1990-11-07

Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative senators put off consideration of Bill C-86, a bill to provide over 66,000 Canadian families with pre-payment of the child tax credit before Christmas. The Liberal Senators offered to speed up passage of Bill C-86. The Senate Committee on Social Affairs was standing by ready to receive it, with the intention of passing it by the end of the day. Instead, the Conservative senators said they did not have their notes. They did not know enough about a bill that is only one page in length.
Why did the government not provide notes to its colleagues in the other place? Why did it not explain to the Tory majority that Bill C-86 requires urgent attention, that it was promised by the Minister of Finance back in February? Could it be that Bill C-86 is just another broken promise typical of this government?
Or, is it possible that the newly invigorated "Gang of Eight", enthused by their recent victory in inflicting the clawback and UI cuts on Canadians, want nothing to do with a progressive piece of legislation that could authorize the pre-payment of child tax credits to some of Canada's poorest families just before Christmas?


CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION PROJECT
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26, I had the honour of announcing, on behalf
of the Hon. Marcel Danis, that a co-operative education project will start at the Saint-Jerome CEGEP.
The co-operative education option offers students a chance to combine studies with job experience, thus making them better prepared to enter the labour market. Thanks to a federal contribution of $200,000, the Saint-Jerome CEGEP will be able to add a co-operative education component in its curriculum. The CEGEP, in co-operation with business, will then be able to give students the tools they need to enter the labour market successfully.
The Saint-Jerome CEGEP is to be commended for its involvement in the community, and I wish those students who take advantage of the co-operative education option every success.


THE ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to backing its rhetoric on the environment with solid action, this government's record is sorely lacking.
A case in point is the decision by Canadian National to transport more than 2,000 tonnes of potentially contaminated soil from an industrial site in Halifax, 300 kilometres to River Denys in Cape Breton, rather than carry out the tests necessary to verify its acceptability at a local landfill site.
No, it seems CN could not be bothered to take the time. Nor could it be bothered to consult with the municipality of Inverness, not to mention with the local residents of River Denys. It was easier to find some private landfill operator who would not ask too many questions and then sneak the stuff in, hoping no one would notice. Out of sight, out of mind.
Well, it is not out of the minds of the residents of River Denys who are furious at the prospect of their drinking water being contaminated by the run-off from these materials. Nor to the municipality of Inverness which has
[Stage Direction]
November 7, 1990
had enough problems already with controversial landfill sites, and has had to serve an injunction to stop CN.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know how sensitive the disposal of hazardous wastes has become. No community wants to be a dumping ground for some corporation's garbage imported from somewhere else. Certainly, it should not have to be without prior consultation and not by a national Crown corporation on the tacit approval of federal and provincial governments.
CN's behaviour in this case tarnishes its public image and, worse still, erodes the credibility of all governments in the difficult dialogue with citizens over the appropriate disposal of industrial waste.

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that a Canadian member of Parliament has a chance to congratulate a United States governor-she will probably never hear it anyway-but I want to salute Texas Democrat Ann Richards on becoming the first woman governor in the history of the Lone Star State last night.
Now, I would probably disagree with Governor-elect Richards on some issues. But in one respect, her triumph over her Republican opponent, Clayton Williams, is a victory for women everywhere.
Not only did she have her share of discouragements in life; she persevered and came through in the face of Mr. Williams' rudeness, and particularly his unfortunate and shameful gaffe about women and rape.
My wife, Priscilla, and I were cheering on Ann Richards last night. While I know that men are not allowed to wear hats in this Chamber, if I could I would give a tip of my stetson to the first woman governor of the Lone Star State of Texas. Ya-hoo.


TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: It is time once again for our corporate welfare bum of the week award. Today, we would like to present a special effects award to the Liberal Party of Canada for its illusory contribution to the tax system. Its latest concept is a Working Group on Fair Taxation.
The Liberal Party deserves special consideration because it has come up with such an impressive lineup for its committee. Its smoke and mirrors panel consists of
such enlightened corporations as Peat Marwick which in 1988 contributed over $54,000 to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, and Coopers Lybrand which in 1988 donated over $62,000 to the Tories and $52,000 to the Liberals.
These corporate tax experts will no doubt help the Liberal Party keep in place the tax loopholes it put in place while it was in office.
We congratulate the Liberal Party for its portrayal of concern in trying to appear sincere about keeping the average Canadian in mind with its tax committee. There is no doubt in my mind that this group deserves our special effects award for the corporate welfare bum of the week.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON THE FUTURE OF CANADA
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its 170,000 business members have publicly stated their support for the Citizens Forum on the Future of Canada, as announced by our Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Tim Reid, also mentioned his satisfaction with the Prime Minister's comments regarding the need for putting our financial house in order, if we are to ensure Canada's prosperity during the 90s, and with his awareness of the need to reassess the roles to be played by governments and the private sector in the next few decades, if Canada is to succeed in the international arena.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reid concluded his press release with a show of support, on behalf of the 500 local chambers of commerce and boards of trade, for the commission and its task to find out what Canadians think about the future of Canada.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, Fort Petrie as well as Fire Command Post and South Bar Battery are abandoned Second World War fortification sites that have been the subject of great debate in my constituency. I had hoped that government funding for the restoration of these sites would have



November 7, 1990

been made available. However, there does not appear to be any financial assistance forthcoming. Because of the danger and possible safety risks for residents in this area, I must concur with the Municipality of the County of Cape Breton to have demolition commence as soon as possible.
I am certain the historical societies that have worked very hard at trying to secure funding for a restoration project will be very disappointed at this decision.
We must keep in mind, however, that the safety of residents must always take priority. We must secure a safe and secure community, especially for our children who live near these sights.
With this in mind, I urge the Minister of National Defence to commence with the necessary arrangements. I have toured these sights. I have met with the residents and, because there is no financial assistance, I urge the ministry to proceed with demolition expeditiously.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day, Canadians are facing a challenge of forging a truer understanding of and a greater love for one another and our country. It is most appropriate at this time that we remember those who fought and died so that we would have the freedom to take up this challenge.
While in many parts of the world there is conflict and oppression, in Canada we have the freedom to express our hopes and dreams as well as our concerns. This is a precious gift that we must appreciate and treasure.
On November 11, as we remember the men and women who fought and died in the service of our country, let us also permit the day to be a reminder of the need to show tolerance and understanding to all the peoples of the world.
Let us work together to find greater peace and harmony at home and throughout the world.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Indian Affairs, the hon. Tom Siddon, agreed to start discussions with the negotiating team in Kanesatake, which will consist largely of representatives of a coalition of factions supported by over 400 adult members of the band at Kanesatake. TTie minister also asked for the band council to be represented on the team.
Around the negotiating table will also sit representatives of the federal and provincial governments and of the municipality, parish and village of Oka.
Mr. Speaker, these arrangements are a good start towards dealing with the thorny question of transferring the 97 acres purchased during the crisis and negotiating a single, undivided territory for the people of Kanesatake. I hope the process will be open to the entire Indian and White population in my region, and I trust these negotiations will result in a final treaty between the two communities. I therefore urge all those who wish to take part in this exercise to do so in a spirit of bringing peace and prosperity back to this magnificent and unique area, Oka-Kanesatake.
Finally, I wish Mr. Bernard Roy, who will preside over the negotiations, every success.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is waiy and skeptical as to whether the Prime Minister has learned his lesson on constitutional affairs as far as his penchant for top-down, backroom manipulation is concerned.
Reformers are advocating a bottom-up, people-directed approach to constitution making, rather than the elitist or public relations approaches traditionally employed.
Reformers would prefer a series of constitutional conventions in each region, as well as by aboriginal people, at which delegates directly elected by the Canadian people and assisted by technical experts would

November 7, 1990
debate and vote upon proposals for constitutional changes. The output of these conventions would then go to the traditional parliamentary and legislative processes for review and implementation.
Canadian citizens are concerned about and capable of ensuring that Canada enter the 21st century on sound constitutional footings. All Reformers ask is that Parliament trust the common sense of the common people and let Parliament get on with getting Canada's fiscal house in order.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues today to join me in saying:
Hey hey!
Ho ho!
The GST has got to go!
Tbry bagmen are worried They're running out of dough Business cannot stand Mr. Wilson or John Crow.
They decided on a dinner At a Toronto harbour hotel So Brian could leave by frigate If it didn't go too well.
Protesters out-numbered patrons They came from miles around One broke through the cordon And dressed the PM down.
But the PM would not listen He threw the poor man out First closure, now eviction Are how Tbries use their clout.
But the truth cannot be silenced Three chefs were on the loose To supplement the menu They cooked Mulroney's goose.
And so the meal was ended Brian got his just desserts Tbgether chefs and diners Joined in the following words.
Hey hey!
Ho ho!
The GST has got to go!


LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's first snowfall did not cool the electoral ardour of Jean Chretien. Mr. Chretien's recent statements indicate that he is prepared to fight, and I quote, "against the Mulroney government's right wing corporate agenda."
Will the road to Beausejour be Jean Chretien's road to Damascus?
Canadians, and especially voters in Beausejour, may have their doubts about this miraculous conversion.
I must challenge the sincerity of statements made by someone who is so absent-minded he even forgets he was trained as a lawyer.
Obviously, if Mr. Chretien, according to his statements, has decided to espouse the cause of the New Demcorats, he will have to take official steps to become a member of that party.
I may add, however, that my party reserves the right to cancel Jean Chretien's membership as soon as he changes his tune, which should not be long.


LOW INCOME CANADIANS
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, two nights ago co-operation among all members in this House allowed for the passage of the child tax credit bill. This bill will provide additional assistance for some
70,000	families, representing over 230,000 children.
On behalf of those recipients I commend the members of all parties in the House for recognizing the need for this bill.
However, right now there is another rebate for the same families awaiting passage in the Senate. The goods and services tax is designed to recognize not only children but includes 9 million Canadians living on low incomes. It could provide all of them with money that they need and deserve before Christmas but to do so it must receive immediate passage in the Senate.
I commend those senators who are attempting to do so.
November 7, 1990



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today, Statistics Canada reported that between September and October its help wanted index, a measure of the jobs available across Canada, fell by 3.5 per cent in Quebec, 8.9 per cent in the prairies, 13.7 per cent in Ontario, 16.8 per cent in British Columbia, and 17.1 per cent in Atlantic Canada. That means there are fewer and fewer job openings for the thousands of people losing their jobs now due to the recession induced by this government's policies.
Will the Prime Minister look at his help wanted index and start doing something meaningful right now for the thousands of Canadians who desperately want help to get out of the recession his policies have created?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no one is denying the significance of those figures; they are of concern.
I also say to my hon. friend that we have had a significant increase in employment over the past six years, which has led to a very high level in that particular index. I would caution him about reading too much into that particular index.
Having said that, we recognize the problems in the economy. We have been working to get interest rates down. These, as I pointed out to the House, have come down 1.5 percentage points since the early part of the summer. If the same conditions that brought that about continue, then we can see some further progress in that regard.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, economic experts have said that what the minister is talking about on interest rates is something that is too little and too late.
Yesterday, the government finally admitted that it has spent more than $400,000 of taxpayers' money on polls to find out something it should already know, and that is, Canadians do not want its GST. Surely the government is not going to spend another $400,000 on still more polls to confirm that we are in a recession and that thousands of
Oral Questions
Canadians and their families are being severely damaged by this government's policies.
Will the government stop wasting money on polls that simply confirm how unpopular and wrong its economic policies are and start doing something meaningful for real people, workers, farmers, and small business people who are being hit hard by this government's misguided economic policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise at what the poll results are showing. This has been quite apparent for some while now.
I ask my hon. friend, if five royal commissions and task forces of experts that have looked at the existing sales tax say it must be changed, are we as a government supposed to ignore that?
Are we supposed to ignore what Jean Chretien said in 1977 when he pointed out that the existing sales tax was causing our exports to have an additional burden on their backs when they go into the export markets?
Are we supposed to ignore what Allan MacEachen did in 1981, when he was sitting right here in this House of Commons and brought forward a budget which proposed a change in the existing sales tax system?
Are we supposed to ignore the Senate finance committee, dominated by the likes of Allan MacEachen, Michael Kirby, and Sid Buchwold?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien and the Liberals are speaking for Canadians when they say the GST has to be stopped. If the minister is interested in listening to Canadians, he will listen to Jean Chretien and the Liberals who are saying in this House, across the country and in the Senate that the GST must be stopped.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal senators, in accordance with policies announced by Jean Chretien and the Liberals, voted in favour of an amendment that would exempt books and periodicals from the goods and services tax. However, the Conservative senators rejected this amendment. My question to the Prime Minister is this: why does he claim to be listening to the country when he refuses to withdraw his GST and has the nerve

Oral Questions
to tax books? Why does he want to impose his GST? Why does he want to impose ignorance on this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien is not leading; he is following Allan MacEachen. I only take that from the media where I see Allan MacEachen saying that he advises Mr. Chretien after he has taken the decision.
The difference is that this government is leading. This government is recognizing the problems of the existing federal sales tax and is moving to remove it.
This government is leading when it recognizes the problem of inflation and takes decisions in advance of the inflation problem getting out of control. This government is leading when it takes decisions to deal with the deficit about which the hon. member opposite, when he was a finance critic for the Liberal Party, asked: "Why are the Conservatives preoccupied with the deficit?"
I will tell him why we are preoccupied with the deficit. It is because of the mess the Liberal Party left this country in. Because it was not preoccupied with the deficit, it is causing the problems that we are having to deal with today.


Mrs. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, the minister said that his department ensured that all available information was disclosed to volunteers for clinical testing.
However, the minister is aware that Daniel Trottier, one of the guinea pigs, was never informed that HI-6 could cause birth defects and cancer.
I therefore want to ask the minister to explain how he can say his government's decision to warn future volunteers is a prudent one, when he knows perfectly well that the people who already participated in the tests, like Mr. Trottier, who is watching you today, did not have access to all available information.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, not only was the gentleman in question entitled to all the information available, but he signed a form indicating that it had been made available to him and indicating as well the following:
I have read and understood the information about the study and about HI-6 provided in the following pages. I have been informed about the nature and the purpose of the procedures, the benefits and risks that are involved in their performance, and the risks and potential side-effects associated with taking HI-6.1 understand that it is my responsibility to ask questions to clarify any points which I do not clearly understand. I have asked all such questions of the doctor and have received answers to my satisfaction and I understand that I may withdraw my consent and cease participation at any time, without affecting my right to medical care-
The hon. member, if she has bothered to read the consent form as well, will be aware of the fact that the consent form speaks of potential side-effects of the drug. In addition to that it says that as with any drug unexpected and potentially serious effects, including fatality, are always a possibility.


Ms. Copps:: No mention of cancer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Hon. members opposite shout across from their seats: "All you did was mention that this could kill you or have other unexpected serious side-effects; you didn't specifically mention cancer".
In addition to all of this, including our warning of possible fatalities, for phase two of the study we have asked that the consent form specifically make mention of the unlikely possibility that it could be a carcinogen as well.
Every effort is being made and has been made to ensure that all volunteers are fully and completely informed.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, to pursue the answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, let me say that apparently manufacturing of the HI-6 drug is prohibited in the United States because of danger to employees and to the community.
Could the minister assure Canadians today that HI-6 is safe for testing in humans, or will he admit that the necessary tests for cancer in animals have not yet been done?
If the drug is not safe for Americans, why should it be safe for Canadians?
November 7, 1990


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with Liberal members, the hon. member does not present the facts squarely and openly.
HI-6 is not available for sale in the United States, nor is it available for sale or manufacture in Canada. It is precisely for that reason the drug manufacturers are required to go to the Government of Canada to seek approval.
Hon. members opposite say that it is a test on humans. Of course, before a drug is approved for sale in Canada, it must be tested on human beings as well.
Based on all of the information that we have to date, which includes tests that are done in other jurisdictions, we believe that such tests are safe. We also believe that the important criterion of ensuring informed consent was met, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member's colleague obviously has not bothered to read the form and was not aware of the fact that the individual in question signed a consent form stating that he was fully aware of all of the side-effects, and had asked any questions which needed to be asked and was satisfied with the results.
This was the individual who is quoted in today's Sun as saying that notwithstanding the fact that he was advised not to drink after taking this, he went out and had a beer immediately afterward and found he was sick. It specifically said on the form that that should not be done.


GARMENT INDUSTRY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday I was in Montreal, where I visited a garment workshop. Mr. Speaker, even before the Free Trade Agreement with the United States was signed, people said this was a vulnerable sector. They were right. It is true this industry is at risk.
One thing is clear and, that is that this government's economic policies: the high level of the Canadian dollar, interest rates, the GST, and free trade with the United States are making the situation worse. Free trade with Mexico would further aggravate the situation.
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister say no to free trade with Mexico, protect jobs in the garment industry in Canada and train people who are out of work?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister for International Trade has already commented on the possibility of free trade negotiations with Mexico, but I would like to respond to what the Leader of the New Demcoratic Party said at the beginning, about the garment industry.
I think it is inaccurate to attribute the problems being experienced in the sector to the agreement with the United States, because the prevailing situation in the garment industry, Mr. Speaker, is an international one, and it is affected far more by international trade than by our trading relations with the Americans, in which case we have mechanisms for finding a solution.
I believe it is far too early and in fact totally erroneous to claim there is a connection, especially in the Montreal area, between workers in the garment industry and the free trade agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. While this government continues to say that it is too early to tell about the results of the trade deal, it is not too early for the workers who are laid off every day in every sector across this country.
I would like to raise this issue with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has said that the GST will be good for Canada because industries suffer from the manufacturers' sales tax. The garment industry did not have a manufacturers' sales tax and yet they will be subject to the GST.
On what grounds did the Minister of Finance decide that the GST should be on this industry which did not have a manufacturers' sales tax in the first place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is indirect federal sales tax on everything that we buy today. Whether it is food, whether it is clothes, whether it is shoes, whether it is books, whether it is desks, everything has an element of sales tax in it.


An hon. member:: Heating oil.

November 7, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, there is tax on heating fuels as well.


An hon. member:: Haircuts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, there is tax on haircuts. There is tax on everything that we buy today.
What the hon. member is neglecting is that indirect tax. The royal commissions, the task forces, the industry people who have been coming to successive governments since the middle 1950s, have been telling us to get rid of this tax, to get us on a level playing field so we can compete with the opposition internationally.
Clothing which is imported comes in without any sales tax on it. Clothing that is manufactured here has sales tax on it. It is more difficult for clothing companies which manufacture in Canada to compete with international companies.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today Statistics Canada issued the help wanted index, and we find that there were 12 per cent fewer jobs available in October than there were in September. That figure varies across the country and is much higher in some parts of the country.
During the last election the Prime Minister promised jobs, jobs, jobs. The economic policies of this government have lost jobs from free trade, to the high dollar, to the high interest rate. What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about the increasing job loss? What is his government prepared to do to get us out of this recession and put Canadians back to work?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my friend says that I promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Indeed, I did that in the campaign of 1984 and we delivered 1.6 million new jobs, the largest number ever in Canadian history. Since the free trade agreement there has been another 300,000 new jobs created in Canada. Because of new jobs, unemployment has declined from 11.6 per cent in 1984 down to the neighbourhood of 8 per cent today.
My hon. friend is well known as an opponent of any attempt to modernize the economy, including free trade and sales tax changes. My hon. friend has been captured and is transfixed by the protectionists, as discussed in a recent article by a leading financial columnist, "Free trade's enemies are predictably overpaid labour unionists
or fat-cat monopolists. While protectionism gets headlines and votes, Canadians must realize that ranting against free trade is a non-starter. Free trade is a profound historical trend which is as immutable as gravity."


PERSIAN GULF
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister is aware, there are efforts under way to organize an unofficial all-party delegation to go to Baghdad to make a case for the release of hostages.
I would like to ask the minister if he could confirm comments he made outside the House yesterday where he indicated that the government would be prepared to provide information on the Canadians presently being detained in Kuwait and Iraq, and also provide assistance and services to the embassy and other agencies of the government.
Could the minister tell us exactly what kind of support and co-operation the government would provide to this effort?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the member has been quite precise in his question. This government will not authorize a delegation by representatives of Canada to Baghdad. Individual members of Parliament are free to act as they choose.
When individual members of Parliament travel abroad, they are naturally eligible to have the help of Canadian embassy officials. That would be the case with any Canadian members of Parliament who are in Baghdad.
If members of Parliament require a briefing in their private, unofficial capacities, that briefing will be available, whether they undertake a trip there or anywhere.


Lloyd Axworthy: The
minister will also be aware that many of the families of Canadian nationals presently being held in Iraq and Kuwait have been cut off from any form of financial support or any form of livelihood.
I wonder if the minister would tell us if the government is considering providing some kind of temporary support by way of income or certainly making available things like telephone services to these families until such
November 7, 1990

time as their spouses or their other relatives are released?


Charles Joseph Clark: This is, of course, an extraordinary circumstance and the government is looking at it in that context. There are no existing provisions that would allow the government to work in that way and naturally we would want, as the House would understand, to be very careful not to establish precedents with regard to any actions that we might take.
Having said that, my colleagues and I are looking to see if there is some way in which we can offer help to those Canadians whose families are unable to leave Iraq or Kuwait. We would do that on an extraordinary basis, if it is possible. I cannot give an undertaking to the House at this moment as to whether or not that is possible.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. As you know, CMHC has recently completed an evaluation of the co-operative housing program. This evaluation was supposed to be completed in August, but this government extended its own deadline and stifled input in the consultation process.
These delaying tactics have left thousands of families on waiting lists and hundreds of resource groups hanging, putting co-op projects on hold until this government gets its act together.
I want to ask the minister this question. Will there be a co-op housing program in 1991 to combat the affordability crisis in this country?

Will there be a co-op housing program, yes or no? [English]


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and all hon. members of the House are aware, the present co-operative housing program is a five-year program. It was necessary to wait until closer to the end of that five years in order to carry out the evaluation. The evaluation has now been com-
Oral Questions
pleted. It is out for discussion and consultation with all interested people, including members and people in the co-op housing field.
I will be making recommendations to cabinet toward the end of this month or the beginning of this month with respect to where we go from here on a new co-op housing program.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, that is what worries us, because every time this minister of housing has gone to cabinet he has come back empty-handed. Worse still, there is nothing for housing.
The evaluation by CMHC is not only misleading and incomplete, but it does not examine viable options which would make the program more economical, such as the refinancing of the pre-1985 co-ops using the indexed mortgage mechanism.
Since co-op groups need about six months to prepare for a project, and since this government has delayed this new program, will the minister at least extend the current program for another year and help those people who need housing in this country?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the current program continues until the end of the year. A good many co-operative housing resource groups have projects which they have been developing and are ongoing. There are a great many projects which are in the mill right at the moment and are ready to go ahead next year.
Once I make recommendations to cabinet at the end of the year, we will see where the program goes from there. But I am very optimistic that there will be a co-op housing program and that the hon. member will be quite happy with it.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I want to preface my question by expressing my appreciation, that of my colleagues, and the families of those Canadians who are unable to leave Iraq and

Oral Questions
Kuwait, for his agreement to permit a member of the government caucus to join an all-party delegation to that troubled region.
I listened with care to the comments of the minister with respect to his undertaking, which offered support in respect of briefings in Canada and support from the embassy staff in Baghdad.
I want to ask the minister, specifically, in the fortunate event that Canadians who are now unable to leave are in a position to leave following the return of that mission, whether he is prepared to give serious consideration to providing logistical assistance possibly including chartered aircraft to assist those Canadians in those circumstances?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one has to learn to listen to the questions of the hon. member with particular care. It is not a question of permission to private members of the House of Commons. My colleagues in this caucus are free to act on their own. As I have particular cause to know, many of them regularly exercise that freedom. It is not a question of permission. It would be unfortunate to leave on the record any suggestion that there had been an action taken by me as minister, or by any member of the government, that constitutes any kind of official sanction to a trip that might or might not be undertaken.
The second part of the question, as the hon. member well knows, is hypothetical. If a situation arises that requires my response I will respond.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the same minister. The minister is well aware of the fact that earlier this week he indicated that it would not be acceptable to his government for a member of the government caucus to attend, and I welcome the change in that position. That is an important change in position.
I want to ask the minister whether he also recognizes the serious concern, not just of the families of those Canadians who are presently in Iraq and Kuwait, but indeed of many Canadians about the importance of giving sanctions time to work. I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to undertake to this House, as he has been asked before by many Canadians, to only act in a military context in terms of any kind of a unilateral
military action with the full sanction of the United Nations and only after full parliamentary debate and approval of that action?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a little identity crisis. He is going to have to ask himself the question whether he wants to take the high ground and stay on it, or try to wring partisan advantage out of a gesture that he intends to have interpreted as a humanitarian gesture.
With regard to the second part of the question, this government is working very actively to try to ensure that action which might have to be taken in the Gulf proceeds under UN auspices. We have played a leading, constructive role. Indeed, through our diplomats in the United Nations, we have been responsible for some of the breakthroughs that have allowed United Nations auspices to cover and to authorize the actions so far. We intend to continue to do that. But we also intend that the actions of Canada and the rest of the nations, the 25 nations, rich and poor, north and south, Muslim and non-Muslim, who are arrayed in a coalition against the invasion of Kuwait, be taken seriously by Saddam Hussein. We do not want signals to be sent that would cause him to believe that there is some easy way for him to stay in Kuwait. We do not want him in Kuwait. We want him out and we want there to be no doubt about our position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade met with the 13 countries of the Cairns Group in Geneva. His press release states that he discussed how to unblock the negotiations on agricultural trade.
The Cairns Group, of course, is very opposed to Canada's system of marketing boards for the dairy and poultry industries. Did the Minister for International Trade make any concessions to the Cairns Group yesterday in order to, in his words, unblock the agriculture trade negotiations with regard to Canada's position on the marketing boards for poultry and dairy?
November 7, 1990


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of Canada's stated position at GATT. It has been well presented across the country and internationally. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member is trying to find fault with it- and he has not been able to find any such weakness- it has been made pretty clear by Canada, within and without the Cairns group, of what our position is with respect to supply management.
We are reassuring that the supply management systems will be able to operate in Canada. We are strengthening Article XI as we committed ourselves to do. We are clarifying it, strengthening it, and ensuring that the supply management industries in Canada will remain intact and will be able to grow and become stronger than they are today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In spite of what the minister says, Canadian farmers are very concerned about the concessions the Government has already made in its opening position for the GATT negotiations.
For instance, the government has cut agriculture programs during the last two years by 40 per cent. Its outlook forecasts a further reduction of 28 per cent in the coming year.
What assurance can the government give Canadian farmers that other support programs will not be sacrificed in the GATT negotiations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, whatever reductions the Government of Canada has made with regard to support for agriculture will be taken into consideration in the overall approach we have made at the GATT. We have called for the full elimination of export subsidies and the reduction by 50 per cent of internal support programs provided they are in the amber range.
The figures that we put on the table, as all countries were asked to do, were based on 1986 to 1988 figures at a time when the support was higher than it is today. Any reduction will be taken into account as a part of what we are proposing to liberalize trade in the world and to bring
Oral Questions
about a more equitable and orderly trading regime for all agriculture throughout the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Atlantic provinces have suffered a great deal under this Conservative government. Post office closings and VIA Rail cuts have seriously undermined the well-being of this region. And now the same is happening to air and marine transport.
What will the minister do to ensure that his cost recovery program will not further sap this region's strength by affecting local airlines and the marine transportation industry?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I should inform the House and my hon. friend that I have met with officials of the marine industry and the airlines industry. In fact I have a further meeting tonight. I have made it very clear to them that this is a cost-recovery policy which we have put out for consultation and that we welcome the consultation from the industry. In fact, the original date for consultation was November 1. We have extended that to February 1, 1991, in order to get the best possible consultation.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister has announced that he will consult before making a decision. There is nothing wrong with that. But, while the government has consulted on the GST and on unemployment insurance, it did not listen and we know the result.
Why should Canadians believe that the minister will heed the advice of small airlines and marine industry representatives when they tell him that his proposed cost recovery will seriously harm them? Why should they believe you?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had checked with the transportation critic for the Liberal Party, he would have been able to assure him that the government does listen.
When I table the response to the government's committee report on substance abuse, my hon. friend will agree that we listen.
* % *


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members welcome the Prime Minister back from his adventures into the reality of public opinion.
We note with particular admiration the way in which he ended that adventure by courageously commiserating with the poor and the disadvantaged at that $500-a-plate dinner last night.
Given all the time and energy that the Prime Minister has put into gathering the opinions of Canadians about his government and about the GST, and given that we just learned that it spent $400,000 or more on learning what anyone could have told them-that Canadians are against the GST-is the Prime Minister finally going to make sure that his time and energy and the money of Canadian taxpayers is not put to waste, that they are listened to, and that the GST is finally killed?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have commented on that question on a number of occasions in the House today.
Let me just quote from this article by Diane Francis again:
Canadians, like King Canute, the medieval monarch who tried unsuccessfully to order the tides to stop coming in, cannot stop the tides of free trade or reject concomitant reforms like the GST. Ostrich economics will bury Canada if voters opt for politicians who would rip up the free trade deal despite the reality that there is no turning back.
Those same politicians oppose the GST, which has been recommended by task force, royal commission, parliamentary committee, Senate committee and successive ministers of finance. The time has come when politicians have to stop being politicians, be statesmen, and do the things that are right for this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister was a statesmen, he would answer questions when they are asked of him in the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Does the Prime Minister think that it is an appropriate way of spending Canadian taxpayers' money to spend $400,000 to find out what every single Canadian knows, that Canadians do not want the GST? Is that a way to spend Canadian taxpayers' money? How thickheaded can you be? Did he not already know that people are against the GST?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have tried to do in a range of ways, whether it is consulting with groups through the offices of members of Parliament, meetings that ministers have with different groups across the country, groups that the Prime Minister meets, or through the open-line shows where he can talk directly to Canadians.
These are ways that we have followed open government since 1984 and we are committed to continue to follow government in that way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future.
Would the Prime Minister clarify for the House and all Canadians who is invited to make the presentations before the commission led by Keith Spicer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, everybody who is interested in Canada's welfare. I suppose particularly those who feel that they have something to offer and may have felt left out in the past will probably want to avail themselves of the quite unique opportunity in citizens defining and perhaps redefining the future of their country.
I hope it is a helpful initiative and that all members of Parliament and their constituents will participate.
November 7, 1990


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference document from the Privy Council states that "no person shall be precluded from participating" and the Prime Minister has just reiterated that. Yet, Keith Spicer, the chairman of the commission, stated on CBC radio last Sunday that politicians from the three major federal parties would not be welcome, but those from fringe parties would be. There seems to be some confusion between the Prime Minister and the commissioner.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Am I, as a Canadian who happens to hold elected office, denied the right to appear? Is Keith Spicer going to deny the people of Hamilton Mountain the basic right to be heard through their elected member?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am
sure, given the representations that my hon. friend has made, that she will have no trouble at all being heard before that forum.
I did not hear the program. Mr. Spicer is well known. He has not only an innovative mind and a gift for articulation, but he also has a great love of Canada. He is interested in, I am sure, provoking a great and productive national debate. The hon. member will have to ask him, but I know that he wants to hear from all Canadians. If my hon. friend wishes to appear, I am sure that the commission and the commissioners would be delighted to hear from her.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. A single question, please.


CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The recent international crime prevention conference in Ottawa has shown once again that Canada is falling even further behind European countries in the area of crime prevention. The Netherlands, for example, with a population of 15 million and a crime rate one-
Oral Questions
third less than Canada's, is contributing over $17 million to crime prevention.
Why is the government ignoring this question when other countries are confronting it and contributing much needed funds toward crime prevention?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I find that an extraordinary question and I am sorry that I do not have in my book a card with specific statistics of our financial contributions. In fact, Canada is extraordinarily active in all of the international crime prevention activities. In addition to that, we have projects and programs against family violence and violence against women. We are undertaking a complete and thorough review of the Criminal Code of Canada.
There are numerous avenues and ventures in which the Government of Canada is expressing its commitment, not simply to the prevention of crime, but also to tapping our ability to deal with crime when it happens and ensuring that those who commit crimes do not become recidivists in the system. There is the consultation process on our sentencing and parole reforms.
I would be very happy to correspond with the hon. member or to arrange for a briefing with him. I think he would find the Government of Canada is deeply committed to the prevention of crime in all the forms that that can be done successfully.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands on a single question.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, at the Second World Climate Conference in Geneva over 700 scientists from 120 countries concluded in their final statement that immediate action is required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions if we are to avoid destructive impacts of global warming. They said also that it was technically feasible to achieve the required goal of at least a 20 per cent reduction in C02 emissions. The United States, the Soviet Union, and Saudi Arabia have all made it quite clear that they are unwilling to take any action.

November 7, 1990
Oral Questions
I ask the Prime Minister: Why has Canada sided with the United States on this issue, instead of working with progressive countries for a declaration that heeds the calls of the scientists?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the House and to all interested parties that Canada has not sided with the United States, or the Soviet Union, or Saudi Arabia or any other nation which is seeking to retard progress at this particular convention.
In fact, if I may, I would like to read from the final communique, which states: "Taking into account that the developed world is responsible for about three-quarters of all emissions of greenhouse gases, we welcome the decisions and commitments undertaken by the European Community with its member states, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and other developed countries to take actions aimed at stabilizing emissions of C02 or C02 and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol by the year 2000 in general at 1990 levels."

Translation]


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Considering the economic situation in Quebec's resource regions, including Abitibi-Temisca-mingue, and the 1988 Canada-Quebec Agreement aimed at reinforcing the economic infrastructure of regional development, is the minister prepared to announce, as soon as possible, that the federal government will sponsor three new programs with Quebec, namely, support for infrastructures for business development, support for tourism attractions and infrastructure projects and support for major regional facilities?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, since 1988, three federal programs have been developed under the regional development agreement with Quebec, and the hon. member is right, I am about to announce, with the Quebec Minister of Regional Development, three new components of the program which may very well be those mentioned by the hon. member for Abitibi.


QUEBEC'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (ShefFord):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. On a number of occasions the Prime Minister has publicly acknowledged the legitimacy and legality of the Belang-er-Campeau Commission. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister whether he also agrees with the preamble to the legislation establishing this commission, which says, and I quote: "Whereas Quebec men and women are free to assume their own destiny, to determine their political status and to ensure their economic, social and cultural development"?
Could the Prime Minister tell the House once and for all whether he agrees with the right to self-determination of the people of Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have never analysed the preamble to which the hon. member referred. I have read large fragments, but I have not analysed it in detail. I would therefore have to reread the preamble carefully before responding to his question.
I think the hon. member knows perfectly well that the involvement of the Prime Minister, the opposition leaders and almost all the premiers of the other provinces, and in fact the hon. member himself, who was a federal member, in the 1980 referendum, was a clear indication that the results of a democratic and free vote taken in circumstances and according to standards that are normal and acceptable, were accepted by all Canadians in this country.
Therefore, without wishing to get involved in this particular area for the reason I just mentioned, I believe that the experience of Mr. Trudeau and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in 1980 and indeed of practically all members of this House and of the provincial premiers, is an indication of the democratic will of all Canadians.
November 7, 1990


PRIVILEGE
Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the actions of the member of Parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona.
It is my contention that this hon. member has brought this House into disrepute by blatantly ignoring the members' allowances and services manual and the guidelines therein.
The hon. member in a recent householder launched an attack on me personally and on the Reform Party of Canada, ignoring the guidelines. The members' services manual states clearly that free household mailings are "intended to provided members with a means for keeping their constituents informed of the workings of Parliament".
Is it considered "the workings of Parliament" when an hon. member states in a householder on page 5, and I quote:
Perhaps she should spend less of her time running around the
countryside with Mr. Manning, practising politics at the taxpayers'
expense?
For the record, I would just like to say that out of the 87 weekends and weeks since my election to Parliament, I have spent 66 of those weekends in my riding. I would hardly consider that running around the countryside with Mr. Manning.
Is it non-partisan, Mr. Speaker, as the guideline states, that the householder be for an hon. member to use the taxpayers dollars on whole pages of vicious, personal attacks on another hon. member? Is it not a blatant disregard for the rights of an hon. member when another member spends taxpayers' dollars in personal and malicious attacks on the character of the former, or to rant rabidly against the policies of another party?
I know that the Canadian people are fed up with what they perceive to be a waste of money that they send to Ottawa. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, to consider whether this is not a good example of a waste of taxpayers' money, a violation of my rights as a member of Parliament and the privileges that I have of this House in
Privilege
such a blatant disregard for the guidelines and the members' allowances.
Finally, I will just draw to your attention the note on section F(3) of the members' manual. That note states, and I quote: "Householders which are distributed or otherwise used during an election period and which directly promote or oppose in whole or in part a particular registered party or the election of a particular candidate, come within the definition of election expenses under the Elections Act. The cost of printing and mailing these householders or a portion thereof, depending on what portion directly promotes or opposes, should be reported as election expenses".
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona has begun his campaigning for the next election, considering he used five entire pages of his householder to attack the Reform Party, Senator Waters and myself.
Mr. Speaker, the note says such partisan material does come within the definition of election expenses under the Elections Act. The cost of printing and mailing should be reported as election expenses. As we all know, an election could be a considerable length of time away. Therefore, because this householder has been sent out long before an election writ, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona be ordered by this House to have the amount of this householder billed to his next election campaign, if he chooses to run. Taxpayers may be more appreciative, Mr. Speaker, if the member be ordered by this House to pay for the cost of printing and mailing this householder, and to pay that personally.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may or may not have a question of privilege, but I do not think the House can get into the question of ordering the hon. member to make payments.
I will hear the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaver River talked about informing constituents, and that is precisely what I was doing. Every day in this House of Commons we have a public debate about issues and policies. I took five pages of my householder to publicly debate those policies and

November 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
issues. They put forward certain positions on issues, and I have countered with my critique of those issues.
We do that every day here in Question Period. That is a normal part of a member's duty. I do not feel I was breaching any rule. In fact, I have discussed other parties' issues, as all members have in the course of our duties. I also discussed the member's voting record, which is on the public record. I merely shared that with my constituents.
I think the Reform Party, which the member represents, is raising this is it is afraid of criticism. The party's position does not stand up to public scrutiny. In other words, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I discussed these issues in a rational and reasonable way, as we do every day in the House of Commons.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the substance of what the hon. member is talking about in this. All is fair game, certainly in politics, and I understand that.
If the hon. member is talking about what should be forwarded in his householder, surely he is proud enough of his government's efforts to talk about the positive things that it is instituting in this country. I do not know how many pages he would come up with.
Finally, I would like to say that we are not talking about the substance of it, we are talking about the abuse of a privileged members' finances being wasted. In section F(3), and I am talking about the specific letter (f), it states that unacceptable requests are material prepared by party research offices. It would appear to me that this is something that has come forward and is definitely a breach of our privileges as members. I would like to submit that to you, Mr. Speaker, and say that I believe many taxpayers in Canada would be absolutely disgusted with this. I think it is a dangerous precedent to set.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, in response to that, my householder was a 20-page householder. The rest of my householder was devoted to the wonderful things that this government is doing. One has to contrast public policy with the criticisms of what others feel about it. This householder was dedicated to a discussion of public policy in a rational and reasonable manner, in a very public forum. They can dish it out but they cannot take it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South- Weston is seeking the floor and I will hear him in a minute. I hope that he can assist the Chair as to whether this is a question of privilege or not.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaver River raises an important point. I have not had the opportunity to review the householder by the member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Mr. Speaker, you are being called upon today to review the issue of householders. Some members seem to be suggesting by their interventions and their heckling that there are no restrictions when it comes to the use of householders other than some vague restrictions that might appear in the members' manual.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it essential that you take this matter under advisement, that you carefully review the householder of the hon. member for Edmonton- Strathcona, and render your opinion, as the Speaker of the House, in terms of the limitations and the restrictions which should apply in the issuing of householders.
Mr. Speaker, while I do not comment on the specific issue of this specific householder, since the member for Beaver River has raised this issue, I believe it incumbent upon you to render a ruling as to the issue of householders, generally.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for York South-Weston. I know hon. members will feel that the matter has been fully discussed, and I will consider it.
The question that is raised, of course, is what is appropriate to be put into a householder? It may or may not be a question of privilege; I will consider that. It may be a matter of some interest to all hon. members, but I do not need to hear any further argument on the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I wish to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
November 7, 1990

the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, entitled Strategy on Substance Abuse in Safety-Sensitive Positions in Canadian Transportation.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 20 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 54th report of the Striking Committee.



JUSTICE AND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
This report contains seven recommendations on the report of the 1989 commission on judges' salaries and benefits. Also, the committee urges the government to bring the necessary legislation to Parliament at the earliest possible date.



FORESTRY AND FISHERIES-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in two official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, which I do on behalf of the chairman, the hon. member for Gaspe, as prepared by
Routine Proceedings
the subcommittee on forestry, which I have the pleasure to chair.
This report, which has been unanimously agreed upon by members of both the standing committee and the subcommittee, addresses the terms of reference for the new Department of Forestry.
It recommends a mission for that department, to lead Canada toward sustainable forestry development in partnership with the provinces and territories of this country. It recommends a strengthened mandate both organizationally and financially for the Department of Forestry. It also recommends a close partnership with the provinces, the territories and all other stakeholders in planning the land use required for future sustainable development of our forests in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a response to this report within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an art to amend the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act (government employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this bill would amend the MP pension legislation in a significant respect. It would prevent double-dipping by former MPs by ensuring that any of them under the age of 60 who are receiving paycheques from the Government of Canada or an agency of the Government of Canada may not simultaneously also receive their MP pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
November 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings


David Kilgour: for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act (age of entitlement).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill relates to the age of eligibility for an MP pension. It would bar a former MP from receiving an MP pension before he or she reaches the age of 60, on the premise that most other Canadians have to wait until 60 or 65 before they can obtain pensions.


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

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of Canadian dairy farmers who feel that the Canadian system of marketing and supply for domestic and export demand have not contributed to world surpluses.
They fear that the government is going to allow changes at the GATT. They humbly call upon this Parliament to instruct the government to hold up our Canadian system as an example to the rest of the world and to protect it in its entirety, at all costs, in the current round of GATT negotiations.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it gives me great pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by people in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
They are calling upon this government to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations. In other words they want education to be untaxed by the government.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from people from southern Ontario who are extremely distressed at the coming of the goods and services tax.
The petitioners ask that the government withdraw this bill because they feel that it will be partially invisible, that it will be extremely harsh on middle and low income Canadians, that it comes at an extremely difficult time when we are in the midst of a recession, that it will cause increases in interest rates and prices to rise, and that it will cause a great deal of hardship.
The petitioners wish that this government would not only listen but lend a hand and help the Canadians through this recession by not imposing this tax.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed mainly by western Canadians but by people from right across Canada.
They humbly indicate that they expect the government to act immediately upon its authority and responsibility and deal in a just manner with the struggle of all aboriginal peoples in Canada to have their land claims and rights properly addressed.
The petitioners warn that inaction on the part of the federal authorities will continue to antagonize race relations in Canada and provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, if the persons who signed this petition had been here yesterday to witness the spectacle of the Tory hacks in the Senate voting down the very reasonable amendment of the Liberal minority in that body to exempt books and printed material from the ravages of the goods and services tax, I am sure they would have been violently ill.
They have signed a petition calling on Parliament to reject the goods and services tax in so far as it is applied to books and not to agree with the hard-hearted grasping and greedy attitude of the Conservative majority in this House, and now apparently in the other place, which will tax unfairly and uniquely publications and books in Canada that are not taxed anywhere else on the face of the globe in a civilized country.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a number of petitions from a large number of Canadians who oppose the GST.
This new tax will cause higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher unemployment, and of course will deepen the recession.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this goods and services tax.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to the House yet another petition from people of Canada who are fed up with this government's goods and services tax.
The members across might find it funny, but I challenge those members to unplug their ears and start listening to their constituents. If they unplugged their ears and started listening to their constituents very carefully, they would find out that 85 per cent of the people hate this tax.
The minister should do something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see that the hon. member for Willowdale is rising again. I am afraid he has only one chance to put his petitions forward. He can try again tomorrow.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance is in the House. Perhaps he is listening to opposition members presenting these petitions.
We are simply reiterating and indicating to the House the desire of the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that is, for this Minister of Finance who sits here smirking in his seat today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish the hon. member would get to his petition, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the comment about the smirking. It wasn't smirking. I think it was a deep felt laugh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not recognize the hon. member on a point of order until I finish with petitions. I may come back to the hon. member.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions that asks the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax, especially since it is so unfair as far as reading materials are concerned.
I have other petitions from across Canada that ask the government to withdraw the goods and services tax. I hope the Minister of Finance who is here is going to listen.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House today on behalf of numerous Canadians.
They petition the House to have the government withdraw this awful, terrible tax, the GST which this group of money hungry Tories is trying to impose upon the Canadian public.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by many Canadians from the Dartmouth-Halifax area of Nova Scotia.
They call upon the government to withdraw the GST, and they say that this tax is simply part of the right wing agenda to shift the tax burden of Canada on to ordinary Canadians and away from the wealthy and corporations.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the appropriate Standing Order to present a petition signed by many people from Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam in my riding and by people from the greater Vancouver area.
They say that the cable industry should be regulated like the telephone industry because it too is really a monopoly. The cable companies made an average 32 per cent profit on their assets in 1988, more than twice the level of the telephone company. Cable bills have been increasing at the time when telephone prices have actually been dropping.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member get to his petition.

Routine Proceedings


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284, which is a bill to apply rate of return regulations to the cable industry.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and once again present a petition against the goods and services tax on behalf of people in Canada.
These people have stated that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle income taxpayers to bear more and more of the national tax burden.
They are calling upon Parliament and this government to cease with the proposal that would bring in a goods and services tax against the people of Canada and to bring in a fair taxation system for all Canadians.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present to the House another one of many petitions calling upon the Minister of Finance and the Conservative government to withdraw immediately the regressive and unfair goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 344, 346, 352, and 356.


Mr. Harvard: In the event of the GST not being passed by Parliament, will the
government return the tax, with interest, to the Canadians who have
been required to pay it?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Until Bill C-62 receives Royal Assent there is no legal liability for the payment, collection and remittance
of any applicable GST. One of the transitional rules contained in Bill C-62 does provide, in part, that Canadian businesses which supply goods to be provided or services to be performed after 1990 are required to account for the proposed seven per cent Goods and Services Tax on January 1, 1991, on prepayments made between September 1, 1990, and January 1, 1991. The Department has encouraged businesses to comply with this transitional rule but has emphasized that there is no obligation or authority for them to actually collect the GST.
If certain businesses are collecting GST on transactions straddling the implementation date, they are doing so on a voluntary basis in preparation for the GST. Under the proposed legislation, vendors will not be required to remit any GST collected until their first GST return for 1991 is due. Consumers are, therefore, under no legal obligation to pay the GST prior to the legislation being passed. If they do, it would be up to the business concerned to compensate them for the GST paid, in the event that the proposed legislation is not passed.


Mr. Harvard: When will the Armed Forces Pensionners and Annuitants be informed that the supplemental' Death Benefit under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, will be increased to at least $3,000?


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


Mrs. Stewart: Did the government hold a conference for Correctionals Canada in Honey Harbour, Ont. in September 1990 and, if so (a) what was the total amount of money spent (b) how many people attended (c) what is the place of employment of each participant (d) did those in attendance receive a travel allowance and if so, what was the total amount spent (e) did the government pay hotel accommodation for each participant and if so, what was the total amount spent on hotel accommodation?

Routine Proceedings


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Yes. A Case Management Conference was held from September 11 to 14, 1990 in Honey Harbour, Ontario for 138 delegates from the Correctional Service of Canada and 4 from the National Parole Board.
(a)	The amount of money spent was $71,395.80.
(b)	There were 142 delegates and 10 guest speakers at the Conference.
Others
Regional Correctional	4
Staff College
Regional Headquarters	3
Pilot Projects	4
NHQ	2
Regional Headquarters Quebec	1
National Parole Board
(c)	The place of employment of the delegates is a follows:
NPB Ottawa NPB Kingston
2
Institutions
(d) & (e)
Collins Bay Institution	13
Frontenac Institution	2
Bath Institution	5
Millhaven Institution	7
Prison for Women	6
Joyceville Institution	14
Pittsburgh Institution	1
Kingston Penitentiary	7
Regional Tfeatment Centre	2
Warkworth Institution	5
Beaver Creek Institution	2
Parole Offices	
Kingston Case Preparation	10
Kingston Case Supervision	1
Peterborough	7
Ottawa	6
Sudbury	2
Timmins	1
Barrie	2
Toronto Downtown	5
Tbronto East	1
Toronto West	3
Team Supervision	2
York/Durham	2
Keele CCC	3
St. Catharines	1
Brantford	1
London	2
Guelph	3
Hamilton	5
Windsor	2
Laval	1
The costs incurred by delegates represent accommodation, meals, incidentals and overall travel expenses. The cost for double occupancy rooms was $110.00 per day. The cost for single occupancy rooms was $140.00 per day. Of the 142 delegates, 10 occupied single rooms. Meals for the Conference were included in the cost of the room. Meal allowances in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines were provided to delegates on travel days only. Some costs are approximate as not all travel claims have been finalized at this time.
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS	COSTS
Institutions		
Collins Bay Institution	13	$4,635.00Frontenac Institution	2	838.00Bath Institution	5	1,537.00Millhaven Institution	7	2,688.00Prison for Women	6	2,143.50Joyceville Institution	14	5,582.50Pittsburgh Institution	1	277.25Kingston Penitentiary	7	2,674.75Regional Treatment Centre	2	947.00Warkworth Institution	5	2,166.25Beaver Creek Institution	2	819.00Parole Offices	Kingston Case Preparation	10	3,812.40Kingston Case Supervision	1	473.50Peterborough	7	2,384.50Ottawa	6	2,487.12Sudbury	2	758.00Timmins	1	543.20Barrie	2	465.50Toronto Downtown	5	1,842.00Tbronto East	1	358.50Toronto West	3	1,092.00
November 7, 1990
Government Orders
Team Supervision	2	693.00York/Durham	2	775.00. OF PARTICIPANTS	COSTSKeele CCC	3	1,137.00St. Catharines	1	379.00Brantford	1	426.12London	2	700.00Guelph	3	1,137.00Hamilton	5	2,024.05Windsor	2	800.00Laval	1	640.00Others	Regional Correctional Staff College	3	896.25Regional Headquarters	3	1,181.80Pilot Projects	4	2,146.50NHQ	2	1,582.94Regional Headquarters Quebec	1	1,758.00Guest Speakers (contract and travel costs)	10	12,457.00Bus rental	1,010.20T-Shirts for planning committee and guest speakers	430.00Name tags	31.00National Parole Board	NPB Ottawa	2	1,626.12NPB Kingston	2	1,039.85Total$71,395.80


Mr. Milliken: For (a) 1989 (b) 1990 what was the total amount spent in legal fees by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to settle wrongful dismissal suits filed against them by former employees?


Alan Redway: a) &
b)	Total $11,104.10


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-85, an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to move second reading of this bill which refers to miscellaneous matters related to the transfer of airports to local airport authorities.
This bill will permit negotiations to proceed to effect those transfers and to fulfil the objectives of the government's policy in this matter.
The federal government's airport transfer policy dates back to 1987 when discussions began on the basis of certain broad principles of the terms and conditions for the transfer of federal airports to local interested parties. Supplementary principles to guide the negotiations were approved in May of 1989.
Our objectives from the beginning were to allow the airports to better serve the local community interests; to enhance regional economic development potential; and to permit the national airport system to operate in a more cost-effective and commercial manner.
November 7, 1990

Our aim with this policy is to enhance the efficient, commercial operation of federal airports through a more locally responsive management structure.
I should point out at this time that all of the aviation matters, the public safety, the airport fire and emergency response mechanisms will remain with Transport Canada.
But with local authorities at the controls, airports will be quickly able to respond to changing needs and market forces with innovative ideas.
The flexibility that will be afforded to the local airport authorities will enable them to take advantage of the entrepreneurial opportunities that present themselves, and will help them to directly contribute to regional development initiatives.
In the 1987 policy statement and the supplementary principles of 1989, the government prescribed conditions under which airports would be transferred to local authorities. Two of those conditions are of particular importance, and I would like to emphasize them here today.
First, permanent employees must be offered work by the local airport authorities with pay and benefits comparable to what they received in Transport Canada. It is a fundamental principle of the airport transfer process that the employees be fairly treated by the local airport authorities.
Second, on the financial side, current and forecast net revenue generated by the airport must be guaranteed to the government along with a share of the increased revenue produced by the local airport authority.
Intrinsic to this whole process, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the government has recognized that airport employees must be properly looked after. Airport staff are dedicated and skilled professionals and this bill, along with the principles of the transfer process, will ensure that they are treated fairly and equitably.
Early passage of this bill will greatly contribute to allaying the fears of affected airport site employees by dealing with their major concerns. For example, the proposed legislation would give affected employees a year to decide whether to transfer their federal pension benefits to the new local airport authority pension plan.
Government Orders
Employees' collective agreements would be continued by the legislation until they expire or are replaced. The Canada Labour Code and the mandate of the Canada Labour Relations Board would be applied to deal with labour relations issues at and after the time of transfer.
The airport transfer legislation would also ensure that the local airport authorities continue to provide bilingual services to the public at federal airports.
In all of this, I want to assure the House and emphasize that airports are not being privatized. They are being transferred-and my hon. friend from New Brunswick would do well to talk to the people of Moncton who want a local airport authority, so I think before my hon. friend gets too far down the tangent of being opposed, he ought to check with the people back in the region of Moncton and New Brunswick.


An hon. member:: Right, right.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Go home once in a while. Check with the people back home. If they recognize you, they will tell you that they want want a local airport authority in Moncton, and here my hon. friend is opposing it. I want the people of Moncton-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Quiet down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister of Transport has the floor on debate. The hon. Minister of Transport.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before I was rudely interrupted by the member from New Brunswick who objects to Moncton getting a local airport authority-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: My riding is Miramichi.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Miramichi. I will check that. Maybe we can do one there too.
Individuals or private companies will not directly own or lease the airports. The federal government is committed to this policy and the transfer of these airports to local airport authorities has been among my top priorities since I took this portfolio.
We want to see this bill become law because there has been so much interest shown it. I have met with a number of community groups who are extremely enthusiastic about seeing their airports transferred to local

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
airport authorities. The process is now well-established and the pace of progress is gathering momentum.
I can report to the House that substantive negotiations are well under way with local airport authorities in Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. These four local airport authorities have received the federal lease rental formula and financial negotiations have been initiated with each of the authorities. Formal transfer to these local airport authorities in the interested communities could take place as early as mid-1991.
I should point out to the House that there has been a learning curve on this and in the negotiations with the first four interested parties we have learned some things, things not only that we would do differently to improve the process but things that we can tell the local airport authorities they can do, so that we can come to a decision more quickly.
As I said to my hon. friend, there is substantial interest in communities such as Thunder Bay, represented in the House by a Liberal member and New Democratic member, and the city of Moncton represented by a Liberal member, Quebec City which naturally has all the Progressive Conservatives representing it, Windsor which is represented by the Leader of the Opposition, and Winnipeg which unfortunately has substantial representation from the Liberal Party.
This is an important piece of legislation. It is consistent and complementary to our government's desire to bring the national air transportation environment some rationality and some efficiency. We believe that this can best be accomplished by the application of the spirit of competition that resides in the public sector. This is the reasoning behind our proposal at Pearson, to select a competitive contractor to modernize and operate Terminals 1 and 2, the non-air process of the airports in the interest of that particular region.
As I said earlier this month, we see no need for the Government of Canada to be involved in the commercial aspects of running an airport. We are looking at leasing because we want the hammer of the lease rather than selling and that is why we are doing it this way.
Also, this fits in with our impetus to initiate negotiations with the United States to establish a bilateral air agreement which will provide better and more frequent air service and foster economic growth.
My hon. friend, being a citizen of New Brunswick, will know the interests of Moncton in achieving greater operation and greater air routes into the United States from Moncton. My hon. friend from Toronto will know that the members from Winnipeg want better access to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg for Canadian airlines and for the people of Winnipeg. That goes for Edmonton and all of the major cities that want better access. That is why this fits in with our local airport authority initiative.
These changes are all in an effort to stay ahead of the rapid growth in aviation in this country. I would say to the House that none of this diminishes in any way the dedication of Transport Canada to providing a safe and secure transportation system. This is a very strong theme, as I learned when I took over this portfolio and it continues. What we want from the local airport authority is this. We want them to be in an even better position to transfer to the local airport authority the energy of the community, to expand the operations at the airport, the non-air operations, the aircraft maintenance, and the aircraft sales, and the parts.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is possible with this bill. It turns it over to the local authorities to manage the airport. We feel that with the flexibility they would have vis-a-vis some of the restrictions that we naturally face in government that we will have a better airport system and we will have more growth at the regional airports.
These are a very few brief remarks to introduce the bill. We think it is good legislation which will benefit the communities of Canada that have the major airports and I would urge the House to adopt it.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party to respond to Bill C-85 which, as the minister has just said, provides the legal framework for the transfer of the management of airports to local authorities. Since the concept of the transfer of airport management to local authorities is new, it obviously requires some new legislation.
November 7, 1990

This bill cannot be looked at in isolation. Bill C-85 cannot be considered without taking other over-all policies of this government as they relate to all modes of transport, particularly in the air, into consideration. Philosophically speaking, I and my colleagues are quite concerned and opposed to the general transfer of authority that has flowed from this government to provincial governments, and now to municipal governments, and to private industry.
What the minister has to recognize, and what the government must recognize is that there is a transportation network in all modes in this country that is absolutely immense, that touches all parts of the country, all Canadians and therefore requires a national set of standards regarding the implementation of our transportation system.
That is not to suggest that we on this side of the House are opposed to having local municipal councils and local community organizations co-operating more fully with the federal government in promoting their local airports. We are not opposed to that. In fact, we have suggested to the minister, concerning the noise of aircraft at Pearson, which affects my riding, that an ombudsman be appointed. The ombudsman could establish a working committee with the local communities so that their concerns would be heard, and when aircraft are flying overhead at three in the morning, and they call the local complaint number, they would not just get a recording. What kind of rapport is that?
We are not opposed to a greater working relationship with the local communities and the local councils. In fact, we have been on record as suggesting and requesting more of that.
But that does not mean that the only way to strengthen relations is by transferring authority away from the federal government to those communities. The fact of the matter is that working side by side with the federal government is also a possibility, and that the two streams are not incompatible.
Therefore, when looking at Bill C-85 you have to take into account the over-all deregulation policy of this government. What does this government say to Canadians when it comes to the question of deregulation in the transport industry, particularly in the air? The first
Government Orders
thing is: "Don't worry. It is good for the consumer. It is going to mean lower air fares". The reality of today is that not only have those air fares gone up, but they have gone up higher and quicker than the rate of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, if you wanted to go to Vancouver today and were going to go to the travel agency, you would find that the increase on those tickets was higher than the cost of inflation. Not only have they stayed the same, but in terms of proportional increases, deregulation has not been the messiah for reduction of air prices that the government has promised.
The only reductions are for booking well in advance, three, four, five, or six months. We had that too before deregulation, so that is simply a non-starter.
It also said that deregulation is going to bring greater competition and greater diversification. Again, a fallacy. What is the reality today? The reality is that we have a concentration and monopolization in terms of the air industry. Under deregulation, 14 regional carriers have been gobbled up by Air Canada and Canadian. Why? Because those air carriers in the economies of scale have moved into the communities, adopted the squeeze play, lowered their fares, and through economies of scale have been able to sustain themselves. In the meantime, the regional air carriers either have gone belly up, been gobbled up, are on the verge of bankruptcy, or are operating with a terrible bottom line.
That is the reality of the messiah that was supposed to be deregulation in terms of diversifying the industry.
It also said that we are going to provide better service for the regions. Once again, look at the facts. Look in your own backyard of western Canada, Mr. Speaker. Look at what my colleagues have been saying in the House from Atlantic Canada. Look at what my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, has said from northern Canada in terms of jet service.
Jet service has been abandoned in many regional centres across Canada. We have had regional jet service removed and put onto the more popular runs. Not only has there been a reduction in service, but the quality has suffered. The quality of service is a bottom line of government. It may not be a bottom line of private enterprise, but it is a bottom line of governments and this institution.

Government Orders
What about safety of aircraft and safety at our airports? Both in the United States and here at home, since the dawning of deregulation the experience has been that safety on both fronts has suffered because some of those companies in the airline industry have cut comers and have been allowed to cut comers. That is of concern not only, of course, to this side of the Elouse, but to Canadians in general.
What about job security under the advent of deregulation? I remember when the minister announced the movement to privatize Terminals 1 and 2. He said this in the context of a larger quote, I admit. One of the things he said is: "I am not in the business of saving jobs." I have news for this minister. Every minister is in the business of saving jobs. They are in the business of promoting, increasing, and developing new jobs to be sure, but he is, and they are also, as part of the government, in the business of trying to save those jobs that we have today.
We know the miserable state of affairs generically speaking, particularly in the transport sector. We have seen the situation in Air Canada, almost 3,000 employees. We have seen it in Worldways. We have seen it in CN Route. We have seen it in the train industry with the VIA cuts.
There is also a quote of July 16, 1985 of the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the member from Alberta, who suggested: "The government will monitor the effects of change on employees and will try to respond to any adverse consequences as humanely as possible." This was a quote in response to the privatization of Air Canada.
Where is the humane response to the first 3,000 people who have been unemployed as a result of Air Canada tightening its own seat-belts? This may be the first shoe to drop. Where is the humane response? There is none. Therefore, we have one thing being said before its deregulation policy and privatization, and we have a very different reality today.
What about the privatization of Air Canada, not only in terms of the job benefits, but of the investments that people have made? People have lost money on their investment. Air Canada has not been as adamant in
protecting those jobs as it was when it responded to the government.
We cannot only look at Bill C-85 in isolation. We need to take into account deregulation. We need to take into account the privatization concept that has fuelled the privatization of Air Canada? And what about the privatization of airport terminals?
We have in my own city at Pearson Airport a private terminal, Terminal 3. The government has never answered the fundamental question of how does the privatization of Terminal 3 benefit the average taxpayer and the travelling public in the country who are going to be using Terminal 3? More questions have been raised than answers forthcoming from the government.
What about the bidding process for Terminal 3? That is under a dark cloud of many allegations. What about the costs of goods and services in Terminal 3 for the so-called travelling public?
Even the Auditor. General had questions in terms of his last report to Parliament about the privatization of Terminal 3. He stated in his report on page 736, under section 30.84:
The Department should conduct a post-project analysis to identify lessons learned from the Tferminal 3 project. As a minimum, this analysis should address methods for analysing options and safeguards to protect the interests of the Crown.
To protect the interests of the Crown. He goes on to state:
It should form the basis of an improved methodology for handling such private sector developments in future.
I believe that the Auditor General was being very diplomatic and couching his language in terms of some of the things that I am sure will be unearthed in the coming days, weeks and months with regard to the operation of Terminal 3 at Pearson International airport.
Also, what about the moves to greater privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson which is the flagship airport. It is the principal airport of our country and basically the hub of all aircraft activity.
What about the 14,000 jobs that are currently at Terminals 1 and 2? Given the general economic outlook of the land, do you not think that these employees are also worried for their security at their job site? Has the minister given any forms of guarantee that those jobs will be protected? Will they be the same guarantees that the
November 7, 1990

government talked about in terms of providing job security for Air Canada employees?
There are many questions that have been raised and many questions that have gone unanswered. The other question with regard to Terminals 1 and 2 is how the government proceeded by putting the cart before the horse? It accepted a number of untendered bids from private firms to privatize Terminals 1 and 2 and then, months after, responded to those bids in a positive way.
Normally, the way governments operate is not do it piece-meal, one airport at a time. They do it on a comprehensive basis if they believe in it. Second, they set the incentives and the parameters for those policies. They do not generally respond to private firms and private interests, allowing them to dictate the policies of the day. Rather, the government, as a national institution, should speak up on behalf of the entire transport industry and the country.
What about the regional services? Does it mean that the less popular runs will be abandoned in terms of jet service to the regions, as I mentioned earlier?
What about the fact that open skies will now be coming? That is another issue which has to be taken into account when we talk about the greater tendency to privatize and to delete the authority from the central government? What about the open skies concept?
We know that the Minister of Transport and the government is prepared to deregulate the 1974 air agreement that exists at the moment between Canada and the United States. Essentially, this amounts to free trade in the sky. We know what the advent of the free trade agreement has brought, in terms of job losses and plant closings. Although Canadians may favour modifying any existing agreement, I do not see the political green light there, as yet, to suggest a complete deregulation of that agreement.
Can we compete under an open skies concept with the United States of America? Does the government recognize that, in terms of air carriers, the Americans have perhaps a dozen major airlines that could compete and we have only two major airlines? Does the government take into account that American Airlines alone has over 500 aircraft, while Air Canada has 104 and Canadian has 90? Our two major airlines combined do not have even
Government Orders
one-third of the air carriers of just one major American airline company.
Reduced air fares are promised if we open up the skies between the United States and Canada. I recall the government also promising that with the advent of deregulation. It has not happened under deregulation and many people would be skeptical, at the very best, if it were to happen under an open skies arrangement.
The government also promises greater diversification and greater competition, allowing a greater number of Canadian air carriers to be established with the advent of open skies. I believe there will be a greater monopolization-a great centralization, if you will-so that airlines can reduce the operating fat so they can go head-to-head with the American competition. Possibly, rather than diversification, there will be either a merger between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines that will confirm the monopoly state of our airline business or, if this government allows a wide open open skies arrangement, we will probably see our airline industry under American ownership in the very, very, near future. The question is, are Canadians prepared to see that happen? I believe they are not.
What about regional service under an open skies concept? Is it not logical to think that the American air carriers will be more interested in reaching a number of our major centres, rather than the regional centres of our country in the outlying parts of Canada? I do not believe that the bottom line for American Airlines is to be necessarily servicing Goose Bay, Moncton, northern Ontario, northern Canada, or western Canada for that matter, outside of the cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax.
This country is larger than just those centres, particularly for Canadians who have seen rail travel abandoned in Atlantic Canada. Their jet service has been reduced. Now, with the advent of greater American competition, there is going to be a big question: "Will they have the kind of quality service?" If we do not have quality service on the rails and if those parts of the country do not even have proper highways, and now we are not going to have proper air service, then how do we expect those Canadians to travel? What kind of quality are we talking about in terms of the transport sector? Is it going to mean that it depends where you live in the country? Is that what we are reduced to when we speak of our transportation sector?

Government Orders
What about national symbols? Quite frankly, I believe Canadians do give a damn, when they get into an airplane, what the symbol is on the tail of the airplane. I believe that they would rather see the maple leaf on the tail of many aircraft, rather than the red stars and stripes of the United States, as great as they are and as big as they are in travel, and God bless them all.
Why should we not have some sense of national pride in who moves us across this beautiful, vast country called Canada? There have been a lot of industry analysts who have suggested that unless we provide the safeguards, and the minister is very keen on quoting Air Canada and Canadian as being supporting of the open skies concept, but every quote by every spokesperson for both Air Canada and Canadian that I have read has always said that they require negotiated safeguards as a bare minimum.
That is not open skies. That is not on a level playing field. That is a re-regulation of the current agreement, a modification upon conditions, and not a deregulation of the 1974 agreement completely. Industry observers say that Canada's two major airlines may not survive in the face of the United States competition, or at least not in their current form.
Steve Garmaise in the Financial Post, which this government loves to quote day in and day out, an analyst for First Marathon Securities Ltd., has predicted that Air Canada and Canadian Airlines may have to merge international routes within five years if U.S. carriers compete head to head with Canadian air carriers.
Tony Hine, an analyst for ScotiaMcLeod Inc. said that two airlines might have to become feeder services to larger U.S. air carriers. That is on another front called the open skies.
We also have a move to once again privatize user fees on the altar of cost recovery on the basis that the government does not have the necessary capital or perhaps does not attach the necessary priority on having the necessary capital with respect to cost recovery programs.
In the shipping industry the government may in fact, upon consultations that will be completed on February 1, try to raise $25 million through imposing new fees that have never been imposed before on shipping companies which use the services of our national Coast Guard.
Does this government recognize that our shipping industry is one of the greatest success stories in the Canadian transport industry, so much so that the Americans were not willing to compete with us in the shipping industry, and is on a troubled course as it is right now, that shipping has gone down 10 per cent, that jobs have been lost in the shipping industry as well and that any increase in additional fees will only serve to destabilize shipping industries?
When we speak of the interests of Quebec, the Port of Montreal and the Port of Quebec City and the large shipping infrastructure in that province, we are going to impose on the province of Quebec-and I see some colleagues from that province on the opposite side-over half of the $25 million to be raised from the province of Quebec's shipping industry, namely $14 million out of the $25 million in terms of increased costs. Does the Quebec shipping industry want that? Is that going to make it more competitive along the seaway in terms of competing internationally? I think not.
What about the cost recovery program in terms of landing rights at our airports across Canada? My colleague from the province of New Brunswick stood in his place today. My colleague from northern Canada, the hon. member for Western Arctic, stood last week. People in our caucus in western Canada suggested that the cost recovery basis in terms of landing fees is simply unfair, inequitable and unworkable. Up to now the landing fees have taken into account that smaller aircraft travel shorter distances, carry fewer passengers and charge less in terms of ticket fares and therefore generate less revenue. Therefore, the landing fees for smaller aircraft take into account those variables.
Now the government is contemplating abandoning those variables and suggesting that the landing fees should be based on only a proportional weight of the incoming aircraft. What will that mean? It will mean two things. First, smaller aircraft will pay proportionately greater amounts to land in the airports than larger aircraft. Second, the regional airports in the regional
November 7, 1990

hinterlands of Canada will have to pay greater amounts of money because they have the greatest amount of smaller commuter feeder airlines, which means that those costs will be passed on to the travelling public.
It has been estimated that in regions such as Atlantic and western Canada the travelling public will pay upward of 25 per cent more for their tickets of airlines' smaller Dash-8 service as a result of those airlines having to pay greater amounts of dollars to land at the respective airports. For instance, in St. John's the Dash-8 increase will be 32 per cent. In Gander, it will be 12.7 per cent and in Deer Lake, a 57.2 per cent increase in landing fees. In Goose Bay, there will be a 67 per cent increase in smaller aircraft services compared to larger jumbo jets with increases of upward of 10 per cent in metropolitan Toronto through Pearson airport.
Is this the government's idea of equity across the country? Is this the way it will balance the needs and aspirations of Canadians who do not happen to live in the large urban centres? Is that what the government means when it talks of a policy of regionalism? I would suggest that it is an absurd view of this country that not only will not work, but will not be acceptable to and tolerated by Canadian citizens across the country.
It is for those reasons that I am opposed to the general benchmark of decentralization, deregulation and privatization policies of this government. The dreaded DDP, decentralization, deregulation and privatization. They are linked. You cannot look at one without isolating and looking at the others. Therefore, in terms of the specific concerns on Bill C-85, we have a two-track approach; we have to link them with the other policies that have been enunciated and also begin to cross the t,s and dot the i,s in terms of what it means to local authority transferships.
Number one, what about the responsibility of safety and security? We have had the experience under deregulation. Does this mean now that in a transfership to local authorities that the security and safety aspects of all types of transport modes will be sacrificed? If it is, is it worth the price of transferring holus-bolus authority to local communities and local cities? I think not.
Government Orders
No. two. What about the guarantee of job security? We have seen the results in terms of deregulation and privatization. Does this mean now that in the transfer-ship of local authority, we are also transferring the guarantee that has normally been there in terms of job security, particularly now that this government has finally admitted that we are currently in a recession?
Bill C-85 does not satisfy the conditions in terms of job security for airport employees. New managers will have full control over the work force. If they were to decide, for instance, that 20 employees are going to be laid off, a simple six-month notice is all that is required. Because Transport Canada is inclined to focus on maximizing service to the public, a higher number of employees are often required and the fact of protecting those jobs is certainly a higher priority under a national government control. Although the collective bargaining process and agreement will remain in place, the bargaining power of individual members affected by the transfer will be greatly reduced.
The Union of Canadian Transport Employees, for instance, which represents most of the airport employees, presently numbers a membership of 12,000 strong.
This represents, Mr. Speaker, logically-and you are a man of logic, unlike many of your colleagues-a strong bargaining case. For example, if Edmonton was to transfer the authority from the federal government to the local authority, the membership there would be reduced to 125 people, therefore greatly reducing their bargaining power.
If you are an employee and part of a membership of 125 or if you are an employee and part of a membership of 12,000, and someone has to speak for you, which one would you as an employee choose? Obviously, you would choose the larger one because they are interested, unlike members who yell.
I look forward to the members having the courage to get up in their place and speak. Maybe they are not concerned with employees protecting their jobs, but the Canadian people are certainly interested because they have to make ends meet at the end of the month.

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
In terms of the third issue-I will be going into this in some detail a bit later on-what about the provisions of the Official Languages Act that do not all apply in Bill C-85?
Fourth, what is the bottom line of local authorities? The bottom line of governments is a bottom line that suggests there is something greater than simply the financial bottom line. There is a bottom line in quality of service, in equity of service, in protection of jobs and in the protection of safety in travelling across this vast country.
The bottom line of local authorities may in fact be very different than the bottom line of governments. Therefore, we will have a clash between what is in the interest of the private as opposed to what is interest of the public good.
Fifth, what about the expertise and experience of Transport Canada in running our airports across this country? Will the experience of those who have worked long and hard in the transport field across the airports and their expert knowledge be lost? What kind of variable will that have in terms of the safety evaluation and safety equasion?
Sixth, will local authorities be allowed at one time or another to impose local increased taxes on their municipalities to make up the shortfall for their airports? Has this government thought that out? If we were to transfer the authority to Edmonton or Vancouver, in a few years time they will increase the municipal tax base in order to make up for some shortfalls at the airports. Is that right?
I suggest it is not right because those airports are part of a national service. If there is an airport in Edmonton, it is not only Canadians from that city who use that airport. It is Canadians from all over the country. Therefore, that burden must be equally shared.
What about number seven, local authorities having a double standard. That is to say, local authorities would be lining up to get the authority for the very popular often used airports.
What about the less used airports in the north, in the east and in the west? Will authorities rush to try to obtain the authority and power over those airports? If they do not, we are going to have two tiers. We are going
to have local authorities at the popular airports, and the Government of Canada in the other airports.
What is that going to mean in terms of the service for Canadians at all those airports? We obviously are getting into a different bottom line arrangement with this government. Canadians and Liberal members on this side do not like it.
I mention this briefly because I believe I only have about five minutes left in this discourse. I would love to continue. I might if members on the opposite side are so disposed, but I and members in my parity are concerned about the application of the official languages component to Bill C-85.
There is a strong concern whether the federal principle of bilingualism is going to be safeguarded and protected.
The minister will know that the Official Languages Act is divided into 12 parts. In fact, a number of those parts are not entirely interested in terms of local authority. That is why it is obvious that parts I, II, III, VI and VII 7 are not included in Bill C-85. They are not legitimately relevant.
However, it is not so obvious why Part V-Language of Work, Part Vl-Participation of English Speaking and French Speaking Canadians, and Part VH-Advancement of English and French are not included in Bill C-85.
The operative clause in Part V states:
English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employers of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.
It would seem anomalous to have a Part of Bill C-85 which reports to protect the use of both the French and English languages in relation to the public, if the employee's use of either language is not protected.
Why is Part V of our Official Languages Act not applicable in Bill C-85?
Part VI states:
This Part states that the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that English and French Speaking Canadians without regard to ethnic origin or first language have equal opportunities to gain employment or advancement in federal institutions. The workforce in particular federal institutions should also reflect the presence of both official language groups.
Again, this is a Part of the Official Languages Act which is designed to protect workers of both groups.

It is not part of Bill C-85. It is difficult for my party and I to understand the rationale behind that glaring omission.
Part VII reads:
This Part states the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities in Canada and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canada.
The task of doing the above is given to the Department of Secretary of State. This department is given the right to encourage and co-operate with the provinces and the public in general to accomplish the mandate given to it by this statute.
We are asking on this side of the House why Part VII is omitted from Bill C-85 and thus the Department of Secretary of State is not permitted by legislation to carry out its mandate under this very important part.
I urge the minister who is present in the Chamber to reconsider the words he spoke earlier. In fact the Official Languages Act is absolutely not protected in three crucial parts of its 12-part mandate. That is not in keeping with the Prime Minister's so-called goals of national reconciliation, of somehow having peace between our linguistic duality, and of increasing the opportunities for all Canadians regardless of their ethnocultural extraction.
In this bill is an abandonment of those principles by virtue that it does not permit three of the twelve parts in our Official Languages Act to govern equality among our linguistic groups, and that is a shame.
In conclusion, we are very distressed on this side of the House that this government has allowed its perverse sense of decentralization as contained in this bill. Deregulation is the messiah of the Tory government for Canadians. Privatization is hurting the transportation industry and is hurting Canadians. It has not improved the transportation industry. It is sinking our shipping industry. It is derailing our trains. It is stopping and stifling our aircraft on the ground.
I have much respect for this minister. I hope that he still has time enough to turn things around. This government is going through some turbulent times. This bill will not improve it. This bill will aggravate it.
We will fight decentralization, deregulation, and privatization with every Canadian fibre that we have.
Government Orders


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise first to make it very clear to the hon. minister that members from this side of the House are unalterably opposed to privatization and deregulation in the method in which the minister and his government are introducing them.
However, when I listened to the minister and when I listened to my colleague from the Liberal side of the House, I was kind of concerned at the beginning because I had the feeling that we were indeed talking today about privatization and deregulation.
It is my understanding that the privatization and deregulation of airports are being done by regulation and not by this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is talking about the workers and how the benefits, support and collective agreements of the workers will be protected.
This bill is entitled: "an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports." Having looked through the bill, having listened to the minister, and having listened to my colleague from the Liberal side of the House, it becomes more and more clear that the minister has cherry-picked his way through a number of pieces of legislation: the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, the Canada Labour Code, Part I, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I am very pleased that the minister has consulted those acts, but by naming these acts in this bill he has left workers feeling pretty high and dry in many areas.
The minister said that he is concerned and wants to provide for community input into Canada's airports through the local airport authority. I wonder if the minister also considers the representatives of the workers and the workers at airports part of the community. If indeed he does, I would like to ask the minister why he has consistently refused to discuss this legislation with representatives of the union. They tell me they have been trying to speak to him for two years on this legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I only brought it in a month ago.


Joy Langan: The minister has said that he only brought it in a month ago, so how could he have had time to consult with the unions. It would seem reasonable and

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
logical that if one is to introduce legislation one might even consider in a moment of weakness talking to the unions in advance of drafting the legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is called second reading.


Joy Langan: Oh, it is called second reading: "We will bring the unions in during second reading because we know what is best for people". This government has a reputation of never, ever paying attention to anything that has happened in committee between second reading and third reading, but the government says it knows what is good for people.


An hon. member:: They certainly do pay attention.


Joy Langan: They are paying attention now, are they not? They run it through and bring in closure. We have certainly seen that kind of attention. Canadians know. I do not have to convince you guys over there. Canadians know how much you pay attention.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Us people.


Joy Langan: Oh, I am sorry, you people over there. All right, if that makes you happy. Guys is a unisex word, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.
At any rate let me address this bill. The bill provides for transfer of certain matters affecting current employees of the airports who are to be transferred to local airport authorities. It ensures that for the period of transition from federal to local control the employees retain all of the collective bargaining rights and pension benefits enjoyed as public servants. At least that is what the bill purports, but there are many areas about which the union is concerned because the minister has not seen fit to explain them to the union or to the workers at the airport other than in this House.
It also ensures, it says, that bilingual services remain a part of our airports. However, we have just heard the speaker prior to me indicate his concerns about what this really means vis-a-vis the use of the Official Languages Act.
This bill does not address the whole question of the transfer of control for the management of airports from Transport Canada to the LAAs, the local airport authorities. It is this omission that is most problematic in this bill.
While we are on the one hand attempting to safeguard the rights of employees, we are on the other hand
ignoring any discussion of who the new employer is going to be and what responsibilities and services that employer will be taking on.


Mr. Soetens:: Maybe it will be the low bidder.


Joy Langan: It could be the low bidder. That could also mean that we could get rid of unions and we can do it on the cheap. The hon. member on the other side of the House said: "Maybe it will be the low bidder". We have often seen what happens when that happens. The low bidder saves money on the income that he does not have to pay to workers because they are not unionized. Often that is the case. If the hon. member is offended by what I have to say, I think I was equally offended by what he had to say.
There are several problems with the substance of this bill that in my view need to be addressed. Not the least of these problems is the complete lack of consultation- and I have already referred to it to some extent-with representatives of the employees affected in the design of this bill. It is those men and women who have a very real vested interest in the continuation of services and of their collective rights as employees.
However, the minister has already told this House, in response to my comment, that he has only had this bill in the works for a month and that he did not think of asking the workers before he drafted it. He also did not think to tell the workers just what the bill means.
The bill gives the minister the power to designate which employees, who are currently public servants, are to be subject to the provisions of this bill but does not spell out what criteria are to be used to determine those employees. There is no provision for the employees affected or their bargaining agent to be involved in the determination process.
We all like and trust the hon. minister on the other side of the House, but unfortunately all the airport workers do not know him as well as we do and may have some concern about trusting him.
What does the term designated employee mean within the context of the Public Service Employment Act? Is it an employee once designated and then laid off pursuant to section 29 of the Public Service Employment Act? What is the status of the employee who is incorrectly designated at the time of the transfer, which is not discovered until after the time of the transfer?
November 7, 1990

These may seem to be questions that can worked out at a later time but, given the complete lack of parliamentary review of the whole privatization process as it affects the airports, this is our only real opportunity to ensure that the government acts responsibly toward its employees and in the public interest.
For the benefit of the minister, we are talking about workers who are terribly concerned and uneasy because they do not know what this means to them. Obviously, as far as the minister is concerned, they must wait until the bill receives second reading and is sent to committee to hear discussion. I ask the hon. minister to assure us that he will not wait that long to talk to the unions and to talk to the workers to allay their concerns.
This bill allows for the minister to designate not only direct employees of an airport but also those employees in connection with an airport. We are not just talking about 12,000 employees from the government ranks to whom the hon. member for York West referred. We are talking about employees who are connected to the airport. Could the minister tell us just how far this connection to the airport extends and what are the rights of employees who now work at arm's length from Transport Canada? Again, we are faced with a lack of clarity and a considerable measure of uncertainty.
There are other problems with the bill. Uncertainty exists over the status of employees who may be on a legal strike at the time of transfer of the airport to a local airport authority. The minister is sort of acknowledging that one. Given that lack of clarity and the determination of designated employees, striking employees may well see their right to withdraw their services denied. At least that is the concern, because of the lack of clarity in the bill.
The bill also creates confusion over the status of grievances and other outstanding matters between the present employer and employees during the transition period and prior to certification of the new bargaining unit. Speaking of the new bargaining unit, I would like to make reference to section 7 of the bill which refers to an application by a "designated airport authority" or bargaining agent to which subsection (1) applies, made within 30 days after the transfer date. The Canada
Government Orders
Labour Relations Board shall make an order determining whether the designated employees of the authority represented by the bargaining agent constitute one or more units appropriate for the collective bargaining and (b) which trade union shall be the bargaining agent for the designated employees in each unit.
I would like to raise the question with the minister. Does this mean-I know he cannot respond to me immediately, but I am sure he will get back to me on this-that the minister is opening the door to decertify the Union of Transport Employees and, in fact, create a situation and an invitation for raiding within the organized workplace at the airport? I would really like to have a clear answer to that question because there are many workers who are concerned about this.
This bill also provides some hint of protection for workers affected by the transfer of authority over airports from Transport Canada to the local airport authorities, but does not provide precise language. Workers do not need vague assurances and promises of the future actions of the minister, they need to know prior to any change in their employer and work setting what their rights are and how those rights are to be protected. The government needs to rethink this bill. It needs to be specific. It needs to clear up the language in this bill and to put the rights of workers ahead of the maniacal rush toward privatization that we are faced with in this country.
This legislation also needs to be rewritten and drafted in consultation with the workers affected by this drive to privatize our airports. We cannot simply allow, by government fiat, an alteration of the collective bargaining rights of airport employees without providing for protection-and one of those protections includes the right to be the bargaining agent as well as the right to be within a bargaining unit.
The transfer of authority over the management of our airports is subject to a series of requirements, assessments and reviews before the Memorandum of Understanding is reached. Even then, further negotiations and consultations obviously will take place before the transfer is completed.
Is it not time that the employees affected were accorded the same kind of consideration as the develop-

Government Orders
ers and managers who are in control of the airport, that is negotiations, consultation and discussions?
The local airport authorities welcome the highly skilled employees presently working in the Public Service. They will benefit from their experience and training. They will, however, benefit even further if those employees can be assured that they will not see their skills and years of service under-valued. Mr. Speaker, workers need to be made part of the process now to ensure their rights are protected by both their present and future employers. I think that the minister is generally a man of principle and a man who-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Oh, oh!


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I will just stop now, and let the minister go on and tell us about his principles.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that the minister, I believe, is a person who would be concerned about the workers at the airports and, to some extent, is showing that concern by the introduction of this bill. Our criticism is that he did not talk to the workers in advance of having this introduced to maybe pick up some of the major concerns that they might have and, indeed, some parts of this bill are so unclear as to make it impossible for those workers, without a very, very detailed briefing from the minister, to even understand what this legislation means in their lives. My colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan will be rising to speak at great length about the whole question of deregulation and privatization because the minister, in his opening remarks, made it absolutely clear that he considers that whole discussion part of the debate around this proposed legislation.
I want to raise a couple of things, from the point of view of my own community. I live in my constituency of Mission-Coquitlam. I tell the minister that this is a little bootlegged. I have written him two letters about the needs of the Pitt Meadows airport. I am sure that, just as he wishes to consult with the workers on this and just as he is in the House inviting the participation of the opposition on this bill, and given his busy schedule, it will only be a matter of days before I have a response to my letters.
With regard to the open skies-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He's taking them on his next flight.


Joy Langan: Oh, he is taking them on his next flight. Well that is another point, because I discovered from the hon. minister, in discussion across the floor, when there was a question about airport safety at the Toronto airport, that this minister drives to and from his constituency. I am very pleased for him because with the deregulation and privatization, those of us who cross this country on the weekend, going home to our ridings, are really feeling very comforted to know that the Minister of Transport is driving to his riding.
I am sounding facetious here but it is very important that we talk about airline safety in this country. I think that we must assure Canadians that the workers at our airports are good workers, are safe workers, and care about the safety of Canadians. But I often wonder, when we are talking about privatizing airports and deregulation, if we are talking about selling off the rich airports and leaving the poor airports to continue to be serviced by the federal government. What does that do? Does that mean that, because of profit, we will just slip a little here and cut back a little there on safety procedures? Is that what the privatization of our airports is going to mean?
The other point I would like to make is that recently, on one of my trips back from Vancouver, I sat next to an American Airlines pilot. He told me that every opportunity he gets, when he has to cross the country, he uses Canadian carriers. He also told me that he uses Canadian carriers because he feels much safer in Canadian carriers. Now, that is a sad testimony to what we might have before us in Canada if, in fact, we get gobbled up and overcome by our partners from the States. The hon. member who spoke before me said God bless them. Well I say, God bless them, too. I have nothing against American carriers and I have nothing against American workers, as a matter of fact, I very much respect them but, I happen to think that the Canadian workers are the best in the world. I happen to think that our airlines have the best records in the world and I, sure as heck, hope that we manage to maintain that. Part of that maintenance is what happens on the ground at our airports.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important to close my remarks in this debate by, once again, addressing the Minister of Transport, through you. If, as he says, he is concerned about the workers that are affected by this legislation, I would appeal to him to please spend some time with those workers clarifying the clauses we have raised in this legislation, making it abundantly clear to
November 7, 1990

those workers what is going to happen in their future and their livelihood. Would he please assure this House that he will make those contacts.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister for staying to listen, and I want to thank the hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 74 the speeches are 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes questions and comments. The hon. member for Burin- St. George's on debate.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. My colleague, our spokesman on matters concerning transport, my friend from York West, has already laid out much of the ground and stated to the minister and to the House some of our concerns about the legislation.
I want to add to what he said and, in particular, I want to introduce into debate a regional perspective. This perspective affects my part of the country, not only my riding of Burin-St. George's, but I have in mind the generally less populated, more sparsely populated parts of the country as a whole.
Bill C-85 is dubbed an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employee pensions, and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports. It is that latter phrase, Mr. Speaker, to which I want to direct your attention for a moment, "the transfer of certain airports".
All by itself it is a fairly innocuous little phrase but it carries with it, if one knows the habits, the philosophy, the ideology, the mindset of this government, the phrase "the transfer of certain airports" suggests a lot more than if one did not know something of the mindset of this particular government.
When thinking of this administration, words that come to mind include-


An hon. member:: Corruption.


Roger Simmons: -privatization, include deregulation, include globalization, include cost recovery, include profit. These are just five terms or sets of words that by themselves do not get me terribly excited. I could have rhymed off the names of five animals, five birds, or five people for that matter, or five places in Canada. There is nothing wrong with privatization, deregulation, globalization, cost recovery, profits. There is nothing wrong
Government Orders
with that at all in their place-in their place, Mr. Speaker.
But we are talking now about the linkage between privatization, and globalization, and deregulation, and cost recovery, and profits. We are talking about the linkage between those terms and the way this country is being run. When a government of whatever political stripe takes as its obsession, as its raison d'etre, as its very reason for existing, those words and makes them into its principles. It says that we must deregulate everything, we must privatize everything, we must have cost recovery on everything, we must have profit whatever-the-cost in human terms. We must globalize. We must become part of the larger community.
These are all laudable ideas until put into the context of a government whose first mandate is to provide for the people of Canada a government worthy of the name.
What about people? Do people matter with the government at all? Does it know that people even exist out there any more?


An hon. member:: They don't care.


Roger Simmons: If you look at its callous reaction to people's concerns over the goods and services tax, and even if you suppose for the moment that all the people are wrong and this crowd is brilliantly right, you would at least expect a more empathetic or sympathetic response or an explanation of why there is such a great divide between what the government wants to do and what 85 per cent of people think it should do. At least you would expect the crumbs from the table approach. At least you would expect, even disdainfully, some effort to bridge the gap between the table top and the floor.
Whether talking GST or that infamous Bill C-21, with its 2 per cent goodness as it relates to maternity and so on, and its 98 per cent evil because it will destroy the unemployment insurance system-but that is another issue-what about people in all of this? Whether it is this Bill C-85, or any other piece of legislation, does it matter at all with the government any more?
It seems to me that the crux of this entire issue can be addressed if one realizes for one moment that government is not a business. I would be the first to concede, to agree, to advocate, and to urge that many of the things that government does ought to be done in a fairly business-like, efficient and cost-effective manner. No taxpayer out there, however much he or she contributes to the public purse, subscribes to the notion that the

Government Orders
public purse ought to be dissipated or spent in a way that is wasteful.
If by business-like, one is suggesting it ought to be done, having due regard for cost-effectiveness, there is nobody in this party who has any objection to that. Indeed, I doubt anybody in the country has objection to that notion.
By business-like, does the government mean the bottom line, that the government must make a profit, that the government must deregulate no matter what the consequences are to people, and that the government must privatize no matter what the consequences are to people? If that is what it means by business-like, then I submit to you, Sir, that government is not a business and was never intended to be a business. Beyond that, the tragedy is not a matter of sheer semantics as to whether government is called a business or something else. It is a tragedy that we have a government that insists on being a business at a time when the country is asking for a number of solutions that a business approach cannot provide and was never intended to provide.
To allay the fears of my friends in the corporate sector-


John V. Nunziata: You have friends in the corporate sector?


Roger Simmons: Both of them.


John V. Nunziata: They must be related.


Roger Simmons: Let me say, first, to my good friend from York South-Weston that the surprise that he expresses that I may have some friends in the corporate sector is not completely without foundation. I assure him that two or three-a few out there-have been seen talking to me, not when there are a lot of witnesses around, but in general terms they will condescend to speak to me on occasion-Christmas, Easter-


John V. Nunziata: Cap in hand.


Roger Simmons: -Sunday morning after church, that kind of thing. Lord forbid, after I have finished speaking, that some good Tory in the House might get up and talk about how anti-business this member is. I will assure my couple of friends out there in the business sector who are
hanging onto every word I am saying now out there somewhere, and all my Tory friends on the other side- and long may they stay on the other side, not necessarily on the right of the Speaker. One day, if I get on the right of the Speaker, the deal has got to be that they are left of the Speaker. I hope they are always on the other side, because they have a very different view of reality than I do.
Lest they get up and rave on about how anti-business the Liberals are because of some things I am saying, let me rush and hasten to assure them that I happen to believe that there is a place for business in this wonderful country. I am a private entrepreneur by belief. I used to be one in practice until this job got the better of me. I am a private enterpriser from way back, and I am a liberal from way back.
One of the things that liberalism believes in, espouses and practices is that free enterprise can drive the economy, fuel the economy, but government can also have a bit of compassion and a bit of common sense that says that finally government is not about bottom lines at all. Government is about people, the needs of people and how they can be fostered and furthered by the decisions and the initiatives of government.
First, government is not a business and was never intended to be. Second, if there is one reason more than any other why federal government is failing abysmally and not working in the country, I do not believe there are many people out there across the country who do not recognize that federal government has come to a halt and that the government has lost the moral mandate to govern.
The reasons we have such great divisions in the country now, whether they have to do with Constitution, the future of the country itself, or what ought to be the fiscal and economic solutions to our problems, is because the government has ground to a halt. The government has lost its very mandate to govern. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that government is not working in this country for a simple reason with very complex and disastrous consequences. The gentleman from Baie Comeau and

his team are trying to have the vehicle of government do something it was never intended to do in the first place.
I will give an analogy. I drive a car, badly at times. I drive a ski-doo, even worse at times. But I drive the ski-doo in the worst possible fashion like when I try to drive it like a car, when I try to have it do something it was never designed to do- when I put it over gravel instead of snow, when I put it at speeds that only a car should ever go, when I ask of it to do for me things that that vehicle was never intended to do. One of the basic understandings of rural life, whether in northern Canada or on the south coast of Newfoundland which I represent or wherever, which any 12 year old who has ever been aboard a ski-doo-let alone an adult- is that he or she will understand very quickly that a car and a ski-doo are two very different vehicles intended for two veiy different purposes.
The problem with this government is that it is driving the car of government as though it were the ski-doo of business. It is trying do things that it was never ever designed to do. This mad experiment is costing misery from coast to coast, from Francois to Petites, to Grand Bruit in my riding, to places like Port Albemi on Vancouver Island, to the far north, to Iqaluit, to Point Roberts in the south, and to the Niagara Peninsula. The government is inflicting so much human misery through its policies. I could go through the litany again. There is the GST, unemployment insurance wrecking, lack of regard for the pain being felt these days by fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada, and the very point of this bill, the disruption, the lack of convenience, and the robbing of services to people who live in the less populated parts of the country. Yes, there are a dozen or 20 planes to Toronto any day of the week from Ottawa, any day of the week, because the market provides that that will be the case. Come with me some day to Stephenville in my riding and watch the rush of planes go out. There are two or three of them every single day. One of these days, if the government has its way, when it finishes privatizing and deregulating, it will put the final nail in the coffin.
My one fear in electoral and political terms is not that after the next election we will not be on the government side. That is not my fear at all. Whatever the odds in that
Government Orders
respect, let me give another issue to think about. Whoever becomes the government after the next election-and it will not be that clique, I will tell you that-should have one fear. That is whether or not there will be enough left to govern, whether or not there will be enough of the country left to put back together, in political and constitutional terms or in social terms, human terms, people terms. That is my concern. The country is being changed so quickly and in such a devastating manner that there may not be enough left to govern when the time comes.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. Let me then come directly to the point under discussion.
This bill talks about the transfer of certain airports. As I said a moment ago, do not be confused by the slick wording. One thing the gentleman from Baie Comeau knows well is how to choose, how to practice, and how to articulate slick wording. God knows. If one was not sure of that, one should have watched the television a couple of nights ago.


An hon. member:: Mr. Slick himself.


Roger Simmons: He gives the word "slick" a bad name.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: What about the word "crook"?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Toronto to restrain himself. There is certain language that even we Newfoundlanders will not use.
The transfer of certain airports, the bill says euphemistically, the transfer-what could be more harmless than transferring airports? We do it all the time, transferring airports. What could be more harmless than that? Look behind the phraseology. Look behind the slick phrase and ask what it is really up to. What it is really up to is marketplace again. If it works in Toronto where there are millions of people, it must be great for Burgeo on the south coast of Newfoundland. If it works in Montreal, it must be a miracle up in Gimli, Manitoba. It euphemistically talks about the transfer of second airports. What is said in this bill is one more nail in the coffin, folks, this is one more step in the Tory process to make this country an economic colony of the United States, whether through deregulation, privatization, globalization, or cost recovery.

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
One of the latest nails in the coffin was the insult last week from the minister sponsoring this bill when he released something that has been circulating for a long time, a new program. Transport Canada will implement a cost recovery program in April of next year. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, it will not be just any little old-fashioned share cost recovery program. Oh, no. Have a look at the figures, as I have, and you will very quickly decide.
If you live in Edmonton, as you do, Sir, or if you live in Newfoundland, as I do, the impact will be much greater on you and me than it will be on those in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. This is another package which is skewed toward the more urban parts of Canada, to the detriment of people who happen to have committed the sin of being born in a part of the country that did not have a million people a few miles from their front door. What a crime.
Whether in respect of Bill C-85, or any other government initiative, once government forgets that it is put into office by people, and as soon as it stops responding to people, and I never said knee jerk reactions and I never said jumping every time the public demands something, but, in broad brush, once the government stops listening to the basic concerns of people, it is time for that government to go.
We have a lot of concerns. These concerns were put very well by my colleague from York West, our transport critic, and a very good transport critic he is. He is doing a marvellous job. He has put the case very well. I hope I have added something to the case, particularly as it relates to the regional concern, the concern of people who happen to believe that living in Newfoundland, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Manitoba and New Brunswick is not in itself a sin. As a matter of fact, it is not a bad way of life. It used to be a very good way of life, but it is being constantly eroded by a government that dances to the tune of business, dances to the tune of another country and should be dancing to the tune of the ordinary people of this country, and I only wish it would.


Mr. Karpoff:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who has just finished speaking would not like to leave misinformation on the record. He talked about the devastation in this country from one end to the other, and talked about Point Roberts. I would like to inform
him that Point Roberts is in the United States. I am willing to concede that the devastation caused by this government may even extend beyond our national boundaries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I salute and congratulate my colleague from the opposition for his far-reaching, but relevant speech. If I could, I would like to get him on a tarmac somewhere in northern Canada, and if possible, in a hangar in Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Windsor or London, Ontario.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam talked about the minister who introduced this bill, but had not spoken to the workers at the airport. Anyone in this country who has a category five airport, and I am not familiar with the regulations for category five, four, or three, but I do know that the arbitrary difference is perhaps two-thirds of a metre or a couple of feet in the old measurement. For want of another couple of feet in an airport, your classification of airport can be downgraded. That has happened in Timmins, Windsor, London and Sault Ste. Marie and countless other airports across this country. Perhaps the people in Canada are not aware that they do not have adequate fire-fighting services. It is told to me that on three or four occasions per month at our local airport, if you fly in after 10 o'clock, there is not one fire-fighter on the job. Transport Canada officials tell the fire-fighters to go home because it cannot afford to pay them overtime.
It is suggested that it is the airlines' responsibility to inform the fire-fighters. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is not appropriate. Should someone book off sick in the daytime at some of these airports, there may be two very valuable, expensive rescue vehicles in which there are only two fire-fighters to man them or person them, if you will. It is possible that one fire-fighter may have to drive to the scene of the crash, reel out 300 or 400 feet of hose, run back to the vehicle, release the valve for water pressure, and enter the aeroplane by himself or herself. I understand that they are told that they should never, ever do that, "never enter an airline crash by yourself".
I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. Does my colleague believe that this is happening at the airports in this country and what does he think the government should do about it if people in Canada do not have
November 7, 1990

Business of the House
adequate fire protection on many days during the year?
t is unheard of, unbelievable.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to my good friend from Surrey North that I thank him for adding to my limited education today. I did not know where Point Roberts was; I have never been to Point Roberts; I had an idea that it was on a border somewhere. I thank him for telling me exactly where it is. Some day I will tell him where Jean de Baie and Lamaline is, because they are about the same distance from my house as Point Roberts is from his.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie talks about airports like Timmins and others. He could have thrown in one called Stephenville because the same thing is happening there with respect to fire-fighters. He asked me if I agreed. The answer is yes, I agree. But the other answer is, had he heard the point I was making in my speech that government should not be run like this, he would have understood how much I agree with him. Once you get a government that says: "We will provide fire-fighting on a cost-recovery basis rather than because there is a need", you have a very dangerous situation on your hands.
The government decided in the past few weeks that as of next April, in St. John's, Newfoundland, in the bailiwick of my buddy over there, the Minister for International Trade, after midnight there will be no air traffic controller at all, not one, between midnight and, I believe, 6 a.m. For six hours in the tower at St. John's airport, the most easterly international airport in Canada with responsibility for a large segment of the North Atlantic, this government has said that there is no need for air traffic controllers. They are taking them off all together. Why are they doing it? They are doing it to save a few bucks. To save six hours' salary, they are going to jeopardize the safety of potentially thousands of people. But, Mr. Speaker, it is all worth it because they are going to save a few bucks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the confusion but, as usual, there was a need for last minute communications.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find consent for the following motion:
That, on Thursday, November 8, 1990:
1)	The Order of the Day following Routine Proceedings be Government Business No. 21, the motion respecting the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, with debate to continue until no later than two o'clock, at which time-or at an earlier time, if no member rises to speak-debate on the said motion or any amendment thereto shall be deemed adjourned;
2)	In the said debate on the said motion, there be, as the first three speakers, one representative from each of the three recognized parties in the House, each to speak for up to 20 minutes, with no question and comment period to follow; and, following such three speakers, speeches be limited to 10 minutes for each speaker, with no question and comment periods to follow:
3)	Following the deemed adjournment of the said debate as set out in (1) above, the House, as the case may be, shall either suspend to two o'clock or, if it be two o'clock at the time of such deemed adjournment the House shall enter upon Statements by Members in the usual manner, followed by Oral Questions in the usual manner;
4)	The Order of the Day following Oral Questions shall be second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole on Bill C-87, An Act to amend the Statute Law in relation to War Veterans; and that no later than five o'clock the Speaker shall, if required, interrupt any proceeding then under way and put forthwith and successively, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading or third reading stage of the said Bill; provided that (a) any speech at third reading stage of debate be limited to 10 minutes, and (b) if the Committee of the Whole be considering the said Bill at the said time of interruption, the Chairman shall interrupt forthwith, pursuant to this Order, to put every question necessary to report the said Bill, following which report the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of all stages of the said Bill pursuant to this Order; and
5)	Following disposition of the said Bill as specified in this Order, and without at any point in proceedings on the said Bill deferring any demanded recorded division on the said Bill pursuant to any Standing Order, the House shall enter upon Private Members' Business for no more than one hour, followed by up to 30 minutes for Proceedings on the Adjournment Motion, at the conclusion of which time the House shall adjourn until one o'clock on Monday, November 19, 1990.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there has been consultations. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and certainly we are in agreement with the motion as presented by the parliamentary secretary.
As a matter of clarification, I want to put something on the record. Assuming that there are no recorded votes, and it is my understanding that there would be no recorded votes later in the day, that if there were necessity, we would have an understanding that we would not see the clock to allow one or two members to complete their remarks if it had to go beyond five with the understanding, very clearly, that there be no recorded motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if I have the assurance that there would be no requirement for recorded votes, in other words everything would pass either on division or by agreement, then I do not see a problem from our side and we would be happy to co-operate with members to make sure that everybody had their due say.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty with this proposal. We give the undertaking that every member who wants to speak will at least be given a chance to speak, that nobody will hog the floor for the regular 40 minutes that are normally allowed at second reading. I think that people will be reasonable and will try to get this bill passed tomorrow afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent point that my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier raises, that in the spirit of passing this important legislation prior to Remembrance Day, there will be an understanding that while speeches could be longer, we would attempt to hold them to about 20 minutes at second reading stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-85, An Act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pension and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-85, although I would have preferred to hear my friend and colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who today is celebrating 25th anniversary as a member of this House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, today the Hon. Warren Allmand is being honoured in his riding and is therefore unable to be in the House. He asked me to make a few comments on this bill, reserving the right to add further comments later on and perhaps expand on, and further explain, our objections to certain clauses in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-85 is to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, pension plans and labour relations.

I shall leave my colleagues and friends on the Liberal side of the House to handle questions dealing with the protection of employee benefits, as to whether the government will ensure that employees do not lose their pensions and pension benefits once the local authorities have taken over airport management.
We have to remember that when CN decided to privatize Route Canada all employee benefits and pensions were lost due to mismanagement. I will leave that to some of my colleagues who are much more familiar with the issues.
We have an issue here dealing with the protection of jobs. The government must again ensure that all jobs at local airports are retained once they are under local management. We have in our minds the privatization of Air Canada. We all remember the Deputy Prime Minister in this House assuring us that the jobs would be protected. In October 1990, 2,900 people lost their jobs and had no federal protection. I will also leave to some of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus the obligation to oppose this bill based on what kind of guarantee local
November 7, 1990

Government Orders
taxpayers will have so that they will not be obligated to pick up any deficit that is incurred by the administration of these local airports. Other items or rules such as the six-month protection of employees' jobs, which members will recall is a right of Public Service employees, should in our view apply to the transfer of the airports to regional authorities.
I want to address one very important item in this bill that deals with the official languages. Having spent 10 years as critic for my party on this matter and having been a member of the standing committee since its creation in 1979,1 have a special obligation to make sure that we scrutinize legislation so that it conforms with existing laws and that the government is taken to task if it does not. I want to remind my members that the clause to which I will be addressing my comments is clause 4 of the bill that reads as follows:
Where the Minister has sold, leased or otherwise transferred an airport to a designated airport authority, on and after the transfer date Parts IV, VIII, IX and X of the Official Languages Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the authority relation to the airport as if
(a)	the authority were a federal institution; and
(b)	the airport were an office or facility of that institution, other than its head or central office.
I know it is complicated, Mr. Speaker. That is why I will take a few minutes, with your indulgence, to explain the impact of this clause, how we feel it should be strengthened, and possibly where the principle is not exactly in keeping with the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
Let me read first of all what the act says. We adopted Bill C-72. It was passed by the House of Commons on July 7, 1988. Section 23 of the act says: "For greater certainty, every federal institution that provides services or makes them available to the travelling public has the duty to ensure that any member of the travelling public can communicate with and obtain those services in either official language from any office or facility of the institution in Canada or elsewhere where there is significant demand for those services in that language."
Mr. Speaker, the government has included a vital clause in Bill C-85. Following the privatization of a number of federal agencies, the government was ordered to make the Official Languages Act binding on the authorities of these newly privatized institutions so that the Canadian public will be able to obtain services in French or English, as the case may be and as the customer, in other words, as Canadian men and women prefer.
Mr. Speaker, under Part IV of the Act the new regional or municipal authority-God only knows what this new commission will be-has a duty to provide services in the language of the customer's choices. Although the language of service is included in the present legislation, we note that the working language- the language used daily by employees-and the principle of equitable participation-in other words-equitable representation of both official language groups in the organization-have been totally ignored. This means that employees at these so-called privatized or restructured airports will no longer have the assurance that they can work in the official language of their choice. It will depend on the good will of local management.
The government has made no provision for ensuring that these new institutions provide for equitable participation of both official language groups. Mr. Speaker, official language minorities will bear the brunt of all this. In Quebec, an airport like Dorval, for instances might be transferred to the private sector. What would happen if the so-called management of this new air terminal commission decided that French was the language of work at headquarters? How can management ensure that employees use both official languages, when management uses only one? We've got a problem, Mr. Speaker!

The central administrative office will be operating in one language because it is excluded by the act. It is not the same; it is not subjected in the same manner to the Official Languages Act. How will that central office which will be using one language-it could be English in Edmonton or franqais a Dorval-encourage its employees to use both official languages when only one language is used at the head office? That is a problem we

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
have addressed for many years in this House. The employee will be obliged to use the language of the administration. If it is French in Dorval, it will be to his or her detriment. If it is anglais a Edmonton, he will have to use the language of the administration. That will be the way the system will operate.
Using that same example, what happens if the travelling public, which by law is entitled to receive services in either language from the new commission, is not satisfied and wants to complain to the administration directly? It cannot do that.
If the language of work of the central administration is other than the travelling person's language, that is if it is French in Dorval or English in Edmonton and the travelling person happens to be from the other language group, he has a heck of a problem because the administration does not speak his language. That again presents us with a certain problem because, as is the case with the employees, the travelling public will be obligated to use the language of the administration. That is a problem which will have to be resolved.
One could say that we will wait before making any decisions on this subject. It has been two and half years since we have adopted this new Official Languages Act, and we have no regulations. We have no definition of what is an institution.

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to remind the House of some definitions that are essential to our understanding of the regulations arising from legislation as important as the Official Languages Act.
We have waited two and half years for the government to table these regulations. We still do not have a definition of "significant demand", for instance. We do not have a definition of "office".
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, but we are still waiting. And how are we going to tell Canadians that an office is defined as- It could even be a horse, Mr. Speaker! It could be a horse ridden by a policeman who provides a service here at the House of Commons and is obliged to answer Canadian visitors in the language of their choice. In English or en frangais. If a policeman is not capable of answering Canadians who
visit Parliament Hill during the summer- Because that is his office, and he just happens to sit on a horse.
People ask him: sir, what is that statue? where's the washroom? what's that building? Well, if the policeman cannot answer, Mr. Speaker, his office, as I defined it-the definition may be a little farfetched, but it is there just the same-the office is incapable of providing the service.
I am sure hon. members will say: sure, but let us not exaggerate. I want a definition of an office. What constitutes an office? I want a definition of "significant demand".

What is significant demand? How do you define significant demand? These are the things we addressed in committee and in the House two and a half years ago, and the government has yet to give a definition. Yet we have a law before us today that says the Official Languages Act applies in regard to significant demand. Who will determine that?
I will quote the same article which states that the law applies with such modifications as the circumstances require. That is discretionary to the local commissions or boards, whoever it might be and however it be intended to apply the law of the land. If we do not tell the commissions what the laws are, and if we do not tell them what the federal government and this Parliament meant when it passed that law, how the heck are they supposed to do it?
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have a serious problem here with interpretation and that we will want to question the minister on that article in particular at committee stage. I do not want to take any more time, but I would be more than pleased to answer any questions.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I just have one very short question for my colleague. How does he see this bill affecting safety in airports? Two days ago there was a minor accident in the Pearson International Airport. How does he see the bill as it pertains to the safety of airports?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank my colleague for that question. I think it is a rather important question. These commissions or these new boards will operate at arm's length from the government. We must make sure that there are national standards that apply in regard to safety. We

have to make sure that national safety standards are in place and that those boards will follow those safety requirements, otherwise we are in for a very difficult time.
I am sure that my friend from Agincourt will want to address that issue when he makes his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum, I notice that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier paid respects to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his 25 years as a member of Parliament. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants and the hon. member for Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke, have served here for 25 years as of tomorrow, so I think that is worth recognition.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is another question or comment. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on an excellent speech, and always, short and sweet.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. member. I realize that the Committee on Official Languages, established pursuant to certain legislative provisions recommended that the government report to the committee on the procedure adopted by the government to implement the Official Languages Act. I wonder what the committee will do in the absence of a report that has yet to be presented to the committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders of the House require the government to respond to any report tabled by a standing or special committee. I am referring to Standing Order 109: Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall table a comprehensive report.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, this week, the 150 days provided under the Standing Orders expired. I hope that this week, the government will respond to the Committee on Official Languages and inform the House of its position on regulations arising from the Official Languages Act, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the information concerning the four members of the House who are celebrating their anniversary. That is very interesting and very commendable news. These are very interesting and commendable people with whom I have had some dealings since I came here two years ago, two years short two weeks since the election. They have certainly been a great help to us. However, it is not as good as the 1992 election will be.


An hon. member:: Two more years to go.


Ron Fisher: That is right, two more years.
Getting back to Bill C-85, it is described as an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.
I listened to the minister and I congratulate him for having stayed around for the two subsequent speeches, but I really am at somewhat of a loss to understand where in his speech he made any relevant reference, any meaningful reference to the specifics of what is in the bill. I am rather glad that he did not because it gives me an opportunity to make reference to some of the things he talked about although he may have been speaking in a rather oblique way.
The minister talked about efficiency, better service, cost efficiency, entrepreneurship. I see those things relating to privatization, as one of the previous members mentioned.
I see it being referred to as well as deregulation, to which one of the previous speakers referred. He had a third, and I guess it could be referred to as the "pillar", as we have been talking a lot about pillars in connection with the banking industry. I think they could also be referred to as the three pillars of Progressive Conservative philosophy of the last two years since I came into the House, namely, deregulation, privatization and free

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
trade, which is not what the member for York West referred to as a third reference.
When the minister takes a bill such as I read out, and refers to how much better service we are going to have, how cost efficient it is going to be, how it is going to have effective commercial operations and entrepreneurial benefits, he can only be referring to deregulation and privatization. I would suggest these have shown no efficiencies and no great entrepreneurial potential either. Certainly they have not shown better service.
If we refer to deregulation, whether it be of the trucking industry or the airline industry, or even the shipping industry, which is coming about, it certainly is proof that there have not been any of these efficiencies. The potential, which is supposed to be so inherent in what the government is doing with the airports, is not there.
As far as free trade is concerned, the promise of wealth and plenty for this country of ours certainly has not materialized in any way. As a matter of fact, we hear on a daily basis how much of a tragedy the free trade deal with the United States has been for this country. We also hear the fears expressed on a daily basis on how much more tragic this government's policies are going to be for this country when it gets into the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico as well.
The minister stands up and speaks in such glowing terms of the potential of turning these airports over to local airport authorities. There is no reason why anyone on this side of the House should gain any comfort from what the minister says is going to occur.
There are many other examples of the government bringing forward, in glowing terms, bills it has introduced and saying how the country is supposed to become prosperous because all these wonderful things are going to occur.
One of the things which the bill talks about about is employees' pensions. These are so vital to the federal government employees and must be protected after the employees are transferred to the local airport authorities.
If we look at Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the evidence is certainly there that this government's legislation, proposed in glowing terms, is going to
turn out to be an absolute disaster for the working people of Canada. There is no protection for them within that legislation at all.
As I have already pointed out, there is certainly no protection for the Canadian people within the concept of privatization, deregulation and free trade. Reference was made earlier on how the government is divesting itself of these presumably profitable airports. I suppose you could read along with that, Mr. Speaker, efficient and possibly even cost-effective, and perhaps, even better service in these larger profitable airports.
On the other hand, the smaller ones and I suppose also by implication from what the minister said, perhaps less efficient, where there is not quite as good service, and maybe not quite so much potential for the entrepreneurial potentialities, although what is supposed to be referred to within that I am not entirely sure. Perhaps it is all these little kiosks we see springing up in the airports where entrepreneurs have started up. I suppose, at least theoretically, they are making a tremendous amount of money on these little businesses they have set up.
The logic of it still escapes me. Why the government would not get rid of the inefficient ones which presumably are costing them money and let the real entrepreneurial spirit of this country take over and turn these smaller, less efficient, perhaps even implied because they are government run. Although we certainly have a great deal of experience in Saskatchewan which would prove that government run-particularly New Democratic government run operations-can be tremendously efficient-


An hon. member:: Hogwash.


Ron Fisher: -and tremendously profitable. It does escape me why the government would not turn these small airports over to the entrepreneurs and really prove to this country how wonderful the entrepreneurs of this country are.
Instead of that, of course, and I am really begging the question because we know the answer anyway, the government is turning over to their friends in the larger centres the operation of the airports where there is a tremendous amount of potential for making profit.
November 7, 1990

I am not entirely sure what is going to be done with the profit because the act does say that the "leased, sold or otherwise disposed of" airports. It does not say there could be no private companies, but it does not say it cannot create some kind of a corporation and, presumably, set up directorships and so on. I would suspect there is a lot of potential within that for being able to pay themselves rather handsomely as airport managers and chief executive officers, vice-presidents, and so on of the local airport authority.
I would suspect that as much as anything is what is behind most of this. Otherwise the government would be testing the Canadian entrepreneurial spirit in turning the small airports over.
The small airports will be staying in the hands of the Canadian public who are going to have to shoulder the burden of them running inefficiently, certainly as this government has proved it is able to do.
The minister has referred to the assurance that the aviation safety aspect which we now enjoy and as has been pointed out by one of the previous speakers, is pre-eminent in Canada. One of my colleagues was referring to a pilot from an airline in the United States who said that he would much rather fly on a Canadian carrier across the country than anything else whenever they had the opportunity.
I would suggest that that is something of which we are tremendously proud but I would also suggest that there is a tremendous amount of potential there for us to be losing that safety factor within the Canadian aviation industry.
I would also suggest that the whole matter of safety within the airports themselves, has been alluded to already, is going to suffer enormously. It is bad enough at the present time. There are many times when the Canadian public, if they really knew what was happening on the ground, would probably do the very best they could to avoid flying on those later flights. The evidence is certainly there that there is not a lot of protection when it comes to flying later in the day. Once these airports become privatized, there is every likelihood that that will increase much more.
As far as the workers themselves are concerned, the question again is begged because, as has been pointed out, the unions involved were not consulted. While the government seems to pride itself in saying that it very
Government Orders
seldom does anything such as this, bringing in legislation or making changes within the legislation without consulting the people involved, we know, of course, time after time, that is not the case. It is quite possible that it may have consulted with some of the people who will potentially be the heads of the local airport authorities. I would suspect it has. This bill is supposed to be about the protection of workers. Those who represent the workers now are not protected.
I would like to conclude by making reference again to the workers, and particularly to their probability maintaining the standard of living and the level of wages and benefit which they now do as employees of the federal government under these local airport authorities. While some of them may possibly be successful, some are not going to be successful. It begs the question: What are we going to do with these once well-paid, well-trained civil servants who will undoubtedly find themselves out of jobs because of the failure of some of the local airport authorities to be able to function in the manner in which the government so erroneously assumes they are going to be able to do?
There has to be some changes made to this legislation for the protection of the workers not just for the short term, but for the long term, over their whole working lives. We have to make sure of the remuneration for these people, and not just the permanent people, as the minister pointed out and as the legislation supposedly points out, although permanent may be the operative word. Possibly, the minister knows something that the rest of the committee does not know yet. It may be that, within the whole context of what is about to occur, we are going to find a tremendously larger number of temporary employees in these airports. That means that the standard of living of these people will be lower than ever before. This is a tragedy, but something which has to be addressed and certainly will be addressed before this legislation comes to a conclusion.
Speaking of conclusion, I would consider that to be the conclusion of my remarks at this stage of debate on this legislation.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with an element of surprise as the hon. member described what he sees in this bill. I would wonder whether or not he has even read the bill.

November 7, 1990
Government Orders
Also, I am appalled that he would suggest that the sky would fall because the airports are being transferred for their operation into a local airport authority. He treats it as if it has been privatized and sold to an agency. That is not the case.
He also questions the number of airport authorities that are possibly on the horizon. The member has failed to realize that, when this was announced many months ago by the former Minister of Transport, it was seeking those communities that would show interest in operation of the airports. To date, four such groups have come through: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Montreal.
As to question of the number of possible transfers for operations, that is why there is such a small number.
He refers to the kiosks in airports. It just so happens that these kiosks happen to pay commissions to whatever airport they are in as a form of rent. I realize the NDP is not too concerned about whether it costs the taxpayers money to operate things and that, but this is one way of helping to recover some of the money.
Why does the member portray it as privatization, when it is not privatization? It is the transfer of the operation of the airport and the safety aspects of the comptrollers, the operation of the things from the tower, et cetera, still are completely under the auspices of Transport Canada and will not be under the airport authority.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I was only responding to comments made by the minister. I have read the bill. My surprise is whether or not the minister has read it, judging by his remarks on it. If the member opposite is worried about whether or not I have read it, I certainly have.
The minister is the one who referred to the better service, to the cost effeciency, to the more effective commercial operation of the airports, and the entrepreneurial potentialities of it. If those relate in any specific way to, as the bill is entitled, "an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports", I am at somewhat of a loss to explain how it does.
As I said, it certainly gave me an opportunity to be able to make reference to what I consider to be the four pillars of the Conservative philosophy: deregulation, privatization, and free trade, and another free trade.
With all due respect to the member who asked me the question, and with all due respect to my desire to stand up here and keep on talking, we could go on about deregulation, privatization and so on. There are members who wish to speak. On that basis, I would be only too pleased to sit down to let them have some time.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-85, even though I have but eight minutes today, unless you are prepared to be friendly and extend the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has seven minutes.


John V. Nunziata: Seven minutes? Aren't you kind, Mr. Speaker. I will speak for seven minutes and resume my comments next day.
We on this side of the House are concerned about this piece of legislation. It is one small step in the long journey that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party embarked upon in 1984 to sell out the country. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, starting in 1984 decided to put Canada out of business. In other words, they decided to privatize different federal institutions and different federal Crown corporations in order to satisfy the right wing element of the Conservative Party.
Is it any wonder that Mr. Spicer and others have to travel from one end of the country to the other to deal with national unity when this government six years ago started to pull apart the country? It started to divide the country because of its policies and, in particular, its policy with respect to privatization.
The federal government has a role to play in order to keep this great nation together because, without the federal government and without federal government policies, the only thing that binds Canadians and the only thing that we would have in common is the fact that we share the northern half of North America. It is the only thing we would have in common. What else would a potato farmer in Prince Edward Island and a forest worker in British Columbia have in common?

The government set out in 1985 to dismantle Canada and dismantle the very infrastructure that has kept the country together.
The Prime Minister started by going to New York City to visit with his American friends to indicate to them that the Foreign Investment Review Agency would be eliminated. Canada, in effect, was up for sale and no longer would the Canadian government have the authority to determine what was in the best interests of Canada insofar as foreign investment was concerned.
The message started back then. The message was loud and clear. Since that time we have seen many small steps and many large steps that have led to the disintegration of Canada. Let me just name a few. Air Canada. The government decided to privatize Air Canada. Why? I do not know. Air Canada belonged to the people of Canada. It was one of those crown corporations that kept the country together because through that crown corporation, in a very direct way, the government was able to provide for air transportation to many communities in Canada that today do not have the jet service that existed when Air Canada was a crown corporation.
Petro-Canada. The government now wants to privatize Petro-Canada in order to line the pockets of their rich friends on Bay Street.
Harbourfront in Toronto. Canada Place in Vancouver. Canada Post is on the privatization block now. The unemployment insurance system in Canada is being privatized. Is it any wonder that Canadians are asking themselves today, what does it mean to be a Canadian? Why should we continue to be together when the government is hell bent on destroying the country?
This bill, as innocuous as it may seem to some, as innocuous as it may seem to members on the government side, is another small step. The Government of Canada has decided it does not want to be in the airport business. Why?


Mr. Sobeski:: Why should it?


John V. Nunziata: The hon. member asks, in his smug, arrogant way, why should it? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you why the government should be in
Government Orders
the airport business. Toronto International Airport last year netted some $60 million profit, net profit. Where did that money go? It belonged to the people of Canada. That money could have been used to upgrade and subsidize airports in smaller centres across the country. What did the government decide to do? Give it to the private sector.
Is it any wonder that, the construction and management of Terminal 3 was given to the private sector and Huang Danczkay. They are not there to provide a service to the people of Toronto, to ensure Torontonians and others in southern Ontario that they have the opportunity to be part of an efficient transportation system. Huang Danczkay and all the other Tory flaks and businessmen were lining up to run Terminal 3 because there was a significant profit to be made.
The government decided in Bill C-85 to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, blah, blah, blah. We know what all this means. It means the government is privatizing and giving to local authorities the operation of certain airports across the country. Why are we not dealing with that bill first? Canadians do not know at this point. Who are these local authorities in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary or Montreal? We do not know who these people are. The government is putting the cart before the horse. We should first deal with the issue of privatization.
I see you are on the edge of your seat. You are about to cut me off, but before you do, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I look forward to the opportunity when we meet again on Bill C-85 to continue my comments and to criticize the government for destroying the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Like the song, We'll meet again.
The hon. member will have 13 minutes remaining in his speech, plus ten minutes for questions and comments.

It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 8,1990