to take off or land overnight blows a tire, goes over on its wings, the pilot is unconscious and no one knows that that plane is laying there and in comes the big jet from Toronto to land at Hamilton. That is the ultimate.
I wonder if the member could explain the conflict between safety and the lack of it when we do not have the ATCers in the towers to confirm this type of scenario.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I guess we could draw any number of scenarios of "what could" and "what if". My friend from Brampton, the home of Pearson, is close by, 10 miles away in the region of Peel. I think it is important to recognize that the systems provide for the inevitability and situations that my hon. friend talks about.
We have a controlled system throughout which ensures that airplanes can fly in a safe and in an efficient manner. The hon. member talks about St. John's. I will come back to Hamilton. I preface this first of all by saying I am obviously no expert in air travel except that I have flown in more planes, obviously.
The air traffic controller in St. John's plays a function in the use of the category 2 instrument landing system. Category 1 instrument landing system, the plane lands with the system and the air traffic controller is not needed, remembering that what the air traffic controller adds is visibility from the ground that is not there in a system.
Use of category 1, ILS in St. John's, that is not needed. Obviously, with VFR it is not needed either because for visual flight rules it is necessary to see before landing.
In St. John's, we have said: "If the late flight gets in at 12.40 o'clock it is perhaps not going to be able to land because of weather. The category 2 system is essential. The person will be kept in place."
As for a Cessna that has flipped over at Mount Hope, I obviously cannot account for how we specifically deal with that.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: You put an ATCer in.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: No, that is not the answer.
An airplane that is flying around at Mount Hope has obviously got to have contact with a central tower in Toronto. Where the central facility is, I do not know. In our part of the world, they are in Gander and Moncton. The great city of Moncton controls the air traffic in the Atlantic region and also partly over the Atlantic. The same situation will exist.
An airplane is not going to move around a runway in Hamilton without making contact, as my friend for Brampton tells me, with Toronto. If something happens they are going to have to know where this plane is, and they are going to have to be able to make contact.
We can all come up with great, wild and wonderful examples. Our history in our airports and airlines is virtually unparalleled around the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for York West. Very briefly.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, the hon. member for St. John's East talks about the unwillingness to reopen the 1974 agreement, which is I do not think quite accurate. The question that we on this side of the House have is not in revisiting and modifying old agreements, but in questioning the wisdom of the minister to go holus-bolus to the extreme and deregulating completely the 1974 agreement.
He also made reference to the fact that the Canadian industry agrees with the government's initiatives. The minister was very quick to point out Air Canada and Canadian Airlines being in agreement. If the hon. member checked a number of the media reports in the last week alone, he would find that both the chairman of Air Canada and the chairman of Canadian Airlines, who are the chairmen of our flagship air carriers No. 1 and No. 2, are getting cold wings about entering into a wide open skies concept.
Would the member for St. John's East who says that the Canadian industry is in agreement-and we have our two major air carriers now asking for the very minimum in terms of negotiated safeguards-tell us how the Canadian industry is in favour when our two major airline carriers as of last week are against a wide open concept of open skies?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for St. John's East. You have one minute.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that restriction.


An hon. member:: Being set up.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: There is so much to say and so little time to say it. I appreciate what my friend opposite says. I think it is important that we recognize this. I said in my remarks that it is important for us to phase in some of these changes, that we take this in a slow and deliberate manner.
Obviously to totally open the doors and say: "Anybody can fly anywhere they like" is not a solution for our carriers. I would suspect and suggest it is not a solution for American carriers, and we are not about to see that. This is a process of negotiation, a process that takes some time and depends on the local management of the airports. As you know, in the United States, in some cases they manage their airports differently than we do, and there are airports in this country that want to be managed the same way.
I would answer the question more completely, but the Speaker is telling me my time is gone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, 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 Scarborough-Rouge River-Member of the Senate; the hon. member for Cardigan-Goods and Services tax; the hon. member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt-Goods and Services Ihx.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, just before I do, on a point of order, if I may? During the last question and comment round, you, Sir, chose to go to two members of the Official Opposition. I realize that you are still in an on-the-job training, if you like-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Boo. Boo.


Iain Francis Angus: It has been a practice in this House to try to attempt to distribute those questions.
Government Orders
I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-85.1 must say that I listened with great interest to the comments from the member for St. John's East. I would have wished to have asked him to perhaps revisit his statistics. He talked about the increase in flights serving the various communities.
I would like to point out that if you trade in a jet with 90 seats or 120 seats, or whatever the big ones carry, for a couple of little jobs that carry 12, you are going to have a lot more frequency of landings and take-offs, but you are not going to have much in the way of difference, if not a loss, in terms of the number of actual seats available from community to community. I wish I would have had the opportunity to hear the member's response to that.
I did not hear much of the debate about the specifics of the bill during the last member's comments, nor even did I hear much of it or read much of it in the minister's comments or those of the Liberal opposition member who tended to talk about deregulation and open skies and privatization.
This bill is a bill to provide some protection for those employees who will be affected by the government's policy to turn over the operations of components of our airports. I wish we were debating a piece of legislation that establishes the policy for the devolution of those airports so that we in this House and the people across Canada could participate in the whole question of who should be running airports; not on the air side-and I think that is clear; even the government is saying it will continue to operate them-but the buildings and the land. Should they be a component of the Government of Canada, directly owned and operated on behalf of the taxpayers? The government is saying that it is not going to give up ownership. It is going to regain the ownership of the land and the buildings, but it wants someone else to manage them.
This started, not in 1987 as the minister indicated in his comments, but back in May of 1985 with the Nielsen report, the program review task force, which was the first to propose under the Conservative regime that the federal government consider changing its airport policy "to one of non-federal ownership and operation". Obviously it has gone away from the non-ownership to just operation.

November 19, 1990
Government Orders
In May 1985 the federal budget announced the government would pursue "the development of a new management structure for the federal airport system in Canada".
Two months later the "Freedom to Move" transport deregulation position paper, with which all of us are so very familiar, declared "options for a new self-sustaining system for managing federal airports are being developed".
By October of that year the then Minister of Transport had appointed an airports task force to consider new management structures for the federal airport system. The task force's report, released a year later, recommended the establishment of local airport authorities wherever possible.
On April 9, 1987 the then transport minister, now Minister for International Trade, announced a new policy allowing "provincial, regional or local authorities to assume direct management of airports". The minister cited cost efficiency and better service of local interest as the key goals of the policy.
If we read the words of the current Minister of Transport when he spoke at the commencement of second reading of this bill, we see that he said two things:
Our objectives from the beginning were to allow the airports to better serve the local community interests; to enhance regional economic development potential; and to permit the national airport system to operate in a more cost effective and commercial manner.
Later, as reported on page 15263, he went on to say:
But with local authorities at the controls, airports will be quickly able to respond to changing needs and market forces with innovative ideas.
It sounds like an ad for the junior chamber of commerce. I suspect the minister was once one of those folks before he turned grey.
Let me reiterate the key words: "airports will be quickly able to respond to changing needs and market forces with innovative ideas". Nothing could condemn the policies and the actions of this government more than the minister's admission that this government does not know how to be innovative when it comes to managing its airports in a commercial sense and that it does not have the ability to quickly respond. I do not say that personally in terms of the minister but in terms of
the philosophy of the Conservative Government of Canada.
The policies of the transport department are such that it does not understand that public enterprise can be efficient and can be innovative and can return revenues, i.e. profits to the taxpayers.
Yet we have examples such as Pearson Airport. I do not have the figures here today, but it returns money to the taxpayers of Canada. Other major airports as well. Vancouver contributes back to the taxpayers of Canada. Other airports like my own and I suspect the one in Hamilton do not return a profit. It is not to say that they cannot, but under the current situation they have not been able to match their revenue with their expenditures.
The question I lay before us today is: Is the government just copping out of saying that it does not know as a government how to run an airport and therefore wants to turn it over to a community group so it can do it?
There are a number of dangers in this pursuit. We will have a situation where there will be two different groups operating at one facility. I assume we will have a manager of the air side of the airport: someone who is the senior person responsible for air traffic control where it exists, someone who is also responsible for crash fire rescue, someone who is responsible for the air traffic control and all the other systems that are outside the parameters of the building and the rental lands.
Then this community group or a provincial authority, because that option is there too, will be on site. It will be managing the building, managing the lands and deciding on who should rent what spaces.
I do not think it is clear, because we have not had the full paper debated in the House, as to who decides which planes get to park where. Is that part of the revenue base that is controlled by the community group? Is that part of the debate that has been ensuing within the Ministry of Transport for a number of years now about the removal of general aviation from our airports, to shuffle them off? This is not just from Pearson, where I recognize there is a different kind of problem, but even in my community of Thunder Bay. There is an attempt to price out of existence or to frustrate general aviation small plane owners and force them off to some pasture elsewhere in the region to keep them away from the

commercial airport. It is a very serious question. Is that part of the goal of this policy?
I am straying from my original plan. We are concerned about the impact on the operation of a national airport system. We are concerned about losing the ability to do the kind of cross-subsidization that occurs today, where larger airports are helping to pay for the operation of the smaller ones. We are concerned about hubbing. The hon. member who spoke before me talked at great length about how great hubbing was. He made reference with regard to the open skies to stop having to go Ottawa to Toronto to the U.S.A. I do not know where he has been, because about three of four weeks ago I went from Ottawa right into the States on U.S. Air. That service is there.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am sick and tired-and this is no offence to the city of Toronto or Pearson Airport-of going Ottawa-Toronto-Thunder Bay and Thunder Bay-Toronto-Ottawa. We no longer have direct services which we had before deregulation.
One of the problems in this country-and it is part of the congestion problem at Pearson-is that so much is focusing through Toronto it is adding congestion upon congestion. It is creating the pressures that the Liberal member was talking about to expand the airport, to add additional runways to deal with the ever increasing growth of air traffic through there, as opposed to this government taking its responsibility and saying: "Yes, we need to have some controls".
We have to put some controls back into air. It was done in the United States. They started to re-control entry and exit in terms of landing rights and when one could fly. It was not through a monetary system, but it was basically saying: "Here is when you should fly" so that the burden could be spread across the full day rather than have the situation where you have some peak times.
We are also seeing the situation where in spite of the rhetoric of this government, rhetoric it has used time and time again when it says that safety shall not be compromised, there is no guarantee that a local airport authority is not going to put a building in such a place that it not directly jeopardizes safety but in the long term prevents the kind of modifications needed for the tower area and
Government Orders
for fire-fighting areas and creates a situation where safety may be compromised.
It promised us that safety would not be compromised. All one has to do is read the transcript of the Diyden inquiry to see what really has happened. All one has to do is look at what has happened in Dryden. The Government of Canada, because jets no longer fly into Diyden, is going to eliminate fire-fighting services on a full-time basis.
There are situations where we still do not have the de-icing procedures at Pearson airport that were recommended. It was pointed out under the current situation that by the time the airplanes get to the take-off point they have been de-iced too long ago, that they should be going back to be de-iced again, but that they are taking off instead. It is an accident waiting to happen.
There are situations where Transport Canada officials are saying in testimony before the Dryden inquiry that they had no one on staff who could tell whether or not a particular plane was safe, that no one in Transport Canada had the expertise to make that determination.
We have had other reports which have indicated very clearly that the government knew it was not prepared for deregulation but went ahead with it anyway. I can appreciate a desire of the government to move forward with a political philosophy. I can understand in terms of its background in trying to ensure an unfettered marketplace. It does not seem to have worked in Canada. The reality of the situation is that it is getting worse and not better.
Let me deal briefly with the question of the employees. That is what this bill is about: how we treat the employees. It is appropriate to have legislation setting that out very clearly in the event that the government moves ahead with this policy as to how Crown employees should be treated.
In his statement on November 7 the minister said: "Permanent employees must be offered work by the local airport authorities with pay and benefit comparable to what they received in Transport Canada. It is a fundamental principle of the airport transfer process that the employees be fairly treated by the local airport authorities."
Does this mean that they are guaranteed whatever the federal Public Service union gets until the time they retire? No. It just means until their current contract is up. That current contract, depending on when the

November 19, 1990
Government Orders
agreement is signed, could be up a week later, the agreement being the one by the local authority to take over the operation of the airport. That is not much protection.
I also question the loss of the human resources. We have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women working for Transport Canada at airports across this country. They are people who have made a commitment to the services of Canada. They are people with expertise. They are people who have been moving up the system. Do we all of a sudden cut them off and say: "We no longer want you; you are stuck at that airport for the rest of your life"? Or, do we cut them off from our federal system and they end up applying as external applicants, should something come up? This would mean that someone who has been in a number two position at an airport cannot move up to number one in another airport. We are losing a lot of talent and I think that is a real shame because the human resources of Transport Canada, by and large, are extremely well qualified and an asset not just to the ministry, but to this country. I think the government has overlooked that in its desire to carve out these operations and turn them over to the local community.
The other area that I am concerned about is the actual impact on the local economy. I have seen press reports. I have seen briefs from community-based organizations which say, yes, let us run the airport because we are going to set up basically a whole new mall in the airport to sell things, goods and services. Well that may work in a city like Toronto, it may even work in a city like Ottawa where your urban centre is at a distance from the airport.
However, let me ask you about the city of Thunder Bay which is one of the communities which has a group interested in becoming the local authority for operating the Thunder Bay airport. The airport is basically surrounded by the city now. There is no question about that. So if additional retail space is developed, designed not just to provide services to the normal clientele of that building, i.e. passengers going into and out of Thunder Bay and, in some cases, going through the airport as part of the regional hub that Thunder Bay has become, we are going into the community and drawing customers to a new facility on federally owned land, paying money to the federal government at the expense of existing small
businesses and not so small businesses in the community. So there is that concern about that aspect as well. I think it is one that the government has not really considered nor, quite frankly, has the communities which have been so eager to wrap their arms around the concept.
The final point is that these communities, not all, but certainly mine-and I believe I have talked directly to the minister about this-is that they believe that becoming a local authority means megabucks following for the Minister of Transport's pockets, that they believe that that is the way that they will get their terminal rebuilt or their terminal expanded. I want to say today, because I have not said it publicly in Thunder Bay, but I want to thank the Minister of Transport for the decision not only to improve the existing terminal in Thunder Bay, but to accelerate the process so that we will have a new facility in time for the 1995 World Nordic Games which Thunder Bay is hosting.
Having said that, the community group that is interested in acquiring control of the Thunder Bay airport does so, at least in the public sense of believing that that will accelerate capital moneys, and I say they are wrong and the minister, I think, would agree with me that that is not part of the package so people should not be misled.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is up. I look forward to seeing this legislation in committee to make sure that we can beef up the components that deal with labour, with the workers, and pensions although, quite frankly, I wish the government would reconsider the policy of devolution to local and provincial authorities because I think the time is here that we maintain airports as a fully operated, fully controlled, fully financed federal authority.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan to discuss a bit more about a couple of the concerns that we have with regards to this bill.
We have seen the situation where the federal government privatized CN Route and the absolute fiasco of what happened there where the assets were stripped, the employees lost all their benefits and their employment and where this federal government refused to have an adequate inquiry to protect those employees. The
November 19, 1990

federal government was responsible for the action. The federal government was responsible for the completely inadequate supervision when it privatized CN Route and left the workers out to bum, in some cases to lose then-jobs, in many cases to face bankruptcy with the absolutely devastating effect on the families of those workers.
One of my concerns with this legislation is the fact that there are really no long-term guarantees that the same things will not happen with workers in various airports across this country.
We already have a situation where many local authorities are trying to privatize the work within their own communities. At the present time they have garbage collection done by employees of the city or the municipality or the local district. They are turning that over to private operators and as a result losing good paying work for that community.
What guarantee would employees at the various airports across this nation have that this would not happen to them, that as these new local owner-operators, these new municipal authorities take over, they will not in turn privatize these jobs, have them go out of the community in many cases, have them turned over to private operators, contract them out in such a manner that many of those jobs will become minimum wage jobs, with no benefits, no job security. If people try to unionize what will happen immediately is that the company will break up, form another company which will bid for the same job, have new employees and again pay minimum wage.
What guarantee do these workers have, what guarantee do these families have, that we will not have just another CN Route fiasco which has been perpetrated by the federal government, the Minister of Transport and all those uncaring people in the cabinet?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. If we look at the past practices of the Department of Transport on the aviation side, we have a situation where in spite of our urging, the security of airlines is something that is left to the airlines to look after. They in turn contract it out to private security firms. We have urged the government to change that so
Government Orders
that security becomes a direct function of the Government of Canada. They have consistently said no.
I think that in the way that my colleague has laid it out, and because of the way of the bill is worded, that once the existing collective agreement has run its course, and the employees are no longer covered by that collective agreement and the provisions therein, unless we can make changes to the legislation, then I would say that there is no guarantee whatsoever of any permanency for those employees. That is not to say there is permanency within the federal Public Service, but all of a sudden we are into a non-union situation, a situation where a local authority is trying to find ways to reduce costs. Yes, they will look to contracting out. They will look to buying services from other agencies, perhaps one of the new management companies specializing in airport management.
Instead of the Government of Canada being the central agency running the airports at Toronto, Montreal, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver, it will be company x or company y that will put in place its own bureaucracy. There are two differences. One is the employees at one end will not receive the same kind of treatment that they have been able to get under the auspices of the Government of Canada. Second, there will be a slice of the income obtained from you and I as passengers, and you and I as customers that will go not to the taxpayer, not the Minister of Finance to help run things, but as profit to those agencies and those companies who are providing services.
In summation, there is no guarantee, and we need the legislation changed.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. I understand where he is coming from.
I have just two points. I think we should not confuse privatization and turning airports over to local airport authorities. The whole idea behind it is to enable a local authority, made up of people from the region of Thunder Bay, for instance, to participate in the growth of the airport and the airport infrastructure.
By giving the local people an opportunity to do this kind of thing on a lease basis-not a sale or a purchase by somebody, where the hammer is still held by the federal government-they have to comply with the terms of the lease. They will be able to do that.

Government Orders
What I wanted to refer my hon. friend to is the bogey man of deregulation, and what it does for remote communities. I do not have the Thunder Bay figures but let us use another northern community.
Before deregulation, Sudbury had 17 flights a week. After deregulation, Sudbury has 105 flights a week. This is to Toronto.
The hon. member for Sudbury is here. I ask the hon. member, does she suggest that the people of Sudbury would like to go back to 17 flights a week? The hon. member is nodding her head, therefore I assume she is suggesting that the community of Sudbury would like to cut down all these darn flights that mean you can go any time of the day or night. Let us get rid of all that choice. Let us go back to 17 flights a week. That is just a little over two a day. Why have all that choice?
Talk to the business people in Sudbury. Talk to the business people flying to Sudbury. My hon. friend knows there has been a big increase in the economic outlook of Sudbury under the Progressive Conservative government. These 105 flights a week are part of the reason for that success.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I found the minister's comments interesting because I am sure that Sudbury would really like to have jet service back. I am sure it would like to have the prices that it used to pay back. I do not know what the prices are there, but I can tell you that it now costs upwards of $700 to fly from Thunder Bay to Ottawa. Pre-deregulation it was $300.
There is still jet service part of the time Thunder Bay to Winnipeg. Other times, Mr. Speaker, you are down to as little as 12-seaters. The community of Dryden has lost its jet service. It has also lost its role as a hub for that part of northwestern Ontario. It has also lost a lot of economic clout because having jet service into that community was an impetus for them and assisted in its development.
When the minister says that deregulation is great, I can give him chapter and verse as to why it really has not met the theories that were espoused by his predecessor and are currently espoused by himself.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the minister is in the House. I am sure that my colleague from Sudbury who is standing behind me would certainly like to respond to those
comments he made. Obviously that will have to wait for another day. I can assure you that those comments will be made.
While the minister is with us, I would like to publicly thank him on behalf of the people of Thunder Bay for his announcement on his last visit that he will be replacing the present air passenger terminal in that community with a much larger and a much needed new facility. Further to his commitment that this facility will be in place in time to meet the increased demands that all people of northwestern Ontario anticipate with the great influx of tourists that will come as a result of the Nordic Games, I thank the minister very much for seeing the wisdom of that need and obliging the people of the community with that very important transportation mode.
In 1987, the government introduced its policy of transferring the management of Transport Canada airports to incorporated business entities called local airport authorities. I am a bit disturbed, in listening to the debate the other day and as it progresses today, with the confusion seems to lie in what we are really talking about when discussing local airport authorities. That confusion seems to be between what is called the privatization of airports in Canada and the administering the local airport authorities under local airport groups.
I will take just a moment to explain my concept. With Terminal 3, which will be opened in the first part of February with the opening of the new airport, all privatization means is that a group of people have come in and invested $400 million to $500 million and built Terminal 3. They will be able to operate that entity on its own with the rental of space and the recovery of its $400 million to $500 million worth of expenditure over a period of years.
There is some confusion in the marketplace inasmuch as Terminal 3 certainly will be the result and will be paid back by the eventual payer in all business entities and that is the consumer. I have toured Terminal 3 and it is a beautiful looking airport. Given what we have been told that Terminal 3's rental structure is about four, five or six times that of the highest rental structure in Toronto now, which is the Eaton Centre, I wonder whether or not the consumer, that is the Canadian traveller, will be able to afford to use this facility.
November 19, 1990

In contrast to the privatization mode is the local airport authority. In simple terms, it will be an authority that is established to meet and respond to the needs of the community and can be analogous to a local municipal government. We all know that a local municipal government is very good in conducting its affairs because it is on the local scene. It responds daily to the needs of the community. It replies and gets on with the business of responding to the needs of that community. I would say this local airport authority is analogous to the municipal governments in our communities and will be responsive on a daily basis to meeting the needs of the travelling public.
The policy's objective was to build our airports to better serve local community interests, enhance regional economic development potential, and allow our national airport system to operate in a more cost efficient and commercial manner. Unlike the government's ill-conceived policy of deregulation, or its ludicrous intent to privatize Pearson International Airport, the concept of establishing local airport authorities merits qualified support. I will address those qualifications very shortly. It seems that if the three broad objectives of this policy can be realized then this policy has several inherent values and benefits.
Recognizing that a local airport authority could better represent needs and interests. In my community, the district of Thunder Bay, I have supported and assisted a group of very capable individuals who are waiting final approval to proceed and take over the management of our local airport. Let me assure the people of Thunder Bay that the running of the local airport will not be another cost that is given over to municipal authorities rather than being paid for by higher authorities. Let me assure that the cost or any deficiency in cost will not have to be borne by municipal governments. That is a question that permeates many small communities in the country today when they seem to think, because certain governments are giving over responsibility to them, that the costs that go with those responsibilities devolve to the municipality. As I am told and as I read this legislation, any costs that are incurred with the development of a local airport authority will certainly not arrive at the footsteps of a local municipal authority.
Government Orders
There is no question in my mind that the local airport authority is good for the economic future of our community. It will be of immense value to two areas that are not being presently serviced. The areas of cargo and jet service cannot be handled because of the deficiencies in our system. Let me assure the people of Thunder Bay that this local airport authority, if it should come to pass, will be good for the economic future of our community. If it is under local authority by local people, I doubt very much that we will ever see a demise of a very necessary transportation mode in our community such as we saw in the demise of VIA Rail within the last year. There was no local input into the affairs of running that area. Many small communities would have qualified support for the local airport authority, so that, in this immense country of ours, they can at least administer some of the transportation requirements that are conducive and that can respond quickly to the local climate and the local economy.
If given the opportunity, the group will be able to manage the airport and take action based on their invaluable experience as members of this community. Unlike some of those who make decisions here in Ottawa for northwestern Ontario, this proposed local group in Thunder Bay has an appreciation of what can and what should be done at our airport and other airports in the country to improve service and efficiency.
I am certain that this concept could also be applicable and should be applicable to Pearson Airport, the largest and most lucrative airport in Canada. Instead, the government, having privatized Terminal 3, is now moving to privatize Terminals 1 and 2. It would be a terrible mistake if we allowed Terminals 1 and 2 to be privatized at least before we have an opportunity to view the causes and consequences of how Terminal 3 is operating.
These private interests will operate the terminal based solely on the profit motive. There is big profit when one considers the investments at Terminal 3 of $400 million in the recovery process and big profits in what is proposed in Terminals 1 and 2. The numbers being heard are $800 in the recovery process on Terminals 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, in all business ventures, there is only one person who pays and that is the consumer. The consumer, in this instance, would be the Canadian traveller and I wonder whether the Canadian traveller will be able to travel into this vital transportation link in

November 19, 1990
Government Orders
the country, Pearson Airport, given the costs that will have to be absorbed. It would be fine for government people to travel on expense accounts and it is fine for business people who have expense accounts. But I wonder how many Canadians will be able to travel and afford to see Canada with their families, given the cost of air transportation in Canada as it is today.
It means that the consumer will not be able to afford to fly to Pearson because he will be burdened by these exorbitant costs and be deprived of one of the fundamental principles of what we try to achieve in the country, that is, unity. Unity is achieved by seeing what all other parts of the country is all about and living with these people. I am concerned that this will be deprived.
We are already aware of the projected higher costs of going through Terminal 3. Does the government believe that there will exist healthy competition between the terminal operators or is this a delusion? Terminal 3 will set the price standards and the other two will follow. It will probably be slightly lower but still very much unaffordable.
I also question, if an airport can operate effectively and efficiently with competing interests, where is the central co-ordination in all of our airports? On many occasions I have said that what Canada lacks is a transportation policy. An airport, irrespective of its size, capacity, or number of terminals, still has to operate as a very single, very unitary, and very co-ordinated unit in all aspects, on the air side, the ground side, and the security side. We have been told that, in these privatization movements, security will not longer be a factor governed by one integral unit. We are told that, in these privatization modes, there is no thought being given to how we move people to and from an airport. When one travels in any other country in the world, one of the prime considerations is how the people get to and away from the airport?
In Terminal 3, if privatization takes over in Terminals 1 and 2, we have spent over $1 billion and yet we have not enhanced the ability of the people who live in Toronto to get to and from the airport. There is no transportation
mode to look after this facility and that is one of the areas in which privatization, in my view, is not operative.
One might argue that this is a strong case for privatizing Terminals 1 and 2 to the owners of Terminal 3. However, while there may be central co-ordination in this case, the cost of allowing one private interest to hold a monopoly at Pearson is unthinkable, in terms of price implications and the protection of the travelling public. It also remains to be seen whether Pearson will operate with even less efficiency, once Terminal 3 opens for business, without any co-ordination between the operation of Terminals 1 and 2 with the private interests of Terminal 3.
I can see but one solution to correct the problems which plague Pearson today and which will be exacerbated in the near future. The solution is simple: local airport authority for the city of Toronto. Scrap the idea of privatization and let us get Terminal 3 back into the fold. Let us allow local interest groups with a vested interest in the local community to decide what is best, not only for Toronto, but best for the air needs of all of Canada. It would be environmentally sound for people and look after the concerns about those sensitive areas that so many people have expressed to us such as the noise and the problems caused by increasing traffic in that vital area surrounding Pearson.
At the outset, I said that the policy of establishing local airport authorities has received my support. But, as I mentioned, it is a qualified support. If we recall the objectives of this policy, it is to serve local community interests, enhance economic development in those areas, and to become cost-efficient in those areas. I question if these objectives can be achieved, with the restrictions which will be placed on airport authorities, if we allow this bill to pass in its present form.
In 1987, the Minister of Transport announced supplementary principles to those established. Among those principles was that local airport authorities must offer affected Transport Canada airport staff employment in the same occupations, with the same salary they had before the transfer. The local airport authority will formally agree to adhere to provisions of the Official Languages Act with respect to service to the public and Transport Canada will continue to ensure compliance
November 19, 1990

with federal safety and security standards. The local airport authority must ensure the provision of crash, fire, and rescue services to Transport Canada services.
The bill before us today would legislate the requirements of the local airport authority regarding the Official Languages Act and labour relations. It is imperative that we establish, when a local airport authority takes over the operation of an airport, that Transport Canada remains responsible in all aspects for all air side operations and for the safety of that airport. On this there can be no equivocation. The safety aspects on the air side of transportation must remain in the hands of the federal government. Air traffic controllers, the climatic people, and the environmental people must all be under its control.
Local authority assumes, in full, the responsibility of the terminal or ground side facility only. The local airport authority should be afforded the flexibility to operate that facility in the manner in which it determines is most conducive to meeting the three main objectives of the group, that is: what changes can be implemented to better the service to the community; what can be implemented to attract more customers to the community; and what is needed to meet the needs of the region while operating on a more effective cost basis.
In its present form, this bill will restrict local airport authorities from acting in the communities' best interest. This is the qualification to which I spoke to earlier.
It is essential that the current employees at an airport which is to be transferred to a local authority must receive fair and equitable treatment, that all statutory obligations are met and that the present union agreements are adhered to.
All current employees must be given job security. Of that there is no question.
However, Mr. Speaker, it would be a serious setback for local authorities if they were not permitted to subsequently hire employees who are in the local community and who are deemed to provide better or more appropriate services based on cost-effectiveness.
To hire more employees who are more attuned and more reflective of the community needs. That is, once all obligations are met, the local group should have the freedom of employing the services of whatever
Government Orders
individual or whatever company they will establish, in keeping with the norms established in that community.
There should be no obligation that employees of the airport be part of the federal Public Service and that the local airport authority be bound in any acts of the Public Service. Without this provision, we are in effect hamstringing the local groups from meeting the objectives that we had set earlier.
What we are doing with the act as it is presently set is a facade; the granting of authority to local groups without granting the responsibility for its operation. What we are creating in this present legislation, as I see it, is a local airport advisory group and I can assure you that the group that I meet with in Thunder Bay is not interested in becoming an advisory group unless it has some degree of control over the operation and the community interests; that it can respond to the community interest. I do not think they are interested in being an advisory group, and I am sure that there will be many groups in this country that would not want those restrictions placed on their role.
The current employees must receive-and let me emphasize that again-fair, equitable treatment in any local airport authority, but eventually the local airport authority should be given the freedom to make its own rules, set the criteria by which they consider that airport is going to operate in the future.
I see my time is running short. Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, by again repeating critical points: One, it is our understanding of this legislation that there will not be any direct costs to any municipality or provincial government that says that it does not want a local airport authority in place. The municipalities will be held free and blameless and will not be looked upon to contribute toward the courts' cost of administering what the airport will do.
The end result will be that the airport authority will eventually be responsible to the Ministry of Transport. More important, the Minister of Transport and his department will still be responsible for safety on the air side.
Let me close by saying that it can be nothing but responsive to the needs of our communities throughout this country. I made reference to Thunder Bay, but I am sure it is all communities in this country which can take

Government Orders
control over that vital need of transportation that we all need in a country as large as Canada.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the hon. member's presentation. I can certainly appreciate the need for local control, but I would think the government's motivation, if its track record is any indication, is one of cost-cutting and abandoning of responsibility.
I would like to use a parallel in the marine sector. I am hoping the minister can clarify the situation today. In the government's area of wharves and harbours, it looks to be that the harbours on the coast of British Columbia are approaching 75 to 80 years. In the past, it has been the responsibility of the government. What we get is an indication that it intends to abandon that responsibility as those facilities wear out and that anybody who wants it can rebuild it on their own.
I would ask the minister if he might through a comment on the member's presentation indicate to this House that that is not the case.
In a place like Zeballos, local control is important. Their wharf bums down and the Minister refuses to respond. They offered to try and come up with half of the cost of doing it and, again, failure to respond. Local organization and local initiative attempts to work with the department, and nothing. An example like Gibsons during the last election. They slap a blue sign up, a serious malfunction in the breakwater that causes a hazard in the harbour and it really needs repair, but again no response. Lots of local initiative and willingness to work, but nothing happens.


Robert Evans Skelly: Who is the Minister of Transport?


Raymond John Skelly: Again, I share with the hon. member concerns that places like Klemtu and Bella Bella for years have attempted to get roll-on roll-off service where the cost of living is directly related to that facility and yet the Minister again-and I am not pointing out this Minister, I am speaking in general terms-but the Conservative Government is more interested in abandoning its responsibilities and forcing those costs on the community. Port Hardy in zoning and I would also use Coal Harbour where they
were saying cost recovery is more important than working within the planning of the community. They disregard the advice of local people in the marine areas. They have fish plants tied up near tourist resorts on their harbour because the Department of Transport felt that getting a cost recovery or a return on their facility was more important than working within the zoning and planning initiatives of the local municipalities.
I think these kinds of things are really in danger with this airport idea. Places like Fair Harbour and Kyuguot where you cannot get garbage picked up and the federal wharves are absolutely inundated with garbage. There are local people trying to work on recycling solutions, trying to assist the department and it says: "We cannot do it".
I see we are drawing to a close. I would hope that the Minister would take an opportunity to respond. Does he intend to do the same thing with airports, abandon the community, allow them to take over the costs and essentially use it as a privatization and an abandoning of responsibility? I am hoping that the hon. member will comment on it and possibly the minister as well.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that question. He has mentioned some places which, I apologize, I have not heard of. I am sure they are not airports in this country.
What we are talking about here is a simple concept. What we are talking about is decentralizing the authority of the federal government from Ottawa to other communities in this country. As I see Bill C-85, it is a decentralization process that we have all come-those of us who do not live in and around this community-to grips with the fact that we are becoming just too big to operate out of one centre in the country and that there is a process in place to decentralize the decision-making powers in allowing smaller communities to participate.
Hopefully my friend and all of us are involved in this government. Whatever side of the House you sit on, we are all involved and we are all very interested in cutting costs. The only way we are going to cure the deficit and help in the debt is if we all put our collective minds to how we can administer this country, how we can keep offering the services that we and all Canadians have come to enjoy and still do it in a more frugal, cost-efficient method.
November 19, 1990

I suspect that the decentralization is one small aspect in this total operation of this country. But in one small aspect we have come to grips with one of those areas and saying that perhaps we can cut this huge expense in running the transportation requirements in this country by turning it over to those people who are most responsive in this country and from the community level to say that we can operate this perhaps more efficiently, more cost effectively and provide the same degree of service that we heretofore have had. So I hope that I have been able to answer the gentleman's concerns.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise today on questions and comments in answer to the Minister of Transport and his quotes on my municipality in my riding of Sudbury.
This is the second time that the name of Sudbury was used. The last time the quote said something about only having two flights a day. Today he is saying 17 flights a week. I have lived in Sudbury for a very long time, 28 years to be exact. The Viscount used to fly I think twice a day in the early sixties.
In 1980 I was elected to municipal council. We had very good jet service in those days. That is 10 years ago, by the way. We had seven jet flights a day in and out of Toronto, Sudbury to Toronto and back, seven. I do not know how you count your 17 but 7 a day. Then we had two jet flights a day east-west. We did not have to fly through Toronto to get to Ottawa or to get to Montreal. I am talking jet flights, two a day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's without the propellers.


Diane Marleau: They were not propellers, they were jets. I will tell you that in the early 'eighties Air Canada was not interested in serving Sudbury with jets and tried to get out of it. We as a council commissioned a study and proved to ourselves as well as to Air Canada that we knew they made money on our route. That was back in 1980. That is not mentioning any of the other flights that came in and out. I am talking about jets only. Nowadays, today, we may have somewhat more frequent flights but we have 19 seater planes and 11 seater planes, and two of those seats are bumper seats. I tell you, it is not pleasant. We were far better served before than we are being served now.
We talk about privatizing airports, and government getting out of running airports. Do you know what they
Government Orders
have done with the airport now in Sudbury? They have now said that after eleven o'clock or 10.30 at night, we will no longer have any fire or safety people on hand, so flights can no longer land at that airport. If they do, they do at their own risk.
Last week there was an Air Ontario plane that landed at the airport after eleven o'clock, no safety, no fire, nobody on hand. The Canadian Partners flights, and perhaps I should not be naming names but I am, chose not to land in Sudbury because there was no safety and landed in Toronto and put their people up in Toronto. They were coming in from Ottawa. This was last week alone.
I ask, what improvement in service are we talking about here? What improvement are we talking about? Yes, the people of Sudbury would far rather have jet service like we had in the early eighties than what we have today. I ask my colleague where is this whole business leading us? Are we dismantling the transportation system? Have I forgotten to mention that we are paying three times the price for a flight between Sudbury and Toronto?
I can recall when I sat on council being told what a boon it was going to be to travellers in Sudbury. We were going to get all this terrific service and it was going to be cheaper also. When you are a captive audience, they can charge what they want. You have no choice and you have to take it.
Could the member tell me what is going to happen to the sick people if they have to land at the airport in Sudbury? We are a northern referral centre for medical care.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! The period set aside for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Opposition House leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. After that great intervention by the member for Sudbury, I do believe the House would like to hear the answer and by House consent would allow him a few minutes to answer, Mr. Speaker.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: With unanimous consent, I am prepared to recognize again the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the unanimous consent. My colleague from Sudbury asked some very pertinent questions. All of them have developed since 1984.1 am sure the problems have increased since deregulation has come upon us in Canada.
However let me say that most of those problems are accurate. I have been to Sudbury many times and there is an absence of jet service from Sudbury and other communities. There was a time when we could fly directly from Thunder Bay to Sudbury to Ottawa. It was a magnificent flight, but it was closed down because of deregulation. We now have to go to Toronto through all the hub and spoke concept.
There is a need in the Sudbury airport. If there is any airport in northern Ontario that really and truly requires upgrading, especially to handle the disabled people in our communities, it is Sudbury and Thunder Bay. My colleague certainly has vital concerns about air transport through the airport in Sudbury and the services provided to the people in her community.
I can only say that a local airport authority with the proper terms, not the terms as outlined in Bill C-85, that are responsive to the needs of the people in Sudbury and to the economic community or Sudbury and surrounding areas, because Sudbury is the hub, can administer to the airport in her community. I wish that she would support me in changing the terms and helping me to impress upon the government that it should change the terms of Bill C-85 to allow local authorities truly to operate independently of the restrictions in this legislation.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure after that interesting exchange to get up and speak on the bill.
I believe a great deal of the debate today has shown the mistrust that certainly this side of the House of Commons has toward the Government of Canada and toward whatever it is bringing forward.
The Liberal Party of Canada opposes the privatization of Canadian airports. We support the transfer of the administration and management of airports to local authorities under certain conditions, which unfortunately are not met in this bill.
The criteria that we feel must be met before the bill is adopted by the House include continued federal government guarantees of safety, security and accessibility, including accessibility for the handicapped, and full application of the Official Languages Act to the local authority. Continuation of service to the public is the paramount criteria in the operation of airports, as well as the availability of transport Canada expertise and experience to the local authority.
We think the bill has to include guarantees that local taxes will not be called upon at any time in the future to finance the debt load of a local authority in carrying out what is a federal responsibility. Finally we have the guarantee to employees of job security as employees of Transport Canada.
Since becoming the Official Opposition critic for Public Service employment and staff relations, the government's policies have given me, employees of the Government of Canada, and large segments of the public serious cause for concern.
The government's somewhat indiscriminate five-year downsizing strategy has dramatically increased the workload of Public Service employees. At the same time those who are left have been living in fear of being the next on the downsizing hit list. One result of downsizing has been a dramatic increase in contracting out. The global budget for federal contracting out has increased from $2 billion to $3.2 billion.
While the government divests itself of employees and of responsibility for standards of service to the public, it is unable to account for whether indeed it is saving Canadians money or not and whether indeed it is giving them better value for money.
The public accounts committee was told this spring in hearings it held that the government does not know whether or not contracting out is saving money. It does not keep a record of contracting out expenditures. It does not require a cost comparison of contracting out as a way of doing things, compared to doing it in house with its own employees.

The result has been an increase in other costs aside from direct contract costs, including dramatic increases in the use of overtime and term employment.
I want to come to some specific examples in a few minutes, but we see that the government has become a prisoner of the dogma of privatizing, downsizing, and contracting out. This seems a little contrary to a stated principle I heard just a couple of elections ago of creating jobs, jobs, jobs. It is truly unfortunate when we hear the government bragging about cutting 13,000 jobs in the Public Service, but with no ability to report to the public whether or not that is saving it money.
Clearly with this government privatization, downsizing, and contracting out is a question of religion, not a question of practical solutions to practical problems.
Service to the public has suffered under downsizing. When it comes to the transportation sector, the removal of resources has been clearly demonstrated to have had a serious impact on safety.
The strain to do more with less is affecting almost every aspect of the Public Service. Transport Canada has been understaffed despite an enormous increase in the demand for supervision of airlines since deregulation. In fact we have increasingly seen airlines self-regulating or self-enforcing the safety standards of this nation with respect to passenger travel.
In July, as just one small example, a study reported that the accident rate of Canada's major commercial airlines is more than twice the rate of their American counterparts. The government should ask itself whether or not deregulation and privatization will improve or worsen such statistics. I suggest that the government's policies will do nothing to help the situation.
I want to refer to a couple of specific incidents which I believe give us concrete cause for concern about how the government manages divesting itself of its responsibilities and passing them on to other people.
First, we have not seen a good history of financial responsibility in divesting and passing over national responsibilities to the private sector. We need only to remember the transfer of Boeing.
Government Orders
Second, when it comes to privatization, I will refer to the privatization of Air Canada. I wish we could replay in the House a tape of Claude Thylor a year ago as he spoke on Cross Canada Check-Up about the wonderful things we could do with Air Canada if only he was not hampered by the problems of being a government corporation. The service would be better. The prices would be better. There would be more profit. Everything would be wonderful with Air Canada, if only it were privatized and if only he were left to manage it free from the fetters that the federal government imposed on him.
Here we are just a little over a year later, and where is Air Canada? I can tell of my own personal experiences as a traveller. Prices are up far beyond the rate of inflation. Service has deteriorated. The number of flights available is fewer and fewer. Now we see 3,000 people losing their jobs in a corporation that was supposed to become more profitable, more business oriented, providing better and more service and employing more people if only it got rid of the federal government and its national obligations.
I want to go back to another classic case of privatization. CN Express was privatized a few years ago. We now know that the promises made by the government at that time about protecting people's jobs, protecting people's benefits, and protecting people's rights as employees were nothing but blowing in the wind. It was the government's intention from day one to divest itself of CN Express, to turn it over completely to the private sector, and to absolve itself of any responsibility for the employees who had served CN Express so well. We now have reason to know that there were certainly some questionable practices in the process by which CN Express was privatized and the people to whom it was privatized.
Now, just a few years later, the company is bankrupt. People have lost their benefits. I am dealing with one constituent who had contributed for many years as an employee to a pension plan and now cannot even be told what agreement was made between CN and the purchaser of the company that affects his pension plan and his contributions over many years of his working life. For two years he has been trying to get the information on his own assets and has not been provided with it by this government.

November 19, 1990
Government Orders
We know that once the government washes its hands of something, it washes its hands of any sense of responsibility for the well-being of the employees who have served it admirably over many years. I do not think the employees of airports can expect much better from this government if this bill passes as it stands.
We also have to be concerned about the transfer of enforcement of safety regulations and security at airports. All those matters need to be taken care of within this bill so that the government's responsibility for the national interest and the interest of the public remains clear and paramount.
We have to be concerned as well about a national approach to services that have linked this country together for many years. We have to be concerned not only about those wealthy airports where there is a profit to be made and where there is an interest in local authorities in taking them over to achieve that profit. We have to be concerned as well, though, about the whole network of airport services in this country; about those small airports that serve smaller communities that are not viable or not profitable but nonetheless are an important service to people who live in the many comers of this country.
We have accepted a principle that we share the responsibilities for making certain that people in all parts of Canada have an appropriate level of services such as transportation and communications services. We have always recognized that there are some parts of that network of service and links in communication that are profitable and some that are not. Where it is possible by the massive population and services to generate a profit, that goes back into the total system, the network helps to pay for those parts of the country which are less profitable and cannot pay their own way simply because of the sparsity of population, distance, and so on.
I am deeply concerned about what happens to those far-flung communities of our country when they are no longer part of a national network in which there is an opportunity to balance expenditures and revenues and to make sure that everybody gets the service they deserve.
I want to speak briefly about the impact on employees because it is an important part of our approach as the Official Opposition to dealing with this bill. We have said that it is incumbent upon this government to ensure that the employees of the airport affected by the transfer
decision are not caught in the crossfire of the government's policy. We are concerned about preserving the collective bargaining rights of individual members affected by the transfer. Frankly, the provision in the bill that the collective bargaining rights end with the end of the next contract is not really very satisfactory. Many of the contracts of Public Service employees with their employer are under negotiation right now.
We are concerned about the loss in bargaining power by employees or their right to stand up for hard won benefits which they have gained over many years. It is a right that they have now as members of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees, a union of 12,000 members. If, for instance, the Edmonton airport were to be transferred to a local authority, the membership would be reduced to roughly 125 employees, clearly drastically reducing bargaining power.
Bill C-85 does not satisfy the conditions that we feel are necessary to protect the well-being of employees. Such things as job security and service to the public are things which public servants are interested in providing. Pension benefits are of great concern to the employees as well.
We have all seen how uncertain things are if we rely on the goodwill of the government. Certainly the CN Express employees have seen how the pension benefits they have contributed to throughout a working life can disintegrate if they rely on this government to protect their interests.
We are concerned-this Chamber has heard this before-about the applicability of the Official Languages Act and the number of ways in which this act would not apply to local airport authorities if this bill remains unchanged.
This is part of a general concern about the government's commitment to implementing national policies on a national basis. We have some concern about how the government will ensure that Canadians, wherever they live and wherever they travel, are entitled to a standard of service determined by their national government.
We are concerned about travellers coming to this country and gaining a good impression of Canada no matter at what airport in the country they happen to land. Yet it seems to me that under Bill C-85 local authorities would be free to adopt whatever criteria,
November 19, 1990

strategy, priority or labour practices they see fit to manage and administer transferred airports.
There is no guarantee that service at Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal or Vancouver would be maintained or enhanced as a result of the transfer. There is no provision in the bill for the sharing of expertise, knowledge and experience between Transport Canada employees who have that expertise and the local authorities to ensure the retention of those standards.
Finally, I want to say that certainly the opportunity for local authorities opens up some possibilities for better, more locally sensitive service. It also opens up or the risk that local communities will end up carrying a financial burden that this government no longer wants to assume to provide what is in essence a portion of a national service.
The legislation must protect local property taxpayers from a regressive tax, one not based on people's ability to pay from assuming down the line a financial burden that should be shared equally by taxpayers, the private sector and the Government of Canada as a national service.
I want to just quote from some statements that were made by Gordon Sinclair, president of Canadian Air Transport Association of Canada before the Royal Commission on Transportation and Passenger Travel Services. He was speaking about the privatization of Terminals 1,2 and 3 at Toronto.
What he said was that developers are skimming the cream of profit off the top of airport operations, that the air carriers in this country do not want a repeat of Terminal 3 elsewhere in Canada. This is a contract that was decided on who derives the greatest revenue to Transport Canada and not what was best for the transportation industry or the travelling public.
This bill has a lot of flaws in it. I hope that the government is amenable to improving the bill so that hopefully, if it proceeds with this, it can be done in a way that will be most helpful to air transportation in Canada.
Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been overwhelmed by the presentation and asks, "not more harbours". I was going to give him a bit of relief here.


An hon. member:: Comic relief.


Raymond John Skelly: No, it is not
comic relief. I was going to say that the minister is not known far and wide as an ogre and a heartless individual. I have known him for 10 years. He is a gentleman and a scholar, a man in whom great trust can be put.
There is one thing that surprises me. I wonder if the member for Ottawa West might care to explain to the House how one can shift and change. The project before us today was really conjured up by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This was debated in the House when your party was government. It is ironic that today, when this could have been nipped in the bud years ago, if it is such an unsavoury and unwholesome activity, why the devil would your party have been the proponents of the idea? Perhaps she could explain why the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stood in this same House, making the same arguments that the hon. Minister of Transport is making. I know my colleague is not an ogre and a heartless individual. As the perpetrator, he is simply carrying out the wishes of the Liberal member for Winnipeg South Centre. Could she elucidate on that?


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are some people who have been around here longer than I have and who are growing perhaps a little long in the tooth. I can only assume that when they persist on harking back nostalgically to what happened 8, 10 or 15 years ago. I understand that is what happens when one lives on the sunshine coast, the ability to focus and concentrate on what is happening in the House is a bit difficult. I go there myself when I want to escape.
I also find it slightly anomalous that it is the New Democratic Party which is taking us back in history and refusing to recognize that this is many years later, and perhaps issues need to be dealt with in a different way than they were back in those days.
The bill before us clearly has many flaws and faults in it. We would like to see those flaws and faults corrected.

Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not take offence at the remarks about new and old. My compatriot, being a contemporary, seems as well preserved as I am.
The thing that disturbs me about the government's measure and certainly not the minister, is the example not just of airports but also of small craft harbours. The Conservative government recruited an organization, a consulting firm, to tiy and find a mechanism so that it can abandon all the small craft harbours on the coast of British Columbia. How could it get these into the private sector? How could it get rid of its responsibilities for operating costs and capital funds? I point out to the hon. member how serious this is. Those are the highways for all those communities along the coast, whether we are talking about the sunshine coast, Sechelt, Gibsons, Powell River, and areas that are extremely concerned that the cost of running the transportation system is being abandoned by the federal government and being placed on the local community which cannot afford them. The local economies will simply wither and die. Ultimately, we will see the greater concentration of people moving out of those areas and irreparably harmed.
The minister is certainly not responsible for small craft harbours but he is for the harbours and for the airports. I would point out that the government is not the author of this proposal. It was the hon. member's party, not six or seven years ago, that was standing in this House proposing the same thing. The government just happens, fortuitously or unfortuitously, to find itself bringing this into play.
Perhaps the hon. member could comment on the role of the Liberal Party in initiating these activities, and your co-operation and partnership with the Conservative Party who actually bring them to fruition. It is a strange conundrum that I do not quite understand.


Marlene Catterall: I should point out to the member, first of all, that he forgot Roberts Creek. I know some people on the B.C. coast who would be quite insulted by that.
I think the member is truly testing me if he expects me to have a crystal ball to remember things that happened when I was not here. Either that or he has, as my House leader is telling me, a very vivid imagination and is creating something that never happened at all. I certainly do not intend to personally, or on behalf of my party, take responsibility for the bill that is before us today, tabled by the Minister of Transport in a government that Canadians simply are not going to trust to privatize anything because they know the results of its privatization policy.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise today to respond to the bill before the House.
This proposal to privatize airports, especially the profitable ones, is a matter of serious concern for taxpayers in Canada. I think the old concepts of the Reagan and Thatcher era are starting to wear very thin. It is ironic that this government, as this concept is falling into disrepute, is just coming to fruition with so many of these projects.
I would use the example of the Social Credit government in British Columbia. We are waiting for an election there to finally put this anachronism away. That government privatized the highway system. It is amazing. I do not know of a single British Columbian who now approves this idea.
We watched the Princess Marguerite, hailed as a tremendous goal in privatization, go down the drain last week. Certainly it is a strange situation when the government moves into airport privatization.
I know that there are many people who want greater participation and it would be in the government's interest to develop a mechanism to get that local participation. Certainly bureaucrats in Vancouver have no feel for what is happening on the coast or in other areas of British Columbia. They certainly do not have adequate resources to meet the needs of those communities. They have been starved on one hand and they have had a great deal of difficulty in working with a regulatory framework to co-operate with communities.
I hope the government could find a mechanism other than privatization. I use the example of the harbours question because we seem to be much further along with that area of privatization. There are rumours rampant on the coast of British Columbia. I would like to deal in detail with these and hope that the minister might have an opportunity to rise and clarify the situation.
In every community along the coast of British Columbia the harbour is the transportation system. I would use as examples places like Klemtu and Bella Bella. The rate for food coming into those communities is enormous as
November 19, 1990

compared to the cost of food in the urban areas. It is shipped there by marine transport or air freight. For years they have asked for a roll-on, roll-off facility for trucks and trailers. It would have cut the cost of living in those communities enormously. It was completely ignored by the Department of Transport.
The failure to develop those harbours on a continuing basis means that they were given a 75-year life span. The rumour is that under this government the ministry intends to abandon these harbours after they wear out completely. In abandoning them, it hopes the private sector or the communities that depend on them will pick up the capital costs and operating cost. If they want a harbour they can simply put it in themselves. Well that is not going to happen. It is going to create an enormous problem on the coast because the cost of living is too high. The ability to maintain the local economy when the infrastructure is removed just is impossible. In the more inhabited area, we find large government injections of cash into airports and highway systems. In the smaller communities, that injection of cash is not there and, simply, it says that they cannot continue to exist.
It is my hope that the minister will stand up and comment that this abandonment within the next 15 to 20 years will not occur, that in fact the government has a harbour renovation program, and that they will continue to own and maintain those.
I would point to a couple of examples where people want to become locally involved but there is no mechanism by which it is permitted. Zeballos recently had their harbour bum down and it totally removed that area from their local economy. What is needed is a sharing. The community wants to get involved with the Government of Canada and the Department of Transport to help build a wharf. The original projection was about $1 million and it looked as if that were an impossible task for the government to deal with. The community came forward to say let it develop a wharf in which it could pay half the cost by pouring in rock and preparing the site and have the government simply build a wharf head.
It has been hoping for an early response to a citizen-community initiative to save the taxpayers of Canada money, but that has not been forthcoming. Here is an opportunity for the minister to become involved with
Government Orders
community planning and to cut in half, literally, the cost to Canadians.
Kyuquot is an interesting example of the same type of thing. In Kyuquot the harbours are littered with garbage. The federal government has basically said that it is not interested in those wharves. Certainly it owns the capital facility, but it is not going to put in enough money to operate it. Places such as Kyuquot and Fair Harbour are littered with garbage. It is ironic that in Fair Harbour this year the garbage heaps were so incredible that bears became a threat to people using the wharves.
We really need some assistance here, and I hope the minister tonight has not abandoned those wharves and main elements to the community facility, but will indeed get involved with the people of Zeballos, Kyuquot and Fair Harbour.
In Alert Bay, the Nimpkish band needs that transportation for its fishing fleet which is the main core of the community. The government seemed interested in building harbours, renovating harbours and upgrading harbours anywhere but in Alert Bay for the Nimpkish Indian band. There was some token spending there that basically placed capital facilities in place, but it was not adequate to protect them. They have worn and deteriorated substantially.
I hope the minister is prepared to go there or to send officials to Alert Bay to say that the government is willing to work with them to bring the facilities up to standard. It has not happened for years, and it is extremely important that it does.
In Gibsons, British Columbia, again, there is the move toward privatization, the move toward abandoning government responsibility for public infrastructure, and essentially trying to throw off the responsibility for these very important public utilities to the local community and to the private sector.
There was a great furore during the last election. The breakwater at Gibsons was in a situation where there could at times be substantial wind damage occurring to the fleet tied up there. There was a need for a breakwater. A great big blue sign appeared and the government said it would fix this facility up for the people if they would just vote for it in the next election. Ultimately, nothing happened. It just simply carried on.

Government Orders
We are afraid that the minister, the government and the officials of the Department of Transport are working on a plan that will, as these wharves deteriorate over the next 15 years, abandon them and hope that the community picks them up or does without.
It is an ironic case where the government makes a great deal today about privatizing the airports, turning it over to a local community, turning the costs over and watching a general deterioration, if any of the other items are an example of this.
In the community of Pender Harbour in Madeira Park, it was interesting. The Seattle Yacht Club arrived in this community and simply purchased an area. It was a private sector initiative for harbour development. It turned around and encroached on the water leases of other folks in the area. Their neighbours were absolutely outraged at what appeared to be almost the co-operation of the government in permitting this kind of encroachment.
Here is a private sector group which came in, purchased an area, and then simply expanded the thing without permission or permit and we have a situation where the neighbours are hung out to dry by Transport Canada. The ratepayers group are outraged by it. The neighbours are outraged by it. The local regional board is outraged by it. Yet, the Government of Canada has moved along with the province of B.C. and facilitated literally a foreign outfit coming in and taking over against the planning initiatives and against the wishes of the local residents, a harbour project by a private sector group, the Seattle Yacht Club.
It is amazing the reaction of that community. Certainly in privatization, there is no willingness to play ball with local residents. If we are looking at trying to sell this concept with airports to local communities, I would say that the minister and the government has got a long way to go to regain the confidence of people along the coast of B.C. If it is talking about harbour projects, garbage, and numerous-


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to point out that today's debate on Bill C-85 concerns the transfer of certain airports and also provides for certain matters respecting the benefits
of employees at the airports in this country that would be affected by these transfers.
I listened to the hon. member since the beginning of his speech. He never addressed the subject or made the slightest reference in his speech to the subject before the House today. I simply would like to ask the House to consider the relevance of this debate and address the questions before the House that are relevant to Bill C-85.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I again recognize the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, who, I am sure, will have benefited from the comments made by his colleague across the way.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed appreciate the insight of my colleague from the Conservative Party, but I can understand why he is so sensitive.
In the last Parliament there were certainly a number of members of his party who came to the House in 1984 to 1988, preaching the privatization that they are now preaching with airports today, and the benefits of turning this over to local privateers. I am just trying to make the connection and show him how faulty the logic is here. They have done this with the harbours and now they are proposing to do it with the airports, but the population is up in the air about it. I am simply hoping that the minister will recognize that he has some work to do with the harbour issue, and his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the small craft harbour issues. We certainly do not want the same kind of thing-we already have experienced this disaster in that area-that has happened to the airports.
If my colleague can follow through a little more closely, he will learn how basically unpopular this has been, and how there is a real serious necessity for a change. If it were not unpopular, possibly there would be some of the former members from the coast of B.C. sitting in the House, but certainly their constituents no longer have any confidence in them.
So, the wrong-headed approach in the marine transportation sector certainly is carrying over into the other side.
I do not want to carry on any longer with this. I am hoping I have made my point and I am hoping that the minister will take an opportunity to comment on a very serious matter. There is a feeling on that coast that the

government intends to abandon the federal government wharves as these harbours come on to their seventh-fifth year.
It is a matter of fact that in the small craft harbours sector there is a private consulting firm preparing a report to abandon small craft harbours. Of course, there have been numerous concerns about upgrading facilities that are a hazard, be it garbage, breakwaters, and what not. I am wondering if the minister might stand up and dispel some of those fears and see if we can indeed not be, I would say, pushed away from the concept of locally governing some of these airports. Maybe the minister could in fact stand up in the House and dispel some of those fears of British Columbians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question!


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion adopted on division and bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was an understanding that upon the completion of the debate on the previous bill that we would call it seven o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion by the Minister of Transport to call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, on October 24 I put a question to the Minister of State for Seniors concerning the effects of the goods and services tax on Canadian senior citizens. I now appreciate this opportunity to rise and bring this issue again to the House and truly hope that the response I will receive will be better understood by myself and the seniors of this nation.
The basis of my question was that the GST will place an added burden on Canadian seniors. The government may give some song and dance on the issue of credits and say that tax credits will control the impact on the goods and services tax, but in fact the GST will have a very negative effect on the seniors of this nation.
In a response to my question, the minister talked about social justice and said that essential goods will not be taxed. However, the minister's response fell far from the mark. There are many items that may or may not be taxed. It depends on how they are purchased.
The GST Consumer Information Office states clearly that if a medical device is bought with a doctor's prescription, the GST will not be added. If this device is purchased without a prescription, the tax will be charged. This discrepancy is quite alarming and will lead to confusion among seniors and, of course, Canadian citizens at large.
One example of that I would like to use to explain the problems associated is the able walker that was advertised on TV. This device provides walking and balance assistance to seniors. It acts as a seat if they are waiting for a bus and can be converted into a shopping cart when they arrive at the mall.
Sales of these items are booming, especially for the seniors who need just a little assistance to get around.

November 19, 1990
Adjournment Debate
The problem is if you send for the able walker through the mail, are you supposed to send a doctor's prescription along with the cheque? That is considering that they went to the doctor. Nobody seems to know the answer.
The GST consumer information office feeds the same line. If the medical device is prescribed by a doctor, it is tax free. If it is not, the tax must be paid.
These people are supposed to protect the consumer's interest. Can a simple answer to a simple question like the GST and how it will be applied to a device of this nature not be explained to the seniors? For example, if they order through the mail or over the telephone, how are they going to send the prescription? These are answers that Canadian seniors deserve to have.
The way the GST will affect non-prescription drugs is costly. The GST will be applied to non-prescription drugs such as Aspirin, Ben-Gay and Sudafed, all of which many seniors take to care for common ailments.
The case of Aspirin is much more dramatic than others. Many senior citizens are on what is called Aspirin therapy to help prevent the reoccurrence of heart attack. With the GST, the cost of Aspirin, according to the information office, is expected to rise by 2.3 per cent. In order to avoid paying the tax, many people, including seniors, will go to the doctor to get a prescription.
What this will do will be to add to our medicare costs. It will also add to our provincial drug plans. It will add costs to both which, in the end, will be more of a cost to the seniors, and all Canadians.
What the government should be doing is exempting all medication, both prescription and non-prescription drugs, from the GST. Something that this government should also be doing is helping seniors on fixed incomes escape poverty. Almost 40 per cent of all single senior Canadians live below the poverty line, and this government is doing very little to help them.
The last time Old Age Security and GIS were increased above inflation was over six years ago. Now, for single senior citizens, the gap between poverty and the maximum income available from OAS and GIS is over $2,000.
The goods and services tax is nothing but a burden to the Canadian senior citizen. The difference in when the goods and services tax is applied and when it is not applied will cause a major confusion.
Requiring a prescription to avoid the tax will lead to increased costs to the health care system and to the provincial drug plans, which I explained before will in the end cause more cost to the senior citizen. The senior citizens are the people who made this nation what it is today, and this is unfair.
In response to my question, the minister spoke of seniors and said: "We are listening to them and trying to help them fill their needs." If the minister were listening and trying to fill the needs of the senior citizen, she would contact her colleague, the Minister of Finance, explain the great difficulties that this is going to place on the senior citizen and ask the Minister of Finance to axe the GST.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. member has discussed this subject in the way that he has. I listen to him and I hear there is a core of concern that he obviously feels for low-income Canadians and a concern for senior citizens in this country. In that, I think he is no different than any other member of the House. He is mischievous to an unnecessary degree in analysing and making the statements the way that he has.
The whole effort here is to take an existing tax of 13.5 per cent, lower it to 7 per cent and do in the process a spreading out to everything else so that it is fair for all Canadians, and that includes seniors. Within that, the government has decided no, there must something further done. There are two responses that it has taken that show exactly that it has been listening and has designed a very fair system.
The first thing the government did was make some exemptions. Basic groceries were exempted as well as services like Meals on Wheels. Those that are served in nursing homes will be tax free. No tax will be charged on most health and dental care, hospital and nursing home care. There will be no tax on prescription drugs and medical devices. Eye glasses, contact lenses and hearing aids will also be tax free. No tax will be charged on residential rents, municipal transit, ferry services, legal aid services, loans and other financial services. I mention those because all of those are the types of things that senior citizens in particular are buying. This is one of the
November 19, 1990

very special things that our government has done to be fair. It is a total difference from this black and bleak picture that the member has presented to the House.
The second thing the government did was to introduce a tax credit. This makes it a fair system for Canadians who are on low incomes, the very people he is speaking about. Under this new system, households with families with incomes of $30,000 or less are going to be better off than they are under the existing manufacturers' sales tax. As a result of this reform coming through right now, some 84 per cent of seniors will receive the GST credit. That is 84 per cent who will be receiving that cheque every three months to help them offset the cost of paying it. About 75 per cent of households that are headed by seniors or single parents are going to be better off. One cannot make those exemptions without drawing a line.
If everything was going to be taxed, there would be no differentiation between what is on one side of the line and what is on the other. Once it is said that these core things such as prescription medicines, basic groceries, residential rents and exempt them, then clearly there has to be a line of division. This is common sense and this is the way the law works.
For the hon. member to stand up and parade the case of Aspirin or a few other things that may be on the other side of the line and in so doing try to engender fear among the senior citizens of this country, is an outrage to the common sense of those good people. It reminds me of the same kind of fear-mongering that was heard from them in the last election campaign when they told the seniors of this country that under free trade trade, they were going to be losing their medicare. Medicare is still here. Also, that they were going to be losing all kinds of other goods services. Those services are still here.


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the adjournment debate this evening on a subject that was before the House approximately one year ago. I think that Hansard shows it as November 6. That is almost so long ago, I can hardly remember. Having to look back that far, it is hard to conjure up the adrenalin that perhaps I had at that time in addressing the issue in Question Period.
Adjournment Debate
The question has to do with whether or not the government had conveyed to parties interested in reviewing a matter, the matter of whether or not a senator had breached either a statute, the Parliament of Canada Act, or conflict of interest guidelines. I had asked whether or not the government was able to provide to those who would investigate, and here I was thinking of the RCMP or any other agency that would have looked at the matter, a list of law firms that had been doing business with the Federal Business Development Bank. I would have expected the government to respond in good faith and say yes, we have or no, we did not or we cannot, but the government did not. The government's response was that my question should have been made part of the Order Paper, as a Question on the Order Paper. Needless to say, I was not very happy with that because I did not ask for the list. I was not fishing for the list. I wanted to know that the government was co-operating, in good faith, with those whose jobs required them to investigate that particular issue. That is why I rise in the House now to raise the issue again and place it on the public record here in Parliament.
The matter involved a public record that showed the amount of $104,000 had been paid to a law firm in which the senator involved was a partner or associate. It seemed pretty reasonable to me to ask whether or not that law firm was on a list and what types of business that law firm had transacted, in retainer, for the Federal Business Development Bank.
I was curious as to how a party who was a lawyer-and although the hon. senator is one with whom I work on a committee, I have not asked him personally but I think the question was certainly addressed here in the House-could have been unaware, as a lawyer, of some of the particulars of the statutes that were being spoken of at the time. At the time, I wanted members of the government to stand up and acknowledge the facts, as they were on the public record, and say that it would take a look at them.
A whole year has passed. I did not bother to ask for the list after the reply was given to my question, but I know there is a list because I and individuals with whom I worked back in the early 1980s were on the list. I was on a list of lawyers who did work for the Federal Business Development Bank in rotation. I will say that I did not

November 19, 1990
Adjournment Debate
have a conflict of interest at that time and the issue before Parliament, a year ago, was whether or not the particular senator did. That issue has still not been answered.
I can suggest that the government is stonewalling when a whole year passes and the issue has not been dealt with. I think the voters of Canada are entitled to look for more, an improved response over that which was given to the electorate and to Parliament that day, a year ago. I think they deserve more than that and I want to point out that my role in opposition is one that requires all of us, on this side of the House, to ask questions like this and ask them fairly.
We do not want to convict anyone in absentia but we are certainly entitled to ask fair questions. It is our job. A lot of us actually do not like the job. It is not easy to stir the pot. It is not easy to have to stand up and point the finger and pretend someone else is a bad guy and maybe worse than other people in this world, but we have to do that in opposition. That is our job to ensure that the duly elected government follows a path that the electorate thinks is fair.
When the government strays, as it does from time to time, it is our job to keep the government honest. I often wonder what if I or my colleagues in the opposition were on that side of the House in government? Perhaps that is a possibility over the next few years. It may occur and perhaps it may not. I like to think that it would.
How would I like those questions to be addressed? I know that when I answer a question outside of the House, I like to answer it straight. If I have made a mistake or I am not sure, I would like to think that I would admit that.
On November 6, a year ago, this particular government began stonewalling on a minor issue but an issue involving conflict of parliamentarians. The issue has still not been answered. It has still not been properly addressed in this House or in the Senate, which has its own life, the other place.
I would like to think that some day, some time, some place there will be a minister who will stand in the House and deal with the issue in a very straightforward, honest manner, clear the decks, place the blame where it should
lie, and get on with the more positive business of the country.


Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, his question is related to the dealings of Senator Cogger with the government and a Crown corporation, namely the Federal Business Development Bank, the FBDB.
The questions that were asked of the minister were answered at that time. He knows full well that there is an RCMP investigation into this case and, if he is a member of the bar, he would know that we cannot comment on this matter. It is under active investigation by the RCMP, an investigation that has repeatedly been reported by the news media over the past year. It is clear that the RCMP is conducting a thorough investigation to ensure that the Canadian public is informed of whether or not there is indeed a conflict of interest in the senator's dealings with the government.
In May, as I am sure the hon. member also knows, the special committee of the Senate created to look into this matter, and which I may add is made up of a majority of Liberal senators, suspended its hearings to await the findings of the RCMP investigation. This is normal.
In June a series of reports in newspapers across the country indicated that the RCMP had filed documents in the Quebec court describing in some detail the results of its investigation to that date. Since then there have been numerous other reports in the media related to the Senator Cogger investigation.
In light of what is obviously a very active, ongoing RCMP investigation, it would be improper for me or any other member to comment any further on the topic until such time as the RCMP has completed its work.
The member's colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, has already requested an incredible amount of information from the FBDB and, far from stonewalling, we have given him all the information he needs on this question of dealings between Senator Cogger and the law firm of Lapointe and Rosenstein. This information has been provided as requested.
In addition, both the bank and the Government of Canada have co-operated as fully as possible in making available not only documents but resource people as well to the RCMP while it carries out its work.

I have no doubt that the answer to the hon. member's question will be clear once the RCMP has completed its investigation.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 1990 I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question with respect to the potential for companies under the GST to inflate their inventories in goods and services tax rebate claims.
This question arose out of the 1989 Auditor General's report wherein he pointed out that unless the government tightened up its ship in Revenue Canada it would be having difficulty in meeting the problems arising from the goods and services tax.
He pointed out that there were approximately 75,000 registrants under the present manufacturers' sales tax and that it would be going up to well over a million under the goods and services tax.
He questioned the ability of Revenue Canada employees, with the present system, to be able to do anything about that effectively. He raised the question of fraud, not only as it related to the manufacturers' sales tax, but he extended it to that of the goods and services tax.
Under some questioning this year, it appeared that the Auditor General was not yet satisfied that those loopholes had been closed. Let me revert to the 1989 report in setting out the problem in the Auditor General's words. In that report under section 18.46 he stated as follows:
In principle, all businesses with inventories held for resale could come forward and claim a rebate. The Department is anticipating a significant volume of claims which will be filed within a relatively short period of time. The Department will have to assemble the machinery to verify and process these claims.
He goes on to state:
This major task of converting tax-paid inventories to pre-tax levels will pose threats of revenue leakage. The Department will have to provide proper controls over the conversion process to ensure a fair assessment of the rebates and minimize revenue loss.
When questioned this year as to whether he had been satisfied that those had been looked after, he stated that it appeared to him that Revenue Canada was in a state of crisis management in trying to implement the GST. He
Adjournment Debate
said further that they were in a difficult sense of uncertainty when they do not even know what the rules are.
It appears that this was a major problem in his mind, that there were in fact going to be many difficulties in the implementation of the goods and services tax. However, the potential for fraud points out only one of the problems inherent in this tax system under the goods and services tax. It appears that the department is ill prepared to collect or enforce the legislation.
I would like to point out just a few of the problems that I am aware of. The list is endless when you look at the problems involved. Keeping in mind that the Auditor General has warned that Revenue Canada is in a state of crisis management, we look at what is happening at the present time. They are bringing in regulations on a daily basis. The original budget speech talked about 150 separate regulations. About 30 have been brought in so far. There is a problem here for the legislators in the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, the joint committee between this House and the Senate, and there is a problem for accountants and the tax people themselves.
Revenue Canada employees do not even know what the rules are, as the Auditor General has pointed out. Further the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others pointed to the problem of a massive backlog of registrations. We do not know how many have registered yet, but we do know that the backlog could be as long as three months.
A further problem has been pointed out in advertisements by the Consumer Information Office of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This again was pointed out to the Minister of State for Tourism and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by Mr. Bulloch who said that through these advertisements they were hurting small business.
In a reply to Mr. Bulloch, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism said: "I share your genuine concern that the advertisements in question do a disservice to small business and the tourism industry by unfairly singling out certain sectors with respect to the impact of the GST". This shows a problem within the system itself.

Adjournment Debate
In my riding, it is the mayors of the communities who pointed out that they want this tax stopped. They have done that through personal calls to me over the weekend and they have done it through their councils passing referendums. In the elections just held, the city of Vancouver had a referendum where it showed 85 per cent of the people voted against the goods and services tax. The city of Kitimat showed 88 per cent of the people were against the goods and services tax.
I would like to end by stating that a constituent of mine, Malcolm McPherson, owner of the Richter Pass Motel, pointed out on the weekend that there had to be some way of stopping this goods and services tax. He asked me: "Does this government know what this tax is going to do to the tourist industry?" These comments point out a small part of the fraud aspect, but it is much broader. This tax must be stopped.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I am replying tonight in the absence of the Minister of Revenue who is still recovering from the soapsuds in his mouth.

I simply want to say that Revenue Canada is aware that in GST, as in any tax, there is the potential for fraud.
A number of steps have been taken to ensure the detection and prevention of fraud. Audit staff are being trained in the detection and prevention of fraud. Also,
Revenue Canada is developing and implementing audit programs designed to uncover fraudulent practices.
Revenue Canada's automated claim processing system has built-in edit checks which reflect the knowledge gained from its own experience as well as that of other countries. Rebate claims which fail the tests will be subjected to audit at the local office level.
Some aspects of the rebate program itself have been designed to encourage factual and accurate claims. For example, inventories, for F.S.T. rebates, will be valued on the same basis as that used for income tax purposes. As inflated inventory values are a disadvantage from an income tax perspective, there is a built-in inducement to realistic and accurate valuation of inventories.
Officials from Revenue Canada have reached an agreement with representatives of the professional accounting community respecting their attestation to the inventory values being claimed. F.S.T. rebate claims accompanied by a report of a licensed accountant will be expedited in our process. Those claimants who opt for this independent third party review will receive their refunds quicker and the integrety of the rebate system will be enhanced by these certifications.
Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada will have the programs to ensure the detection and prevention of fraud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 20,1990