1990-10-26

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if this were an isolated measure before us today, namely the proposal in the bill to dissolve, transfer or sell Canada Harbour Place, Canada Museums Construction Corporation, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Canadian Patents and Development Limited, the Harbourfront Corporation and Mingan Associates Limited, this bill in its entirety and scope would be a source of concern.
This measure has to be seen against the background of a trend, a pattern. If we look at the record of the Conservative government on the matter of privatization, which actually is a very fancy word to replace the words dismantling Canada, and the interest of the Canadian public in a number of very fine initiatives, then we find a remarkably long list of measures that this government has carried out.
I would like to remind people of the sale of shares of Air Canada, the sale of the CN Hotels, the sale of a CN subsidiary called CN Route, and the sale of Canadair Limited. If that were not enough, this government
managed also to privatize Canadian Arsenals Limited and went on happily with the sale of de Havilland. Northern Canada Power Commission was not spared nor the Northern Transportation Company. Then there is Northwestel Inc., Pecheries Canada Inc., and in 1987 there was the sale of Teleglobe Canada, with proceeds of some $500 million in cash from that sale, a crucial and key industry. There is Terra Nova Telecommunications Inc. on the list of corporations that have been partially or entirely sold.
Crown holdings that have been sold include CNCP, and probably the jewel in the Crown in the sixties and seventies when we were attempting, and were quite successful, to establish Canadian public ownership in key industries, the Canada Development Corporation. Add to that Fishery Products International Limited, Nanisivik Mines Ltd., and Varity Corporation.
To that, one must add initiatives which are now being considered. What emerges is a picture of the Government of Canada under Tory stewardship busily intent on dismantling public ownership in this country.
In doing so, whenever there is the sale of an item, we do not always know whether the new owners will be Canadians or foreign interests, thus increasing of course ownership on the part of foreign investors.
This is a very disturbing pattern, but we cannot accuse the Tories of being inconsistent. Actually, the Progressive Conservative Party has been very consistent in this matter. It has promised to privatize Canada, and it is doing that quite effectively. It is giving away the public interest to the private sector, and sometimes to the private foreign sector.
That is a very disturbing fact, which nobody in this House can deny. In addition to that, we have seen the dissolution of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in 1985. We have seen a constant systematic weakening of the CBC. We are now at the eve of the sale of Petro-Canada about which many of us will be denied the right to speak because of closure.

Government Orders
I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker, that when Petro-Canada was introduced in the seventies, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands quite rightly pointed out the other day, closure was introduced after 15 days of debate. This government allowed debate for only two days before introducing closure, thus denying probably half of all membership in this House an opportunity to speak.
We are on the eve of the sale of Petro-Canada, which is the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons, which would take all the time allotted for this intervention. Madam Speaker, you have the privatizing of Unemployment Insurance through Bill C-21, because the public interest has been withdrawn in the funding of that very important commission. Madam Speaker, there is also the partial privatization of Air Canada.
At this rate, Madam Speaker, the day will come when this government, if given the chance to continue to govern, will attempt possibly to privatize Parliament Hill. It will try to find a good American sponsor, someone probably like Coca-Cola, Kodak or as my colleague from York South says, perhaps McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken? Why not? It could be a very profitable place to privatize. Madam Speaker, you could make money. Why not let this public investment go into the hands of the private sector and into the hands of these great entrepreneurs who know how to make a profit?
Why does the minister in charge of privatization not make a proposal in this House for the privatization of old age pensions? They could also be privatized. Why not? It is a very legitimate way of making money.
The government is already privatizing the airports in Toronto, are they not? It is an interesting theme. There is a phenomenal investment in the name of the public which, the moment it could become profitable-business enterprise in the hands of the public sector can be profitable as well as when it is in private hands. There is no reason why the Canadian public cannot reap the benefits of good management and still retain ownership.
Nowhere in any text of economics has it been disclaimed, Madam Speaker, that you can have the Canadian public as a winner maintaining and retaining its
ownership rather than transforming public ownership into some kind of supermarket and allowing the latest arrival on the market to make money at the expense and with the benefit of the Canadian public.
That is Tory theology. In that sense, we can only say that they are being consistent. Why not privatize the Bank of Canada? The pattern is there. Perhaps tomorrow, we will see a proposal to that effect. If it could be profitable, the government would not stop at proposing to privatize Parliament Hill. It would also privatize the Canadian army, but there it would have some difficulties because nowhere, yet, in recent times, has a government been able to privatize its army successfully.
Bill C-73 has to be seen against that background. It is not just an isolated initiative. It is not just something that happened all of a sudden around the cabinet table because the minister wanted to make a mark in history by coming to the House to pass a bill and demonstrate that he is active. This is part and parcel, consistent with Tory ideology: the dismantling of public ownership in Canada. Of course, in the next election we will make sure that this fact is not forgotten by the electorate.
Moving to the measure itself, Madam Speaker, because time is short, let us examine what the minister promises, what is in the bill, and what the Crombie royal commission recommends.
The minister in his intervention in the House assured the nation that when it comes to the sale of the Toronto Harbourfront Corporation, which he wants to wind up and dissolve, that the following will take place, and I am reading from Hansard at page 13555:
-once a settlement has been negotiated with Ontario, the city of
Tbronto and other parties.
He proceeds by saying that:
The proceeds from the sale of the assets will be used to provide
for the development of parks and infrastructure on the site-
-and finallyand to assist in the creation of an independent, locally-controlled
entity-
-listen to this-
-having a capacity to continue the very excellent cultural
programming that we know takes place at Harbourfront in Toronto;
October 26, 1990

That is beautiful rhetoric. These are the three commitments that the minister made in point (5) of his presentation. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to try to find them in the bill. You cannot find them, because all it says in Clause 40 is that the Minister of Public Works, once this bill is passed, is authorized to procure the dissolution of Harbourfront Corporation. Period, paragraph. That is the end of the Progressive Conservative commitment to Harbourfront.
The minister made a commitment in the House and we cannot find the equivalent of that commitment or the substance, the legal powers demanded to what he promises to do in the legislation. That is very, very disturbing. There are no safeguards. There are no conditions in the legislation.
We know that the book value of Harbourfront today is $31 million.


Mr. Mills:: That's a give-away.


Mr. Caccia:: This was going to be owned by the public of Canada, the people of Canada. Suddenly, this is going to be given away. Who knows how, who knows to whom, and who knows for what purpose? Certainly to make a buck. That we know because that is what the Tories understand well.
Now that we know what the minister promises, now that we know what is in the bill-


Mr. Bosley:: Don't tell us about leases.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I suppose that the member for Don Valley West finds my intervention perhaps a little bit too Latin and temperamental, but apart from that he does not like to hear what is being said in here. He comes from Toronto and he may perhaps be worried about the future of Harbourfront, too. I know him to be a very public-spirited, public-minded member of Parliament. If I were in his shoes-and I do not know what happens in the Tory caucus-I would have fought tooth and nail against this bill. Would you not have, Madam Speaker? This is a dismantling of the waterfront in his own city.
This is the access to the lake that we are discussing. It is the greatest environmental asset which the city of Toronto has. Attempts have been made since 1972 to provide an open publicly-owned area, which unfortunately has been partially cluttered. Nevertheless, there is a possibility still to see the lake and have access to it.
Government Orders
Suddenly, we are saying: "Well, let's sell it. Harbourfront can go. Give up your lake and say goodbye".
That leads me to this excellent report, The Water Shed by the former member for Rosedale. He was a very fine minister while he was here in Ottawa and probably left because he was utterly frustrated. On page 129 of that report, under the heading "The Future of Harbourfront", the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront states: "The lands, properties, and residual interests now managed by Harbourfront Corporation and those still in the inventory of Public Works Canada should be held and administered by Public Works Canada, on a temporary basis, until appropriate agreements with the city are implemented." That is not in Bill C-73 and it is very legitimate for the Opposition to raise this at this point and to ask why it is not in Bill C-73.
In making recommendations regarding the future of the Toronto waterfront in another report, the same author, Mr. Crombie, stated, and I quote from Parks, Pleasures and Public Amenities, volume 4, at page 68: "We recommend first that there be no further sale of lands currently held in public ownership." How do you like that?
Where is the co-ordination, the integration, the synchronisation between the government and its own Royal Commission? Maybe someone from the government benches will rise to offer an answer, a justification, or some kind of an explanation.
What is the point of having the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront produce this outstanding documentation and give recommendations, only to have a silly little bill, Bill C-73, ignoring the work that has gone on for the protection of one of the most important waterfronts in Canada? It does not make sense. It is insane.
Time does not permit me to analyse what is being proposed in Vancouver. Again, another beautiful, private grab is shaping up in that city as well. I will stick to my own home city.
It is quite clear that this bill, Bill C-73, is reflective of the Tory vision. It is a vision which uses the public and what is in public ownership for the promotion of the interests of large business and powerful interests in society. Not only that, but it offers the opportunity to the private interests in society, utilizing investments originally made with public funds. First, the public is asked to take the risk. The public is asked to make the investment. Then, at the threshold where that investment promises to be profitable or become an opportunity for

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
the private sector, then the public is told: "You public just withdraw. We will let the private sector milk that particular cow now". That is wrong. That is ideologically wrong and we resent it. That is not good public policy. We resent the fact that investments made by Canadians-


Ms. Campbell:: Nobody has $250 million-


Charles L. Caccia: The Minister of Justice has something to say and I will be very glad to listen to her full statement, later on in the debate. I have a great respect for her and I will be glad to hear what she has to say on the question of public and private ownership.
All I can say to the minister is that to us it seems a disgrace. It is shameful to see what is being proposed by this bill and to examine also what has happened over the last five or six years under the Tory regime. It has disregarded the public and the Canadian interest in a number of sectors. It has also denied the opportunity to the public of being involved in the ownership of corporations which could be profitable in the name of the public.
I know that my time is up, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your patience.
Nowhere can the Tories claim there is a precedent or proof that one cannot be profitable in the public name, in public ownership. What we are witnessing here is a distortion and perversion of the public interest. It is not right to sell public ownership to the private sector when there is an opportunity for the public to be protected and, as well, to make a profit which the public deserves to receive.
Therefore, for these reasons-and I am glad that we have speakers on our side here today-we can only reprimand the government very deeply and guarantee that this will be one of the strong items raised in Toronto during the next election campaign.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said by my opposition colleague, who accused our Conservative government of dismantling and destroying public corporations, and say that what we are dismantling is this empire the Liberals built and the underlying philosophy that helped to stifle private enterprise. I am surprised to see he is
supported by some of his colleagues who have been extremely successful in the private sector and who certainly contributed- Yes, you, my dear colleague- who contributed to the economy of this beautiful country of ours. I believe that the Liberals went wrong when they pesisted in the kind of attitude that was extremely useful in the immediate postwar context, when it was necessary for the government to take on far broader responsibilities. It is time the Liberals realized that attitudes have changed and that the government is no longer expected to get involved in every single social and economic sector, nor should it.
I think the Liberals' policy of centralization has tended to stifle private initiative. To centralize means to homogenize. This may have had its uses at a given time, except that eventually, we must acknowledge the existence of individual differences and allow the expression of those differences. Private businesses are the ideal vehicle for individual expression and initiative. In Montreal North, in my riding, since a number of vast empires built by Liberal ideologues have been privatized, employment opportunities and the market share of our private businesses have increased, and I am thinking of Canad-air, Teleglobe and Air Canada. Privatization has been instrumental in updating operations and restructuring resources. As you know, centralization means more bureaucracy, and that is what I wanted to point out, Madam Speaker.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern and why she feels she has to defend this bill. As a government member, it is her duty to blame the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, but I want to point out that it was the Liberal government at the time that purchased the Toronto Harbour front Corporation and Canada Harbour Place in Vancouver, and we did this in the public interest. I realize, we do not see eye to eye on the government's role in protecting the public interest.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, the member for Davenport's defence of public enterprise was most rewarding to hear from this side of the House, knowing that it sometimes took a lot of pressure from this side of the House to have the other
October 26, 1990

party move into areas of public enterprise, one of which being the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada.
The member for Davenport indicated that he was most disturbed by the fact that he was denied the right to speak on the Petro-Canada bill because of the closure actions of the government. We obviously at this end of the House, as well, are quite disturbed by the closure action on this very important bill to privatize Canada's national oil company.
Today, in the newspaper we read that Petro-Canada's profits in the nine months ending September 30 have increased to $80 million from $1 million in the previous year. When the Minister of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs introduced the Petro-Canada bill earlier this year, he indicated that Petro-Canada was not earning profits, and it was a good time to privatize Petro-Canada.
Today, with oil prices being what they are and Petro-Canada leading the way in increasing prices at the pumps, its profits surging to $80 million this year, I ask the member for Davenport if he would take a minute to tell us why he does not support the government on its privatization move. Why does he support the maintenance of Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, the question as to why I support Petro-Canada as it is now is a long subject. In essence, to say it very briefly to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, it boils down to the fact that Petro-Canada has an incredible future and role to play on behalf of the Canadian public in the decades ahead because of environmental issues, such as climate warming, which are beginning to emerge at the horizon, and because we have to find ways of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and, therefore, generate or develop alternative sources of energy.
I am sure the hon. member knows these things. I do not know whether he is seeking information or whether he wants to very kindly give me a platform to speak on Petro-Canada.
The last thing we should be doing is selling it. If anything, we should strengthen and expand its mandate. I see here the member from Edmonton who has made
Government Orders
excellent speeches on this subject on a variety of occasions. We think very much alike on this matter.
I would also like to remind the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that it was the Liberal government which bought Harbourfront, or at least made a commitment to buy Harbourfront in 1972, because at that time it realized that something needed to be done to establish a window, so to speak, for the citizens in order to have access to the lake. This is what makes this measure particularly offensive.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for his speech here this morning on Bill C-73. As you know, Madam Speaker, the member for Davenport is a veteran member of this Chamber. He has been here for a significant number of years and he and the member for Broadview-Greenwood are here today for the same reason that I am. We are all members from the Toronto area. It is not often that we have the opportunity to speak to an issue that will directly affect the 2.5 million people who live in metropolitan Toronto, indeed people who live in greater metro Toronto.
We are shocked at the fact that this government would at this time privatize Harbourfront. It seems to me that this government is totally ignorant of the situation at Harbourfront. What makes it worse is that it was a Conservative member from the Toronto area who introduced this bill, the hon. member for Brampton.
Can the hon. member for Davenport indicate to the House what has happened on the waterfront over the last number of years as a result of allowing the development to take place without enough government control? He knows, and in particular the members from Toronto know, that the private sector has to a certain extent destroyed the harbourfront because of the free-wheeling development that has gone on there.
Perhaps the member can explain to the House, for the benefit of those who do not come from the Toronto area, what the private sector has done to Harbourfront and whether he believes there are existing opportunities to salvage the beauty of the waterfront for Torontonians for generations to come.

Government Orders


John William Bosley: What hypocrisy.


Charles L. Caccia: Evidently, a number of serious mistakes have been made along the harbourfront. There is no doubt about that. This is the final blow that should not have been given.
The hon. member for York South Weston in his question also gave the answer to his own question, and very eloquently so. What we want to see now, at least as a minimum, is the retention of the public interest or what is left in public ownership. This is what we are objecting to in the light of what has happened recently.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to enter into the debate. I had intended only to enter into comments. Since that time has expired, I wish to put a few things on the record.
I listened, Madam Speaker, to the comments of the hon. member for York South Weston, who clearly was never around in the days when some of us were asked to be part of the planning committee for Harbourfront 15, 16 or 18 years ago. As members of the council of the city of Toronto and metropolitan Toronto, we pleaded with the government-and the member who has just spoken was a minister of that government-to turn the property over to the metropolitan council. The government of the day, led by members who were then in cabinet, who have just spoken, absolutely and utterly refused to take any position that would commit or allow the people and the citizens of metropolitan Toronto to own and to manage the harbourfront park themselves. So, many, many years later, a very sensible-


John V. Nunziata: That's not what the bills says.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Not to public ownership.


John William Bosley: It is amazing how the facts cause reaction, isn't it?
Some years later, David Crombie, who is one of the smartest guys in municipal affairs this country has ever seen, recommends, if you read the document fully, that the Harbourfront Corporation be turned over to a negotiated local entity for local control and local management, and that is precisely-


Charles L. Caccia: That's nonsense.


John V. Nunziata: Question, question.


John William Bosley: Yes, it is. Yes, it does say that. That is exactly what it says. It says that what should happen in the Harbourfront Corporation is that it should be put under local control.
What this bill says is before you can do that, you have to introduce the legislative authority to allow the Minister of Public Works to take the legislative steps necessary to permit that change.
There is nothing in this bill that requires the properties of Harbourfront to be transferred to private ownership and members opposite who claim that are utterly misleading the House. Read the whole bill. It is very simple. It allows the minister to wind up the corporation. That is all it allows the minister to do. If you want local control of Harbourfront, then this bill is the absolute sine qua non in law to allow the minister to do that. Any other suggestion by Liberal members opposite that there is anything else in this is the same kind of distortion that was made by Liberals in 1972 when they said that the people of Toronto would be allowed to run this property and then put every roadblock possible in the way of allowing that. It is typical attempts by members opposite to destroy the capacity of local Torontonians to run Harbourfront the way they should have been able to do from the beginning.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, do I have a question or can I debate? Is it a question period?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We had resumed debate. The hon. member for Don Valley West used only a few minutes, but that was debate. We are now in a period of questions or comments.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Okay, but is it a question period?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am just trying to answer your question, if I may.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Okay, I will ask a question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is now the period for questions and comments.


Dennis Joseph Mills: First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to say through you to the hon. member for Don Valley West that I may have a misunderstanding here, but is he saying that this bill states categorically that this is just a matter of transferring Harbourfront from the Government of
October 26, 1990

Canada to local governments, whether they be provincial or municipal?
My interpretation of the bill is that there is a book value at this moment in time in a depressed economy of approximately $31 million on Harbourfront, and it is basically up for sale to whoever will come along and buy it, whether it is a developer or whoever.
I would feel more comfortable if he were suggesting that we can only move it into a different form of public ownership where the object then in terms of service is totally different than a property that is in the private sector.
Could the hon. member please clarify for me, because I have the impression that he was saying that this is not going to go into private ownership. It is going to go into just another form of public ownership.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I may take the member back to the beginning. It is wonderful now to hear Liberals talk about how Harbourfront ought to stay in public ownership and use since it was Liberals who required that the property be developed by the private sector for private purposes.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Jointly.


John William Bosley: That was the only way in which the public was to be allowed access to any part of it. That was not the position-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Jointly. What's the reality?


John William Bosley: That was not the position that was taken by the local councils of the-


John V. Nunziata: Make it specific.


John William Bosley: It is absolutely typical, Madam Speaker. It is impossible anymore to get a rat-packer to listen.
This bill proposes that the minister be allowed the legislative authority necessary to dissolve Harbourfront Corporation. It says nothing about who will get the property, who will get management and control of the assets. What it does say is that the minister will have the legislative authority in order to take the steps that become necessary when the minister has concluded his negotiations that the hon. member knows are under way now with the province of Ontario and the municipalities to attempt to resolve the impasse that currently confronts the Harbourfront Corporation in its management of its affairs.
Government Orders
Whatever that negotiation produces, and one hopes in fact that the province of Ontario and the city will be able to get more public property than even the parklands that were originally promised, that little bit of public access parkland that was promised in the Harbourfront Corporation plan, that that negotiation will produce even more public access to the site.
The change that will be needed in law to allow the entity that Mr. Crombie recommends to manage that property is that the Harbourfront Corporation has to be legally dissolved in order to make the transfer to the new management body. I do not know, nor does the member know, what those negotiations will produce as the recommended solution. The member does know, however-


Dennis Joseph Mills: It will go to private development.


John William Bosley: No, the member makes an assumption that the lands get transferred to the private-


Dennis Joseph Mills: You assume otherwise.


John William Bosley: I make no such assumption. I make an assumption that there is a negotiation that has to go on and I am well aware, as the member is, that in order for the minister to implement the federal part of whatever that negotiation produces, this is the beginning of the legislative changes that are needed to do that, the end product of which must be greater control, locally. That is the ultimate objective that some of us have been fighting for 15 years to get.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, we understand the bias of the particular member. His family is in the real estate business. I am not suggesting his family would benefit in any way from the sale of the assets of Harbourfront. It reflects a particular point of view or a particular disposition in terms of the private sector being able to do certain things and to earn a lot of money as a result of the sale and disposition of assets that belong to the people of Canada.
If the hon. member has read the bill, he will know what is contained under section 40, subsection (2). In case he has not read it, I will read it for the public record:
The Minister of Public Works may do all things and perform all
acts necessary for or incidental to closing out the affairs of
Harbourfront Corporation.
In other words, if this bill passes, the Minister of Public Works, without having to come back to Parliament, without having to receive the endorsation of this

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
Parliament, may sell all the assets of Harbourfront to the private sector.
We on this side of the House are saying that it is the wrong move to take. If the national government no longer wishes to be involved with Harbourfront, we can accept that but on the condition this bill specifically says-and would the member not agree that it would be far more acceptable to his constituents and the people in the city of Toronto to have a very specific provision-that the assets of Harbourfront must be sold to either the city of Toronto, the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, or the province of Ontario. In that way the people of metropolitan Toronto can at least be guaranteed that there is still some opportunity for the public to exercise some control over the development of Harbourfront.
The member from Toronto knows that the Huang Danczkay mess that is there on Harbourfront is a disgrace to the city of Toronto. That is what would happen if Harbourfront were to be handed over to the private sector. The private sector is in business not to create green open space, not to create parkland, not to make the waterfront a nice place to be, but to make the big bucks.
Does the member support private developers, and in particular the real estate industry, making huge profits at the public expense and thereby destroying the waterfront and Harbourfront in Toronto?


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, there is nothing so revisionist as the Liberal mentality. Huang Danczkay got the site on which to build the shoddiest apartment buildings that were ever built at the time because of the rules imposed on the Harbourfront Corporation by the Liberal cabinet of the day. The city of Toronto was left no choice by the cabinet of the day if it wanted to have access for public use of the public park but that that project be approved. Those were the rules of the Harbourfront Corporation imposed by the Liberal cabinet of the day that many of us tried to stop.
The hon. member chooses to drag my family's name into it. Yes, my family is in the real estate business. We were also the longest serving directors of the Toronto Harbour Commission, and my grandfather was also the chairman for the longest number of years of anybody. I can tell the hon. member that not once in our professional lives did we take a fee or have anything to do with anything in the harbourfront for 14 years because we value it. One of the reasons I became involved in municipal politics was to try and stop what Liberals were then doing to my harbour.
For the member to suggest now that the destruction of the Harbourfront property was caused by anything other than the rules that were imposed by the Liberal cabinet is so revisionist it is beyond the pale. What we needed then and what we need now is the greatest possible local control of that site by local entity, however the players involved choose to negotiate the end product that will come out of those negotiations. I do not know whether it will be new a Crown corporation that is provincial or a new Crown corporation that is local. I do not know what it will be. It will be whatever the partners who are all government partners choose it to be. That is what this is designed to allow to happen.
I suppose I should not be surprised, but for Liberals who created this mess to ignore the heritage they created and say that somehow this is an attempt to turn it over to the private developers is unbelievable.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is an extremely important debate about the future of waterfront. The member is a senior member of the Conservative Party. I seek unanimous consent of the House for other members to continue asking questions of the member from Toronto.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. I guess the hon. member for Don Valley West should also be consulted.
If there is unanimous consent, I am ready to allow it. Is there a consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is not given.


John V. Nunziata: Let the record show that it was the member himself-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
October 26, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would not want to let the hon. member for York South-Weston impugn motives to the member for Don Valley West, because he is not the one- who denied unanimous consent. I think the record should also show that.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You asked for the unanimous consent of members of the House, and I specifically saw the member for Don Valley West shake his head in the negative when you sought unanimous consent. You may have seen someone else say no on the Conservative side.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have not only seen other members. I heard a no and automatically if there is one no-and there was more than one-there is not unanimous consent.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I am not one who is opposed to privatization in certain conditions. I am not one who is opposed to looking at Crown corporations and seeing if they have outlived their public purpose. If all of a sudden the private sector wants to get involved because it can do a better job, I have absolutely no problem with that.
I am also one, by the way, who is not running away from Harbourfront. I happen to believe that Harbour-front is a multicultural mecca. Sure, it has some flaws, but I think it is one of the finest people places in North America.
I think of many of the joint ventures between the Government of Canada and the private sector, such as the Queen's Quay, the first building that went up with Olympia and York. It was a great joint venture. During the special recovery program period during 1981-82, when times were so bad, we were able to add parking lots. We have a great antique market down there and a beautiful skating rink that people use during the winter. All of these are pluses.
Even though the processing of the apartments on Harbourfront is really questionable, I happen to think that Huang Danczkay who built these apartments in record time, with all of the problems, probably did not do a bad job. There were many great builders and developers that pulled Harbourfront up from absolutely no-
Govemment Orders
where and, in joint venture with the Government of Canada, made it one of the best people places in Canada with cultural and recreational events. The men and women who put it together over many years-Liberals, Tbries, NDP-helped to make it a great place.
Where my problem comes in with this bill is that Harbourfront, as it is evolving right now, is doing a fabulous job. We cannot ignore the fact that the Government of Canada, with taxpayers' money to the tune of about $250 million that has been put into this place, is part of the reason it is so great.
Now all of a sudden we come along and we have Harbourfront running beautifully. We have people sensitized to the fact that there should be no more development down there. Even though sometimes we think that green space is the only way to make a people place, we can also have development and density. That can also create a people park. I am satisfied with that.
What I cannot understand is why this government is taking a jewel like this, our Harbourfront, putting a book value of $31 million on it, and putting it up for grabs. I am really trying hard to understand the point of the hon. member for Don Valley West, although I resent the fact that he calls me some kind of a rat packer, because that is not my traditional style. I am not taking anything away from my colleagues, because there are different styles.
However, it is absolute craziness to take a public piece of property that is probably worth $300 million and put a book value on it of $31 million. If they were to say that they were going to transfer it to the public sector specifically, because maybe the city or the province could do a better job, then I would not have as much of a problem with it. I am a centralist, and I think that the national government should have some say in what goes on there. It is not just for the people of Toronto; it is also for tourism and people who come to our city.
I have a very serious concern about this Harbourfront deal. The developers who put Harbourfront together, not taking anything away from their craftsmanship, are great people; but it is the same group that is basically now in charge of, owning and running Terminal 3. When I say "owning", I know there is a technical word here called a "lease". It is a 40-year lease with a 20-year option on the third largest airport in North America.

What concerns me is that this bill is so tricky, because we have wrap-ups of museums, constructions, corporations, and the Patent Act. In there is also the harbour lands of B.C. I am absolutely dismayed that the Minister of Justice is supporting this bill.
Pearson International last year made $70 million profit. That is before depreciation, and a lot of people say that it is being run poorly; in other words, that the private sector could come in and do a better job and increase the value. I give you that, Madam Speaker. Maybe the private sector could come in and do a better job.
It has been over 10 years. That is $1 billion worth of profit that the Government of Canada has traditionally used to help make sure the tarmac surfaces were maintained and make sure that smaller airports were maintained around this country.
Now what has the Government of Canada done? The Government of Canada has given to the private sector Terminal 3, which is really nothing more than a cash box for the private sector. Yes, it will pay a certain amount each year under the terms of the lease. I cannot get that lease from the Minister of Justice. I cannot get my hands on it. Nobody has seen it, and that is one of the problems that we have in this government.
If it is such a good deal for the taxpayer, why not put it on the table? Why not show that it is such a good deal. I have no problems if in fact the taxpayer is properly being served here. Then so be it. Let it be privatized. However, I have been told by experts who are assisting in that airport project that basically it is a private sector operation and that the Government of Canada has no control on how the public is being served. The public benefit could really go out the window here.
This is one of the reasons I have concern about the Harbourfront in Tbronto. If we allow our Harbourfront to be in the hands of the private sector completely, with no government authority, and if we give away our national airport-not just Terminal 3, as the Minister of Transport announced the other day-what will happen? This is not an optional use facility. This is a facility the public must use. I do not mind if it is an optional facility that the private sector can run better. That is fine, but
this is not an optional use facility. It is a facility that the public has to use, and it is 50 per cent of the nation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but he will be able to continue later.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to a great resident of Montreal North, Dr. Jules Brodeur, who was awarded the Prix de la Recherche en sante et en securite du travail by the Institute of the same name. This week, Dr. Brodeur was selected as personality of the week by the Montreal newspaper La Presse.
Dr. Brodeur, who founded the Department of Occupational Health at the University of Montreal, is a professor at the School of Medicine of the University of Montreal. Dr. Brodeur continues Montreal's great medi-. cal tradition, following the footsteps of famous medical researchers like Hans Selye, Jacques Genest and Paul David. Congratulations, Dr. Brodeur!


HERITAGE LANGUAGES
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, the federal government's decision to seriously reduce support for the heritage languages program last spring has badly hurt the operation of many heritage language schools across Canada. Every child in a heritage language program is now feeling the effect of those cutbacks.
The establishment of a multimillion Heritage Languages Institute will in no way make up for the withdrawal of these basic life line funds for these schools. A non-partisan rally for heritage languages will be held on Parliament Hill at noon tomorrow, sponsored by the heritage language schools of eastern Ontario. A similar demonstration will be held at the same time in Saskatoon.
October 26, 1990

Across Canada heritage language schools are struggling to keep classes operating and to share their knowledge, languages and cultures with all Canadians. Heritage language programs are an investment in a global future for all Canadians.
All members of Parliament are urged to show their support and attend the rally for heritage languages on Parliament Hill at noon tomorrow.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, during Small Business Week 1990, Canadian entrepreneurs are facing a series of complex challenges. All those interested in the small business sector will have to pool their expertise, experience and foresight to gain an understanding of what we can expect in the years to come.
Madam Speaker, international markets, international competition and increasingly demanding consumers merely accentuate the problems facing small business.
With this in mind, in 1984 our government introduced its economic renewal program. As a result, we have made tremendous progress in creating new job opportunities, thanks to tax reform, deregulation and the abolition of trade barriers. The government's, challenge in the years to come will be to continue economic renewal, and businesses will have to adjust, to take advantage of the many new opportunities that will be available.


DAVID IRVING
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, David Irving is speaking across Canada and will be in Ottawa at the Ottawa Congress Centre next month. He is spreading a message that the holocaust was a fabrication.
David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel that Nazi Germany had no official policy on the extermination of Jews and he doubted six million Jews were systematically killed.
Such holocaust denial is offensive to all Jews and to anyone who supports fundamental human rights and is bound to engender hostility towards some Canadians. Therefore, I especially question the appropriateness of providing Mr. Irving with a platform in a building owned by the government and operated at public expense.
I do not know whether Mr. Irving is a racist, but in my estimation he is certainly not an historian, and does not deserve our attention, but instead our condemnation.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, Small Business Week recognizes and encourages the entrepreneurial spirit of thousands of Canadians who operate a small business in our country. This year's theme, Quality and Productivity: The Competitive Edge is most appropriate.
Small businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. They are the main source of new ideas and new wealth, and account for three-quarters of the jobs created in Canada in the past few years.
Small Business Week is highlighted by such activities as trade fairs, exhibitions, information sessions, conferences and award presentations in every region of Canada.
I will be attending an award presentation in my riding of St. Albert on October 27. The Chamber of Commerce will be presenting an award to the St. Albert businessman of the year. I am proud to recognize the men and women who, through their small businesses, contribute so much to the nation's prosperity.



Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, as the sun sets on Small Business Week, the darkness is closing on small business in Canada. High interest rates, free trade and the GST are all succeeding in driving more and more entrepreneurs out of business.

October 26, 1990
As we see a growing number of businesses go into receivership or bankruptcy, we have to ask ourselves where we will find the entrepreneurial spirit the government has talked about.
Will we find it in the small one and two-person firms whose operators do not have the will to continue in the face of becoming unpaid GST tax collectors for the federal government?
Will we find it in the furniture manufacturers who have gone broke?
Will we find it in the retailers along the U.S. border who are closing their shops because they can no longer compete with the Americans?
Will we find it in the hospitality industry which is already overburdened with taxation by this greedy government?
I strongly fear that the only spirit will be the ghost of small business, small business which has been killed by this government's policies.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, potato farmers in New Brunswick are facing a disaster. Heavy rains and wet weather this fall have placed this $70 million industry in jeopardy. As thousands of acres of potatoes lie rotting in the ground, as much as one-quarter of the crop is already lost.
The New Brunswick potato agency estimates that 20 per cent of those involved in the industry in my riding will be unable to survive this severe economic blow. At this time, we do not know what the cumulative loss will be, but we do know with certainty that difficulties lie ahead. We will be looking for a joint effort between the federal and provincial governments to assist.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in an agreement reached between the province of Ontario and the federal government, the province recently announced that it will provide reserve land at no cost to the federal government for the six Ontario bands who have been fighting for reserve status since 1985.
The announcement is good news for the six bands, since they have been living in conditions not unlike those found in Third World countries. There is no running water, no indoor plumbing, no schools in some cases, no electricity, no telephone service and the housing is well below standard.
The only thing separating these communities from improved living conditions is the final approval by the federal cabinet. Cabinet approval of the agreement will provide the funding necessary to provide the residents of Kee-way-win, Wawakapewin, Saugeen, New Slate Falls, McDowell Lake and Aroland with the infrastructure they so desperately need.
Madam Speaker, I call on the Minister of Indian Affairs to press full steam ahead in order to ensure that cabinet approval is given by the end of the year. The government has to live up to the commitment it made on September 25 if it wants to demonstrate some good faith.


BILL C-43
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has said over and over again that a federal abortion law is needed to "occupy the field", to ensure that the provinces do not pass their own abortion laws.
Well, 17 of 18 constitutional experts disagreed. The New Democratic Party and the majority of the witnesses before the legislative committee on Bill C-43 disagreed. Now, the Nova Scotia courts have also told her she is wrong.
In the absence of any federal legislation being enacted, the Nova Scotia courts have, not surprisingly, decided that a province cannot pass legislation outside its jurisdiction.
I call on the Senate to be less obtuse than the Minister of Justice, to listen to the experts, to the courts, and to common sense, and defeat this bad legislation.
I also call on the Minister of Justice in the event that this bill is passed through the Senate, to wake up to the facts and not proclaim the bill.
The increasing lack of access to services in the face of this bill is devastating. Hanging on to wrong conclusions in the face of overwhelming-
October 26, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon.
member's time has now expired.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my support to the comprehensive five-year plan for Canada's immigration policy announced yesterday.
In the tragic circumstances of poverty and homelessness for millions of people which we witness in so many places in the world today, surely our intentions to moderately increase our annual immigration levels by 50,000, a 20 per cent increase over five years, will be generously received and supported by all Canadians.
While Canada is noted for its humanitarian principles, there is also a basic demographic reality which immigration serves in this country, the sustaining of our own population levels so essential to our economic viability as a nation. Some experts advise that we should be taking in 1 per cent of our population each year just to keep our total population constant.
The new five-year plan, even with the increases, falls short of that minimum goal. Immigration is part of the challenge for a national commitment to multicultural-ism. Together those qualities help to make Canada a richer nation in all respects.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, here we are, at the eve of the second world climate conference in Geneva, and Canada has no position on carbon dioxide pollution reduction. Other countries have, but not Canada.
Why is the Minister of the Environment so reluctant? Is he afraid to give leadership? Is cabinet undecided because it is divided? Who pulls the strings? Is it the minister of energy, who believes that oil companies are philanthropists, operating in the public interest? While he fiddles, other nations are taking firm positions on cutting carbon dioxide pollution.
We are not giving leadership to the global community. No longer are our international positions, from Iraq to carbon dioxide pollution finalized in Ottawa. Alas, Madam Speaker, the Tory government takes its cues from the White House.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Madam Speaker, this past week more and more Canadians are applauding the long-awaited passage of Bill C-21, the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
These much-needed amendments improve the program's ability to help Canadian workers adjust to change.
Madam Speaker, the Canadian public increasingly appreciates the need for a well-trained workforce. They realize the need for a new attitude and approach to labour force training. Our workers deserve a national training effort which better meets the demands posed by structural and technological advancements.
Under Bill C-21, the commitment of an additional $800 million to training is another step in the right direction. To all Canadians I believe that it reflects our pursuit of an effective national training effort, as well as our commitment to helping Canadians find and keep jobs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, remember away back when the Prime Minister announced that a centre for sustainable development was to be opened in Winnipeg with a grant of $85 million dollars?
It all sounded so promising, the nation with the highest per capita energy use was going to do something of value. But somewhere along the way the wheels fell off. Funding for the centre turned out to be only $5 million and, as a constituent stated in a letter to me, the original proposal was reduced to tokenism and the concern with the environment tagged as rhetoric. As if that was not bad enough, the government announced a grant of $88 million toward construction of an opera house in Toronto, which makes you wonder about this government's priorities.

October 26, 1990
Oral Questions
I will give the last word to my constituent, who said in his letter to me: "Surely if money is available for a house of pleasure, then it should be available for a research centre that can help solve some of the world's environmental problems".


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I was most pleased to hear of the imminent closure of the Kingston Penitentiary for Women. I would like to acknowledge the Solicitor General's diligence in this area and express gratitude on behalf of the women prisoners and their families.
I am sure that we can all empathize with the extra pain suffered by these women and their families as a result of this separation.
The creation of five new facilities for federally sentenced women located across the country is a humanitarian measure that is long overdue. While the changes came too late for some, who saw no way out of the situation but suicide, there is new hope for others. I am hoping that when the minister makes his decision on the locations of the facilities, that he takes Saskatchewan into consideration. Saskatchewan is centrally located within the prairie provinces.
The economic boost created by the construction, upkeep and employment of this facility would be greatly appreciated. More importantly, the need to keep a reasonable proximity between the women and their families is of paramount interest to the citizens of my home province.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, Italian Canadians, Chinese Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians are getting very tired of waiting for the Prime Minister to apologize for injustices that were perpetrated on innocent victims earlier in this century. This is important to our history.
Since 1983, we have been calling on the government to acknowledge the unjust Chinese head tax and Chinese Exclusion Act, which was deliberate racist legislation, separating families for several generations.
Ukrainian Canadians were unjustly interned during the First World War, in 26 concentrations camps across Canada, yet few Canadians are aware of this.
During World War II, hundreds of Italian Canadians were labelled enemy aliens, separated from families and imprisoned. German Canadians suffered similar injustices.
These injustices would never be tolerated under today's charter of rights. They are shameful events in our history. I call on the Prime Minister to acknowledge each of these injustices against fellow Canadians on behalf of all Canadians.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, during Small Business Week, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the contribution made by small businesses in the riding of Drummond, where leadership and entrepreneurship are a way of life.
As the cornerstone of the Canadian economy, small businesses generate new ideas and are a new source of wealth. Furthermore, they have created nearly three-quarters of the jobs in recent years.
Thanks to the agenda for economic renewal introduced by the Conservative government in 1984, tremendous progress has been made in creating new job opportunities as a result of tax reform, deregulation and the suppression of trade barriers.
Madam Speaker, Canadian entrepreneurs should take advantage of every opportunity they are offered to become even more competitive, innovative and creative, in order to meet the challenges of the 90s.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in his absence, for the Prime Minister.
October 26, 1990

Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada was prepared to use force against Iraq, to take part in military action of an offensive nature, without there first being a United Nations resolution approving such action. Today there are reports that the United States is sending another 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf.
I ask the Prime Minister, is there a pattern here? Is Canada part of a co-ordinated action with the United States to escalate the tensions in the Persian Gulf, and is it doing this without first consulting and getting the approval of our House of Commons?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, Canada is part of a co-ordinated group of like-minded nations that seek the enforcement of the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. We have been part of this group quite properly from the beginning and we would propose to remain there.
What we are doing is enforcing, or seeking the enforcement of, a series of unanimous resolutions, passed by the Security Council of which Canada is a member.
I am quite astonished that the Leader of the Opposition, whose party has supported the general approach of the government, would seek to question it today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the approach that we have supported, and which is stated in the resolution of the House, is in support of United Nations' resolutions condemning Iraqi aggression and the use of sanctions to roll back that aggression.
For weeks now, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been telling Canadians that these sanctions are an effective way of rolling back Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and that we must give those sanctions time to work. Yesterday in the House the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs certainly created the impression that Canada had decided that sanctions were not working and was giving up on them.
Why does the government appear to have reached the conclusion that sanctions are not working? What is the evidence for this? Is this conclusion also that of all the other countries which worked to have the resolutions
Oral Questions
adopted at the United Nation to create the system of sanctions to deter and roll back Iraqi aggression?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, obviously everyone in the House knows that the question of the Leader of the Opposition is both a distortion of what the Secretary of State said yesterday and a distortion of the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the government over the last two months.
In point of fact, the Secretary of State never said the sanctions are not working, and the Secretary of State did not begin yesterday to point out to members of the House the difficulties inherent in seeking the enforcement of UN resolutions.
Indeed, on October 15, some two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to the spokespeople for external affairs of the Official Opposition parties and said, and I quote: "At the same time, I have also made it clear that if President Hussein does not withdraw from Kuwait, in the face of the unprecedented international consensus and under the pressure of sanctions, he must understand the willingness of the world to take further actions, including military action. Canada is prepared to consider, with its Security Council colleagues, what the next steps might be."
The Secretary of State spelled it out very clearly two weeks ago. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition expresses the view that this was newly minted information yesterday, when it has been government policy all along.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister quoted the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada would be willing to consider other action with its Security Council colleagues. That can only mean as part of United Nations action.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said clearly that Canada was ready to take offensive action against Iraq, even though there was no decision first by the United Nations.

In this House yesterday, Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the government is considering the possibility of sending our troops

Oral Questions
in offensive action against Iraq, without the approval of the United Nations. That was quite clear, yet the Prime Minister said exactly the contrary when he quoted from a letter of the Secretary of State a few weeks ago.
So I ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure Canadians today that should he decide to involve Canadian troops in offensive action against Iraq, without the sanction of the United Nations, he will not make such a decision without first consulting with and securing the approval of this House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, in addition to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I have just quoted in English, two weeks ago he also advised the opposition as follows: "It stands to reason that in critical times the situation may evolve very rapidly and require immediate action. As you may recall, on September 24 last I said in the House that if there were any change in the gulf situation the government would confer with Parliament." The Leader of the Opposition may claim to be surprised by these statements, but two weeks ago the Secretary of State did say in writing, and I am sure Madam Speaker will allow me to read his statement: "But at the same time I made it quite clear that, if Saddam Hussein does not yield when faced with the unprecedented international consensus which now prevails and with the pressure of sanctions taken against him, he should expect the world community to resort to other measures, including military action. Along with other countries belonging to the Security Council, Canada is prepared to consider what these measures might be."
What the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday was fully consistent with his earlier statements.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question as well for the Prime Minister.
This morning I was in telephone contact with Mrs. Joyce Scobery, whose husband is presently being detained in Iraq, and with Mr. Shiraz Rustom, whose elderly parents are being held against their will in that country. They speak for all those Canadians who have family, loved ones and relatives in Kuwait or Iraq. I want to say to the Prime Minister that they do not understand why the government is not prepared to take special
measures to release their families or loved ones. The present system is not working.
In light of the plea, the request of these families, and in light of the failure so far to gain release of their relatives, will the Prime Minister consent to send a special envoy, a special emissary, a group of parliamentarians, in order to sit down with the Iraqis and negotiate and discuss the release of Canadians who are presently at risk?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, of all of the Canadians who were in Kuwait on August 2, only 3 per cent now remain.
My hon. friend says that he was in conversation this morning with some Canadians. He concluded by saying that they speak for all Canadians held in Iraq.
Last night on The National on the CBC, there were a number of Canadians living in Baghdad interviewed by the CBC. Those who were interviewed said that it would be inappropriate and unacceptable in their judgment for Canada to take action that would diminish the solidarity of the allies in seeking-


Martin Brian Mulroney: One was censored who was trying to get out the message that it would be unacceptable to diminish the solidarity of the allies in trying to bring pressure on Saddam Hussein.
My hon. friends may want to examine the transcripts of last night's television program, but those people were certainly speaking in quite a different way from the suggestions of my hon. friend.
What we are ready to do, of course, is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeatedly said. We will examine all options to be helpful to those Canadians who are there. We will seek to do so in a manner that does not diminish the effectiveness or the solidarity of the members of the United Nations Security Council that put together and voted unanimously in favour of a simple, straightforward resolution that calls upon a dictator and an aggressor to withdraw from an innocent country.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. First, I want to have the Prime Minister confirm that it is true that our present Canadian Ambassador in Iraq has not even had his credentials yet accepted by the Iraqi government


Mr. Arseneault:: One was censored, Brian.

October 26, 1990

and therefore, his ability to undertake direct negotiations is limited.
I would also like him to confirm what the Secretary of State said in the House yesterday, that, in fact, he, the Prime Minister, and President Bush had discussed this question of hostages in Iraq during a telephone conversation one or two days ago. It is clear that success of the emissaries of other countries has been working. It remains a question why we are not doing the same.
Specifically, is the government not undertaking special measures to get Canadians out of Iraq and Kuwait because President Bush asked it not to?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, even my left wing, anti-American friend from Winnipeg knows that that is a completely false suggestion. He knows full well. I will not even dignify that part of what is really a spurious and unacceptable suggestion by a distinguished parliamentarian. I know that, upon reflection, my friend from Winnipeg is going to want to withdraw that kind of suggestion.
The other question was in regard to the effectiveness of the Canadian ambassador whose credentials are questioned by my hon. friend and who was on television last night as well. The Canadian ambassador in Baghdad said that he was working effectively and well, and that he was the representative of the Government of Canada in terms of dealing with the question of the hostages. I concluded from his intervention that he thought it was going well and that other interventions would be unhelpful.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well.
On August 25, the United Nations passed the resolution supporting an economic blockade against Iraq. The Canadian government sent troops and ships to support that economic blockade.
On Wednesday night, media reports indicated that the blockade was working. On Thursday, the minister responsible for external affairs decided to up the ante, through his inflammatory language, and suggested that Canada would undertake military action without reference to United Nations and without the approval of Parliament. The question that Canadians are asking and that I ask the Prime Minister is this. Is it the policy of the
Oral Questions
Canadian government to undertake unilateral offensive action with the United States without the approval of the UN Security Council?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed the matter in a given context, one of which dimensions implied a possible veto by another or other members of the Security Council.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been deploying his personal efforts and those of his department here and around the world, looking for a peaceful solution to what is a very serious matter. At no time has he "upped the ante", to quote my hon. friend. What he has done is repeated what he conveyed to the spokesperson for External Affairs for my hon. friend's party two weeks ago that there are some very serious consequences that flow from this kind of action and, in a realistic manner, Canada, along with our allies which support the United Nations, must be prepared to envisage those consequences.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, a supplementary to the Prime Minister. I would say to the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said to the committee that Canada would use force against Iraq, with or without Security Council approval. I ask the Prime Minister again, is it the policy of the Canadian government to enter into unilateral offensive action with the United States without the approval of the UN Security Council and without the approval of this Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, in the communication that was sent to my hon. friend's party on October 15, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated very clearly that there would be consultation obviously with the House of Commons. That was very clear cut.
With regard to the statement of yesterday, in its proper context it is fully consistent with the earlier statement set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Simply put, Canada seeks, along with other members of the Security Council and the 150 members of the United Nations who have endorsed the Security Council position, the respect of the Security Council resolution which calls upon Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. It

Oral Questions
is an innocent country that has been a victim of aggression. We hope that the Security Council resolution can be fully implemented.
We are now part of an effort to bring all possible pressure on Saddam Hussein in regard to this, and Canada will maintain that position.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the minister responsible for external affairs said in this House that he would not necessarily ask for Parliament's approval for going to war. He said at page 14692 of Hansard that we cannot always wait, in reference to parliamentary approval.
There is, however, another serious question and that is the question of the hostages in Iraq.

Yesterday's inflammatory statements by the Minister of External Affairs may have some serious consequences for the safety of Canadians being kept hostage in Iraq. Other countries have shown a great deal of prudence and discretion. That is not the case with the Canadian minister who seems to have completely forgotten that the hostages, situation is a precarious one. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: what does the government intend to do to guarantee the safety of Canadian hostages in Iraq?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this respect have been explained at length, not only in a communication from the minister to the hon. member's party on October 15 but also yesterday, in committee, and during Question Period yesterday afternoon. There is no contradiction, none at all, between the position Canada has defended since the beginning of the crisis and the position taken by the Secretary of State yesterday. Only 2 per cent of the Canadians who were in Kuwait on August 2 are still there today. This means that Canada has been very effective in getting Canadian nationals out of the country, does it not?
As for the remaining- Last night, on CBC television, we saw Canadian men and women, including a nurse from Nova Scotia and another Canadian citizen, who seemed to be giving us the message that the Canadian government's policy was appropriate and that they would not approve of sending a special Canadian envoy to
Baghdad to more or less beg the president of Iraq to free Canadian nationals.
As for discretion and prudence, I think that Canada's policy has been not only prudent but effective, ever since the beginning of this crisis. We intend to maintain the same firmness and vigour, and in doing so, we will ask for the co-operation of the hon. member and her party.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Visa fees charged by her department for family members are now $250. Yesterday, the minister said that part of the cost of her five-year plan would be paid for through a cost-recovery program. Since the family class comes off worst in her plan, could the minister give this group the assurance that visa fees will not be increased?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is important for this government and for the country to cover immigration costs with new fees, and there are no guarantees for any class. However, we feel it is very important for people who come to Canada to have services, and those services must be paid for.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the minister has just stated that only the rich will be able to enter Canada.

According to yesterday's announcement, the minister wants to put immigration in line with planned immigration levels. Is she introducing for the first time in Canada an immigration quota system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I have no quarrel with what we are doing in terms of planning to the levels that we have outlined for the next five years. The hon. member can call it anything that he would like to call it, but what we have is universal access to Canada under different kinds of categories. In order to provide the services that we want to provide for new immigrants to Canada, it is our intention to make sure that the system is managed to the planned levels.
October 26, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last February, I asked the minister to explain how the GST would impact on aboriginal people who are not covered under the Indian Act, essentially those who are off the reserves.
On August 22,1 wrote to the Minister of Finance but received no response. I ask the minister today what the Department of Finance is doing with the treatment of the GST for native people who live off reserves or for a community where there is a mixture of status and non-status Indians. How can he implement a discriminatory tax system where some will pay taxes and others will not?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interest of my hon. friend in this matter. I have been having, either directly or through my officials, ongoing consultations with members of the native communities. When we have a resolution of these discussions, I will be able to make an announcement.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
I have just returned from an all-chiefs meeting in the Atlantic with my colleague from Western Arctic. One of the resolutions that was passed was with respect to the goods and services tax. The chiefs unanimously agreed that the tax is a direct infringement of the first nations' inherent treaty rights.
Will the minister admit the proposed tax is a violation of aboriginal rights and a breach of the federal duty to protect these rights? Further, how can the minister implement a tax that will directly contravene aboriginal tax immunity?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the statement the hon. member has just made as it relates to the goods and services tax. I will tell him, as I told his colleague, that we are having discussions with members of the aboriginal communities and we are trying to find ways to meet the objectives and
Oral Questions
concerns they have. When we have a resolution of these discussions, I will have an announcement to make.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday, the Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan brought down a very disappointing decision on the Rafferty-Alameda project. It has been three weeks since the panel resigned and now the court has refused an interim injunction and delayed its decision for another week.
This government has continually mishandled the issue and has allowed the province of Saskatchewan to defy court orders and the federal licence.
Why will this government not end this farce and use its power under section 13.1 of the Environment Act to suspend the licence?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, permit me to answer on behalf of the minister, who is in western Canada today meeting with western ministers.
To refresh my hon. friend's memory, there was an agreement in January that work at the dam site should proceed while a panel is being appointed to study the matter and examine mitigated measures that would have to be implemented to bring the structure within the conformity of safety since work had already begun.
In September, Saskatchewan attempted to amend that agreement to allow the completion of the dam while the panel makes its finding. Of course, the minister could not agree to that. Therefore, he suspended any federal payments to the project and took the matter to court. My hon. friend has indicated what the court has decided to do. There is a delay of a week, but certainly a court injunction is ordered by the federal government.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
This government cannot hide behind a January agreement which Premier Grant Devine has declared null and void. I was in the courtroom in Saskatoon yesterday, and federal lawyers admitted that the minister made an agreement with the premier of Saskatchewan on Sep-

Oral Questions
tember 5. This was after the minister stood in the House on October 12 and told me he did not make such an agreement. Certainly the judge's decision hinged on an agreement, otherwise he would have had no choice but to grant the injunction.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is there an agreement, written or verbal, between the federal government and the Government of Saskatchewan that overrides the January agreement?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, there was not an agreement of September 5. The agreement and understanding under which the minister is acting and by which he has approached the court dates to the January agreement. There is no agreement that could provide the minister or the Saskatchewan government anything different than what was agreed to in January.


IMMIGRATION
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns qyestions specific to immigration in Quebec, which since 1978 has been governed by the Couture-Cullen Agreement.
Considering that some time ago, Quebec submitted a draft proposal for adapting the 1978 agreement to the realities of the 90s, could the minister inform the House whether an agreement with Quebec is imminent, so that the province can implement immigration and integration policies and programs that are in line with Quebec's distinct identity?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday and Tbesday, it is unfortunate that there can be no constitutional agreements of the kind planned under the Meech Lake Accord. The government is still looking at the situation, but there are a number of new factors that must be considered, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in committee, we learned from the Deputy Minister of Employment that the made-in-Canada recession we are in will increase the projected deficit on the UI account to the end of 1992 by an additional $1 billion, that is over and above the $3 billion that was forecast last April.
Given that his government has withdrawn from the UI program with the passage of Bill C-21, will the Minister of Finance tell this House how he plans to meet this additional shortfall caused by his policies?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend will go back to Bill C-21, he will see that there is a stated rate there for a three-year period for the unemployment insurance premiums. That is the basis of our planning and, if there is any shortfall, then this will be made up by the government.
This is the basis on which we have proposed the different elements of Bill C-21.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She knows that, before Bill C-21, self-employed fishermen's benefits came from the government's general funds. At this time of crisis in the Atlantic fishery, can she assure this House that fishermen will not be abandoned? Can she promise us today that fishermen will not have to pay for the recession created by her government's policies and that their benefits will not be cut?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, let me say that we
have never abandoned the self-employed fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
Clearly we will be looking at the kind of emergency measures that are needed, as we have before. Indeed, the fishing regulations, as the member knows, are not

affected by Bill C-21 at all. The minister of fisheries and myself are working very closely on the kinds of measures that are needed in Atlantic Canada.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last year the Prime Minister assured me and this House that he would discuss the lobster size restrictions being suggested in the United States with President Bush. Then we got the free trade panel saying that the United States could do this, that is impose a size on lobster for import into the United States.
At present we have the Minister for International Trade with an understanding, by some people in the U.S. industry and Canadian industry, saying that there has to be a further restriction. That is an industry proposal. It goes against all lobster fishermen's interests.
Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister for International Trade to reject this proposal, this understanding, which his own minister of fisheries has said is a trade restriction on the fisheries? Will he have his Minister for International Trade reject the proposal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think it has been very clear that the position of the government has been to defend, to the best of our ability, the interests of the lobster fishermen. That has been what the Minister for International Trade has done with great vigour over the period of time that he has been the Minister for International Trade.
My hon. friend raises some specifics of this particular matter. I will draw those to the attention of the Minister for International Trade, and he will get back to her as soon as possible.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for the informative answer that he will talk to the Minister for International Trade. Perhaps it is the same way that interest in other matters in this House has been brought
Oral Questions
to his attention and nothing done. I presume it should be done immediately.
My question for the Prime Minister concerns the lucrative lobster fishery in the Bay of Fundy which starts in the month of November. They are uncertain as to what size they can fish, what type of trap they can fish with. We are not talking about the U.S. import restrictions. We are talking about catching lobsters in Canada and selling them in Canada and to other countries aside from the United States, which we have done very well.
Will this government reject, without delay, the proposal that is before the minister of trade which he may bring before Carla Hills later but after the lobster fishery starts?
The lobster industry needs to know and not have the uncertainty that this government has created when its own minister of fisheries has said it would be a trade restriction on our own people that is not necessary.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend speaks of a proposal that is before the Minister for International Trade.
I have all the minister's briefing notes. There is no such proposal. There may be a proposal in the United States, as there always is, to seek advantage for fishermen in the United States. We are not officially dealing with such a proposal and, if it comes forward, the Minister for International Trade and the minister of fisheries will do what they have always done, that is, protect with all their energy and in the best interests of Canada the interests of our fishermen.


JOHNSON MATTHEY
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
On Monday of this week the Johnson Matthey company, a British firm controlled by the South African Anglo-American Corporation, announced that it was "restructuring" and, effective December 31, "relocating" its high-tech electronic materials development and manufacturing plant from Trail, B.C. to Spokane, Washington in the U.S.A., with the loss of some 95 highly

October 26, 1990
Oral Questions
skilled Canadian jobs-space age jobs-within a small B.C. community.
This closure and job loss occur less than two years since January 1989, when the then minister and Investment Canada approved the sale of this former Cominco division to Johnson Matthey amidst widespread public assurances that Johnson Matthey had purchased a 125-year lease and had no intention of moving the plant.
What action has the minister taken to ensure that Johnson Matthey lives up to the commitments which it presumably made to Investment Canada and his government only 22 months ago? What specifically were those commitments, and what is he doing to keep these high-tech jobs in Canada?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I want to say first that we are of course always sensitive to a community like Trail, which will lost about 90 high-tech jobs. My friend is right, but he knows very well that the problem is that there is a decline in the demand for that kind of production in Trail, particularly for the military industry.
For that reason the company has decided to rationalize its operations. Obviously if there is any commitment which was made-


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Coline M. Campbell: Define rationalization in Canada.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, perhaps members are not interested, but I believe the workers in Trail are, absolutely.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: If any commitment was made by the department of industry with that company, the officials of the department will check everything that has been signed. Once again, if the commitments are not respected, the department will do what it did with a company by the name of Varity, that he totally agreed with. In other words we made a deal, and we will try to have the same kind of commitment.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the commitment, I did give the minister's office some notice of this question
yesterday. I would hope that he would by now know if there were commitments or not.
There is also the matter of some $3 million in Canadian and U.S. research and development funds that went to that firm in recent years. Even if the government got no guarantee from Johnson Matthey in return for Investment Canada's approval, or value for the R and D funds, will the minister at least accept that the government has a moral obligation and a clear responsibility to these 95 Canadians who are losing their jobs to the U.S. and make a specific commitment to the communities of Trail and Warfield to help develop new alternative productive employment opportunities on the Johnson Matthey site.
Does he accept that responsibility? Has he done anything? Will he do anything? What and when?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I want to make a little correction first. Part of the production will be moving to Victoria, British Columbia.


An hon. member:: Small.


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, small, but it is there. It is better than nothing, sir.
Second, once again a lot of help could be provided, particularly by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Immigration. We are always open.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Right, absolutely.


Benoît Bouchard: Every day we do different kinds of negotiations with those workers and the companies. Normally we find the answer.
My friend said that he gave me notice of the question yesterday. It is because I am serious that not interested in giving an answer which means nothing today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance.

Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a medical doctor whose two brothers are in the gallery today from Montreal-
October 26, 1990


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


David Kilgour: His works have been sponsored by the World Health Organization. He has been imprisoned now for 10 years in Vietnam.
I wonder if the minister on behalf of her colleague would tell the House what if anything has been done or is being done to try to win the liberation of that distinguished doctor.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to respond to the question of the hon. member.
As he will know, the human rights situation in Vietnam has improved over the last few years with major amnesties in 1988 involving more than 5,000 political prisoners, but the government has not relaxed its efforts for improvement.
As the hon. member also knows, the Canadian Ambassador to Vietnam is resident in Bangkok. He raises specific issues and our general Canadian concerns with respect to human rights on each visit to Hanoi. These visits take place two to three times a year.
The most recent example of direct Canadian representation on human rights matters took place in September of this year, during a visit to Hanoi, by the Canadian Ambassador, and the case of Dr. Que was raised at that time.
The Vietnamese response quite predictably was that human rights matters were a question of internal affairs for Vietnam. At the next opportunity the ambassador will press the Vietnamese on the case of Dr. Que and, in particular, will seek to obtain information on his health.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Order.


Some hon. members:: Order.


A. Kim Campbell: I understand that the hon. member and representatives from the Vietnamese community in Canada will be meeting with officials of the Department of External Affairs this afternoon. I know that they will have helpful suggestions to make, as well as an opportunity to be fully briefed on the situation.
Oral Questions


RAFFERTY-A LAMED A PROJECT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In court yesterday Justice Department lawyers confirmed that there was an "agreement to agree" between the Minister of the Environment and Premier Grant Devine on the Rafferty-Alameda project.
Now that the Acting Minister of the Environment has denied what the lawyers said in court yesterday, I ask the Prime Minister: Is there an agreement, formal or informal? What does it consist of?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I can only reiterate what the minister has said on several occasions in the House in response to this question. There was no agreement in September that would have in any way modified the memorandum of understanding, the agreement that was arrived at in January.
The Government of Saskatchewan asked for a two-week delay in the court proceedings to put its case. A one-week delay was granted.
I know that my hon. friend would agree that we should allow the court to make its determination, and the minister will act accordingly.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, for over two weeks now we have heard the premier of Saskatchewan say there was a handshake deal. We have heard the Minister of the Environment deny it. We have heard a lawyer acting on behalf of our Justice Department and the Minister of the Environment say in court that there was a deal.
Canadians and this Parliament have a right to the answer on this question. Will the Prime Minister clear the air now and table all documents and records of whatever kind relating to discussions between the premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of the Environment, or their officials, so that Canadians can learn the truth?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, with respect, I do not believe that the judge, as the hon. member says, made any statement yesterday that there was or was not an agreement. The judge just simply granted a stay of the proceedings for one week. The Minister of the Environment, who was to have met with Premier Devine and others on September 5, obviously would be the best authority to know. He said repeatedly inside and outside the House that there was

October 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
not an agreement. He did indicate what the province of Saskatchewan was seeking, that the dam should proceed while the panel proceeds with its work. But that was not agreed to.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A year ago tomorrow he received the report on the northern and isolated tax allowance. He has done nothing in that one year.
A number of communities have lost their northern tax benefit. It has been phased out over the last three years. As of January 1, 1991 thousands of communities will lose the northern tax benefit. When will the minister introduce a fair regime of taxation for all northern residents? When will he finally make a promise to assure these people that they are being treated fairly by the tax system in this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is accurate to say that I have done nothing. In fact, we have spent a fair amount of time consulting with various people who are affected and who do have a view on the particular proposals that were put out by the Brunelle task force. We have listened very carefully and are in the course of formulating our final thinking on this. I would hope to have a decision to announce soon.


POLYTECHNICAL SCHOOL VICTIMS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Last December in Montreal, the killing of 14 female students shocked the whole country. The Canadian Association of University Teachers submitted to the government two proposals to establish scholarships in memory of these victims. The Minister of Science wrote back to assure the Association of his support and co-operation in finding the money to implement its proposals.
Madam Speaker, this letter was written in May and nothing has been done so far. I want to ask the Minister when he will establish these scholarships in memory of the 14 female students?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we continue to work with a variety of organizations who have put forward some very creative and interesting proposals on scholarships for women in engineering, both at YEcole Polytechnique and at other universities across the country. I have met with the Canadian Association of University Teachers to discuss these proposals, with my colleague the Minister of Science, and discussions are ongoing with NRC to ensure that we will have a proposal for scholarships which will be appropriate. I hope we will be able to come forward with announcements in the near future.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions.
The signatories from my riding of Sarnia-Lambton and some outlying areas call upon the Parliament of Canada to hold referendums on major issues in Canada. By doing so, the undersigned feel their right to have a say in policy-making will be exercised and their voice on major issues will be heard.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents from my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Most of them live in the beautiful town of Hawkes-bury I remember talking to you about, Madam Speaker.

Routine Proceedings
These people are opposed, and understandably so, to the GST that the Conservative government wants to impose, and I support them wholeheartedly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, to follow up the question I asked in Question Period today, I have a petition to present signed by residents of northern Canada with regard to the need for a real tax benefit to recognize the high cost of living and working in areas described as northern or isolated.
Whereas the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas released one year ago fails to address these realities, the undersigned call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the report and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program which recognizes the financial needs of the people of northern and isolated areas.
This petition is signed by approximately 600 people, many from The Pas, Manitoba but also from the communities of Wanless, Snow Lake, Thompson and Sherridon, and in addition the communities of Swan River and Birch River and Birch River in the Dauphin-Swan River constituency.
Madam Speaker, as you and other members are aware, a number of communities in northern Alberta, northern Quebec and northern Ontario have signed similar petitions and want the government to act now.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Grand Manan Island protesting the destaffing of the Gannet Rock lighthouse, which has been with us since 1831.
This is just one of many petitions that I have presented on this very topic. I am very pleased to present this on behalf of the residents of Grand Manan. This petition is duly signed and recorded.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition to this House. Your petitioners object to the GST on books and newspapers.

This GST on books, magazines and newspapers is a tax on learning and reading.

Your petitioners call upon the House to reject the tax on books and newspapers.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to present this petition not only because of the subject matter, but also because of the people who signed it.
The subject matter, of course, is the goods and services tax. These petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada, and in particular the Prime Minister who is in the House at the present time, to withdraw this regressive tax. They are concerned about the negative impact it will have on the petitioners.
I am honoured to present the petition because the people who have signed it come from places like Dunro-bin, Woodlawn, Kanata, Embrun-which happens to be the home town of the mother of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-and from a significant number of people from the community of Sarsfield in the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are now presenting petitions and not getting a history lesson, even though it is quite interesting.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I would not abuse the rights of members by indicating that this petition is from the Kingston, Nova Scotia area. I will not do that.
I have the honour and privilege to table a petition today signed by a number of Canadians who point out that the proposed goods and services tax of the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay.
They go on and on pointing out how the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, but to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.

October 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to this House from many Canadians who are disgusted with the way this government is trying to tax books and other services.
Hopefully, the Prime Minister will listen to our children and university students, and bring in legislation that does not tax the fundamental privileges of our children.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 and once again carry forward the fight against the GST on behalf of residents of Canada.
I rise on behalf of residents of Ontario and the Barrie and Mississauga areas who ask this government to readdress what it has been looking at and look for a fairer tax than the GST.
The petitioners ask the Senate to stop now and not push this through, readdress where the tax system is going, and get rid of the goods and services tax.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions.
Both petitions relate to the disappointment of the aboriginal people of Canada as it relates to their treatment by the federal government. These petitioners from Seine River and Manitou Rapids ask the government to consider moving on land claims and the rights of their people. Hopefully the federal authorities will move quickly so that we will not antagonize race relations in Canada, and continue to provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me this morning to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from numerous Canadians asking that tax-free status of the printed word be retained and granted to all Canadians. It should apply
to everyone who goes to school so they will not be taxed under the GST.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to present petitions from a number of Canadians who oppose the GST. In particular, they oppose the tax on books, newspapers and all types of learning material. They humbly call upon this Parliament to withdraw this tax.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will know that I asked him privately, approximately one week ago, as to why a starred question that has been on the Order Paper in my name for at least six months has not yet been answered.
Perhaps the hon. member could give us a reply now or could inquire to look into it and report as soon as possible.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, maybe I could take this opportunity to indicate to the House that there have been 288 priority questions asked of the House, 245 or
85.1	per cent of which have been answered.
There were also 100 regular questions, 86 which have been answered. We are doing all in our power to accommodate the members and to get those answers as quickly as we can.
I do want to indicate that the question the hon. member is referring to is No. 295.1 did receive an answer that I was not happy with. Because we always endeavour to make sure that this hon. member receives nothing but the best of answers from the government, I have asked it to be revised and will get it back to him as quickly as possible.
October 26, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before I interrupted the hon. member he had had the floor for seven minutes, so there will be plenty of time.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue for all of us who are members of Parliament from Tbronto. I am happy that the member for Davenport opened the debate today. I know that other members from Toronto are going to be speaking on this debate. I just want to give a short recap of a couple of the points that I made.
As I said before the debate was interrupted for Question Period, there are times when privatization is a good thing and it works. I was not in any way, shape or form casting aspersions on the joint ventures that had built Harbourfront. In fact, I am proud of Harbourfront. As I said earlier, Harbourfront is a multicultural mecca. There is always room for improvement when you are building a large place like that from absolutely nothing. There was a bunch of useless buildings and space which nobody in Toronto had any use for it 10 to 15 years ago. It is now of course a real people place and hundreds of thousands of people enjoy it every week.
The member for Don Valley West said earlier today that there could be a chance that the city of Toronto or the province of Ontario could end up owning Harbourfront. If that were the case, I want to make it perfectly clear that I would have absolutely no problem with that, but this bill does not say that. It is also a very likely possibility that this could go out and whoever in the private sector wants to put the cheque on the table that is determined by this cabinet could walk away with it.
As I said earlier, the taxpayers of Canada have spent about $250 million over many years to put this Harbour-
Govemment Orders
front palace together. It is really not a palace, but it is a place that I am so proud of as a Toronto member that I would hate to think that it is going to go into the hands of someone who does not have the same public purpose. Where else in Canada, or anywhere in North America, have we seen a private sector interest create a public park with the cultural and recreational support facilities such as Harbourfront? I cannot think of anywhere.
There is another thing that concerns me about this bill. It is clause 42. It states:
All obligations and liabilities of Harbourfront Corporation are
deemed to be obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in the right of
Canada.
I know that there are some contingent liabilities on Harbourfront because of some approvals that were given to developers to advance and build even further density. With just cause, the city has stopped those plans from going forward. There is a contingent liability there for Harbourfront. Let us suppose that we did sell Harbourfront Corporation to a developer for $31 million. My goodness, if the contingent liability, which is the Crown's responsibility, were $30 million, that would mean the possibility exists that we would literally give Harbourfront away.
It is absolutely obscene to put a value of $31 million on Harbourfront. If the government is so convinced that this is a good thing for the people of Canada, if this is a good thing in terms of the public benefit, then let us put all the books and records, and all the deals and linkages on the table. Let us have a full analysis.
I have said this to you before, Madam Speaker. I believe that if the private sector will do the job that is necessary for the public service, let it do that. I support entrepreneurship and I support the private sector. But there are times when it is incumbent upon governments to make sure that they are in a control position to make sure that the public benefit, the public policy objective, is being served. I have seen, and many of us in the House of Commons have seen, time and time again, where the government has sold off things. It sells something that is losing money, and that is a pretty good reason if it can get somebody to come in and do it better. But it even sells things that are doing well.


John V. Nunziata: Like what?

October 26, 1990
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am going to give a very specific example and I have mentioned it before. I am absolutely convinced that the privatization of Pearson International Airport is not the right thing to do. Not only that, but the number of people who are involved in this is almost like a monopoly. We cannot have that with a public institution, where it is not optional for the public to use it. We have to use it. I am concerned how this affects tourists coming to the country.
I said this earlier that the profits with Terminals 1 and 2 operating inefficiently were in excess of $70 million last year. Take that over the next 10 years and that is $1 billion that traditionally went into the taxpayers' coffers. You could buy two Terminal 3's for $1 billion, and we, the taxpayers, the Government of Canada, would own them.
What is going to happen when suddenly some of the smaller airports in the country need new services in terms of tarmac, et cetera? We are not going to be in a position to dictate because the public objective is totally different than the private objective. In privatization, it is the absolute right and responsibility to make sure that the private shareholders are served. But in public policy, its the people of Canada who are served.
It is incumbent upon all of us in the House who are accountable to make decisions as to how we govern costs, all the way from the cost of a hamburger in that airport, to a dinner, a rent-a-car, the fees for going to buses, hotels, and everything else. If the private sector controls all of that, then who makes the judgment as to what the public good is all about?
My concern about the disposition of Harbourfront is not because I am in any way, shape or form casting aspersions on the joint ventures of the many good things that have happened at Harbourfront. Some of those joint ventures are actually starting to make a dollar right now. If they can pay back the taxpayer for some of the investment, why would we give it away?
If the province and the city of Toronto so passed it, and this were to go to a private developer, it is not impossible that one developer in the country would control our largest international airport, Pearson, plus our Harbourfront. We cannot be serious about allowing that to happen in a city like this.
If the private sector is convinced that it can do a better job of managing Terminal 1, 2, and 3, let us give them a lucrative management contract. But let us not give away the asset. From year to year, we can judge the management of that. If it is so confident, we can build in incentives and build in bonuses, but we do not need to give away our Harbourfront in Toronto. We do not need to give it away to the private sector so that it have its own private cash boxes.
The government always argues: "Well, where are we going to get the money to build Terminal 3?" If private development can go and get $450 million from the various pension funds and pay a proper rate of interest and it can make a profit on, then so can the government.
Do not compare this to the Dome Stadium or the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto where it is optional whether we use those facilities or not. We must use our airport. We must use our Harbourfront. In no way, shape or form, will I ever support the government giving either of those two things away.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I want to take two minutes and express my sincere gratitude and thanks to my colleague for letting me, my constituents, and other people in Toronto know what exactly the government is planning to do. The government, since it came to power, has sold everything, one thing after another. Now, the government wants to give everything away.
My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood, mentioned the airport. I want to ask him a question. Will he share with me and the House what his views are and what he thinks the government is trying to do? Where is the government going, and what is next on the chopping block that the government wants to sell? Will he please let us know what the government has in mind to do with the International Airport in Toronto? The government certainly is not doing it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I really could not venture a guess as to what the government is going to try to privatize next.
I see the Minister of State for Housing over there and I know how committed and sincere he is about affordable shelter in the country. I would not be surprised if the government let him try to get some zoning on the front lawn of Parliament Hill and tried to privatize the Hill.
October 26, 1990

Think of some of the assets that the government is giving away.
But I want to address my colleague seriously. The central issue in public life today and the one on which we are all going to campaign on in the next election is the issue of trust. We are all hated in this place and all distrusted. Government actions that increase trust are going to be rewarded accordingly, and government actions that decrease trust are really going to hurt.
Privatization in certain instances can be a good thing. But I believe, when we are talking about an airport, a national institution, or a Harbourfront, that we should have a full look at all the books and records, the investment that was made, the liabilities, the contingent liabilities, in fact the whole process. The government is so paranoid that it cannot get productivity and wealth-creation going in the country that it has to sell off assets that people have built up over the years to be great tributes to the country. If this is the only creativity the government has to sell off, then at least let us make sure that the taxpayer is being properly served.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I was astounded to learn this morning that this bill not only will privatize the facilities in Toronto which have just been mentioned, but also will privatize Canada Harbour Place Corporation in Vancouver. I doubt very much that anyone in Vancouver knows that that is what the government has in mind.
I think you will probably recall, Madam Speaker, that Canada Harbour Place is the symbol for Canada on the Pacific Ocean. It is the place that we see in all the brochures about western Canada, and particularly about Vancouver and B.C., with the big sails. For visitors who come in by ship to the west coast of Canada, and it is what means Canada to people on the west coast. It is the place where cruise ships come in. It is the place where we hold national events such as Canada Day, where groups representing all ethnocultural communities put on many activities, and where we come to celebrate Canada. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that we have these kinds of symbols, especially in our remote regions, particularly in British Columbia. Heaven knows that the British Columbian government will give absolutely no acknowledgement of Canada and the federal government except in a very negative sense and is only too willing to claim credit for anything that is sponsored
Government Orders
by other levels of government. I think it is very important that we take another look at this.
It is bad enough that we have privatization and deregulation that have been undermining Crown corporations of many descriptions in Canada. We of course have consistently opposed the selling off of Air Canada, and now Petro-Canada.
I must just interject to remind people and particularly to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Petro-Canada issue was one of the things that resulted in the downfall of his government in 1979.
This, I understand, is a statement, not a question, Madam Speaker. Is that correct?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No. We are in the question and comments period.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Perhaps I will just finish it up as a statement. I do want to say that the Canada Harbour Place Corporation which is, as I said, the symbol of Canada on the Pacific coast, must be retained as a Canadian symbol and, therefore, a Canadian government facility. It is particularly important too if we look at the history of the other Expo lands that were sold off by the provincial government. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of the under-pricing of that and the whole plan to sell off some of the lands that once had been federal property.
I certainly feel very strongly that we must vote against this bill.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Toronto Star in an editorial stated: "Dennis Mills is no ordinary MP". The member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood has just shown again why he is not an ordinary MP.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member, after more than six years in the House of Commons knows that when he is referring to any of his colleagues in the House, he should be referring to him or her by the name of the riding. After six and a half years I think the hon. member knows that. I would appreciate the hon. member sometimes following the rules.


John V. Nunziata: I take it that you have just made that comment tongue in cheek, Madam Speaker, but you should know, given your immense experience, that when

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
you quote from a document, you can quote verbatim. I was quoting from the editorial from the Toronto Star.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood would want a question, but to answer the hon. member, no, even when quoting a document it is not proper in this place to refer to a member by his or her name.


John V. Nunziata: The Toronto Star said that the member for Broadview-Greenwood is no ordinary MP. The reason why he is no ordinary MP, Madam Speaker, is because of the passion and the commitment he has to the issues that affect ordinary Canadians. Here we are on a Friday afternoon talking about an issue that may not be of concern to Canadians from coast to coast generally speaking, but it is of extreme importance to the people of metropolitan Toronto, hundreds of thousands of whom visit Harbourfront during the summer, almost on a daily basis.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood ought to be commended for his commitment to the preservation of certain wonderful things around Harbourfront. He said, and he asked the question rhetorically, where do you see the private sector creating a public park. That is an extremely important question.
This bill allows for the sale of public land on the waterfront in Toronto to private corporations. Does the member believe, as the government seems to believe, that the private sector, i.e. developers in metropolitan Toronto, will purchase public land there, land that belongs to the public, Canadians, and turn that land into a public park? Or does he believe, as we on this side believe, that the private sector wants to purchase that land, not to create parks and places for people to go, but to create luxury condominiums for the wealthy in metropolitan Toronto?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, if the private sector was only going to take over the Harbourfront in its current condition and no further opportunity for generating income or cash were not there, why would it do it? Why would it do it?
The obvious point is that it is going to come in and figure out ways in which further sources of revenue can be developed. I do not have any problem with that, but for years we have been doing it as partners. Why can we
not continue to do it as partners and still that way the people of Canada can own it?
I just want to say one final thing, Madam Speaker, to my colleague from York South Weston. This Harbourfront is not just for the people of Toronto. People come to Toronto from coast to coast. They come to Toronto, the greatest multicultural city in the world. They come and Harbourfront is-


Don Boudria: From Hawkesbury.


Dennis Joseph Mills: They come from everywhere. It is a multicultural mecca. Is a tourism mecca. Very rarely does anybody come to Toronto and not go to Harbourfront, and for us to give it away-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this horrible piece of legislation. Before I begin to discuss the merits of Bill C-73, again I would like to commend and compliment my friend and colleague from Broadview- Greenwood for his excellent speech that he gave this afternoon, for his continuing concern for the quality of life of people in metropolitan Toronto.
Madam Speaker, here we are on a Friday afternoon in Ottawa talking about something that will have a very direct and negative impact on people in various communities, and I take exception to the strategy employed by the Government of Canada with respect to this piece of legislation.
As you know, Madam Speaker, this legislation was introduced on May 31 of this year. There was no debate in the House at first reading. It was brought back for second reading on Friday, September 28-another Friday. The government, again, is trying to slip through a piece of legislation that it knows is highly unpopular. Here we are again on another Friday afternoon dealing with this bill.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, whereas some people might have fallen asleep at the switch, the Liberal members in this House have not. In particular, the members from Metropolitan Toronto have not fallen asleep. We know the negative impact of Bill C-73 and we will fight this bill, tooth and nail, here in the House, and at committee, to ensure that Harbourfront in particular is taken care of, that the Government of Canada, or the government of the province of Ontario, or the municipal
October 26, 1990

governments in metropolitan Toronto have control over the assets of Harbourfront and that Harbourfront is not sold to the private sector.
Madam Speaker, as you know, Bill C-73 is a bill that privatizes six Crown corporations which I will list: Canada Harbour Place in Vancouver, B.C., Canada Museums Construction Corporation, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Canadian Patents and Developments Limited, Harbourfront Corporation in the city of Toronto, and Mingan Associates Limited.
This is part and parcel of this government's privatization-crazy mentality. Since the Conservative Party came to office six years ago, it set out in a very systemic and methodical fashion to sell out Canada.
I think it is important at the outset to put this whole matter into perspective. Since 1984, the government has privatized in whole or in part 18 Crown corporations. If we, for a moment, review the track record of this particular government in its attempt to dismantle Canada and in its attempt to sell out Canada, we will see that in fact it is succeeding, given its majority and strategy.
It is slowly but surely succeeding in destroying our country. It is not overkill as far as rhetoric is concerned, because we know that in 1985 one of the first moves of the Conservative government was to eliminate the Foreign Investment Review Agency that gave the Parliament of Canada the legal tools necessary in order to ensure that foreign investment would be to the benefit of Canadians and that there would be a significant benefit to Canada as a result of foreign investment.
Since 1985, it has put up the "for sale" sign. Not only have foreign corporations and foreign capital come to Canada to purchase Canada, of course the government also endorsed and brought in free trade with the United States.
We know now, given the track record of the free trade agreement, that it certainly is not in the best interests of Canada.
What else has it privatized? What other things has this government done to destroy the Canadian dream that we have all cherished and loved over the years? We know that it has attacked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by severely slashing the budget of the public
Government Orders
broadcaster which has as its main preoccupation the promotion of national unity in Canada.
It is in the process of privatizing Air Canada, the symbol of Canada world-wide. Whenever Canadians travel abroad and see Air Canada or an Air Canada plane, they cannot help but feel proud that there is a piece of Canada. No longer will it be a piece of Canada because of this government's desire to privatize.
Now this government has decided to privatize Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation and oil company in Canada. I believe that Petro-Canada is something that Canadians support in significant numbers.
We know that it has privatized the unemployment insurance program in Canada. It has dismantled VIA Rail. With respect to the airport in Toronto-my friend from Broadview-Greenwood spoke about the situation there-we know that the Government of Canada privatized the construction of Terminal 3. The final chapter has yet to be written with respect to that particular decision of the Government of Canada.
Here we had Pearson International Airport run by the Government of Canada and netting the taxpayers of Canada over $70 million a year, and it decided for whatever reason-presumably one of the reasons was to help its rich developers and business people on Bay Street-to hand over the operation of Terminal 3. Now we know that the government is handing over the operation of Terminals 1 and 2 to the private sector.
The private sector is there for one reason and one reason only; that is, to make a lot of money. As Canadians become aware of what the government is doing to the international airport at Toronto, they are becoming increasingly concerned about the situation there.
The private sector is not there to ensure that Canadians, foreigners and others are able to go to the airport, get onto an airplane and leave on time. The private sector is there to make money for itself, not to help in terms of transportation. It is there to create a shopping centre.
When Terminal 3 opens in several months time, Canadians and Torontonians will see that what was created there is not a structure that will assist in terms of the problems at Pearson International Airport, but it will

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
simply be a huge shopping centre. The goal of the people who will operate Terminal 3 will not be to ensure a transportation system that works efficiently but to ensure that the people stay on the ground for as long as possible in order to spend as much money as possible at the shopping centre that is being built there.
Now we have Bill C-73 that furthers the privatization craziness of the Conservative government. I wish to restrict the remainder of my comments and the remainder of my time to Harbourfront Corporation, which is one of the six Crown corporations that will be privatized as a result of Bill C-73. I would like to put the government on notice today that the Liberal members of Parliament from metropolitan Toronto and other Liberal members of Parliament in the opposition will take a very keen interest and will attack in a very vigorous fashion this piece of legislation because of what it does to Harbourfront.
I work from the premise as a former municipal politician in the city of York in metropolitan Toronto. I see the Minister of State for Housing, a former mayor in the city of East York, is present. We often used to refer to the city of East York in a fond way. We used to call it the city of least York. However, the minister is here and he is the Minister of of State for Housing. Prior to his appointment to cabinet, he was an outspoken critic of issues affecting Torontonians. I know that he is sitting here this afternoon, very concerned about what this government is doing with respect to Harbourfront. I hope that he has spoken out at cabinet against this particular piece of legislation. He will have an opportunity to speak later, and hopefully he will speak for the public record, but I know he agrees that the waterfront in metropolitan Toronto should be a place for people and for parks.
What we have seen over the last number of years, because of the lack of sufficient controls, is the development industry moving into Harbourfront in Toronto and throwing up hotels and luxury condominiums left and right, not for the benefit of Torontonians generally or Canadians generally, but for the benefit of a small group of wealthy people who want to have a condominium on the lake.
I say shame. The lake does not belong to the rich in metropolitan Toronto. The lake belongs to each and every one of us who call Toronto home and to all people who visit Toronto. Toronto is an international city, a city that prides itself in the international community with respect to the amenities it offers to people. We in the metropolitan Toronto caucus of the Liberal Party believe that Harbourfront should be for people.
This particular piece of legislation allows for the privatization of Harbourfront and all the assets of Harbourfront Corporation. Clause 40 (1) of the bill states:
The Minister of Public Works is hereby authorized to procure, on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, the dissolution of Harbourfront Corporation.
Subclause (2) states:
The Minister of Public Works may do all things and perform all acts necessary for or incidental to closing out the affairs of Harbourfront Corporation.
If this bill passes, a big huge for sale sign will be stuck in the sand on the beaches at Harbourfront. The developers like leeches will be swarming to the minister who wants to privatize, making offers not to create a park at Harbourfront, not to create and enhance upon a jewel, as the member referred to it, but to build concrete, to build buildings, to build luxury hotels, to build luxury condominiums. That is wrong because once it is gone, it is gone.
We have certain buildings there, two in particular, the Huang Danczkay condominiums. They are a disgrace to Harbourfront. Those buildings and others are a disgrace to the waterfront. They ought not to have ever been allowed to proceed. Because of the lack of proper controls, we see a situation now where we have a number of very ugly buildings that block the harbourfront in metropolitan Toronto.
When the member for Don Valley West spoke earlier, he said that this bill allows for Harbourfront Corporation to be locally controlled. That is not what it says in this bill. That is not what it says anywhere in this legislation.
This legislation would allow for the sale of Harbourfront Corporation to the highest bidder, to anybody the Minister of Public Works wants to sell to. Once this bill is passed by this Parliament, this Parliament forever and a
October 26, 1990

day will not be able to deal in a direct way with Harbourfront in metropolitan Toronto.
If the member were sincere in what he was saying- and I believe he was-then I am sure that he will support an amendment to this legislation. The Liberal Party intends to move an amendment to ensure that if the Government of Canada no longer wishes to participate and to exercise some degree of control over Harbour-front in metropolitan Toronto, we should hand it over to other government authorities, either to the provincial Government in Ontario, the city of Toronto, to the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, or to a combination of any of the government agencies in metro.
We will not support the sale of the assets of Harbour-front Corporation to the private sector, because we know that the purpose of a sale to the private sector will be to make a lot of money for a very small group of people who will not be here in 50 or 100 years' time. But the waterfront will be here, and we have to ensure that the waterfront in metropolitan Toronto remains a people place. It is a beautiful place for people to gather, especially in the summer months and also in the winter months. We have to ensure that it continues to be a people place, notwithstanding the imperfections that now exist because of the lack of control on the part of different government agencies.
As the member for Broadview-Greenwood said, it is a jewel. It would be a travesty for the remainder of the lands owned by the federal government to be developed in the form of luxury condominiums.
In closing, let me say that we believe strongly that there should continue to be public control over Harbour-front Corporation. We believe that there should be a federal government role in the development of the waterfront because it is a harbour. The government has had for many years a direct role to play with respect to the Toronto harbour.
We look forward to dealing with this bill in a vigorous fashion at committee. I hope this government will come to its senses. It is trying to hoodwink Canadians into believing that the privatization of Harbourfront Corporation is in the best interests of Canadians generally. We do not believe it is. We believe that there ought to have
Government Orders
been more consultation with the people of Toronto. There was not a sufficient amount of consultation.
I know the Minister of State for Housing, until his appointment to cabinet was always keen on public participation in development matters. I hope that he will speak to his friend, the Prime Minister, and ask him to ensure that public hearings take place in Toronto before this government forces this bill through this Parliament.
The public in metropolitan Ibronto and the municipal politicians in metro have a right to participate and to be consulted before the assets of Harbourfront Corporation are sold off by this government.
The government has indicated that the book value of the assets there is $31 million. Well, that is a real joke. If the Government of Canada is going to be selling the assets anywhere near book value, then the Canadian public will be terribly ripped off as a result, because the fair market value of Harbourfront is at least 10 times, if not 50 times, that particular amount. The hon. member knows and the Conservative government knows that no amount of money will ever be able to buy back our waterfront in metropolitan Toronto.
The Harbourfront Corporation has as assets not only land but leases and property rights. The government says that this is a housekeeping bill. We do not accept the categorization of this bill as housekeeping. It is a major piece of legislation. Even though the government indicated in its last budget, the budget of the Minister of Finance last February, that it was moving to privatize certain corporations, in that budget speech nowhere did it say that it would be privatizing Harbourfront in metropolitan Toronto.
In closing, I urge all members of the House, not only members from metropolitan Toronto , to take a very keen interest in the progress of this legislation because we will, I can assure them.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, I was amazed when I heard he hon. member for Yord South-Weston object to the transfer of development to local authorities and especially control over certain lands. It seems to me that this goes against a recognized principle that says that people living in a community should have the power to make their own decisions. What this bill

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
does is ensure that the people of Toronto will decide, and not the federal government, for instance.
The hon. member also said repeatedly that it was a bad thing to privatize Crown corporations. I get the impression he is struggling against a trend that is gaining ground internationally. If we take a look at what is happening in socialist countries, we see they are trying to privatize all State-run corporations to make them profitable, efficient and competitive. What the hon. member is doing now, and it is typical of this party's thinking, is trying to turn the clock back. Instead of taking a look at what is happening throughout the world, and realizing that major socialist countries- In fact people who said that only the State could develop a country now realize they were wrong, and today, they are coming to Canada for help in privatizing their enterprises because they are not profitable, they are a threat to the environment, they ignore local authorities, and so forth.
I wish the hon. member would explain why he is so set on turning the clock back, while all other countries on this planet are trying to go in exactly the same direction we want to take this country.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member has completely missed the point. He says that the purpose of this bill is, as the hon. member for Don Valley West said, to hand over control to local people. We have no objection to handing over control to municipal authorities in metropolitan Toronto or the provincial government in metropolitan Toronto. That would be local control; the people of metropolitan Toronto would continue to exercise some degree of control. That is not what the bill says. The bill says that the Minister of Public works has carte blanche. He can do as he pleases with Harbourfront. He could, and no doubt he will, given the bent of this particular government, sell the assets of Harbourfront to developers in order to develop Harbourfront. If the member is honest about what he is saying, if the government is honest about its stated intentions, why does it not say so in the bill? It is not going to fool us on this one.
It was able through the privatization of Terminal 3 to hand over millions and millions of dollars to the private sector that should belong to the people of Canada. That was because this Parliament was not consulted. This
Parliament had no say in it. We do have a say in the privatization of Harbourfront Corporation. We will say no on this side of the House to the sale of the assets of Harbourfront to the private sector.
We will co-operate with the government, if its intention is to hand over the assets of Harbourfront to the local government authorities but that is not what the bill says. Given this government's track record, nobody believes the government. It has zero credibility when it comes to its undertakings and promises to the people of Canada. It has consistently over the last six years lied and hoodwinked the people of Canada.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is an excellent member at throwing smoke screens and clouds of dust on the trail. He is well aware that this bill is set against a long series of events relating to Harbourfront dating back many years, to the time that Harbourfront was established in the first place by the former Liberal government. It was established with the intention of creating a parkland and also creating some arts, recreation and entertainment there.
In order to pay for all those good public things, the arts, recreation and entertainment, the former Liberal government set in place a mechanism and a policy for developing lands at Harbourfront in order to generate dollars to pay for the actual arts and recreation activities. The mechanism which created all of the developments at Harbourfront, all of the horrible things that the hon. member has been referring to, relating to the building of huge high-rise apartments and condominiums, the huge profits that private sector developers have apparently, according to the hon. member, made out of this, all of that was put in place by the former Liberal government. As a result, a great hue and cry went up from the people of Toronto about blocking off the waterfront with all these huge buildings and not allowing access to the waterfront. The hon. member knows that. He also knows that the Toronto city council and their zoning rules and regulations are overseen by the provincial government, who have their own controls in planning. They are the regulatory bodies for all of that development.
Because of the concerns raised by people in the city of Toronto, this government put a freeze on all other development and it set in place a mechanism of investigating what was going on. Mr. Crombie, the former
October 26, 1990

member for Rosedale, a former minister in this government and the former mayor of the city of Toronto was appointed as a royal commissioner to look at the whole situation. Subsequently, the Ontario Liberal government of the day appointed Mr. Duncan Allen, a provincial bureaucrat, to also take a look at it. Mr. Allen came up with a very detailed plan of what should happen to Harbourfront and the hon. member knows that.
This government has said to the provincial government, at that time a Liberal provincial government, "We think there is some merit in this plan. However, we think there are some problems with it. We are going to appoint our own negotiator to see if we can work out some of the details". That was Mr. Darcy McKeough, who in fact is currently trying to work out those final details.
This bill, as the hon. member is well aware, is just part of the process to give authority to wrap up the existing Harbourfront in order to create a new Harbourfront with the pipeline properties, those development properties taken away from the waterfront and also to make sure that there still will be some public arts and recreation facilities there that will be funded properly and looked after in perpetuity.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I really would love to believe what the minister is saying, but that is not what it says in the bill. Obviously he has not read the bill because it does not bear out what the minister is saying.


An hon. member:: You do not know what is going on down there.


John V. Nunziata: I know what is going on. I know the credibility of this government and it is at an all-time low.
Why then, if what the minister is saying is true, do we not just delete clauses 40 and 41 and the other clauses dealing with Harbourfront. Let's put it on the backbum-er. Let's wait until all the negotiations are complete. Let's wait until the government of Ontario and the other local governments in metropolitan Toronto have spoken.
Let's wait for a tentative deal to be signed and then come back to Parliament, and we will pass a piece of legislation so that there is local control over Harbourfront. But do not come to Parliament asking for a blank cheque to sell off the assets of Harbourfront because we know the track record of this government. It wants to sell
Government Orders
it to its rich friends on Bay Street, not to the city of Toronto, not to metropolitan Toronto, and not to the province of Ontario.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I do apologize to the member, but I had to look to see if there was someone else rising from the other side of the House.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to talk about something that is going to happen to my home town of Toronto.
In the past six years, we have seen the Conservative government leading its friends to the trough. I want to take a couple of minutes and talk about that trough. Just a couple of minutes ago the minister of housing stood up and gave us this great speech. Well, I disagree with the minister of housing. Although we happen to be good friends, and although, on occasion, we have gone to the same events, politically we disagree.
In 1978 when I graduated from the University of Toronto I went to work for CN. I came to this House in 1988, Madam Speaker. That was 10 years ago.
At that time CN was the jewel of Canadian transportation. Only recently, in 1985-86, when this government took power, did it put CN Express on the chopping block. I was a young industrial engineer on loan to CN Express in 1978. It was losing $12 million per year. There was room and we were working to turn it around. We almost had it turned around. That corporation was going to be making money. What happened after this government took power? They sold CN Express to their rich friends for a market value of $29 million.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Shame.


Jim Karygiannis: My colleague for Broadview- Greenwood says shame. I want to let this House and my colleague in on an even bigger secret. After it was sold, the buyers who were buddies of our government across the way went to the bank and said, "I've got a proposition for you". The bank said, "What is the proposition?".

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
"I've got this great big thing, this white elephant the government calls it, that is losing money, and I want to borrow money against it". The bank looked at it and said, "Gee, that is a very good deal. How much do you want?". He said, "Well, what do you think the market value is?". The bank said, "Close to about $200 million". Yet the government's rich friends were only on the books for $29 million. As we see right here in this legislation, Harbourfront is $31 million. Let me continue my story about CN Express because it is dear to my heart.
They got a loan from the bank for $50 million, the great big individuals who were running the company. This was in 1985, when fax machines were something that were looked upon as the future. They had fax machines and portable phones in Jaguars. They had this big boat and put it in at Concord. In the seventies government prided itself in the latest transportation needs going from place to place. A couple of months later this company, Route Canada, folded. There were 3,500 people laid off work. I called the minister-one can never get the minister on the phone, it is an impossibility. I spoke to his executive assistant and said, "Will you table today in this House the agreement of the sale of CN Express to Route Canada."
Time and time again we asked this government, "Will you table that agreement of sale?". This government kept saying, "Well, it is a Crown corporation."
The government is hiding because it knows if it is tabled today, we will see that there was an agreement that those employees were going to be protected for three years. Yet this government has no guts-absolutely no guts-to bring that agreement forth.
The stoiy continues. Air Canada was put on the chopping block. It was a big thing and everybody was going to make money. What happens? We only found out a couple of days ago that there will be 2,900 people out of work.
Next, we come to VIA. What did the government do? It split VIA down the middle. The Minister of Transport said, "If you go ahead and start using VIA, it will not be chopped." The ridership increased and yet, what did he do? What his boss told him. He chopped VIA and the
government halved it. Again, there were hundreds of people out of work.
The government wants to think of this bill as housekeeping. These six companies, Canada Harbour Place, Canada Museums Construction Corporation, Canadian Livestock Feed Board, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, Harbourfront Corporation and Mingan Associates Limited are housekeeping.
We have something else that this government wants to put on the chopping block. It is Petro-Canada. When the government puts Petro-Canada on the chopping block, will it have the guts to let the Canadian people open the books and find out exactly what it is selling. This government never did that. We find time after time that friends of this government and in particular, close friends, make money. Why? Because they happen to have the right connections at the right place.
We now come to Harbourfront. The book value is $31 million. I am wondering if this was put to the test, if there was a real evaluation of that property done, if there was a real estate appraisal done, how much would it be worth? Is this government willing to go to a real estate agent and say, "We want to have an appraisal of this property." Is this government willing? Absolutely not. I hear the minister of housing across the way. I am wondering if that minister of housing will ask his boss, the Prime Minister, to have this property appraised. Absolutely not. The minister knows that when that is done, it will be worth more than $31 million.
Years ago, one used to go to Toronto central island. When looking across, one could see the skyline of Toronto. What does one see now? A wall of condominiums. There is a small property there which is open. That small property is the Harbourfront. I am wondering what really is behind this sale of the Harbourfront Corporation. Why does the government want to sell it?
I see the Minister of State of Housing across the way is very interested in listening to my comments. I remember in 1988, during the election, the then housing minister said: "If you cannot afford Toronto, you can move out."
Right now the immigration minister is announcing figures for immigration and employment for immigrants coming into Canada that would give Toronto close to 100,000 new immigrants per year. We have nowhere to
October 26, 1990

house them. I hope the minister is listening. He has a real problem in his hands.
Let us come back to the $31 million of Harbourfront. The question is, how much is it worth? Twice? Three times? Four times? Five times? I am not a real estate expert but, if I was to ask anybody in the House, he or she will more than likely tell me it is about 20 to 50 per cent understated the $31 million we have here.
There is going to be a sign up there that is going to say: "1-800-MULRONEY". It will be just like we got sold in 1988 with the free trade legislation, and just like right now when the government wants to entangle us with a trilateral agreement with Mexico. We have another one. It is not going to be as big. This sign is not going to be as big. This is going to be a smaller sign. People will not even have a chance to look at it.
Some backroom boys who are friends of the government will not even let this poor little sign be put on. They are going to get on the phone and dial: 1-800-M-U-L-R-O-N-E-Y, and it is going to ring at 24 Sussex. "Oh, my good friend, how are you today? Thirty-one million and you do not have it? You want to borrow against the bank? It's a deal." Just like CN express was a deal. Thirty-five hundred workers were put out of their jobs. In this particular deal, we might not have any workers who will be put out of a job, but it is the trough which is veiy important. It is very important that we are trying to hoodwink ordinary Canadians.
I do not doubt that the government is going to ram this legislation through this House, get it over to the Senate to get Royal Assent. It is going to run, because if it does not get it, it is going to go get another eight senators in order to make sure that it is done. A couple of years down the line we are going to see great big condominiums rise. The average price for a lakefront condominium is anywhere between $300,000 to $500,000.
I wonder: Is the government gutsy enough to have an appraisal done of this property? Is the government honest enough to come clean and say what its intentions are? Is the government able to stand up on its own two feet and say to Canadians: "We have misled you. We have taken you down the garden path. Everything that we said from one day to the next day is not the reality." Is the government going to stand up on its own two feet and say to Canadians: "Gee, we might have told you a
Government Orders
little white lie in everything we have been telling you on
a day-to-day basis."
Canadians are not blind and they are not stupid. We see what the latest polls are doing. We know what Canadians want. Canadians want no part of this government, and they will tell it clearly in 1992-


Mr. Barrett:: Nor of the Liberals.


Jim Karygiannis: My hon. friend from the NDP says: Nor of us. Let me assure him that in 1992, he is still going to be on this side of the House and with fewer members than right now. I am very confident of that. We come clean. We tell our people that it is not worth $31 million.
Madam Speaker, through you, I say to the Canadian people and to the government: Stop hoodwinking us. Tell us the honest truth. What is the market value of this particular property? Why do you want to sell it? Who is going to buy it? Who is going to profit? Why do you not just leave it alone?


Marie Gibeau: Madam Speaker, the only point on which my colleague and I agree is that Canadians are not stupid. Liberals have always conveyed a double message: at the same time as they promote liberalism, therefore individualism, they think that people are weak, stupid and in dire need of protection. All measures taken by the Liberals since war's end were aimed at protecting people against themselves. They would centralize, institutionalize and create self-feeding bureaucracies. Again I fail to understand. I see some of my colleagues opposite who hail from the private sector. Business circles have been complaining for decades that the government is overly interventionist.
The Liberals created the welfare state and advocated dependence. It does not work! Canadians have no more use for that, they are much more autonomous, they are a lot more initiative-minded than you think. As a government we believe that people are intelligent enough and need not be told what to do. We need to establish standards and devise means of action and policies to protect Canadian values, but it is up to the people to decide how to achieve that. There is no need to reduce. Time has come to switch from the welfare state to responsible government, and that is precisely what privatization is all about. That is what we are debating today-privatization. The concept of public ownership which you advocate is just a way of depersonalizing people and making them irresponsible. Canadians do not need to be sheltered. They need to regain control over

October 26, 1990
Government Orders
their own lives, and that is what we are doing. You take away their ability to fend for themselves and, in doing that, you deprive them of creativity. By privatizing we give more freedom to people, we emphasize that small is beautiful.
The job losses you are referring to were- We know that bureaucracies feed on themselves. I am not talking about bureaucrats but about bureaucracies. Employees are stripped of any responsibilities except filling out forms and doing paperwork.
Air Canada had become dependent on the government. Taxpayers, including those in my riding, were paying for its services which did not really benefit either the Canadian population or the flying public. Deregulation created jobs in my riding. Canadair, that was sold to Bombardier, has supported some of my constituents through these difficult economic times and a few of them even told me recently-I could give you names-that they have a problem hiring people. There is not enough qualified workers because the Liberal government, instead of investing in job training, decided to subsidize jobs and businesses rather than research and development.
Madam Speaker, I wonder how my colleague opposite, whom I hold in high esteem, can put up with this rubbish we hear coming from the other side. By supporting individualism, we encourage creativity which, in turn, brings in taxes enabling governments like ours to offer needed social services.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, in 1984, Brian Mulroney, our honourable Prime Minister, stood up and said: "Jobs, jobs, jobs." In 1990, we see eight jobs: "Senator, senator, senator, senator, senator, senator, senator, and senator". Some of them are questionable senators. Thank you.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question, through you, to my colleague. By the way, I must say that we in Metro Toronto are not against entrepreneurship. We are not against the spirit of free enterprise. We really are not.
We have had many joint ventures with the private sector over the last few years.
But the member for Bourassa, for whom I also have a lot of respect, talked about standards and talked about values. I think standards and values are important.
The Minister of State for Housing talked about an investigation that the government had into Harbour-front. I, for one member, may take a different point of view if the government would care to put the deals or the investigations on the table. I cite two examples: Harbour-front, the investigation as to what it found that it wants to get rid of it; and, more importantly, Terminal 3. We have a situation developing here where, technically, one corporation could monopolize our airport and our har-bourfront.
Would my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt be a little bit more receptive to taking a different approach to this if the government would put all these deals on the table so we could have a full and open analysis?


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I will say this much. I have never stood in the path of progress and, as a small businessman, I know what the government wants to do to Canadian businessmen by implementing the GST. That is really going to kill us.
We talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.
Did you want me to sit down, Madam Speaker, or may I answer the question?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If you are asking me a question I will, of course, answer. I was signalling that the hon. member was maybe on the point of being totally out of relevancy, considering the question. That was my only suggestion to the hon. gentleman, so that I would not have to rise and remind him.


Jim Karygiannis: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will attempt to answer the question of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I would like to have open dealings and I would like for me and the Canadian public to see what is behind this agenda, what is the real value of the land. Let us put it on the table. Let us have a full investigation.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, earlier today the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said that in 1984 the Prime Minister had promised a lot of jobs but that all he has managed to do is create eight new seats for senators.
Perhaps I might remind my colleague that if the Prime Minister was forced to resort to that provision of the Canadian Constitution it was because the Liberal senators of his own party did not show any respect for democracy in this country, and that these people in the Senate abused their powers not because they had been elected but indeed because they had been appointed by his favourite idol, Mr. Trudeau.
I think he should keep in mind how and why Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had to use section 26 of the Canadian Constitution in an attempt to restore a modicum of credibility in the illustrious institution we refer to as the other place.


Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, my colleague from across the way speaks about why the Prime Minister had to use section 26 of the BNA Act. We, in the House, believe that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance listen to 85 per cent of the Canadian public, they will do the right and honourable thing. That is, they will scrap this GST, throw it out, go back to the drawing-board, and clearly understand that the people of Canada are against it. If we do that, then we will not need the eight new senators.
The Senate is the House of sober second thought and its members are clearly listening and reading the names of people across Canada who are objecting to this unfair and preposterous tax.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, my contribution will not be noted for its length, but for its wisdom. I want to focus on one particular aspect of this bill that relates to my home province of British Columbia, and the city of my birth, Vancouver.
This bill gives the government the authority to dispose of Canada Place, that wonderful focus of downtown Vancouver that is still in public hands. This bill gives the
Government Orders
government the right to dispose of Canada Place on such terms as approved by the governor in council.
Our experience with this kind of asset disposal in the province of British Columbia has been one of scandalous give-away. One need just look at what our provincial government did with B.C. Place as a consequence of the end of Expo 86, and the disposal of those properties for a pittance of their value to a private sector buyer. That was a provincial government.


An hon. member:: Tory.


David Barrett: Let us understand where the land came from in the first place. It was part of a Crown grant to the CPR and was held in trust by Marathon Realty. Marathon Realty, as an arm of the CPR, became the legal owner of that property as part of the price of keeping a national railway open for passenger service across this country.
The government got rid of that idea in a hurry, but it did not take back the property. It is a new kind of corporate give-away that allowed VIA Rail to take over the role in Canada, only to have the Tories kill that and steal the lands that were given to the private corporation, kept in their hands and sold off.


An hon. member:: That's capitalism. Down with capitalism.


David Barrett: I want to tell you it is a straight kind of deal that every Canadian citizen would like to share in. When these members talk about entrepreneurship, people would just like the opportunity to get in line for that kind of entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, CPR walked away with $250 million worth of timber property in exchange for the property it got for nothing from the Canadian taxpayers. It was then sold to the private sector, and after, we discovered in the handling of this deal, it was sold off for a pittance.
If the government intends to do the same with Canada Place through order-in-council, then I say shame on them. Do you have to be as bad as Social Credit? How low can you sink? How bad can this government get?


An hon. member:: Just watch them. Don't hold your breath.


David Barrett: Is there no standard for lowness?


An hon. member:: None at all.

October 26, 1990
Government Orders


David Barrett: Is there no boundary for stupidity?


Some hon. members:: No.


David Barrett: Is there no possibility of defining an absolute limitation of madness? The Social Credit government has tried its best to do it, and having failed to establish an absolute maximum definition of stupidity, this government is hell-bent to try to find that definition for itself.
Through this bill this government is attempting to say: "How can we give away this last Crown jewel that is in the hands of the public in downtown Vancouver?" Thank goodness it does not own Stanley Park. If it gets rid of this property, it will certainly try to ruin the view to Stanley Park.
The government says that this is probably housekeeping. Can you tell me of anyone in Canada who practises housekeeping by throwing out all their furniture, their television, their stereo, and everything else, then shoots their mother and father and then goes to court and pleads for sympathy because they are orphans? It is this government. It shoots itself in the foot, throws away our assets and then asks the Canadian people to vote for it because it is an orphan.
Only this level of incompetence could be accepted by either the Liberals or the Tories because the Liberals have brought to the House the pathway of developing this kind of stuff. What the Liberals did as amateurs, this group is trying to professionalize. When the Liberals gave stuff away, it was only because they were new at the game. These guys give stuff away because they deliberately sell it out.
I find it most interesting that the Liberals stand up after their history of giving away half the country, crying after giving away half the country. They are angry that the Tories are giving away the other half and they do not have the chance to do it.
As we go through this whole examination and we have this debate, this to me is a capsule of the history of Canada. These two parties do not fight to get at the trough. They fight to see who they can get to the trough for them. That is what it is all about.
Here in Canada Place we have a situation where there has been no analysis of the privatization plan.


John V. Nunziata: That's from my briefing notes.


David Barrett: That's right. When you are in opposition, you prepare good notes. When you are in government, you bum them.
Mr. Speaker, I told you I was going to be brief-


John V. Nunziata: But not from my briefing notes.


David Barrett: No, and the Canadian people are having their briefs stolen, more than their briefs, their shirts, their shoes, their briefs. Everything is going in this bill.
On a Friday afternoon when everybody is lulled into the belief that we are now headed into war in Iraq, where they are mobilizing the parliamentary green buses to take the MPs to the front line to fight for our minister of external affairs, they are busy giving away half of the assets that belong to the people of this country. If Saddam Hussein did this in Kuwait, they would be the first ones at the barricades, Mr. Speaker. You bet. They would defend the rights of the Kuwaitis and at the same time give away half of Canada's assets.
It is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, to think it is anything more than perhaps a little bit of humour. If we would not have humour about this, we would burst into tears at the stupidity and cupidity of a government that stands here and says in explanation of giving away assets: "This is free enterprise".
Where is the process for bidding? What has been tabled in this House to show the true value of these assets? They claim Canada Place is worth $67 million. Do you guys want to buy Canada Place? Each chip in 10 grand, make a down payment, we will walk away with a killing. Sixty-seven million dollars. Why that is not even coffee money for some of the that who have already skimmed off British Columbia through Social Credit. It is an invitation for another give-away. Why does it do this?


An hon. member:: Leverage buyout.


David Barrett: Leverage buyout, my friend says. When you have a monopoly access, leverage buyout is the best way to go. This government-


Dennis Joseph Mills: You got it.


David Barrett: Exactly, my friend, the member from Broadview-Greenwood, the single-minded person-I mean the single tax person-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: -has said, Mr. Speaker, I've got it. You know how this is done. I will show you. Was it Ring Lardner, Jr., or was it Damon Runyon who wrote the story about Harry the Hat? He would go into a dice game, and the Prime Minister is wonderfully famous for using this analogy of dice games: "Roll the dice". Harry the Hat would go into a dice game. He was a big fellow, six foot two. Everybody else was smaller. He would put the dice in the hat, hold them up and shake them. Say: "All bets down", he would say: "Ya". Then he would look in the hat and say: "Seven. I won". Then he would pick up the dice and put them in again. He would roll them and say: "Eleven. I won".
One of the smart alecs in the dice game said: "I want to see the dice. I want to see the roll". You know what he said, Mr. Speaker? He said: "You're out of order". You have to be relevant to this game and there is no relevance in this game to seeing what the evaluation is, what the bids are, what the options are for anyone else to buy, or even a suggestion, as my good friend the member suggested, a lease. None of that stuff. Harry the Hat calls out the numbers and we all lose. This may be a simple analogy, but nothing could be more simple than this government. So the analogy fits. You are setting the rules over there. It will all be kept in the dark. The Canadian people do not see what the evaluations are. They are never going to see the process. All of a sudden a buyer is going to be announced.
In the case of British Columbia Place, the buyer was announced as Li Ka-shing. He announced that he had made a deal for $250 million. We discovered later that he really put up hardly anything and the provincial government was responsible to clean up the mess before he got the property. As a matter of fact, we are going to end up paying for him to buy the place from us. That is free enterprise. That is really sharp dealing. What guarantee is there that we do not have the same thing here?
Some of my Liberal colleagues are in pretty good shape when they are sitting there on this side. They have raised some valid points. The only question I have of them is, if it is so bad and you predict you are going to win and be the government, are you prepared to expropriate back, after fair compensation, in the name of the
Government Orders
people any one of these rotten deals that this group, this dumb-bell government, gives off?
They are nodding their heads. They are prepared to expropriate. The only reason they are nodding their heads is they are down to 31. If they get up to 38, boy, it will change like this.
I have seen it all. I have heard it all.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: Never have I been so popular with the Liberals and Conservatives as I am now because I give them a chance to repent. I give them a chance to save them from themselves before they continue their giveaway of this country as exemplified by this bill.
All they are really fighting about is who gets to the line first to give away most. The Canadian people have had enough of this nonsense.
If the Liberals are prepared to expropriate back, after fair compensation, this bill, say so publicly. As far as this government goes, you have a moral and I think legal obligation to be up front. Do not play Harry the Hat, do not give this stuff away in a fixed game. If you are going to sell it, let us have open competition, open evaluations and even better, competition for long-term leases until a generation comes along that has a heck of a lot more sense than you have.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. membre for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, is still excited after his great performance. He told us a few moments ago that the government was throwing Canadians' clothes and refrigerators through the windows. This is very impressive but he forgets that the voters in his own province have elected him to a job 3,000 miles away to prevent him from squandering money in his own province.
I would like him, as a socialist, to tell me why every socialist country in the world is trying to implement a free enterprise system similar to the one we have in Canada. How can he explain that the most passionate defenders of international socialism have agreed to come to Canada to find out about our systems and their efficiency? Why is he still trying to convince Canadians that our government is heading in the wrong direction?

October 26, 1990
Government Orders


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving me this opportunity for a two-hour discourse on the stupidity of monopoly capitalism versus true competitive enterprise. That is the point really.
If you are going to make assets available, they should be made available in an open, competitive manner that is separate and distinct from the Crown and leaves no idea of interference from the Crown whatsoever. If you really intend to do this, don't do it by Order in Council, but establish a separate tribunal at arm's length from the government that is above board and is clearly open in terms of process, in terms of competitive bidding and, furthermore, examine leasing. Mindless capitalism does not mean the extension of some monopoly opportunity. If you are really going to have competition, then let it be true competition and set the stage so that everybody has an option to have a go.
My friend talks about the socialists. I have to compare it to their own performance, since he has asked. It was not my government that gave $800 million to the Canadian Commercial Bank to bail them out. I understood that under the member's kind of free enterprise people have the God-given right to go broke.
Why is it that you rush in with $800 million to bail out thousands of offshore depositors of a bank? Why is it that you assume that $800 million of Canadian taxpayers' money should be used to bail out offshore investors? Yes, a bailout.
If the government is going to give $2.7 billion to the oil companies in Hibernia, I do not believe in that kind of giveaway. What kind of free enterprise is that, $2.7 billion to Hibernia and $800 million to the Canadian Commercial Bank?
I have publicly advised the food banks to change their names to either Hibernia or the Canadian Commercial Bank. That is the way to get money from the government. You would not give five cents to a food bank, but you would give $800 million to bail out some of those investors whose deposits were well above what the insurance protected.
Why is it that the government uses these cliches and these homilies and this jingoism and this nonsense about free enterprise when at the same time it goes out of its
way to take care of the rich and to hell with the poor? Is that social justice? Is that economic justice?
You show me another country in the world that has had a record of being so dumb as this country has been under right wing governments that have given away
assets.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Argentina.


David Barrett: Argentina is probably a good case, but at least it did it under military discipline. Here they cannot even decide who the general is overnight, for crying out loud. I find these pious platitudes coming from these members in the-


An hon. member:: We don't have to take any lessons from you.


David Barrett: You do not have to take any lessons from me? I am not even offering you any lessons. Let me disabuse the members of the Liberal Party that I am giving them any lessons at all. Nobody can teach them a damn thing, absolutely not. The Ontario people have taught them their lesson.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John V. Nunziata: That sounds like a good idea, Mr. Speaker. This is an important debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: The hon. member for York South-Weston on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hour is 1.48 and this debate will expire in 12 minutes' time. I hope the hon. member will give other hon. members the opportunity to rebut some of the nonsense that has been coming out of his mouth, over the last few minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Erie.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very closely to the speech which has been delivered by the hon. member. The one point that I want to raise is that his comments, Sir, should be addressed through the
Chair.
Here we have a speaker who is an hon. member in this place. He should recognize the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: I am sure that the hon. member will take those words to heart.
October 26, 1990


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if inadvertently I missed passing my remarks through you to my colleagues, I apologize.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues through you, Sir, let me continue my answer to my friend. Mr. Speaker, you will be the first to recognize that these remarks, although addressed through you, are not a personal admonition to you or to the Chair. When I call the government "stupid", you are only the conveyer of the message and not the originator of the message. Let us keep that very clear.
To ensure that that point of order is strictly adhered to, I would hope that you, Mr. Speaker, in your fairness would understand that sometimes I get carried away because of my passion and anger at the stupidity of the previous government.
To answer the question, my colleague asked for an explanation of why I as a social democrat would be proposing fairness, justice, and openness in contracts when other administrations are not doing that.
Well, my dear friend, if you believe in Stalinism as I do not, you will agree to this kind of bill. I do not agree to a new form of Stalinism. This bill, through you, Mr. Speaker and only through you, Mr. Speaker, clearly through you, Mr. Speaker, and singularly through you, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more than just an extension of autocratic dictatorship allowing privilege to take place without true competitive enterprise being guaranteed every single step of the way.
We have seen this time and time again. I repeat my question so that you can understand, Mr. Speaker. If this government intends to be fair, why not consider seriously the suggestion by my Liberal colleague about, first of all, leasing? He was far more generous than I am prepared to be in terms of the incentives to lease. Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept those as well. Leasing at least gives a future government and future generations the opportunity to develop an alternative.
Second, if you do not go for leasing, Mr. Speaker, then indeed why not fair competition? What guarantee are we going to get under this legislation that there will be fair competition? My friends have been raising issues about other matters, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, that have not yet been answered by the government about other disposal problems.
Government Orders
The answers have not been forthcoming from the government. The government ministers have avoided answering daily questions on specific disposal of assets that are creating problems right across this country.
In particular, in British Columbia, Canada Place was a gift by all Canadian people to our province of British Columbia. It is deeply appreciated and much respected. We were thankful for the share that every Canadian taxpayer put into Canada Place. It would be a betrayal to every one of those taxpayers to have this gift sold off.
What kind of gift givers are you? Who is going to believe that this is fair? Not I, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this time. Thank you for sharing with me your control and gestures that my time is up. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you regardless of what other members have said or felt, I have enjoyed this conversation with you immensely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: The time for questions and comments has expired.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to what the member has been saying. Unfortunately, time has expired. It is an important debate.
I would seek unanimous consent of the House to allow for further questioning of the member from British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: I do not hear unanimous consent.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to put a few remarks of my own on the record as it relates to this particular piece of legislation.
I would like to bring this piece of legislation to a more northern context. We in northern Ontario have said on many occasions that our tax dollars are not spent the way we would like them to be spent. When I make that statement, everyone looks and asks: "What do you mean by that".
The answer to that question is simply the following. We do not have fine facilities in northwestern Ontario like the Dome into which tax dollars have been put. We do not have these fine airports like Pearson where millions and probably billions by now of tax dollars of the

October 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
public have been put into the system. We do not have the waterfronts, like the Toronto waterfront we are talking about today, in northwestern Ontario or in northern Canada for that matter.
I would like members to consider that when these particular situations take place, as they relate to public dollars being put into facilities that may or may not be considered in the realm of private enterprise, we as northerners look at these particular facilities for the public good.
I as a northern member travelled on many occasions through Pearson Airport. We all know the expense of Pearson Airport. We all know the cost to fly from Kenora-Rainy River to Toronto. It is almost $1,000 at this point.
My fear in changing the public good of these particular facilities to more private enterprise oriented businesses and no longer institutions is that prices will become so restrictive to northerners in this country that we will become second-class citizens. We pay a lot of our tax dollars not only through our personal income tax but through royalties from resources of the north. We have a large mining industry and a large forestry industry. Through these resources, billions of dollars are put into the hands of southern politicians every year for the benefit of all Canadians.
In northern Ontario we talk on a continual basis about the fact that the agenda of Canada is controlled, to a certain extent, by central Canada and the the Windsor-Montreal corridor. We have always asked as politicians from the north to consider, when pieces of legislation such as Bill C-73 are put in front of the House, it is also looked at through the eyes of northern Canadians. When the Pearson Airport is changed to a private enterprise what effect would that have on northerners? When one goes to Pearson Airport right now-and this applies in most cases to Canadians with low incomes-one can barely afford to eat a sandwich at this facility because of the price that private enterprise is now putting on such goods.
If the government is so inept at running these facilities, then perhaps it should enter into these lease agreements that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood talks about. Possibly the government should look at
a fair and equitable system of leasing and selling our particular goods or facilities or assets of the Crown, if need be. However, to turn around and take this particular piece-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member. I am sure he will want to continue at the next possible occasion.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   WORKERS MOURNING DAY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Rodney Edward Murphy: that Bill C-223, an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, be read the second time and referred a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on this occasion to introduce my private members' bill, Bill C-223, an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.
Madam Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, this is the second time that I have risen in this House to introduce this legislation. I have been given assurance from representatives of all parties in this House that they will support this legislation and move it forward in order that we may have a law passed by the Parliament of Canada recognizing the contributions that workers across this land have given, and recognizing the fact that many have given their lives.
I am very proud that the Parliament of Canada is moving forward with this legislation. I believe that it is only proper that it be supported by all parties, because all of us know that the issue of health and safety in the workplace is grave and demands immediate action.
I believe that this legislation will go a long way to improving awareness of health and safety issues at a minimal price to the Government of Canada and to employees and employers alike, because we must spend

more time talking about the health and safety of our workers.
This bill calls for the recognition by Parliament and by this nation of April 28 as a national day of mourning for those persons killed or injured in the workplace in Canada. With the number of people who fall victim to workplace injuries, sometimes fatal, it would appear fitting to ask for a week or a month to remember our brothers and sisters. In this legislation, I only ask that the nation remember these people in an official way for one day each year.
Madam Speaker, I ask that we consider the following. In 1987 alone, 1,031,097 persons were injured in the workplace. Of these, 612,886 suffered debilitating injuries, and 887 were reported as fatalities. These figures are staggering and they have remained consistent over the last decade.
Let us not forget those who have died due to exposure to unsafe materials in the workplace. The Public Service Alliance of Canada estimates that between 6,000 to
10,000	Canadian workers each year die as a result of occupational cancer. Yet many of these deaths are not reported as being job related. These people and the dangers they face must be recognized by the Parliament of Canada.
Workers are indeed what make this country productive. It is injuries in the workplace that rob our workers of their health, their lives and their ability to produce. Think of the statistics: every workday, one worker dies each hour; one worker is infirmed each six seconds; one worker is permanently disabled every 12.7 seconds.
Each year, Canada's economy loses 16 million workdays due to workplace accidents, injuries and deaths. To put that into perspective, 16 million workdays are equivalent to all the time and production lost due to strikes and lockouts five times over. It is clear that the issue of health and safety in the workplace is not only a worker's concern, but a concern to all citizens of our nation.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to look for and find ways to rectify the problems of unsafe working environments. I believe that education and prevention are the best weapons we have to battle the appalling statistics. All employers and workers must recognize the gravity of this issue and become aware of the ways they can improve their odds against injury or death.
Private Members' Business
It is the intent of this legislation to ensure, by recognizing a national day of mourning, that Canadians will institutionalize a day to remember their fellow workers, friends, neighbours and family who were killed or injured while on the job site. This would make workers more aware of the dangers they face, and hopefully help to reverse the alarming trend toward higher and higher casualties. I also believe that a national day giving official recognition would be a catalyst for educational programs and other efforts to use this day at the work site to focus our thoughts and to educate ourselves on the issue of work place safety.
April 28 was the day chosen by the Canadian Labour Congress five years ago as a day for mourning job site casualties, because it was on that day in 1914 that the first worker safety legislation was introduced in a province of Canada. That province was Ontario. We have indeed come a long way since that time in the area of health and safety legislation, but as can be seen by the statistics, there is still much to be done. The passage of this legislation, with the support of members of all parties in the Parliament of Canada, would be a step on the road to a healthy work place in Canada.
As the members will notice, I have introduced an additional clause into Bill C-223 from the legislation I introduced in the past to clarify the status of this day of mourning. This day will not be a legal holiday, and as such, opposition to this legislation cannot be based on the problem of time lost on the job. It is ironic, as I have mentioned, the great loss of time that is caused by work place injury and death, that people would be concerned about the time that would be lost if this was a national holiday.
In order to have this legislation accepted by the House, we have made that amendment to the legislation, and again I thank the members in the other parties for their support.
It is my contention that economic progress cannot be achieved at the expense of health and safety of our workers. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that we are no longer in the era of the beginning of the industrial revolution. We no longer accept sweat shops. We no longer accept child labour, and we can no longer accept unsafe working conditions for our citizens. We must all take the steps we can to promote safer working environments. We believe that the health and welfare of

Private Members' Business
our people matters a great deal to all of us. Let us ensure that on April 28 every year, we prove that.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-223, an act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace. Members will recall that for the past five years, the Minister of Labour has officially acknowledged April 28 as a day of mourning by making a statement in the House and observing a minute of silence in honour of fallen workers and their families.
I believe that by enshrining April 28 in legislation as a day of mourning, it will reinforce in the minds of all of us the terrible losses caused by industrial accidents and diseases. It will also reinforce the need to work constantly and diligently to improve the situation.
In 1988, preliminary figures indicate that more than 800 people died on the job in Canada, and 20 million person days were lost because of work accidents, occupational injuries or illnesses. No one will be unmoved by these figures, I am sure. No loss of life on the job is justifiable, not only from the point of view of the victim's family but also from society's point of view. The direct and indirect costs of work accidents amounted to approximately $22 billion in 1988. That is an enormous burden for our country at any time, but particularly at a time of increasing world competition in trade.
These are telling statistics, but they do not express the tremendous suffering of the accident victims themselves. Often they suffer not only physically but also mentally because they are unable to return to their place of work or earn their living with dignity. These people deserve our help.
We must stand together. We must declare our common determination to fight this terrible scourge, work accidents.
Work conditions and occupational safety and health have evolved greatly since Confederation. At the federal level, there were various pieces of labour-related legislation over the years, but a major step forward was taken in 1968 when the Canada Labour (Safety) Code was adopted.
Occupational safety and health issues are now fundamental to managing the workplace. The rights and duties
of employers and employees are now embedded in our law and regulations. For the federal jurisdiction, the Canada Labour Code is the main vehicle used to further the cause of occupational safety and health.
The code requires that employers make employees aware of all known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace. Workers have the right to refuse dangerous work. Also, workers have the right and responsibility to participate in identifying and solving job-related safety and health problems as members of safety and health committees or as safety and health representatives. Needless to say, they play a key role in further safety and health issues.
We should not become safety conscious only after accidents occur. Prevention has to be foremost in our minds. While laws, regulations, and governments play an important role in accident prevention, in the final analysis it is the employers and the workers who are responsible for preventing, eliminating, or controlling hazards in the workplace. This is a responsibility which no one can shun.
Only through awareness and involvement can Canadian workers significantly improve occupational safety and health in the workplace.
This government favours co-operation and seeking consensus and we are constantly searching for ways to give workers and employers the tools they need to prevent work accidents and occupational injuries and illnesses.
On October, 1988, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System became operational. This system was created through the joint efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments, unions, and employers.
The WHMIS is an extremely important system, one of the most advanced of its type in the entire world. Its purpose is to identify and standardize the labelling of hazardous substances used in the workplace. Now that it is operational, this system requires suppliers to state the dangers posed by imported or domestically produced substances that are used in the workplace in Canada. The system also requires suppliers to send data sheets to employers who must then inform their employees of the hazards.
October 26, 1990

In the area of regulations, the federal government is constantly on the lookout for new approaches it can use with its partners to make the workplace safer for workers.
As we have witnessed in the past, having all interested parties involved in occupational safety and health is the only real way to ensure progress and change in the workplace. In the years to come, we must all be part of the continuing effort to make needed changes happen. Each and every one of us in our respective roles must contribute to reducing the suffering caused by work-related accidents and illnesses.
Enshrining a day of mourning in the legislation will assist in reminding all of us of the need to continue to work toward this end.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his bill and I would also like to congratulate the government for agreeing to enshrine this bill into permanent legislation.
Before I speak about it, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who is the Liberal Party critic for labour. He has been pressing our caucus and working with our members for a while now trying to persuade us to move in this area, and trying to get unanimous consent which he has obtained without any hesitation from our caucus in terms of our support for this legislation. I know that on a number of occasions he has dealt with the Canadian Labour Congress on this issue. I would like to commend him for his interest. As an individual he is very supportive of the labour movement in his area and across Canada.
Certainly, it is an excellent initiative on the part of the hon. member who proposed the bill to recognize April 28 as the day to remember persons killed or injured on the job. Before I speak about the bill, I just wanted to outline a couple of facts.
According to Workers' Compensation Board statistics, every seven seconds there is a Canadian worker who suffers a disabling injury or disease. Also, the same statistics tell us that every year in Canada approximately
1,000	die as a result of workplace hazards. That is 1,000 lives every year.
Not only that, statistics tell us that there is an economic cost involved with those incidents. For in-
Private Members' Business
stance, if we look at the latest report by Labour Canada, the cost as a result of incidents in the workplace adds up to about $10 billion every year. These figures do not include those injuries that were disallowed by the Workers' Compensation Board, nor those injuries or diseases that were not reported for one reason or another.
In 1989, for instance, in Ontario we had approximately
465.000	claims made to the Workers' Compensation Board. These claims cost the treasury approximately $1.8 billion in compensation benefits.
Last year, in Alberta, there were approximately
500.000	claims made. The resulting cost to the treasury of Alberta was $2.5 billion in terms of paid benefits.
The figures show that British Columbia had 200,000 claims that were made to the Worker's Compensation Board, and the list goes on and on.
These are some of the economic costs that are we are paying for as Canadian taxpayers'. There are other costs which we cannot put a handle on. Those are the social costs. How can we measure the cost of the death of a member of the family, a friend, or an acquaintance?
The other issue which we also have to think of is the unpleasant situation that one might develop a fatal disease, a permanent disease, or long-term disabilities and the demoralization of an individual as a result of an incident that he or she might have.
In my view, while the bill is an excellent one, there is one aspect which the government should look into besides acknowledging April 28 as the day to mourn those who are killed. That is the aspect of prevention. We have to focus and put all of our energy and resources into prevention. In my view, if we are to invest money in training, education, and awareness in the workplace, we can deal with this issue a lot more effectively than to deal with the result of the problem.
Interestingly enough, just a couple of days ago there was a report in The Ottawa Citizen on a Canadian company which also has plants in the United States, Campbell's Soup. The report stated that 70 per cent of the Campbell's workers were found to have some sort of difficulty adapting to changes in the workplace and changing jobs within the workplace. That encouraged me to speak about the illiteracy issue.

October 26, 1990
Private Members' Business
The sad thing is that in the vast majority of our industry, other than the high tech industries, there is this terrible situation of illiteracy in our society. It is costing the Canadian economy approximately $10 billion, directly and indirectly. Businesses alone in our society are paying approximately $4.5 billion on an annual basis. One can appreciate the magnitude of the problem and the need for some sort of a proper strategical plan to deal with this issue. Of course, when there is an illiterate work force, there are likely to be more accidents happen in the workplace. People are more to get injured or killed as a result of that.
I cannot see anything in the long run that could handle or deal with the issue of incidents in the workplace better than prevention through education and training. Bill C-223, as proposed by the hon. member, is an excellent first step, but it is a first step. The federal government has to look at this issue as a package rather than look at it in bits and pieces.
We have to deal with this issue through education, through training, through a proper national strategy to deal with illiteracy in the work force, and with the issue of education within the work force and with the issue of free training within the work force. The vast majority of those people who are suffering as a result of that are the workers who are in their forties through sixties. They are the people who are paying the biggest price as a result of the unfortunate amount of illiteracy in the work force as a result of the change in terms of new technologies, new fields and new eras.
On a closing note, I would like to commend the government for adopting the bill of the hon. member. I hope that the Minister of Labour, in conjunction with the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, in the very near future will map out some sort of a strategy so we can deal with this terrible, terrible disease of illiteracy in the work force and consider training and retraining within the work force.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I will be extremely brief. I had a speech I wanted to make today in support of the bill but, as has been indicated already, the government will adopt this bill and I think that itself should be celebrated so I will not make a long speech.
I had the honour and privilege to be briefly our party's labour critic some years ago and that became an area of
special interest to the hon. member and I. We became friends through that. Later I had some satisfaction in a different role here having something to do with allowing our employees to be better able to negotiate with their employer here than they were able to before. As well, in my riding is Lindhurst Hospital which for those involved in rehabilitation therapy is a fairly special place. We see the consequences of work place unhappinesses. I only want to say this.
Today represents one of the things that the present Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland hoped to see some day when he introduced his reform package and that is that we would be able to do more of this in this institution. I want to congratulate the government for accepting a sensible idea and, specifically and importantly, I congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for his initiative. It is because of the possibility of McGrath's reforms and the initiatives of people like the hon. member for Churchill that we will make more progress in this place.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I just have a few short words. I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for his bill.
As was mentioned by the member from Ottawa, who takes a lot of interest in the workplace, literacy, and numeracy, I also too, have a great interest in all this. It goes all the way back to the child, growing through youth, training, education, and health.
All that leads to less opportunities for accidents in the work place. I think it all ties together. Certainly the minister and the government are pleased to be supportive.
Madam Speaker, you will find that there has been consultation among all parties and that there is agreement to have this bill go to a legislative committee. I suggest that that be put to the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Port-neuf.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, you don't see me rising very often to congratulate a New Democrat but today it is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent initiative.
Before I was elected to Parliament, I became familiar, through my work with the problems that exist in the construction industry. I have worked for engineering firms, and I was involved in the construction industry for 24 years. I saw the safety problems they had on construction sites and I remember the number of deaths that occurred annually, both in the consturction industry and industry in general.
It is therefore a real pleasure today to see that the House is unanimous in its approval, and I hope there will be other times when we will have the same kind of unanimity on other subjects. I say bravo to this excellent initiative, and it is a pleasure to support this bill, Madam Speaker.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I too would just like to rise and congratulate the member for Churchill before we put the question.
I would just like to mention to the member the significance of what this bill says. If we take a good look at it, it basically says: "A national day of mourning". That is not something to be overly proud of, the fact that we have to have a day to commemorate the death or injury of a lot of Canadians.
I want to bring forward the suggestion of my colleague from Ottawa. Basically this is the starting point of something very significant. It is not out of the question for the government to consider that this should be a national day, a holiday, in one sense; that is, an opportunity for workers all across the country to have the day off work in order to have conferences and to participate in educational endeavours and processes necessary to edu-
Private Members' Business
cate the public and the workers of just how large an economic and social problem this really is.
I bring that to the member's attention, because it is not pleasant when in this place we have to talk about people's deaths and the reasons why they are occurring in a country that is considered to be one of the most sophisticated and technological in the modem world.
I would like to congratulate the member. I ask members opposite who are in government to consider using this as a starting point, to push it just a little further, and to do what we have done for the environment, for example, which we had once totally ignored. Through initiatives that members made in this place we have carried it to the forefront.
I think the work force and the work place of Canadians is of the utmost importance to us all. We should think very seriously about going forward and not just standing still.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the House is ready for the question.


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I imagine there is unanimous consent to call it three o'clock.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 29, 1990