1990-06-07

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



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-39.

This is an act to apply federal and provincial laws to offshore areas and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, with amendment.



FINANCE-SEVENTH AND EIGHTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh and eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts.
The seventh report contains the bill as amended. The eighth report contains other information which is relevant to this bill that has been arrived at with co-operation of all three parties of this House, along with officials from the Department of Finance and others.
I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of a former member of this House, Mr. Paul McCrossan, who was finally assisted in bringing a resolution to this matter which has been of concern to this House since well before I got here.


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like to add that I have had the opportunity to examine the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
The contents of this report have also been discussed by the finance department officials and representatives of the finance committee. I wish to confirm that income tax regulations will be drafted to give effect to the measures outlined in section 2 of the report. In addition, the finance department will report back to the committee, as requested, on the three issues set out in section 3 of the report.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my hon. friend, the minister, on this critical matter.
It is a timing situation. I wonder if the minister could be a bit more specific or at least give us some indication of the timing in terms of when the regulations would actually be made available to the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have an answer?


John Horton McDermid: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot give the member a definitive time. It will be as soon as possible. We have just made our agreements with the finance committee, as the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party knows. We will have them available for the committee as soon as possible.
As the hon. member also knows, this bill does not come into effect until 1991, although there are a great deal of arrangements that have to be made with pension firms and companies that have pension plans. We want to have them as soon as possible so that they can get their house in order to have this come into effect on

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
January 1, 1991. We have made the commitment to the committee, to its chairman, and its members that we will get that to them as quickly as possible.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of motions for which Your Honour will find unanimous consent. The first one is a travel motion and reads:
That three members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, representing each party, be authorized to travel to Copenhagen from June 9 to June 16,1990, in order to participate in the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe and meet with representatives of international human rights organizations, and that 2 staffs do accompany the subcommittee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have a second brief motion which deals with tomorrow's business. There is also unanimous consent for this motion. It reads:
That on Friday, June 8, 1990, during Government Orders, dilatory motions and calls for quorum not be receivable by the Chair.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have leave to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
He *	*

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the appointment of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I thought the motion was going to be read into the record but, if it is not going to be taken off my time, I would like to read the motion as follows:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, because of the agreement we had yesterday and without any intention of reducing the length of time for debate, I wonder if there would not be unanimous consent just to take a few more minutes and complete Routine Proceedings before we move on to the motion before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent to complete Routine Proceedings. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, because of the limited time, I think there could be an agreement that at three o'clock we continue with Routine Proceedings and finish Routine Proceedings at that time instead of going to Orders of the Day. That would be acceptable to us.

June 7, 1990


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not really want to get involved with this little lovers' quarrel that is going on across the aisle. I can assure the House that we on this side are quite happy to complete Routine Proceedings at this point if they prefer and revert to motions, by consent. We would give our unanimous consent for the House to do that or, if the House chooses, we can pick up the end of Routine Proceedings at three o'clock. We are comfortable, either way.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we revert to Routine Proceedings at three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are under Motions. The motion was put yesterday, but it can be reread into the record.

Moved by Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre), and seconded by Mr. Andre:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approve the appointment of Bruce Phillips to the position of Privacy Commissioner.
Debate resumes. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Van-ier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this debate shows once again that parliamentary democracy is strengthened when the House of Commons reaffirms its right to advise the government concerning appointments to important positions, such as officers of Parliament. We wish to protest such appointments today by requesting a debate on the appointment of the nominee for the position of Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips.
Madam Speaker, we do so today with much regret, because the consultation which should have taken place, or which was indeed conducted was a one-way process. The government has indicated, at least to the Official Opposition, that it wanted to appoint Mr. Bruce Phillips. We said that the caucus which I represent might object to this appointment, and that it might be possible to negotiate or to arrive at a compromise. There was no mention of any leeway and, since the government did not
Routine Proceedings
wish to negotiate anything or consult on anything other than the appointment of Mr. Bruce Phillips, this debate is taking place. I think it is good, in a democracy, that the people of Canada should state their positions clearly and that in the case of such an important appointment as that of the Privacy Commissioner, a commissioner to protect the privacy of Canadians, Parliament should take time to reflect on the matter. In raising this issue, Madam Speaker, it is not in any way our intention to pass judgment on Mr. Bruce Phillips personally. We do not intend to question Mr. Phillips' integrity or honesty, nor his ability as a journalist, which he was for many years. We simply wish to remind the House of important elements to be considered by all when selecting a Privacy Commissioner.
When privacy is under attack, individual human dignity is under attack. That is why it is of the utmost importance that the members of this House should be able to discuss the appointment. As I said earlier, parliamentary democracy is strengthened when we can discuss in such an open and democratic manner.
We feel, Madam Speaker, that the role of the Privacy Commissioner, the public's perception of this role and of the person performing it, and the Commissioner's ability to act on behalf of all Canadians are most important and that is why we wish to raise objections to Mr. Bruce Phillips' appointment.
The Privacy Commissioner is appointed for seven years, as we all know, and he is empowered by the Privacy Act to receive complaints from Canadians and to investigate and report to the House on issues under his purview. He also reports regularly on the following five or six points: a refusal to provide personal information concerning an inmate in a federal institution; secondly, a request to correct or annotate a record of personal information, which is turned down by a federal institution, thirdly, when a federal institution has not provided within 30 to 60 days the personal information requested, the Privacy Commissioner can be asked to lodge an appeal.
Where the description of a record of personal information shown in the directory of personal information is not adequate, a correction can be requested.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Where a federal institution has used personal information in a manner not provided for in the directory of personal information, one may seek correction and justice.
Finally, Madam Speaker, when a federal institution has not carried out the collection, conservation or retrieval of personal information concerning an individual in accordance with the act, the commissioner can again be asked to act on behalf of Canadians.
Therefore, not only has the commissioner the right to consult records held by the government, that is personal information records, he also has the responsibility of checking their content and, occasionally, of seeing that they are amended. The commissioner, Madam Speaker, is the ombudsman, the master and the defender of privacy in Canada. He is a most important person in a democracy, a person in whom we must all have total confidence.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice shared her reasons with the House for the proposed appointment of Mr. Phillips. In doing so, she tried to draw a parallel between the outgoing commissioner, Dr. John Grace, and the proposed new commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. I do not know Mr. Bruce Phillips. I have never met him in my life, but I might take this opportunity to reflect on the careers of both men, thereby establishing once and for all that comparing Dr. John Grace and Mr. Bruce Phillips is like comparing apples and oranges. It cannot be done.
Dr. John Grace has served as Privacy Commissioner for seven years. Previous to that, he served the CRTC as a public servant. Yes, he was a distinguished journalist. He was editor-in-chief of The Journal, a very respected newspaper in Ottawa that had to close down a few years ago because of reorganization of newspapers in Canada. Dr. Grace was the editor-in-chief of that paper, and it was not a Liberal paper. It was a well known Tory newspaper.
Mr. Grace did his job seriously and competently. For years, he was very involved in the community of Ottawa. He has our respect. He has proven over the last seven years as Privacy Commissioner that he could do the job well and in the interest of all Canadians. Therefore, he has our absolute confidence, and we will support the
nomination when the motion to appoint Dr. John Grace as Information Commissioner is brought forward.
We oppose the nomination of Mr. Phillips. Let us look at his career. From 1984 to 1987, he was the Minister of Public Affairs at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. He was there to filter information from the Government of Canada to the Americans. In 1987, he was brought to the front line of the Prime Minister's Office as Director of Communications for the Prime Minister. As we all know, he was responsible during 1988 for the message that went out from that office. Mr. Phillips was in charge of the PMO press office. He controlled the media's access to the Prime Minister. His partisan allegiance was well known.
It was quite evident to us that during the campaign Mr. Phillips was even in charge of what some newspapers alleged to be the dirty tricks campaign. He never denied The Globe and Mail articles we have and could read into the record which showed that Mr. Phillips was doing a job for the Prime Minister. We do not object to that.
Mr. Phillips was playing a political role. He was a competent journalist being put into a communications job to give Canadians the point of view of the Prime Minister. We do not object to that, but is it reasonable to ask Mr. Phillips to stand on guard today for Canadians on the privacy dossier and to stand up to the government which, in many cases, is the institution that is being questioned by Canadian individuals in regard to privacy?
Are we to buy, to approve or to rubber stamp the nomination of somebody who we know has been very partisan and who we know worked for the Prime Minister who surrounds himself with Tory hacks? We know that. Why should we accept that one of those go to a position of importance in Canada, Privacy Commissioner? He could be put into another job by Order in Council, even to the Senate if they want to. We would not mind that. Why not?


Mr. Kaplan:: He would get $153 a day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He would get an additional $153 a day just for showing up.
We do not object to that, but we object strongly that Parliament, both Houses, the House of Commons and the Senate, be called upon to approve the nomination of a person who we all know is very partisan, who would have access to information on the opposition members of Parliament, into the privacy of every one of us. He will
June 7, 1990

be able to go into the records and see how we are doing. I do not want that. I do not think I can accept that.
I do not think he would be very objective in that regard. I do not think he could stand up here at the bar or anywhere else and defend the integrity of his impartiality in respect of opposition members, because he has over the years shown that he is not an impartial person. He is a very partisan individual.
That is all right. We do not mind that. We have some partisan people. I am a partisan individual, but I would not expect to be named Privacy Commissioner. I do not think the Tories over there would agree to that. They would certainly object, and I would agree.


Mr. McCreath:: How could you ever appoint anybody Governor General then?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You do not do that by Order in Council. That is the problem.
There are many appointments here. I put the question to the Speaker on Monday of this week, asking what the difference is between an officer of the House and an officer of Parliament. There is no straight answer to that question.
I know that there are many, many positions. For example, the Auditor General, appointed by Order in Council. He answers to the House of Commons, not to the Senate. There is absolutely no way that you would agree that he is not working for Parliament. The Auditor General is a nomination of this House and of this House exclusively, not of Parliament. Yet he is responsible for public surveillance of the expenditures of the government.
It would not be appropriate to name the Minister of Finance to the position of Auditor General of Canada. I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Finance and his competence, even if I do not always agree with everything he does. I think it would be unacceptable to us if he was named Auditor General of Canada.
Needless to say, we have many articles in the press about Mr. Bruce Phillips' appointment. I will read an article here from Frank Howard on June 4, 1990. This is interesting. It states:
Routine Proceedings
Bruce Phillips has had so many different appearances over the last few years that it is asking too much from the public to accept this latest persona of probity, impartiality and conscience.
The sensitive nature of this post is such that we cannot have a reasonable doubt as to the probity, the impartiality and conscience of the Privacy Commissioner. There must be no doubt that he is absolutely above any reproach. We have hesitations and serious doubts.
I find the words of the outgoing Commissioner, John Grace, in his annual report of 1983-1984, interesting. He defines privacy as follows:
Privacy is not simply a precious and often irreplaceable human resource; respect for privacy is the acknowledgement of respect for human dignity and the individuality of man.
If nothing else, I would hope that all members of this House would want to provide this definition and apply this definition to the Privacy Commissioner. As I said, privacy is dignity. It is essentially what one has and once one has lost it, one has lost his dignity. We would like to reinforce the view that we would have somebody who has probity, impartiality and, of course, is perceived as being a person who will in all cases apply his judgment to these principles.
Madam Speaker, we are not the first to raise the question of the importance of the choice of a Privacy Commissioner. I could find you quotes from debates on access to information right from the start, in 1981-lots of quotes, from practically every member of the present cabinet, and here is one from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when he was Leader of the Opposition, back in 1981, and he said, "Those who have the information have the real power".
In the case we are concerned with today, not only does the government have the information, a great deal of information, but into the bargain it is putting in charge of that information a person who was for a long time responsible for government propaganda. Now they are putting him in charge of information, which as we know is held by the government, sometimes to the detriment of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians' confidence in their government is at its lowest ever, I have trouble understanding how the government can persist in an appointment like this one. What Canada needs, Madam Speaker, is a watchdog, not a lapdog! We want

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
someone in this position who will do a job that all Canadians can approve. And given that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is an administrative tribunal-because in a sense that is what it is-it must be, and be seen to be, objective and absolutely impartial.
Madam Speaker, I could cite you quotes from Professor Patrice Garant, who in his Precis de droit des administrations publiques (summary of the law on public administration) says, "In our constitutional tradition, the quasi-judicial act is in the same category as the judicial act, and it must issue from a body protected from any political control or interference, as our courts of justice are."
The test, Madam Speaker, is this: should this position be protected from any government interference? We believe so, very strongly. The people of Canada must not feel that the government has any influence or might bring any pressure to bear on the Commissioner's office. This rule is all the more important for the administrative tribunals that make decisions affecting the public at large. For example, as far as the positions of Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner are concerned, we want them to be seen as totally and absolutely separate from this or any other government.
[English}
It has to be at arm's length. It has to be so far out there that they cannot touch him. He must be seen to be and perceived by Canadians to be totally independent of government. That is going to be very difficult for Mr. Phillips to do. It will be very difficult for him to meet the criteria that I just put.
I cannot see why he would want to, unless he has got something that I do not understand. How can he wash, clean up, and possibly eliminate his reputation of the last six or seven years as a Tory hack in charge of certain programs. We do not object to that. We have Liberal hacks too.


Mr. Crosbie:: Quite an admission.


Mr. Milliken:: There is no such thing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sure, there is one sitting over there. He changed, remember, the minister there. He was once a Liberal and now he is a Tory. They change according to circumstances.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a Liberal quack!


Ms. Clancy:: Is that onomatopoeia, John?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will end this short expose, Madam Speaker, by saying that we would like this debate to come to an end. We know there is an agreement. We have agreed that we will vote on this. This caucus will vote against the nomination of Mr. Phillips, with regret.
I would like to end with one last comment. Frank Howard, in his article of June 4, 1990 in The Ottawa Citizen, said: "The person who is put forward as the candidate for the privacy job should look like he or she could stand up to the government of the day, not like somebody who is being rewarded for loyalty to the Prime Minister".


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam speaker, I would like to put a few questions to the hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Mr. Phillips, who is going to be appointed by the government to the position of Privacy Commissioner, has a responsibility which is extremely important. As the person in charge of the government's propaganda during the last federal election, it seems to me that he is in no position to have a sound opinion on what ought to be protected and what information ought to be made available to the public.
As you know, confidential Cabinet documents are protected for at least 20 years. In 1987 a recommendation was made by the Standing Commitee on Justice and the Solicitor General, on which I had the honour of sitting at the time. Our recommendation at that time dealt with the question of reducing the period during which more or less important documents, such as draft bills, for example, should be available to the public.
How can draft bills, which have to be debated by Parliament, be subject to confidentiality until they are tabled in the House? How can we as MPs discuss draft bills if they are kept confidential?
June 7, 1990

Mr. Phillips will certainly have every inclination to keep all these bills, all these documents, secret. I do not think he will be able to make a valid recommendation to the House once he has been appointed, because he will want to protect the government.
I would like to put this question to the Honourable member for his comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I covered that aspect of the Honourable Member's question in my opening remarks when I said that we in the Official Opposition were not satisfied with Mr. Bruce Phillips' impartiality.
On the basis of the perception we have of this individual, even if we do not know him, but the perception of the information available to us, the perception of having seen Mr. Phillips act for the Prime Minister for seven or eight months, as information officer in Washington, or here in the Prime Minister's office during the last election, we all, including the hon. Member, know that Mr. Bruce Phillips, during the 1988 federal election used his position to tell the media what we say were untruths about the conduct and relationships of the Leader of the Opposition, to destroy in many cases his credibility-it was his job, but he destroyed the credibility of our leader, the hon member for Vancouver Quadra.

I have a quote that I would like to put on the record. It is from the first annual report of John Grace, the present Commissioner of Privacy, and it states: "Unlike trees or oil, information can indeed be renewed. Better computers linked to better communications systems can renew and expand information almost to infinity. But human privacy is not renewable, once lost to an indiscreet computer, a person's privacy is gone forever. The computer never forgets".
We are into an era of computerized information access. I, for one, am very nervous about naming a person who would have access to all government information when I know that he is less than objective in regard to his political affiliation.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I think this could be a interesting debate for my colleague, because the man who has just spoken is certainly, among all the MPs, one of my best friends. So I shall try, while making one small comment, not to disagree wih him too much.
But during my political career, which after all has lasted some time, and even before as a student, I have observed this phenomenon. I have studied and observed this phenomenon which is still referred to as political partisanship. I have seen in Canada, for example, Supreme Court Justices who had been very partisan politicians, and yet who became great Supreme Court Justices. The question about Mr. Phillips, since it does seem that he will be appointed-I do not know at this time how I shall vote-but I do know what will be expected of him once he has been appointed to such a sensitive position, such an important position, and that is that he should be aware that he enjoys the protection of the House of Commons. He will not only have to be extremely prudent, but he will also have to renounce all political partisanship as we have seen in the past when certain individuals were appointed to high positions, such as the Bench.
And it is of the utmost importance for appointees to the Bench to know that they are fully protected by the law precisely to make sure that they are no longer political partisans. I find it unfortunate, since one may dream- and when I look at my colleague for Ottawa- Vanier, I like to think that maybe someday, if I had been the Prime Minister, he might have been-and I look at him as he is otherwise occupied-but if there is anyone that I would recommend as Commissioner of Official Languages, for instance, he is the one. Everybody will say no, he is a political partisan! Yet, if there ever was a man who is competent and qualified for this position-


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Senator- Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: The member is getting excited again.
Indeed, I wish to make an early announcement to the effect that if ever this position were to become vacant

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
and if he were to decide to end his political career, I would certainly agree to sponsor my honourable friend from Ottawa-Vanier-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: As you can see, you already enjoy the support of all political parties, and yet my friend is very well-known in that regard.
In a nutshell, then, I repeat that this gives us an opportunity for which I thank you, Madam Speaker, to reflect once again as parliamentarians on the true meaning of political partisanship and to inform the people we appoint to such sensitive positions. And in that regard I agree with my colleague that we should make sure, since it does seem that Mr. Phillips will be appointed- I know him, he is a friend of mine, I am neither afraid nor ashamed to say so, I have known him for a long time. But I want to be certain that he understands the message of the House, which has been voiced by many members, not by myself, but by my esteemed colleague; now that it seems he will be appointed to this sensitive position, he will have not only to renounce all political partisanship but also to be seen as having done so. And I think he will understand quite well this message from my esteemed colleague and friend and from myself.


Guy St-Julien: Congratulations, Marcel!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Denis obviously still has a knack for comparing the incomparable. When you compare a judge with an officer of Parliament, I think there is still a difference. He is a lawyer. He knows there is a great difference between a Supreme Court Justice and an officer of Parliament, since one is appointed for seven years while the other is appointed for life. There is a time limit, and there is also a limit to the duties of those two persons. Such a comparison may appear valid to the Member, but I do not find it acceptable.
As concerns Mr. Phillips' purification, once he has been appointed-because the fact is that the government has a majority and will likely carry the vote-I shall be the first to applaud if he does. But he has a lot, really a lot of purification to do, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period provided for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am a reluctant participant in this debate. In my view, this is a debate that ought not to be happening in the House.
I do not claim to have been here a long time, by any means, but it is the first time I can recall that an appointment by resolution of the House of Commons has had to be debated in the House. Normally, the subject of these appointments is by all-party agreement. Instead, we have this jackboot tactic from the government in proceeding unilaterally to impose its will on the House and the people of Canada in appointing someone who is a Tory hack to a position as an officer of Parliament. It is a disgraceful way to proceed. It is contrary to all the precedents. It is contrary to all past practice.
The normal procedure in making appointments to parliamentary posts is to consult with all the other parties and agree. In this case, it was obvious there was no agreement. In spite of that, this pig-headed government is proceeding with this resolution in the House.
As I say, I am reluctant to debate this kind of resolution, but I feel it is incumbent upon those of us who object to this appointment to make clear our reasons for so doing.
I have heard the hon. member for York Centre and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier make very useful contributions to the discussion. I am not going to repeat all their remarks, but I will say at the outset that we on this side, as the others have said, have no dispute whatever with the distinguished career in journalism that Mr. Phillips brings to this job. In our view, that is not the issue.
I know some members may have reservations about columns that he has written or disagree with things he has said on the air, or whatever he may have done. That may be so. But we accept that that is part of journalism, that is the way it works, even though we do not always agree.
If the government had come forward with someone like Mr. Jeffrey Simpson, who is also a distinguished journalist as a nominee for this post, we would not object. But I would say right off that he writes columns that look like pamphlets for the next Tory campaign and he has been doing that for years. It is not the bias that we are concerned about in this case, it is the fact that this gentleman, Mr. Phillips, occupied a post in the Prime
June 7, 1990

Minister's office that necessarily involved him in highly partisan activities.
As I said before, I would have no objection to someone like Mr. Simpson, who writes for a Conservative newspaper, one that has become a sort of phoenix of the Ottawa Journal, which was one of the most Tory papers you could ever find in Canada. It was dreadful reading from our perspective. You could hardly find a picture of a Liberal in the paper; it was a dreadful thing.
The Globe and Mail seems to have taken over that role now and writes this apology for the government constantly, trying to justify the government's ill-conceived policies. Mr. Simpson writes these columns, as I say, that could easily be used as pamphlets for Conservative candidates in the next campaign, and my hon. friend from Halifax says they probably will be.
I am not going to argue that the gentleman is disqualified on the basis of partisanship. It is the fact that he has occupied a post that is beyond journalism, that in fact he was working in the Prime Minister's office as a party hack, as my hon. friend for Willowdale puts it so eloquently.
Yesterday in her speech, trying to justify this ridiculous appointment, this travesty, this outrage on the Canadian people, the Minister of Justice made some points that I want to deal with.


Mr. Reid:: The outrage is that you have the guts to stand up and say this.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for St. John's East might listen. He might want to vote against this appointment at the appropriate time.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, he might, but it is not likely.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I hope they are going to have a free vote on this issue in the House. I think we would find out what the Conservative back-benchers really think of this appointment.


Mr. Peterson:: Since free trade, you will never get anything free.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister of Justice said, "If we are to say that any professional journalist who takes that job is thereafter tainted and cannot-take some other posi-
Routine Proceedings
tion without being tainted-that has very, very negative implications for the ability of governments to have the highest quality people serving them".
Is that fact, Madam Speaker? I say it is not. That is nonsense. The government can have Mr. Phillips serving it in any capacity it wants, and I stress the word "government". What we are talking about in this appointment is Parliament and Parliament is not the government. Parliament is not just the government; it is more than the government. Parliament is all the members of this House; it is all parties in this House. It is supposed to be the representative of the aspirations of all the people, not just the governing party.
The government is saying, "We would like Mr. Phillips to serve us as a government worker doing the job in Parliament". In other words, instead of representing all the people, it is putting him in as a government appointee as though this were a government job.
They could name him deputy minister. Maybe the Minister of Justice would like to have him as her deputy minister. She can make him that and we will not be in a position to stop it. The Minister of State for Finance might want to have him as his deputy minister. Fine. They might want to appoint him as head of the CRTC. They might want to make him chairman of any board or commission. There are lots of jobs and they are all full of Tory hacks. But they choose not to. They want to put him in a parliamentary job instead. That is what we on this side object to and our objection is one that is fundamental and it is fair. The minister also stated: "Therefore it is incumbent on those who wish to impugn Mr. Phillips' ability to provide some kind of evidence that he is not able to act with independence". What nerve the minister has in making that statement.
First, we have no obligation whatever to provide any evidence that he is not able to act with independence. That is not our job. Second, we are not impugning his ability. We are impugning his capacity-and there is a difference-to do this job. This is a quasi-judicial position. This position involves exercise of judgment, discretion, and exercise of considerable decision-making power over other people. The incumbent in this position must be seen to be acting impartially. Mr. Phillips will

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
not be seen to be acting impartially. He will be seen to be acting as a party hack.
Third, the minister stated: "I would point out that in the period of time that he has been Assistant Privacy Commissioner, he has participated in putting together the report on drug testing that is veiy critical of the government". She seemed to suggest that because he had been critical once, we could assume that he would be critical whenever it was necessary. That is not evidence of impartiality. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice, as a lawyer, would even suggest that it was such evidence, yet that seems to be what she is putting forward. It is the only evidence that she has got.
The other tactic that the government has tried to use in this case came from the Minister for International Trade. I am glad he is here because perhaps he will want to bellow again. On Tuesday during Question Period he had quite a lot to say when very proper questions were being put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway was trying to ascertain certain facts about this dreadful appointment and the Minister for International Trade sort of exploded. There is no other word to describe it. He started to bellow from his seat and this is what he yelled, as recorded on page 12291 of Hansard:
What about Broadbent? What about the rest of you socialist horde?
I know he was not addressing our party.
What about what's his name, Lewis, who we appointed to the UN? What about that turkey? You don't protest about him. What about buddy down on the civil service board? What's his name? Ian Deans, what about him? That was all right. If Phillips was a socialist it would be all right.
It just shows the distorted thinking of the government ministers on this. I hope this is not a unanimous nomination. I hope it is just the Prime Minister, because if the other cabinet ministers agreed to this they have put their foot in it in a big bad way.
The fact is that these socialists were appointed to these positions and I am not, of course, agreeing necessarily with the words, the intemperate language used by the Minister for International Trade in describing some of the appointments. After all, he made the appointments. He and his cabinet made these appointments and they have to accept that responsibility. If they put turkeys into
the jobs, they cannot complain to us in the opposition about that. But there they are calling their own appointees turkeys. It was not very complimentary of the minister, I must say.
But the fact is these appointments are not to parliamentary jobs. These are government jobs. These are outside the purview of Parliament. They are appointed by the government by Order in Council. They do not come to this House and ask for a resolution of the House.
The Privacy Commissioner is different. The Auditor General is different. The Information Commissioner is different and the Chief Electoral Officer is different. Each of those posts are appointed by resolution of this House and then a subsequent Order in Council. If that is the way the appointments are done, then it seems to me there is an obligation on the government to come to this House and say we want all-party support for the appointment, not ramming some party hack down the throats of the Opposition. That is what is going on in this case.
For the Minister for International Trade to suggest that because they have appointed some socialists to government jobs, and I stress that, "government" sinecures, not parliamentary jobs and, therefore, somehow we should not criticize this appointment because this happens to be a Conservative, is rubbish. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are confronted with here which is whether or not Parliament is going to appoint some party hack to a position under the control of Parliament.
The Ottawa Citizen, which is hardly a newspaper said to favour the Liberal Party, has published today an editorial on this subject. I will only read part of it for the benefit of the hon member for St. John's East and perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader who I suspect too would want to vote against this appointment. It states:
The honourable men and women MPs of the Progressive
Conservative Party will carry out a dishonourable act today if they
approve Bruce Phillips as Canada's next Privacy Commissioner.
That is The Ottawa Citizen writing. They make it clear that the distinguished career that he has had as a journalist is not the problem. It is his close association with the Prime Minister's office that disqualifies him from an appointment to a parliamentary post.
June 7, 1990

The importance and independence of this position is evident from the fact that the appointment is to be made by Order in Council after resolution of both Houses. The appointment is for a seven-year term. This is not a short-term one or two-year appointment. This is a seven-year term and it is designed to ensure continuity in the job and independence in the appointee.
The government is dishonouring the post and this House in using its majority, if that is its intention and it is not going to declare a free vote on this issue, to thrash this unpopular nomination through this House of Commons.
I suggest that the appropriate course is for the government to withdraw this motion at once and come back and discuss it with the opposition parties-I know the New Democratic Party shares our view on this-and allow us to agree on an appointee worth putting into the job.
What the ministers have done is appoint people they are going to subsequently call turkeys, as the minister did the other day, and then try to say, look we have appointed these people, it is all right for us to go ahead with the others. We have allowed some of your people into jobs, so you have got to agree to ours.
That did not work with the New Democratic Party. They are still opposing this, in spite of the threats and bullying tactics of the Minister for International Trade. They cannot use that argument on us because they have not appointed the good Liberals to the jobs that they might go to.
I have one point of disagreement with the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I do not believe there are Liberal hacks. There is no such thing in the definition book, and the Minister for International Trade knows that and I think that he would agree with me on that point.
In conclusion, I urge the government to withdraw this motion at once and allow us to discuss the matter of this appointment in the usual way and come to an agreement. We are not disagreeable, but we have been given no alternatives. This was the only name put forward and I believe that it is inappropriate.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Madam Speaker, I would like to make several comments and ask the hon. gentleman for his opinion. I do not know why there is all this emphasis on hacks. Hacks are essential to the political process, whatever a hack is. Our people who want to assist in public service
Routine Proceedings
are being denigrated, attacked and scorned by having appellations such as the name "hack" applied to them-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Like poor Ian Deans?


John Carnell Crosbie: The person who I suggested was a turkey is somebody in public life and there are many turkeys in public life, as we all know, but I am now addressing myself to somebody who has been called a hack.
My experience with the person under discussion is that he is a person who did a first-class job when he was a public commentator. When he was in the communications field on television, he was a perceptive observer of the Canadian political scene and fair and impartial in his comments.
Does the fact that he accepted a government appointment and then worked for the Prime Minister have him categorized, after a lifetime in the communications and other businesses, as some kind of a hack who is not capable of performing the duties of the office that we are now discussing? The course of action of the present Official Opposition is deplorable in this instance.
It is hardly relevant, of course, that they appointed, during their years in office, all sorts of persons who came with the same kind of background who had served them briefly or otherwise, and with that experience they should not be up with hypocritical remarks like this today. It is difficult to understand. One can understand the NDP because hypocrisy is a part of their make-up and they really do not know when they are being hypocritical and when they are not. I want to ask the hon. gentlemen who just made these remarks whether he agrees that Bruce Phillips is an outstanding person with a long background in public life, well able to understand and to enforce rights such as those he will have to enforce or comment upon during the next seven years that he would be in office, and that he is therefore a fine and suitable person for this office.
In ending, I want to put this piece of poetry forward for the consideration of the House.
Why take the track of Colleen Hack?
Why don't they just go quack, quack, quack?
All that is happening is just the fact
This action follows their well-laid track.
The NDP as ever, quake and shake
With indignation completely fake.
They never quivered, shivered or shook
When Ian Deans was given the hook.
The Public Service labour boards
Only wanted the NDP hordes
Appointed to important posts
By we PC governmental hosts.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Gratitude not an NDP virtue.
Forgotten now are Broadbent and Lewis,
Still going forward to put screws to us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I will not attempt to emulate the minister's poetic skills.


An Hon. Member:: You are not from Newfoundland.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am not from Newfoundland, that is true, but that is not the only reason I would not sink to emulate the hon. member's poetic skills. He reminds me of the great poet, McGonigal with his doggerel-I think it would be properly referred to.
To answer his question, no, I do not agree. I think he knows the answer to the question. He was simply taking advantage of the question and comment period to huff and puff a little. I am surprised, frankly, he did not apologize for his intemperate remarks that I quoted on Tuesday, insulting as they were, to the appointees that his government put forward. It was not the Liberal government that appointed these socialists to these posts. It was a Conservative government. It was not our responsibility to pass judgment on the quality of those appointments. They were done by the government on its own.
I want to say that we do not agree that this is a good appointment. I do agree with the minister when he says that Mr. Phillips is a very distinguished and competent journalist. That we have stated throughout and I do not think any member on this side has suggested otherwise. What I do say is that his past work in the Prime Minister's office disqualifies him from taking a job as an employee of Parliament. I stress that. The minister keeps missing that distinction. If he wanted to have Mr. Phillips on the Human Rights Commission or some other judicial body, that is the government's sole concern. What we are dealing with here is an appointment by this House and that is not just the government, it is all parties in this House. Surely the minister understands that distinction and he should cease trying to blur it because all the ministers on that side can do is blur that distinction and say we are doing exactly as we would normally be doing with any other appointment.
The three he has named and the socialists they have appointed have been named to government jobs not appointed by Parliament by resolution in this House. There is an important distinction and the minister should bear it in mind.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I address a question to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
This government, as we all know, has taken patronage to a new art form. The public finally rebelled. Even the journalists brought this to the attention of Canadians because they could not stomach it anymore.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: So what did the government do? It appointed the three socialists to say: "Oh, we are non-partisan". Then they call these socialists turkeys. Are they saying that all of their other appointments are worse than turkeys because they tried to clean up their act by appointing turkeys? This is obviously what this government is attempting to do. It has finally admitted to Canadians that its appointments throughout that rampant run of patronage were worse than turkeys. Does this mean that the government is going to recall all those appointments, ask for their resignations and make sure that we get a clean barnyard at least?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the point taken by the hon. member for Willowdale is a very good point. I was tempted in my remarks to cover the wide range of patronage for which this government has become so famous. Really, its disgraceful record of appointments since it took office in 1984 has left any past record of any prior government in tatters. This has really been a shocking, shocking orgy of patronage and that from a Prime Minister who in a national debate in the election campaign in 1984 protested his outrage at the 10 or 12 or 21 or 22 appointments, whatever the numbers were, that the Liberal government made just before that election. For this government to suggest that the three socialist appointments make up for the complete outrage it has perpetrated on the Canadian public is ridiculous.
I agree with the hon. member for Willowdale when he says that the minister is really letting the cat out of the bag in calling these three appointments turkeys, because these were the three star appointments. Every time we
June 7, 1990

accuse the government of being biased in its appointment process, it points to these three as examples of how pure it is, how virtuous it is, how non-partisan it is in making appointments. Now we are told by the minister that these three are turkeys. One wonders what the others are. Perhaps, when the minister makes another contribution he could enlighten us on that subject, perhaps with another poem about some of the other appointees.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate with respect to these motions. Before commencing my remarks and putting this in a bit of an historical context, I do want to just set the record straight with respect to any suggestion that any of the three very distinguished appointees, about which the Minister for International Trade was bellowing and braying in the Elouse when I questioned the Minister of Justice, could properly be described as turkeys. Surely, nothing could be further from the truth. These three individuals have served and continue to serve the country with great distinction. I know that the hon. minister would not want to associate himself in any way with the suggestion that these individuals might be fowl of any description.
I also want to express my shock and surprise at the comments of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I know that member was not a member of this House in 1984, as I was. I was here, as was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the member for York Centre, and I remember well that incredible orgy of patronage in June 1984. I know the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and others were embarrassed and humiliated by that. When the member for Kingston and the Islands stands up in his place and says that the Conservatives have taken patronage to a new art form and so on, they merely learned from the masters; of course, the masters being the former Liberal government that appointed every former hack and flack and carrier-on and bag-person and member of Parliament who was terrified of facing the electorate. It put them all into juicy positions of one sort or another. I do not think the Liberal Party of Canada has any lessons to teach anyone about the debasing of the political coinage in this country through patronage.
Let us look at the appointment that Parliament is being asked to deal with today, because this is a very
Routine Proceedings
serious question. The Minister for International Trade has made light of it. The Minister of Justice in her extraordinary defence of this appointment has come up with arguments that boggle the imagination. She suggests that the fact that the Information Commissioner, John Grace, is a good friend of the former Leader of the Opposition would somehow mean that it is okay to appoint Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner. What an absurd leap of logic.
The reality is that by appointing Bruce Phillips to this position, Bruce Phillips who had a highly partisan political job in the office of the Prime Minister, the government and the Prime Minister in particular are degrading and debasing the office of Privacy Commissioner.
Some people might say: "What is so important about the office of Privacy Commissioner?" I think we have to look back at the history of this appointment. I had the honour of serving on the justice committee which passed the legislation on protection of privacy and access to information. I believe the member for Willowdale was in the House in those days as well. He did not get appointed from 1984 to 1988 to one of those positions that his colleagues were appointed to, but he was here during the debate on that important legislation.
An essential element of the legislation was that the individuals, the men and women who were appointed to these positions of Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner would not simply be named by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Justice. They would be appointed following a resolution of the House of Commons. The clear understanding of the purpose for that appointment process was to ensure that those appointments met with broad approval in this House, and that they not be foisted upon the House and the country by a government seeking to pay off its political friends. That is what has happened in this case. It is a very generous pay-off, I might add.
The Privacy Commissioner is a seven-year appointment with a salary of about $140,000. It is a nice way for Bruce Phillips to end a career in the Public Service. The pension is very generous indeed. But today, the purpose of dealing with this motion is to express our anger and sense of betrayal that the government would abuse the

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
powers that it has in terms of numbers in this House to railroad this appointment through Parliament.
I want to point out that the threats to privacy in Canada are very real. In fact, in the most recent annual report of the Privacy Commissioner, John Grace, who has been moved to Information Commissioner, said just a couple of weeks ago: "The exponential growth of public and private data bases risks open season on Canadians' personal information".
"The last decade of the century," Grace said, "represents a rapidly closing window of opportunity, if the dignity of individuals is to be rescued from the voracious jaws of uncontrolled information and biotechnologies."
Who has the Government of Canada decided to appoint in this last decade of the 20th century to protect the privacy of Canadians? Who has it chosen to appoint to challenge the Prime Minister when he attempts to attack the privacy rights of Canadians? Why has it chosen to appoint a former officer from the Office of the Prime Minister, a former hack, a former political crony of the Prime Minister?
No one is questioning the credentials of Bruce Phillips as a journalist. That is not the issue. What we are saying is that in this appointment perception is as important as reality, and that the perception of those Canadians who are deeply concerned about the protection of their privacy against attacks by the government and the erosion of their privacy, is that a person who comes out of the Prime Minister's Office and goes into that position is not going to effectively stand up and defend his or her privacy.
This is not just any position. This was not a low level appointee in the Office of the Prime Minister. Bruce Phillips was the Director of Communications in the Office of the Prime Minister. He played a very active partisan role during the 1980 election campaign. In fact, Bruce Phillips admitted that during that campaign he called a lot of reporters and did whatever he could to attempt to get them to write articles and columns that were critical, such as hatchet jobs on John Turner.
That was the role that was played by Bruce Phillips who is now being proposed by this government as the guardian of privacy against the Prime Minister and against the Conservative government. It is unbelievable
that the government would actually appoint a person with that kind of partisan, political background in the Office of the Prime Minister to such a position. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out, this position is an officer of Parliament.
Politicians can stand in their places and be critical of this appointment, but I think the most effective criticism of this appointment comes from a very distinguished professor who has been acknowledged as an internationally respected expert on privacy. I am speaking, of course, of the very distinguished professor from the University of Western Ontario, David Flaherty.
I will quote what John Grace had to say about David Flaherty in his annual report:
Professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario is an internationally recognized authority on data protection. He served as consultant to the Justice and Solicitor General Committee's review of the Privacy Act and he has been reported before in (reports of the Privacy Commissioner).
He has written one of the internationally respected texts on privacy called Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies.
What does Professor David Flaherty have to say about the appointment of Bruce Phillips, the Prime Minister's buddy, to this position of Privacy Commissioner? Professor David Flaherty said that he was disgusted by this appointment. Professor Flaherty, by the way, is certainly no socialist. I understand he may even be a red Tory. His credentials in the area of privacy are recognized throughout the world. He may be as red a Toiy as the member for Rosedale. I am not sure if that is possible, but he certainly is a respected privacy expert. He said that he was disgusted by the appointment. He went on to say that this appointment of Bruce Phillips ruins the integrity of the Office of Privacy Commissioner.
I would have hoped that hearing those words from this respected professor, this international expert on privacy law, the Minister of Justice might come back into this House and say: "Yes, I have made a mistake. The Prime Minister made me do it; the Prime Minister forced me to do it. I had no choice, but I am not going to carry through on this appointment. I respect the fact that Professor Flaherty and others have said that this is an unacceptable appointment".
Even the hon. member for St. John's East, I know, is cringing in embarrassment at this appointment. I would
June 7, 1990

have hoped that perhaps the Minister of Justice might come back and say: "Okay, I am prepared to withdraw the appointment". Or, at the very least she could accept the reasonable suggestion that has been made on a non-partisan basis that this appointment be referred to a parliamentary committee.
The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General or another committee would then have an opportunity to call witnesses, for example Professor Flaherty or Ken Reuben, another very respected commentator in the field of privacy law, who has also expressed deep concerns about the appointment of Bruce Phillips. The committee could call Bruce Phillips himself before the committee and ask him just what it is in his experience in the Prime Minister's Office that qualifies him for this very important position.
I cannot over-emphasize the significance of this position in Canada today, the position of Privacy Commissioner. One has only to read the most recent annual report of the Privacy Commissioner to know the range of issues which are dealt with. We know that the Privacy Commissioner has tabled a number of important reports in the area of random testing for drugs, for example, and the whole area of AIDS and the importance of dealing sensitively and compassionately with privacy concerns in the area of AIDS.
We also know that there will be occasions when the Privacy Commissioner will be called upon to challenge directly the Office of the Prime Minister. We know and we remember all too well the fact that the Information Commissioner Inger Hansen has issued a number of very serious criticisms of the role that the Prime Minister's Office played in attempting to screen and vet information which was released to the public.
I might just say on that point that the treatment of Inger Hansen, an outstanding public servant, a woman who has contributed a great deal to this country as Information Commissioner, in her previous capacity as Privacy Commissioner and as the corrections ombudsperson has been shabby and beneath contempt. To treat a woman of this calibre and with this kind of distinguished record of service to her country in the way that this government has treated her is absolutely unbelievable.
Routine Proceedings
We know that she has been critical of the government. In fact in a number of speeches she has been particularly harsh in her criticism of this government's failure to move forward in respect of openness and accountability in government. In 1988 she said: "Investigations often reveal a picture of a government that uses every opportunity to say no or, if that fails, to delay the process."
In September 1988 she said: "With few exceptions, there is no longer any clear message from the government, whether from the politicians or the bureaucracy, that Canadians have a legislated right to access and that the law ought to be obeyed in a willing, forthright and timely fashion."
Inger Hansen spoke out independently, not always perhaps as strongly as some of us might have liked, but she spoke out independently and was prepared to take on the government.
The concern of Canadians is that the appointment of Bruce Phillips signals that instead of putting into place a strong and effective watch dog for the privacy of Canadians, we are getting a docile lap dog that will do what the Prime Minister's Office wants and will not challenge in any effective way decisions which are made by that office.
The debate today gives us an opportunity to voice our concern about this abuse of the appointment power of the Prime Minister to put into this sensitive and important office one of his former political colleagues. I would hope that this House might take the opportunity, when this comes to a vote as indeed it will, to issue a stern rebuke to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice to tell them that this position, which after all is an appointment of Parliament, is too important to debase by appointing an individual who was a political crony of the Prime Minister.
I would hope that members of this House would recognize that we can send a clear message to our constituents and to all Canadians that we believe strongly in the protection of the privacy of Canadians. The most effective way of doing that is by putting into this important office an individual who is seen to be independent, strong, effective, and not in any way tied to the Prime Minister's Office or to the government of the day.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Bruce Phillips does not meet those criteria; in fact quite the opposite. It is for that reason that I am rising in my place to oppose this appointment, to urge the government to withdraw this appointment, and to urge all members of this House to show their disgust and their revulsion at the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice in their decision to politicize this appointment by voting against it when the opportunity comes in a few minutes.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to enter this debate, but I have been drawn into it by both my friend here from Burnaby-Kingsway and my friend from Kingston and the Islands.
Perhaps I am in a unique position in this House, having been a political hack myself for a number of years, having worked with Mr. Phillips in the Prime Minister's Office, and having had to deal with Mr. Phillips supposedly as a Tory journalist. He was a most difficult, terribly unco-operative person. I can remember the 1979 budget when all we asked was that they not go until the Minister of Finance had read his speech. This Tory laughed me out of his office.
This man was a journalist, a respected journalist in this city and across this country. When he was asked to serve his country in our embassy in Washington, one of our most important embassies, he decided to do it not unlike a number of other people who have done exactly the same thing. Like a number of public servants and others, he then accepted an appointment in the service of the Prime Minister of this country.
There is no question, absolutely no question that one assumes some political responsibility, but as in many cases people return to the Public Service.
Having been a hack, a word I have used myself, I absolutely resent the concept and thesis that one cannot continue to serve one's country after a political life whether in the service of Parliament or in the service of the government. Whatever party we are from now or in the future I resent that we are all absolutely tainted with partisanship. It is offensive to me and to everyone else who served in the political system for whatever party he or she is in.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may attempt to make up in volume what he lacks in substance to his argument.
The reality is that the hon. member for St. John's East who is generally a thoughtful and learned member of the House has fundamentally missed the point in this instance. No one is suggesting that Bruce Phillips has disqualified himself from continuing to serve in a whole range of other occupations.
However, what is being suggested in this instance is that because the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament and because that position must be recognized as being fundamentally independent of any attachment whatsoever whether past, present, or future to the Office of the Prime Minister, it is a fundamentally different situation.
As the hon. member for St. John's East has indicated, Bruce Phillips has served his Prime Minister with distinction. Indeed he played a very vigorous role during the federal election campaign. That is fair ball. He has served his country in our embassy in Washington, but this office is an office that reports directly to Parliament. It is an office that is charged with the responsibility of protecting the privacy of Canadians from ever encroaching demands on their privacy. For that reason it is essential that there not be the slightest suggestion that the holder of that office have any tie whatsoever with the Office of the Prime Minister.
It is like the hon. member for St. John's East. After the next federal election he will be looking for a job. No one would suggest that he should not be in a position of serving his country in a variety of capacities, given his lengthy service to the public. I am sure that Prime Minister McLaughlin will keep that in mind.
What must be understood clearly is that if there were any suggestion at the end of the term of Bruce Phillips that the hon. member for St. John's East were to be appointed to that position despite his very strong and distinguished credentials, it would be seen as unacceptable. I doubt whether he would suggest that somehow his experience in the Prime Minister's Office or as a member of the House, albeit for one term, would qualify him for that position.
As Professor Flaherty has said-I remind the House that he is not a politician- this appointment ruins the integrity of the office of Privacy Commissioner. It is not because Bruce Phillips has in the past served his country. It is because of the fact that he is being appointed to this office that this appointment is fundamentally unaccept-
June 7, 1990

able to not only us in the opposition but to all Canadians I am sure.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on his speech and on his reasoned comments.
I must say that the hon. member for St. John's East is beginning to sound like his counterpart, the hon. member for St. John's West in his intemperate outbursts. My question for the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway will be more reasoned and sensible.
In the last few days, in fact most of this week, the New Democratic Party has been stressing the importance of the Senate under our Constitution. It has urged the Senate to exercise its constitutional right to stop government bills. I know this new-found interest in the Senate represents quite a change of heart because their policy had always been to urge the abolition of that chamber of sober second thought. We witnessed the spectacle of them having moved a motion on Monday, pointing out the Senate's powers, and last night voting against paying the Senate any of its money so they could continue to do their work. It was something of an amazing feat and gives some credence to the comments that the Minister for International Trade made earlier.
Leaving all that aside, I wonder if the New Democratic Party today is urging the Senate, when it considers its resolution in respect of this appointment to block this appointment. Is it part of the New Democratic Party policy to urge the Senate to stop this appointment by refusing to pass the counterpart of this resolution in the other place? I would be interested in the hon. member's views.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Kingston and the Islands has given me an opportunity to voice the sense of outrage that Canadians from coast to coast are feeling about Liberal senators voting for themselves $153 a day just for showing up in the Senate.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I know, is probably as embarrassed and as ashamed by the actions of his Liberal colleagues in the other place, at getting up and tottering to their seats and raising their
Routine Proceedings
hands and saying, "Yes, yes, I want $153 a day just for showing up". It is damned outrageous.
That is the position that Liberal senators, each and every one of them in the other place, have taken. It is shameful. I think Canadians from coast to coast are recoiling in revulsion at this spectacle of Liberal and Conservative senators. Liberal senators have the majority, and if the Liberal senators had the intestinal fortitude and the spine to stand up and say no, that they were not going to vote themselves $153 a day just for showing up, things might have been different.
When we talk about hyprocrisy, I suggest that the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Willowdale, go down the hall to the senate chamber and talk to the Liberals senators and beg and plead with them to reverse this decision to grant themselves $153 a day. Canadians are appalled by this kind of Liberal wallowing at the public trough.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the unctuous outflow of words from the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. My hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands asked him a very simple question, a question that the member from Kingston and the Islands even felt that he might be able to understand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He didn't answer it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: He was afraid to answer. It was a simple question. If, in all his outrage, he is prepared to say Canada does not deserve Bruce Phillips as our Privacy Commissioner, will he ask the Senate to scupper this appointment?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That's right, why won't he do it?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Why will he not come clean and confess that he is being a hypocrite on this issue?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is waiting for Audrey.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What does he want? Is he waiting for instructions from his new leader? Does he only want to criticize the Senate, but not use it in an instructive way? Is he suggesting that the country should be burdened with the goods and services tax even if the Senate has a possibility of stopping this iniquitous tax from going through? Is this what he is saying? He would refuse to answer that question.
Let us return to the issue of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner. First we have to make the record very clear. On this side of the House, we believe that Mr. Phillips has been a distinguished Canadian journalist.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Second, he has served with distinction his own party, the Tories. Third, because of point number two, he is disqualified from serving in any one of four posts.
Our position is that anyone who has served the government or any other party in such a partisan way, is disqualified from only four government appointments. One of those is the Auditor General, the person charged with overseeing on a non-partisan basis the expenditures of government.
The second office for which he would automatically be disqualified because of his past, is that of Chief Electoral Officer, again an appointment of Parliament, a servant of Parliament and not of the government.
The third position for which he would be disqualified to serve would be Information Commissioner, a person charged with ensuring that Parliament itself has access to all the relevant information.
The fourth position is the one to which this government is appointing him, the Privacy Commissioner, dealing with the rights to privacy of all Canadians and again, a servant not of the government, but of all Canadians through all members of Parliament.
We are saying there are only four positions that we feel a person in Mr. Phillips' position is not qualified to serve in. This is not to denigrate from the individual, but this appointment is taking to the height of partisanship what should be an appointment totally beyond reproach.
Let us look at this government's record of appointments. We remember before the 1980 election when there was a certain prominent Tory in this country who talked about the beauty of getting one's snout into the trough; another barnyard analogy taken to new heights by the member for St. John's West. There was also that statement when this particular leader of Canada was asked if he would ever appoint a Liberal to any government position, to any Order in Council appointment? The answer was: "Not as long as there is one living Tory".
We saw a spate of appointments which were an embarrassment even to the most partisan of Canadians. We saw the appointment of one person to the board of Air Canada. This person was asked about qualifications to serve on the board of Air Canada: "What do you know
about transportation?" The response was: "I drive a car".


An Hon. Member:: Really! Profound!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: This was the quintessential type of appointment that was made for so many years by this government. Finally, it was so revolting to even members of the Tory party that they smartened up. They started to make some non-partisan appointments so that they could say their hands were clean. They appointed three prominent NDPers, socialists, to high positions. I must say I do not criticize those appointments because I thought all three of those NDPers had served their country with great distinction before those appointments were made, and are doing so or have done so in the posts to which they were appointed.
Was it out of a genuine interest in filling these posts with distinguished Canadians that they appointed Mr. Lewis to the UN, Mr. Broadbent to his position, and Mr. Deans to the Public Service Commission? Was this out of a sense of wanting to fill these posts with the best people? That was not their motive, even though they might have inadvertently made fine appointments. Their motivation was to attempt to cleanse their bloody hands from the past record they achieved of taking patronage to an all-time art form.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: An orgy of patronage.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: An orgy of patronage, as the member for Kingston and the Islands says. This did not just bring only the Tory party into disrepute. I must say that I think it cast all politicians in a bad light. When one politician does not act with the best interest of Canada in mind, Canadians do not say that it is just another Tory stunt, I think all of us suffer and are diminished in the minds of Canadians.
As elected representatives of whatever political stripe become diminished, we lose the ability to lead Canadians. We lose our ability to encourage Canadians to pull together. We have critical roles to play in order to make Canada great. We must be united as Canadians. We must work together to tackle global markets, rather than fracturing and fighting among the provinces, among sectors and among regions. When we as politicians make this call for Canadians to act together, but some politicians have misbehaved, we have lost our credibility. This
June 7, 1990

is the tragedy of the Tory record of downgrading politics in Canada, through terrible appointments based strictly on patronage.
I am not saying that governments prior to when the Tories took over some six years ago always made appointments based totally on merit. However, when I look at appointments we made such as Gordon Fairweather, a prominent Conservative-


An Hon. Member:: A cabinet minister.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -cabinet minister who Prime Minister Trudeau appointed to head up the Human Rights Commission. The fact that he was a Tory did not enter into the issue at all. There was a human being whose record on human rights, before he went into that post and before he was appointed, qualified him as the most pre-eminent Canadian to fill that post and Canadians rejoiced. They did not have to ask about his political stripe. It was an appointment of distinction and merit.
I can think of lots of examples where the same type of non-partisanship was followed; Mr. Duff Roblin, Ernest Manning, and Premier Smith to the Senate. These were appointments that brought distinction to the institution to which they were appointed. It brought distinction to the government that appointed them and it brought distinction to all politicians because we are all part of a process which was regarded as being higher than the levels to which this government has brought us through its grovelling in the trough of patronage.
Bruce Phillips is a journalist of distinction and a person who has served his party with distinction, albeit in a highly partisan way. We are saying that there are only four offices for which that individual cannot be qualified because of his former partisan activities; Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. Every other government Order in Council appointment office would be open to this individual.
That does not mean we would not reserve the right to criticize an appointment were he not qualified to fulfil that task. We no longer want the qualifications for serving on the board of Air Canada to be the response: "Well, I know how to drive a car".
Routine Proceedings
Let us, as politicians from every side of the House, think about how our constituents, the people of Canada, look on us. What are the highest possible standards they can expect from us?

What would Canadians' reaction be if it could be said that this man or this woman was the best qualified for the position, the best qualified of any Canadian, with partisan considerations completely set aside, no importance given to his or her political affiliation? The government must, for the first time, become a leader. A leader that can set an example with its appointments to these very important posts. It would be very simple for the Prime Minister to say to Mr. Bruce Phillips, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake in asking you to take on this job. We have something else for you. But the Parliament of Canada must be safeguarded, it must be protected, and we must appoint people who have not previously been partisan." For four positions, that is all.

We are looking for leadership from the government. All it has to do, not only in order to win the respect of Parliament, but to give a new attitude to Canadians, is to say to Mr. Bruce Phillips: "I am sorry. This one post is not open to you. We will give you something else and then we will judge based on qualifications."
I think Canadians expect more of their government. They expect more of all politicians of whatever stripe. If we are going to start winning back their respect so that they will listen to us, is this not a marvellous opportunity, by a simple act, reversing a partisan appointment which is an abuse of Parliament? This can be done by reversing one simple nomination. Bruce Phillips does not have to suffer because of that, because he can be named to some other post for which he is better qualified. It is a simple act of reversing this one nomination, therefore restoring the integrity of this institution and restoring the faith-

-the faith of Canadians in our government, in our system of government, in the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I would like to put two questions to my hon. colleague. I should start out by saying that I greatly appreciated his speech, his comments. My first question is this: I wonder if he remembers the debate in 1984 about this important issue, and the commitments Mr. Mulroney had made at the time. What was it that he supposedly intented to do? You will remember, I am sure, that he made some serious commitments. What

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
serious commitments. What bothers me is that I have the impression that his commitment in this important area, which affects the very soul of politics in Canada, seems to be just like all the other commitments-what is said and what is actually done are two different things. I would like you to elaborate on that.
My second question is the following:

Could the hon. member not only elaborate on the promise that was made during that debate, but perhaps say a few words about the record of the government in terms of what the commitment was then? I think that is rather important. In fact, I think it is critical and I think Canadians want to know what was said and what was done.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, those are both good questions. The first related to what the Prime Minister said during the 1984 election campaign. He said two things to the people of Canada. He promised that there would never be any patronage, that his would be an open, an honest government.
He said a new era was opening up for Canadians as far as government appointments were concerned: appointees would be qualified people, experienced people, good people. That is what he said to Canadians.
But this is what he said to the Quebec Conservatives when he was asked if he would appoint a Liberal to any position-he said, "Yes, but not if there's even one Conservative still alive". So he said two things.
But what he did, as my hon. colleague from Manitoba has suggested, what he did after the election was something else entirely.

We saw exactly what happened. There was a spate of appointments and competent people who had served in posts with distinction were "unappointed". I will give you a very good example.
The Hon. Barney Danson, who had been our distinguished Minister of Defence, had been appointed to serve in a top post, representing Canadian business in Boston in the United States. It is not an incredibly important post in terms of the posts that are created, but the Hon. Barney Danson went to Boston with his wife and they created a whole new set of industries involving Canadian trade because he knew how to promote Canada. The Dansons worked hard at that post helping to put forward Canadian interests. What happened? A person with unquestioned competence, integrity, and ability did not get re-appointed so that the post could be filled by someone else.
There were so many appointments it started to gall Canadians. Every day the headlines read: "Another snout in the trough". Even Conservatives were embarrassed after 1984, through 1985 and 1986, by the appointments that were being made.
The hon. member, my esteemed colleague from Manitoba, points out that the appointments made after 1984 were not in accordance with the promise made to Canadians. However, perhaps we can give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt; they were precisely in accord with the promise he had made behind closed doors to Conservatives in Quebec.
What we have seen is an attempt by the government to clean up its act and its image by appointing some prominent NDPers to posts.


Mr. Crosby:: How would that clean up the act?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member from Halifax asks how that would clean up the act. The Prime Minister has cited those as being great appointments, but obviously the member from Halifax is disagreeing with his own leader. I have never seen such lese-majeste.
We have behind me here a member from Calgary who was kicked out of that caucus for a lesser disagreement and one of greater principle than what the member for Halifax West exclaimed right now.
If the member for Halifax West is saying that he disagrees completely with the appointment of the three socialists made by his Prime Minister, then I submit that, if he does not resign from the Tory caucus right now, it is greater cause for being drummed out of caucus than the member from Calgary sitting behind us on this side who resigned on principle simply because he refused to support the GST.
June 7, 1990


An hon. member:: Because he listened to the people.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The member for Halifax West might have a point, because the member for St. John's West earlier called these three appointments, which the Prime Minister has lauded and touted throughout Canada, the appointment of turkeys. I assume that the member for Halifax West and the member for St. John's West are in agreement that their Prime Minister was wrong in making these appointments. They are now publicly criticizing their own Prime Minister for having made these great appointments.
I would hope they would do the honourable thing and submit their letters of resignation to the Prime Minister. They could do a joint letter signed by Halifax West and St. John's West. They could say: "We do so because we disagree with your appointment of those three socialists to these posts, appointments that were made in an attempt to cleanse our image even though, before Canadians, our hands are still bloodied. Like Lady MacBeth, these hands the multitudinous seas would incarnadine."
I suspect they will be sending this letter to the Prime Minister, doing the honourable thing, because the Prime Minister tried to clean up his act by making some non-partisan appointments.
I suspect that the hon. members opposite are happy with this appointment of Bruce Phillips. I am talking about only two members, the member for St. John's West and the member for Halifax West. They must be happy with this appointment of Bruce Phillips because they feel that other appointments by the Prime Minister have been wrong, when he appointed socialists. Bruce Phillips is obviously not a socialist. He has been there in the troops with them, he has been there in the forces, and he has been in the trenches. He was manipulating the fifth estate on their behalf in order to give the spin that the Tories needed in order to bring home victoiy to them in 1984. He was doing it afterward and he has been good for them.
All we are saying is that Mr. Phillips, a distinguished journalist, a strong hack for the Tory Party, has disqualified himself, because of his previous partisan activities, only from serving in four posts which are parliamentary and not government.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was trying to get order in the House to allow the hon. member to conclude and I knew he was having some difficulty with one of his colleagues. The hon. member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, the only difficulty I have ever had with my colleagues is, they are such great team players and they are so full of integrity, ideas, and enthusiasm for forming a new government and getting the country going, that we sometimes have trouble getting to bed before one or two in the morning.
I am so impressed with my colleagues on this side of the House and Canadians are as well. Look at the polls, Madam Speaker: 15 per cent on your right-hand side, and at least triple that on this side of the House. We are the govemment-in-waiting. We are the people who have to bring new directions to Canada, including the integrity of our very institutions which can best be demonstrated by the Order in Council appointments which are so fundamental to the operation of our government, to our Parliament, and to democracy in this country.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 6, 1990, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House and of the proposed motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice for the appointment of John Grace as Information Commissioner.
The question is as follows. Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre), seconded by Mr. Andre moved:
That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the appointment of Bruce Phillips as Privacy Commissioner.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]
The next question is on the following motion in the name of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre).


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: That, in accordance with subsection 54(1) of the Act to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada, Chapter A-l of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approves the appointment of John Grace as Information Commissioner.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief and merely wish to say, on behalf of our caucus, that we endorse the appointment of Dr. John Grace as Information Commissioner. For seven years, Dr. Grace has been known as a competent and absolutely impartial-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think we should avoid getting into debate.
Anderson
Atkinson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Danis
DeBlois
Dick
Domm
Duplessis
Epp
Felt ham
Gibeau
Greene
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hudon
James
Johnson
Koury
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McDermid
McKnight
Monteith
Oberle
Plourde
Redway
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy -106
June 7, 1990

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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I merely wish to say, Madam Speaker, that I was in the House for the previous division but decided not to vote.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.29 p.m, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.29 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a message which I received from the students of St. Boniface Diocesan High School. They met the day before yesterday in front of the legislative building in Manitoba to show their commitment to national unity.
I quote parts of this letter:
We, the undersigned, are proud of who, where and what we are. We are proud of Canada's unique identity as a friendly nation that extends from sea to sea, but more importantly, as a country capable of sustaining two separate cultures in relative harmony.
The present situation has brought, perhaps, the beginning of the end of our concept of Canada.
Those in Quebec have been exposed to some very inaccurate representations of English Canadian feelings towards French Canada. The media have shown isolated incidents involving antiFrench rallying and have continued to dwell on the negative. It is the purpose of this letter to show that positive feelings do exist and that we are very worried about the unity of our country.
They go on to give an example of the sharing of the school between St. Boniface Diocesan High School and Ecole Precieux Sang. The letter continues:
We are feeling that, perhaps, the people of Quebec do not realize just how much support they have in the west. To reinforce our confidence in the strength of Canada, we publicly proclaim our support of Quebec and a united Canada.

I ask all young Canadians throughout Canada to express their feelings right away on this extremely important issue and to show that they really want a strong united country.


LOCKEPORT HIGH SCHOOL
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and congratulate the students of the grade 10 English class in Lockeport High School and their teacher, Cliff MacKay.
These students collectively wrote a play entitled "The Lockeport Story: Past, Present, and Future". It tells the story of their town and its difficulties in recent years with the trials and tribulations of the fishing industry. This play which was collectively written by the 24 students and their teacher was performed before over 300 people in three performances.
The play reflected the heart, the soul, and the character of the town of Lockeport, a town in which people recognize that they are the best ones to deal with and solve their own problems. The recent history of Lockeport has been one of trial but with the type of leadership and self-reliance demonstrated by these students of Lockeport, I am confident that the Lockeport story will have a happy ending very soon.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, analysts of Canada's airline industry are sounding warning bells. There is every chance that only one of our two major airlines will survive this decade.
New Democrats warned the government of this issue. Symptoms of serious illness in this industry are now undeniable. Air Canada posted a $13 million loss this year in its first quarter, for the second year running. It would have been even worse had it not sold off $21 million in assets.

June 7, 1990
Canadian Airlines is in no better shape and may well be doing worse with PWA haemorrhaging cash, 1,600 lay-offs since the Wardair purchase, and 1,900 more jobs slated for the axe in the near future.
The signs are there that soon there may be only one airline, and the government must be ready. That means preparing to protect consumers from monopoly price gouging and preparing to protect communities from service cuts.
I do not want to cry wolf, and perhaps some miracle may yet happen, but the government has a responsibility to Canadians to be prepared for a shrinking industry, especially when it helped to bring it about by deregulation.


CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to tell my fellow Canadians in Quebec-Est about a wonderful event that will take place in our riding on July 1.
Mr. Speaker, as part of Canada Day festivities, we will have the honour to celebrate the citizenship ceremony at the Franpois Charon Centre in Quebec City.
Since this rehabilitation centre symbolizes humanitari-anism, dedication and generosity in all respects, I think it is the ideal place to show our new Canadian citizens the spirit and determination that characterize our people.
Thanks go to the president and general manager, Louis Champoux, for the receptivity and eagerness he showed in granting this request. I look forward to attending this most important celebration soon.


UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, between 1914 and 1920, approximately 8,500 Ukrainian Canadians were interned in 26 concentration camps across Canada. Just because they came from an area of the world under
the Austro-Hungarian empire, they were used as forced labour in internment camps and had their property confiscated and never returned.
In October 1988, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress submitted a proposal to the Canadian government for the acknowledgement of and the symbolic redress for this injustice. This three-page proposal has taken over 18 months to study, and still this government is incapable of a response.
This is a legitimate concern and this government has the responsibility to respond. This is an issue about fundamental civil liberties, and it is important to all Canadians. This government must show a commitment to addressing these concerns by responding with action instead of silence.
Canadians must right a wrong. The federal government must right that wrong for them.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding, and I hope not purposely, by members of the New Democratic Party. They are saying that the Department of Health and Welfare has cut $4 million from the budget of the New Horizons Program.
I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Fifteen million dollars was allocated to New Horizons projects in the main estimates. Of that, $4 million was temporarily set aside, not cancelled, pending a review of the program.
The purpose of the review is to see how the money could be better spent on projects within the New Horizons Program. As part of this review, senior citizens across the country will be consulted. I believe this is a positive step in ensuring that the taxpayers' money is spent on worth-while programs and that within those programs it is put to its best possible use.
This statement is made necessary in an attempt to negate the scare mongering that I attribute to those who use their information selectively.
June 7, 1990


SEX OFFENDERS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked a question of the Solicitor General on the issue of treatment of sex offenders, and he said that he was still studying the subject.
This week, a new book was published called Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free. It is a horrifying account of the epidemic of sex offences and abuse in this country. I do not know whether the issue has always been around and is just becoming public, or whether there is a particular rise in the issue.
What is clearly documented here is the failure of society in general to respond to this problem, and the particular failure of Correctional Service Canada and the Government of Canada to deal effectively and fairly with the problem of sex offenders.
I urge the House and the public to take a look at this important book.


THE ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, this is Canadian Environment Week. I would like to pay tribute to Stora Forest Industries Limited of Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia for its bold initiative in environmental awareness.
Earlier this year Stora launched an environmental awareness program for all 1,000 of its employees, as well as more than 200 woodlands contractors and related personnel. The program, the first of its kind in the pulp and paper industry in Canada, enabled participants to educate themselves on global and local environmental issues, on forest management, and on what Stora as a pulp and newsprint producer was doing in the area. Through these workshops employees participated in the development of an environmental policy for the company.
On Monday I participated in this workshop, along with 21 other media, educators and community leaders. The session was engaging, informative, and frank. Stora admitted that it was not perfect but was honestly committed as a corporation to conducting its affairs consistent with the principles of sustainable development and of sharing its successes and failings openly with the wider community.
This is responsible corporate citizenry, and I urge industry across Canada to follow Stora's lead.

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning at Rideau Hall His Excellency the Governor General will present bravery decorations to 13 Canadians for acts of heroism. The recipients have each demonstrated the strength and courage that we each like to have in times of trial.
One example of the unselfish heroism that will be recognized occurred last year north of Drumheller, Alberta. Eighteen-year old Derrick Wilson watched from the ground as his uncle Dale's crop dusting plane slammed into a field and burst into flames. Without apparent thought for his own safety, Derrick ran to the upside down plane, pulled his semi-conscious uncle free, and extinguished his burning clothing.
Derrick will be recognized with the Medal of Bravery but more important is the knowledge that his unselfish act saved his uncle's life. When interviewed by the media he was quoted as "not wanting to brag about it".
On behalf of this House, I would like to congratulate Derrick and the other 12 recipients of the bravery decorations. They are Canadians we can all be proud of.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, after some intense negotiating, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities managed to bring the GST for municipalities down from 7 per cent to 3 per cent.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that the FCM had been very diligent and effective in its defence of the interests of municipalities, and that all parties had to show some flexibility in order to deal with a number of complex issues and obtain a satisfactory GST rebate for municipalities.

June 7, 1990
The government's goal, said the minister, was to ensure that after the sales tax reform was ratified, municipalities would not take up a heavier tax burden than the one they have now.
Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the Minister of Finance who made a major concession and reduced the GST to 3 per cent for Canadian and Quebec municipalities.


FISHERIES
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, on April 17, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated:
Fishermen need safe, accessible harbours as much as they need
serviceable vessels and gear.
The fishermen of my riding of Egmont and the other three ridings of P.E.I. would very much like the minister to translate his statement into action.
Across the island wharfs are collapsing because minimum maintenance has been neglected for several years. Fishing boats are running aground because harbours are being blocked by silt and dredging is not being carried out.
Many harbours are overcrowded because facilities which should have been expanded have actually diminished. Requests from fishermen have been ignored. Warnings from fishermen have been ignored. Fishermen's boats have been damaged and fishermen's lives have been put in jeopardy.
Fishermen of P.E.I. want this government to do its job: get the dredging done, get the wharfs repaired, and give the fishermen of Tignish, Alberton, Miminegash, Howards Cove, and Higgin's Wharf a chance to do their job and do it in safety.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that there exists those sceptics, those whose vision is short and whose aspirations are narrow who believe that Canada does not have a future united.
Do not believe these wistful dreamers. Let Canadians of good faith show by their actions that the vigour and the vitality of our nation is unimpaired, that our determination is to uphold the spirit of Canada, that our voice of
reason shall be heard in the councils of the world, and that we remain a strong, a vibrant, a modem and a generous nation, one which is accepting of all Canadians.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, how many toxic waste dumps are there in Canada? The government does not have a clue.
There is no complete inventory of toxic waste sites due to budget cuts in 1984. Across the nation there is a wide disparity in classification and even definition of toxic waste, so some provinces have become pollution havens with laws full of loopholes.
The rules and regulations for toxic waste under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are gutless. Each province is held responsible under CEPA, but no equivalency agreements have been signed.
Why can this government not realize that strong national standards are the only effective way to clean up the environment? Today we have an unravelling patchwork of provincial regulations. Illegal dumping continues, water supplies tainted, and toxic waste produced by the tons, and yet green plan public relations is costing nearly $1 million already, while we are told to wait for action.
Where are the government's priorities? In fact, where is the government?


THE SENATE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, talk about hypocrisy in this House.
Early yesterday the Minister of Finance and other members of cabinet called the Senate's $153 bonus for showing up for work inappropriate. Others call it ridiculous, some call it scandalous, others call it unacceptable, and others call it contemptible.
Yet, later in the day, who voted in favour of supplying the Senate with money to provide the $153? The Minister of Finance, the government House leader, the deputy government House leader, the chairman of the finance committee, and the chief government Whip. As a matter of fact, all the Conservatives voted to support

the Senate and all of the Liberals voted to support the Senate as well.
When it comes to telling the truth, let us face it, what they say is one thing but what they do is another. Shame on you cabinet ministers and shame on you Conservative Party members.


KOREAN-SOVIET SUMMIT
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, with the dramatic changes in eastern Europe and the excitement of the Gorbachev visit to Canada and the United States, almost lost in this excitement was the Korean-Soviet Summit between Mr. Gorbachev and the South Korean President Roh Tae-woo in San Francisco on Monday.
The two leaders agreed to exchange visits and are likely to hold ministerial talks on opening ambassador-level diplomatic ties this year.
This will end a gap in relations between the two nations that has lasted 86 years.
Mr. Speaker, this is further evidence that the cold war is thawing globally, and hopefully will lead to positive change in Asia.
This unprecedented meeting is another significant step to improved relations on the divided Korean peninsula and relations between South and North Korea.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
There is not a single economist in the country outside of the government service, nor is their a business leader in the country who will stake their reputation on the projection of the Minister of Finance in his February 20 budget that interest rates for the calendar year 1990 will average 11.1 per cent. Nobody in the country believes that.
Oral Questions
Does the minister know if there is any chance of reaching the target of 11.1 per cent and, if not, will he introduce the corrective measures that he discussed this week in his appearance before the finance Committee where he said the government would take major corrective measures if those were in fact required? Does he not believe that they are required now?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the interest rates have come down today by 20 basis points. The bank rate was just announced. That is on top of another drop which I believe was about one-eighth of one per cent last week. I would not, if I were the hon. member, jump to as fast and as hard conclusions as he has.
I indicated that the interest rate levels are higher than we had anticipated at the time of the budget. That obviously has the effect of putting upward pressure on the deficit, but since then we have announced the budget deficit number for last year which is $1 billion lower than what we had previously been expecting. That is the fourth time in a row that we have come in under our projection, I might add. That is because there have been higher revenues last year and those higher revenues are continuing into this year. We have two counterbalancing forces.
As I indicated to my hon. friend in the committee earlier this week, we will be reviewing this on an ongoing basis. If it is appropriate for us to take mid-term corrections then we will do so.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
This week, when the Minister of Finance appeared before the Finance Committee, he said that uncertainty about the constitutional question had been a factor in increasing interest rates in this country.
Since the bank rate went down by 20 points today, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether in view of his statement this week before the Finance Committee about the Meech Lake Accord, the minister can give Canadians the assurance that, if the constitutional impasse is resolved, interest rates in this country will continue to show a significant downward trend.

June 7, 1990
Oral Questions
[English\


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may want to answer that question, but it was a hypothetical question and I just point that out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I was going to caution my friend in drawing too fast conclusions again in his second question.
There is some element of risk premium in interest rates in recent weeks as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the Meech Lake Accord, but the fundamental problem our country is facing that is causing interest rates to be as high as they are is the inflationary pressures, which I have discussed at great length in the House to date.
What I have pointed out to colleagues is that the underlying cost pressures in the economy, as measured by unit labour costs, increased from 4.9 per cent at the start of 1989 to 6.9 per cent at the end of 1989, at the same time as those of our major competitors were staying steady at 5 per cent or less. These are the pressures that are causing the higher interest rates. If we are able to get these inflationary pressures under control, if we can see them turning down, then we will be able to see lower interest rates.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, Laurent Thibeault of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association says the government's monetary policy is going to perhaps permanently cripple Canadians' ability to compete in the international market. Steel industry representatives came in and talked about an 80 per cent drop in their profits in their latest quarter compared to last year.
George Petty of the pulp and paper industry called for the resignation or the dismissal of the Governor of the Bank of Canada because of his high interest rates and the artificially high dollar.
I know that the Minister of Finance is not prone to listen to advice from members opposite, but will he now listen to a wide variety of Canadian business leaders who are telling him that the high Canadian dollar is killing the manufacturing sector in this country and he must change his policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend would be the first to admit that he is selective in the witnesses that he has
chosen to quote. Yes, my hon. friend is acknowledging with the shake of his head that that probably is a correct statement.
The point that I want to make is that other witnesses before the Finance Committee have acknowledged that the monetary policy of the government is the right policy to follow, precisely for the reasons that I have suggested. That is, the competitive pressures in the economy are strong, the upward pressure on competitive costs is strong and we must continue this policy.
I point out that Mr. Rubin of Wood Gundy who is the author of the study that was quoted in the The Globe and Mail on Tuesday, is also very supportive of the monetary policy that this government has been following.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport suggested that the cabinet had no dealings with Manfred Ruhland, and I quote from Hansard:
It was sold as a going concern to the Fingold brothers. That is
exactly the way it happened. Any other suggestion is absolutely
incorrect.
I have here a copy of a sworn statement given on December 22,1988, to the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. The question asked by the Official Receiver: "Who represented CN in the negotiations and sale of Transport Route Canada Inc.?" The answer given by Manfred Ruhland included, amongst others representing CN, the name of the then Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister.
Will the minister now want to reconsider the statement given to the House yesterday?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, as a lawyer, will know that he should also have suggested as to exactly what time my friend was referring to. Were they discussions he talked to before or after the agreement of purchase and sale was signed?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, if I may.
On June 4, the Minister of Transport advised the House that CN Route was sold on an arm's length transaction with advice coming to the government from CN. The same sworn statement seems to state that that is not quite correct, when the then Minister of Transport was involved with the negotiations, as stated in this sworn document, given to the Official Receiver in
June 7, 1990

Bankruptcy on December 22, 1988. I wonder if I could have a comment on that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under different circumstances, we could probably try the entire case here, but that is not what Question Period is all about. I quote from CN's letter which says. "CN and no one else decided to sell its subsidiary after discussions with more than 30 companies beginning in 1985. Our negotiations on the sale were held directly with David Fingold, representing himself and his brother Paul as principal purchasers. Their financial credentials were very solid".


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Fisheries Act amendments introduced yesterday called for increased fines for those found guilty of dumping fish at sea, misreporting catches and for the alteration or pollution of fish habitat.
However, what assurances can the minister give the House that his department intends to do any more than pay lip service, given that officials in British Columbia region stated in a memo dated November 15, 1989: "DFO friendly corporations will enjoy relative immunity from the Fisheries Act"?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, was that a question or a statement?
If the hon. member, in a socialist way, is trying to make Canadians believe the acts of Parliament apply only to the poor fishermen and not to the big corporations, I invite him to check the facts.
The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act are laid out in the bill. If he wants to be truthful to Canadians-socialists love to be truthful-he should tell Canadians that for the first time officials of companies, licence holders and big corporations will be liable, for the
Oral Questions
first time, to be prosecuted under the amendment to the Fisheries Act.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, today, foreign vessels can be fined $500,000 for illegal entry into Canadian waters and $750,000 for illegal fishing.
In his final report, Dr. Harris said: "In practice, penalties have not even approached those levels". Will the minister explain why anyone should expect that the new penalties will be imposed when the existing ones are being ignored?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may want to reflect on the judges who are appointed to the courts in Canada. That is up to him. The Parliament of Canada is empowered to set what the fines can be, and it is left to the judiciary to apply the law.
If the hon. member is suggesting that the executive branch should infringe upon the powers of the judiciary, we do not share that view.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, may I just remind the hon. minister that it is not the New Democrats who appoint the judges.
According to the Fisheries Council of B.C., the ability of the federal government to protect the groundfish fishery is totally ineffective. Press reports tell of federal authorities routinely ordering the dumping of hundreds of tonnes of groundfish in order not to exceed DFO quotas. The destruction of the resource which has crippled the Atlantic industry is, with the connivance of the federal government officials, beginning to occur on the Pacific coast.
How will this legislation do anything to correct mismanagement on the part of federal government officials?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again the socialists are trying to blame the government officials for what is happening to the fishery.
The fact of the matter is that the act empowers the government to pass regulations.
When the hon. member speaks about discarding fish, it is not something that we advocate. We do not want to see

Oral Question
our fish resources depleted. We are in the process of looking at ways wherein we can ensure, for example, that people are not encouraged to discard fish at sea.
This is why the amendments that I introduced to the Fisheries Act yesterday will provide for the first time the minister of the Crown to make regulations for observers on those vessels where they will be enabled by law to take the necessary steps and measures to ensure that the awful things that the member sees do not happen anymore.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for privatization. It is bad enough that after Route Canada was taken over money was wasted on European vacations, luxury yachts, and private jets, and that 2,000 workers lost their jobs, but to add insult to injury, company assets and pension plans were used to attempt to finance an American trucking firm takeover.
Since the government was actually involved in this transaction, what policies has the government put in place to prevent this type of leverage buy-out in the future?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows very well that there is a full investigation being carried out by the RCMP. As well, this is also before the courts as a matter of bankruptcy. At this point, I am not prepared to comment on anything that is either under investigation or before the courts.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my question was simply one of asking what the government policy is, but obviously there is not any.
My supplementary question is directed to Minister of Transport.
We know that the government got its friends to do the dirty work in getting rid of 2,000 CN Route employees. We know that the government dealt directly with Manfred Ruhland. It is not good enough for the minister to try to wash his hands of this matter. When will the minister take his responsibility for the 2,000 jobs that he helped to destroy, and what is he going to do about it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, earlier we had mention of the gentleman my hon. friends were complaining about yesterday, and today evidence was introduced using an affidavit by this same individual. I am not sure they are exactly certain in their own party as to where they stand with this individual.
Here is where CN stands with the employees. It stated: "We negotiated special agreements to help ease the impact on employees not required to operate the new company profitably. We have met every one of our commitments to employees, pensioners, customers, and communities, including the payment of $23 million for separation and related costs of former CN Route employees".


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, for five days, the 11 First Ministers have been meeting behind closed doors to try to find a solution to the constitutional impasse over the Meech Lake Accord. Given Canadians' great interest in this subject and the concern that still prevails, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could give the House an up-to-date report on the negotiations and perhaps also tell us a little about the issues that are now in dispute.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my hon. friend and to the House is that the First Ministers are still meeting and working.
There is, I am told, step-by-step progress. There is a mood of co-operation and trust. However, there are a number of difficult issues that still remain unresolved. Consequently, there is not an agreement on a total package and, until such time as there is agreement on a total package, they will continue to meet.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer.
I want to know if the government would commit today to tabling all the documents that were used or distributed by the federal government for the consideration of the federal-provincial conference as soon as the confer-
June 7, 1990

ence comes out of the meetings in secret and is made public? I would like to get a copy of these documents for the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that an exchange of various documents is taking place as a part of the discussions. Before I undertake to do that, obviously, it would require the consent of the First Ministers as well.
At this particular time, as long as progress is being made-and I know my hon. friend and his colleagues hope to see this evolve to a satisfactory conclusion-it is very important to let the process work. At the appropriate time, there would obviously be a desire on the part of everyone involved to ensure that the public is informed as fully as possible.
For the time being, I simply want to reiterate that, as long as discussions continue and as long as progress is being made, there is always a ray of hope.


ROUTE CANADA
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In addition to the revelation that Mr. Ruhland swore that the member for Vegreville, in his former capacity as Transport Minister, was among those who represented CN in the negotiations and sale of TRCI-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is nonsense!


Iain Francis Angus: He also went on to state:
CN were aware of the real estate split (intended) prior to purchase and knew that other (split-offs) reorganization things would happen. They were party to the deeds being conveyed to the other companies. The deeds of various pieces of real estate.
Given those comments by one of the principals, will the minister now admit that the government, as the sole shareholder of CN, knew all along the plans that Ruhland had for the 2,400 employees of Route Canada? Will the government now take its moral, if not legal, responsibility and immediately announce an aid package that will give back to the workers the back pay, the
Oral Question
vacation pay, the severance pay, and the pension moneys that are owed to them?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this is amusing. On the one hand, the Opposition has all sorts of allegations against an individual and, on the other hand, they quote him. They cannot have it both ways.
There is no question that CN, and no one else, decided to sell its subsidiary after discussions with more than 30 companies beginning in 1985. Our negotiations on the sale were held directly with David Fingold, representing himself and his brother Paul as principal purchasers. Their financial credentials were very solid. That is it. CN sold the assets.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I take it from the minister's answer, which did not deal with the specifics of my question, that one can only assume that the government was at the table and that the government and CN did know in advance that this particular company was going to carve off sections of land and assets in order to assist in the situation. The government knew what this company was going to do.
Will the minister indicate yes or no? Did the government know in advance that these folks were going to carve up CN Route and sell off its assets?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I dispute all of the assertions and allegations in my hon. friend's preamble. The answer is no.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will know that yesterday some 20 members of Parliament, as well as senators, issued a report entitled Confronting a Crisis, the Report of the Parliamentary Ad Hoc on AIDS.
I would like to ask the minister if he would concur with recommendation no. 1 which reads, and I quote:
The Committee recommends that a Special Joint Committee of Parliament be established as soon as possible to study and make recommendations on all aspects of the AIDS epidemic in Canada.

Oral Questions
Does the minister concur with that recommendation and, if so, when will he make that announcement to the House?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was at my initiative that the special ad hoc committee was formed. I was the one who encouraged the formation of that committee. I want to thank the members of that committee for the report which they released yesterday. It will be very helpful to us in the completion of our work on the national strategy.
There is already a House of Commons committee on health which gives members of Parliament the opportunity to raise all issues related to health, including AIDS, and the ad hoc committee itself provides a non-partisan forum for members of the House of Commons and of the Senate to look specifically at the issue of AIDS. We will be looking at all of the recommendations that have been made. I thank the members for their constructive suggestions and we will be responding when the national strategy is released on June 28.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the minister that the members who participated in this ad hoc committee did so on a non-partisan basis and recommended that particular recommendation in a non-partisan way as well. I would hope that the minister would give serious reflection to that very important recommendation.
My second question for the minister has to do with the recommendation whereby "the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the Correctional Service of Canada, immediately set up a pilot study-with appropriate ethical safeguards, to assess the level of HIV infection in federal prisons."
Could the minister indicate to the House what has transpired between his department and that of the Correctional Service in regard to the possibility of a pilot study in order to ascertain this much needed information?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the hon. member that, both in terms of recommendation no. 1 and in terms of all 50 recommendations that are made there, the government will actively look at every recommendation that has been made. We will be responding in the
form of the national strategy on June 28. Where there are recommendations that involve more than one department, I certainly will be discussing those recommendations with my colleagues on an active basis.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Earlier this week, the Conservative majority in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration tabled a report recommending slower growth in Canadian immigration levels. Will the minister now reject this timid, pessimistic recommendation, and give us her position on this important matter?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for its report and what has actually been a very interesting debate in the country over the last six months. We have engaged in a series of consultations across Canada about immigration levels and what they should be over the next five years, as well as the composition and services that should be provided within that context.
This is the first time in 15 years that there has been a national discussion of immigration and the committee's report has made an important contribution as well. I will be looking at it and the careful work that the committee has done, as well as the work from the other groups we have been discussing the issues with, when I discuss this with my cabinet colleagues.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not know that our immigration levels were over 200,000 several times in the past, when our population and services were smaller, and that several experts before the committee demonstrated that immigrants create jobs, produce wealth, and pay substantial taxes? Why then is she supporting this retrograde recommendation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member consult with his colleague, the member for York West, who has thrown out all sorts of numbers on what immigration levels should be. In 1988 he talked about 150,000 to 170,000 and then he talked about 185,000. I would like to know where the opposition
June 7, 1990

Oral Questions
stands and what it thinks immigration levels should be, because it changes every month.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister will know that in testimony before the standing committee both the Atomic Energy Control Board and the National Energy Board have confirmed that they will be doing EARP reviews of various projects within their respective jurisdictions. That includes everything from a possible new nuclear plant in New Brunswick to the northern gas pipeline, the Hibernia project, and others in the future.
The problem is that neither board has the ability to grant intervenor funding to those who otherwise would not be able to afford to appear before them in the environmental assessment review process.
When will intervener funding-in fact, will intervener funding-be put in place that these boards may disburse to allow those who do not possess louder voices to appear before them?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct when he says we have discussed this issue before the standing committee. I am sure that he would recognize, as all members of the House would recognize, that one cannot preclude what legislation and the form of legislation will take prior to its tabling.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, setting aside the question of legislation that may or may not be introduced in this House, will the minister undertake to guarantee the House now that no major EARP proceeding will go forward under either board without provisions for intervener funding in place?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made the representation. I say to him that when the Minister of the Environment tables the legislation, these questions can all be answered.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
For two years, you have been co-operating with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on the GST to reach the Conservative government's goal of ensuring that municipalities will not have a bigger tax burden when the GST takes effect next January 1 than they already do.
Can the minister explain to Canadians today the major benefit that municipalities will derive from a 3 per cent GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment a year ago that the GST would not be a bigger burden for municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.
We reached an agreement with the municipalities for an effective sales tax rate of 3 per cent, as I announced last week. Therefore I have respected my commitment.

I have respected the commitment that I made. I believe that the municipalities are pleased that we have been able to reach this agreement. The fact is that we have a treatment for these institutions which we can follow with the hospitals, the universities and the schools so that they also will not have an increase in the federal sales tax that they will pay.


WHARFS AND HARBOURS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Dredgers and fishermen in Atlantic Canada are demanding that harbours be dredged. Fishing boats have run aground in several harbours creating dangerous situations. Also, dredgers have no employment.
Could the minister explain to the House why his department is stalling on the dredging issue and why dredging has not begun in most Atlantic harbours?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I authorized a

June 7, 1990
Oral Questions
lot of contracts to be given for dredging in communities in all of Atlantic Canada. I suspect that if the hon. member wants to take the time to have a little ride in Atlantic Canada, he will see some dredging taking place.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of dredgers unemployed in Atlantic Canada.
My supplementary question regards the lack of wharf repairs. Many wharfs in Atlantic Canada are in serious need of repair. Last month, the wharf at Stanley Bridge, P.E.I. collapsed on the eve of the lobster fishing season.
I have made the minister aware of which wharfs are in the most urgent need of repair. Given these facts, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans act immediately to repair these wharfs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know there are requirements for wharf repairs in many of the communities in Atlantic Canada. We do not have the resources to do all of them. We are doing some of them, according to priorities established by Small Crafts and Harbours.
The hon. member could check with his colleague from Beausejour. This member could tell him that imminently, probably next week, a lot of repairs will be taking place in his own riding. We can do some. We try to answer the priorities and we will continue doing that.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She has now had time to read the report on the crisis situation facing women who are living in poverty. Instead of cutting women's programs, could the minister tell the House what she intends to do now to help these women?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, the report to which my hon. colleague
refers was a background document for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
I met with the council yesterday and we discussed the recommendations. As my colleague knows, they are very broad and cover many different aspects, some under provincial and some under federal jurisdiction. I have asked the council to advise me as to what the priorities should be, what should be the most important areas.
Also, I am pleased to advise my colleague that this government has already undertaken a variety of initiatives that are consistent with the recommendations of the report.
For example, my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration, is proposing to expand training funds by something in the order of $8 million, which will, assist women to attain the training which is required to assist them out of poverty.
Along with a variety of other initiatives, this will ensure that we will continue the important trend we have seen since 1986, where we are reducing the number and the percentage of women who are living in poverty.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, if only the picture were so rosy for the 60 per cent of Canada's poor who happen to be female.
The minister and I both attended the Women in Power Conference in Montreal this week. The host country, Canada, allows the feminization of poverty and slashes the few programs that do assist women.
Will this minister fight for the recommendations made by the Advisory Council, specifically increased pay equity and more public sector jobs for women, or is she too as a woman simply powerless?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my colleague would ask that question. I think the women in this House are, as are the women in Canada, full of power, energy and the improvement of our status throughout this country. The conference in Montreal was an interesting example.
My colleague also knows that it was this government that has provided the leadership on pay equity, that has in fact negotiated the first pay equity settlement for our
June 7, 1990

own public servants. This is the kind of work that starts at home.
Last week, as I met with my provincial colleagues, the ministers responsible for the status of women, we reviewed the situation across the country. We have seen the good efforts that the province of Ontario has put forward. Many of the other provinces are considering similar kinds of approaches, as we move forward to a more comprehensive implementation of pay equity across this country.


DIEFENBAKER CENTRE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister from Saskatchewan, the Minister of National Defence, and it concerns federal government funding for the Diefenbak-er Centre at the University of Saskatchewan.
As we all know, this unique centre houses an invaluable resource covering Mr. Diefenbaker's tenure as Prime Minister of Canada, as well as much more. Two months ago, the minister was reported as saying that an announcement of federal funding would be ready within two weeks. As the minister knows, the federal funding support is not available-


Mr. McKnight:: That was your announcement, that was not mine.


Chris Axworthy: -if
federal funding support is not forthcoming, the centre will close at the end of the month.
Can the minister advise this House whether it is his government's intention to save the Diefenbaker Centre and, if so, when and with how much money?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see there is so much interest in preserving the memory of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, but I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Communications will take care of the situation.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, time is running out and the centre will close at the end of the month if money is not
Oral Questions
forthcoming. It is an important western institution, recognizing the achievements of an important western Canadian. It is time the Diefenbaker Centre and the University of Saskatchewan had the answer.
Can the minister not tell us, with three weeks left before the centre will close, when the centre will get an indication of how much money it will get, and would he commit himself to making sure that this happens right away?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the socialist member that this government will be far more zealous in preserving the memory of John Diefenbaker than the New Democratic Party ever was.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear that the Department of Fisheries is going to start major repairs in my riding, because we certainly need them.
The fact remains that lobster fishermen in my region, in the province of New Brunswick and throughout Atlantic Canada, are very disturbed about the negative decision by the free trade panel. How does the minister intend to compensate these fishermen for the $30 million they stand to lose as a result Of U.S. protectionist measures?
The fishermen are very disturbed about this.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I realize fishermen are disturbed, in the present circumstances. However, we must admit that although people asked us literally to throw millions at problems when prices were lower, we now see the situation is improving and that prices are going up.
Concerning the decision of the free trade panel, as my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs said before, steps have been taken, and at the present time, the parties are trying to see whether a conclusion can be reached that will benefit both U.S. and Canadian lobster fishermen.
The process is continuing and we hope everything will turn out all right.

June 7, 1990
Oral Questions


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I hope means will be found to help the fishermen because they are in a veiy difficult situation.
With respect to marketing and promoting fish products, the staff at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now at its lowest level in years. Can the minister tell us whether he will hire more staff to deal with the marketing and promotion of fish products?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that quite recently the government, with the co-operation of colleagues in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, has earmarked $2.4 million for marketing lobster products. For the first time my colleague the Minister for International Trade has launched very aggressive sales promotion campaigns on the European and Asian markets. Lobster fishermen can only benefit from all these measures- Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to agree with me, but I can tell him that a few months ago we had huge lobster stocks in the Atlantic region and, thanks to the promotion efforts of the federal government and the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, these stocks have been drastically reduced.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
This spring the minister said that it was too soon to set targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, this week the new Environment Minister said his government is committed to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at the present level by the year 2000.
I want to ask the minister whether he agrees with the Minister of the Environment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, along with a number of his colleagues, is having consultations with Canadians on The Green Plan. I have had the opportunity to be with him at a number of consultations. As we have announced before, the purpose of those consultations is to finalize what are the recommendations from the public. They will then be put together in a green plan, approved by Cabinet, and announced.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment said that the policy of the government was to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Energy agrees with that statement, yes or no? If he does, when will he have a plan in place to meet the carbon dioxide emissions target?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to quibble with the hon. member. Just as a matter of detail, the hon. member mentions C02. If she checks the statement, she will find that it was greenhouse gases rather than C02 specifically that the minister mentioned. As to the timing and the announcements, I answered that in the first answer.


NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who eight months ago received the report of the task force on northern benefits and northern allowances. Hundreds, almost thousands of communities in northern Canada have been waiting in limbo for eight months for some idea as to what is happening to that northern allowance. I ask the Minister of Finance today: Is he prepared to reject the recommendations in that task force now, and is he prepared to announce a new program that provides fair and equitable tax treatment for those people in our communities?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we did put in place a permanent regime as opposed to the very temporary regime that had been in place prior to our taking office in 1984.
There are some problems with the current regime, as my friend is only too aware, and it is for that reason we have asked the task force to consider these problems of the borderlines between communities that receive the northern benefit and those which do not receive the northern benefit. We are looking at the task force report. I have also asked for some considerations for some options that might be considered in order to meet the

needs of the people in these communities. I have not completed that work but when I have completed it, I will make those views known.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have been notified that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons for the electoral district of York North in the province of Ontario by reason of a certificate of judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario declaring the election void and invalid which I am now tabling.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new Writ of Election for the electoral district.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: As
House Leader for the Official Opposition, I would like, like every Thursday, to ask the government house leader what will be the business of the House tomorrow and also next week, particularly Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I intend to call Bill C-69, the expenditure restraint bill, to commence third reading and to continue with third reading on Monday, hopefully to completion. On Tuesday it would be my hope to call for report stage and third reading if possible of Bill C-52, Income Tax Act amendments respecting pensions. On Wednesday, June 13,1 would hope that we would be able to consider three bills for which there is a fair amount of agreement and little contention, namely Bill C-54, joinder of counts;
Business of the House
Bill C-66 animal diseases; and Bill C-67, dealing with plant pests.
In any event, I may require consent of the House to proceed with those if they are not back from committee to give the required notice to the House, but I will engage in discussions with the House leaders of the opposition parties on this issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to my hon. friend, the government House leader regarding Bill C-46. A lot of people are anxious to see the rapid passage of Bill C-46, that is the conflict of interest legislation. Has the hon. member decided when he is going to bring that forward?


Harvie Andre: No, a final decision on that has not yet been made but just as soon as it is, I will get back to my hon. friend.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, to follow up, one of the things that I know the government House leader is interested in is the obligation of the government to table its reports and papers on a speedy basis. The Treasury Board prepares this quarterly report to Parliament on those reports. I note from the most recent report that the Royal Canadian Mint has not yet tabled its 1990-94 corporate plan summary and its 1990 capital budget summary which were due on March 9 of this year.
I know that the government house leader is most interested in ensuring that these things are done on a timely basis and I wonder if he could let us know if he would look into the matter and have those documents put before Parliament promptly.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will do that in my own self-interest. The phone has been ringing off the hook by people demanding to see that report. I will get after the Minister of Supply and Services to make sure it is tabled as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Members of this House will be interested to know that a former colleague of some of us and a former member of this place, Fred Stenson, died on June 5. Some members have requested the House to give tributes. I know the House would be in accordance with that. I call first the hon. member for Peterborough.
Tributes


TRIBUTES
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1990

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to the late Fred Stenson, who was a member of Parliament between 1962 and 1965. Fred represented the riding of Peterborough which I now have the honour to represent. Fred passed away this past Tuesday at the age of 75. His funeral service is being held today in Peterborough.
To my knowledge there are only two members left in the House today who were here when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister and when Fred Stenson was an MP. They are the member for Windsor West and the member for Saint-Denis. I am sure they both have very fond memories of Fred. I should also point out that the Hon. Stanley Knowles, now honorary clerk of the table, was also a member of the House during Mr. Stenson's term of office.
As reported in The Peterborough Examiner last night, Fred was often referred to as a doer. He was guided by the principle that instead of sitting around and talking about something, it is better to simply get up and do it. This philosophy was followed by Fred throughout his very distinguished career.
Prior to his election to Parliament in 1962, Fred served as trustee on the North Monaghan School Board. He then was elected to the North Monaghan Township Council for 10 years. He served as Reeve for four years and Deputy Reeve for two.
Fred Stenson was perhaps best known in the Peterborough area for his very successful farm. This love of the land remained with him after his election to the House where he maintained an acute interest in agricultural issues, working diligently to improve the plight of the farmers not only in his own constituency but in all parts of the country.
After his defeat in the election of 1965, a defeat that he took with distinction, Fred returned to his farm at which he worked tirelessly right up to the time of his death. It was also in this capacity, as an avid farmer, that you would see Fred every Saturday at the Peterborough Farmers' Market working at a very large fruit and vegetable stand. In fact, even last Saturday Fred was
there at his usual spot doing what he loved best, keeping in touch with the people and listening to their concerns.
It would be there at the Farmers' Market that I would often run into Fred. I would occasionally get his assessment of what he saw as the important issues in the region. This ability to fully understand the Peterborough area right from the grassroots level and up was what made Fred Stenson truly unique.
For myself, stepping into Fred's shoes some years later, it was these qualities that made him such an invaluable source of help and guidance to me. I will miss him a great deal.
To his wife Bernice, their children, Sally, Robert and Arthur, his sisters, Beryl, Muriel and Norma and all of their families, on behalf of myself and all members of this House, I extend our deep and sincere condolences.


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry to learn that Fred Stenson had passed away. I recall him as a serious concerned individual, a person who built on his previous career as a school trustee, as a member of township council, as a Reeve, to provide an example of serious, solid public service.
Fred Stenson provides an example of the kind of serious, solid public service which has helped to build so many of our communities and our country at large. This example should be important to all of us and, therefore, I am pleased to pay tribute at this time to Fred and to his memory.
I would like to express my deep and sincere sympathy to his wife, his children and his entire family. I hope that the memories of Fred and his contributions to family life and his community will help them surmount the sadness they face at his passing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to Mr. Fred Stenson.
While I was not a parliamentarian when Mr. Stenson served in a very distinguished way in this House, my friend and colleague, Mr. Stanley Knowles, the hon. clerk at the table, was.
Earlier today I spoke with Stanley about his recollections of Fred Stenson. Stanley remembers Fred as a respected colleague, a colleague who was admired by all and was a very likeable man. He was a grassroots
June 7, 1990

politician. Stanley described him as a person who spent a lot of time serving his constituents well and with distinction.
He was a hard worker. Mr. Knowles indicated that in committee work, in the House, in his constituency and about the country, he worked hard and spent time on a one-to-one basis with people, serving them in that capacity as opposed to speaking in the House of Commons at length.
He was an active man, involved in politics at the local level, indeed at the federal level. He was a realtor, service station operator and, above all, he was a farmer. In that capacity, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Stenson spent many hours discussing ways and means of assisting the farmer and the farm community during his time as a member of Parliament.
He was very active in his community. As the present member for Peterborough has indicated, only this past weekend Mr. Stenson was working in his stall in a Peterborough market. People over the years always knew him to be there serving his constituency and representing the community.
On behalf of a former colleague, Mr. Knowles, and the New Democratic Party, I say to Mrs. Stenson, his family and friends, our hearts and thoughts are with you today.


Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak of the late Fred Stenson. I enjoyed the privilege of his company and his advice.
He was the first man to lead me through the House of Commons. He did so in a very capable manner. That was prior to the election of 1965, when I was a young aspiring candidate.
Fred had quite a reputation as a good community man. He was a man people trusted. He was a man well respected throughout the entire county of Peterborough. He was involved in civic politics also. He was a doer, not a taker. He was ready to help an individual anywhere in the country. This is what Fred leaves. He leaves a great legacy that some people will follow and for which Fred is respected.
I join with other members of the House of Commons here today in paying tribute to Fred Stenson. I want to
Routine Proceedings
offer my deepest condolence to his family, his good wife and his many associates in the city of Peterborough, and the county of Peterborough in which I live.
I have many present and past reflections of his community activities, his style of life and his belief in his country.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being here when Mr. Fred Stenson was a member of the House and I think that the leader of the Opposition, my party leader, has ably put into words our feelings on this occasion. I join him in extending my sincere condolences to Mr. Stenson's family. I sat with the hon. member in this House and I can say that, like you and my two colleagues, we remember him very warmly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a further petition against the goods and services tax.
It is interesting to note that I received this petition from one of the petitioners just a couple of weeks ago, an accountant in the town of Grand Forks.
It is clear from this petition that the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt are still diametrically opposed to the goods and services tax and ask the government to bring in a fairer tax system, fairer to all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the province of Newfoundland: Dunfield, Bonaventure, Goose Cove, and Trinity. These persons are opposed to the government's proposed goods and services tax.

June 7, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The petition was gathered by my hon. and gallant colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. I know he has expressed the views of his constituents as set out in this petition.
They object to this unfair tax. They are sick and tired of Tory taxes being imposed on them one after another. They call upon Parliament to reject this tax.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I too rise today to submit a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from a number of constituents in Ontario, and Ottawa particularly, who have expressed their opposition to the goods and services tax.
Canadians have not given up the fight against the goods and services tax. They have asked those of us on this side of the Elouse of Commons to continue to voice our opposition to this tax in the hope that the government will come to its senses and withdraw the bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,000 Canadians who have signed a petition urging Parliament and in particular calling on the government to bring forward tougher gun control legislation.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in the riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island.
Canada Post has plans to amalgamate several of the rural routes in the Kensington area. These constituents feel that it will lead to a delay in postal services of up to six hours for some people.
They call upon Parliament to resolve that Canada Post does not proceed with plans to amalgamate the rural routes but instead maintains the rural route system and upgrades postal service.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista -Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 have the duty and honour to present a petition from the constituents of my riding building on the numbers that
were just put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I have 45 signatures here from the northern part of my riding: Templeman, Wesleyville, Pound Cove, and Newtown.
These petitioners are very concerned about the level of economic activity now existent in Newfoundland, the difficulty in the fisheries, and all the other dismal economic outlooks that have been put upon them. They have recently been given the benefit of a northern tax allowance change, and there is a recommendation that that be abolished as well.
They consider the goods and services tax a very definite hardship, and they are asking Parliament to reject this measure of the government.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to present further petitions signed by Canadians from Windsor through Hamilton to St. Catharines to Toronto regarding the issue in Lithuania.
The petitioners are very concerned that the Soviet Union has put an economic blockade around Lithuania, cutting off fuel to the country and cutting off even basic medical supplies.
Yesterday we hosted a delegation from the Soviet Union. We appealed to them yesterday. I appeal to them today while they are still in our country that when they return to the Soviet Union they sit down with officials from Lithuania and negotiate a resolution so that all three Baltic States can work and trade on a friendly basis with the Soviet Union as they want to do, but they want to do it as individual, independent states.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to table a petition again today of more Canadians joining millions of others in protesting the planned imposition by this government of a 7 per cent sales tax on goods and services starting in January 1991.
These people-and there are hundreds in this petition-claim this tax will be hidden from Canadians, that it will impose upon them a serious and unfair hardship,
June 7, 1990

and that the imposition of the tax will create onerous burdens for small business.
They believe this to be the biggest unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians in the history of Canada which will hit Canadians not only with higher taxes and higher inflation but higher interest rates and higher unemployment. They pray that this Parliament refuse to go ahead with this initiative.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who point out their concern in terms of the increasing number of children living in poverty in Canada.
They are calling upon the Government of Canada to introduce a comprehensive bill of rights for children in an effort to remove child poverty from this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of a number of residents from the constituency of Kamloops who point out their concern regarding the government's decision to cut back on passenger rail service.
They are asking the government to invest in a modern, first-class transportation rail system to move passengers across Canada like every other country in the world is now doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, they do not give up, these petitioners. Nearly 21,000 petitioners from Kamloops alone are opposed to the goods and services tax. That is about one-third of the population.
If they were here they would ask the Liberals in the Senate to do the honourable thing and defeat the bill in the Senate. I think they have given up on the government in terms of stopping legislation, so their appeal goes to the Liberal dominated Senate.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to join with the hon. member for
Routine Proceedings
Kamloops and indeed with so many of our Liberal colleagues this afternoon in rising to present a petition. This one is signed by a number of residents of the city of Ottawa and its environs.
They humbly pray that Parliament reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.
I would note that Parliament includes the Senate where the Liberals do enjoy a majority. I would, on behalf of these petitioners, entreat the Liberals to put their Senate majority where their mouth is and kill the GST.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present a petition, certified correct by the clerk of petitions, from 28,133 Calgarians and Albertans who feel that the GST is regressive, will hamper the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, and reduce the standard of living of the average Canadian.
These 28,000 signatures have been collected by a great Canadian, Mr. George Deveau from Calgary. Mr. De-veau and the petitioners feel that the government should withdraw this unfair form of taxation immediately.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, question No. 291 will be answered today.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): For the postal area of Orangedale, Nova Scotia, (a) what were the total operating costs of the Post Office for each of the fiscal years from 1987 to 1989 (b) how does Canada Post arrive at the value of contracts for retail postal outlets which replace existing post offices? (c) what is the negotiation process involved in awarding such contracts and in particular the retail postal outlet in Orangedale (d) what were the amounts offered to local stores to act as retail postal outlets (e) what would be the cost of Rural Route delivery?

June 7, 1990
Government Orders


Harvie Andre: I am
informed by Canada Post Corporation as follows:
a)	The revenues and operating costs of individual post offices are not made public by Canada Post Corporation.
b)	The value of contracts for retail postal outlets is based on actual work performed. Individual details are a private contractual relationship which are not disclosed by Canada Post Corporation. Remuneration is on a gross margin and fee-for-service basis.
c)	Canada Post discusses the service requirements and remuneration (as in (b) above) with interested businesses and evaluates all applications received. Canada Post does not negotiate between businesses with regard to remuneration. Service, security and credit considerations dictate the successful applicant. At this time, Canada Post has not secured a retail postal outlet in Orangedale.
d)	The contractual arrangement between Canada Post Corporation and local businesses is a private business relationship and the values of such contracts are not made public.
e)	Rural route delivery is provided by a contractor. The value of this contract, as any other, is not made public.
The value of a rural contract is determined by the tender process, and the value will ultimately be determined by the number of customers served and the distances travelled. Contract values are not made public.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question mentioned by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, An Act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Barrett (p. 8146).
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
TVade): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the bill before the House today. It is a very important piece of legislation for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and as a matter of fact for Atlantic Canada and for the country as a whole because it will have substantial economic benefits not just for eastern Canada but across the country, including the great province of Alberta and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as well.
Of course the legislation deals with the Hibernia project. I believe in 1979 the consortium led by a Mobile Oil and the others who participate in it-Chevron, Gulf Canada and Petro-Canada- discovered oil off the east coast of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland in what is known as the Hibernia fields. It is now 11 years later, Madam Speaker, so you can see how difficult it has been to resolve all the issues involved in bringing this oilfield into production. It has taken 11 years to get the project to this stage.
It is a massive project. It is a project that is taking place physically in an area-I have not had a chance to research all the statistics for this occasion because we have been busy in other directions-something like 170 miles off the shores of Newfoundland in an area that is frequently ice traversed, particularly during the winter and spring and where there are many problems to be faced and overcome in preparing to develop and take out the oil which lies beneath the surface of the land and sea in that particular area.
June 7, 1990
[Stage Direction]
In 1985 there was finally a breakthrough with respect to jurisdiction over the offshore oil and gas resources that lay off Newfoundland and Labrador. That was a matter that was in dispute for a period of three or four years. It was settled by the government of which I am a member. I am veiy delighted and proud to have been a member and to be a member of the government that solved the conundrum and entered into an agreement with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide for a fair way of managing this resource in which both the province and the Government of Canada would share.
That agreement known as the Atlantic Accord is being carried into effect by the legislation before the House today. From the summer of 1985 it took a further three years to July 1988 for all the detailed negotiations to be completed among the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mobil, and the Mobil consortium. The consortium that is going to develop and produce the oil of the Hibernia field is headed by Mobil Oil of Canada, and I think I have named the other parties involved in the consortium already. It took three years of hard negotiations to bring the project to the stage where all the issues were resolved with respect to agreement in principle. That was completed and announced in July 1988.
However, the completion of the final legal agreements necessary for this project took longer than expected. It was hoped it would be only a year, but rather than the project going forward in its final form in 1989, it is now our hope and our objective that the project will get its final approval in the summer of 1990.1 want to thank and congratulate the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his two predecessors for their work in bringing the project forward to this stage.
We have heard much in this House this year about the economic difficulties suffered by the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those who are connected with or associated with the fishery. We have heard considerable discussion both in this House and in the province of Newfoundland on the need for economic diversification in Newfoundland.
Government Orders
We have had an extensive regional development program in effect in Newfoundland for many years, including an accelerated program under the aegis of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which has been operating for the last two or three years, and I think quite successfully.
However, it does not matter what financial assistance is made available, it is a very difficult matter to diversify economically the province beyond the natural resources of the province, its advantages of location or what have you. These resources in Newfoundland, the fishery, the minerals and the forests have been developed. What further are we going to diversify in? If there are problems in the fishery and we have to diversify so plant workers and those who are now fishing may have other economic opportunities, what are they going to be?
I have been in politics or public life for the last 25 years. My conclusion is this. There is no opportunity for any great economic diversification in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is not associated in some way with the sea; either what is in the sea, what goes on the sea, or what lies under the sea, as well as with our geographic location and the other natural resources that I have mentioned.
Our only major opportunity for economic diversification other than what already exists in Newfoundland lies with this offshore mineral potential, not just the Hibernia field but with the Terra Nova field and other fields that have already been identified and that will be developed once Hibernia is under way.
Since 1979, we have developed a number of high-tech industries in Newfoundland. These are companies which over the last several years have been just clinging on. Some are successful doing work in other parts of the world. There is a whole series of high-tech companies and persons now in Newfoundland, particularly located in eastern Newfoundland, who are ready to exploit the opportunities of the offshore once Hibernia starts and they are very anxious to see this project going forward.
I am very pleased to support this bill because I think that anyone who appreciates the need for economic diversification or other economic alternatives for the working man and woman of Newfoundland and Labra-
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1990
Government Orders
dor will realize that this is the only real alternative that presents itself.
This is a project that is receiving veiy considerable economic assistance from the Government of Canada. If Newfoundland was not part of the great Dominion of Canada, as it used to be called, I do not know where the necessary assistance would come from to see that this project was developed. I think that is something the people of Newfoundland and Labrador might well keep in mind at the present time.
I have not had a chance to refresh my memory today as to all of the means of assistance of the Government of Canada on this project, but I believe that our basic assistance is $2.7 billion which the Government of Canada is providing by way of grant or by way of guarantees of loans for this project. While I cannot guarantee these figures, the Hibernia project itself is going to require a cost, roughly, before it comes into production, of $5.1 billion.
So the investors in this project are going to have to put in $5.1 billion before they have an opportunity to receive one cent of return on their investment. The total capital investment will be $8.6 billion before the Hibernia field is completely developed and the oil removed. The operating costs during that same period will be another $12 billion.
These figures may be outdated, but the positive estimate of the contents of the field are 680 million barrels. The minister indicates that has since gone up with a probability of 890 million barrels. The minister can bring these figures up to date as there may have been improvement.
There has been some degree of cynicism in Newfoundland and Labrador as to whether this project was ever going to go. This is not unexpected when one remembers that the Hibernia was first discovered in 1979. Nevertheless, since 1984 when the present administration headed by the Prime Minister took over, there has been steady progress. It is not a question of there being just promises, there has been considerable performance.
I would just like to mention in that connection the fact that in 1985 Canada and Newfoundland agreed that there should be a Canada-Newfoundland offshore development fund to help Newfoundland and Labrador get ready for the development of Hibernia. That was a $300 million fund, 75 per cent being put up by the Government of Canada and 25 per cent by the Government of Newfoundland.
As of the end of last January that fund had been used for a great many projects. It was used to prepare the province and the people for the project to go ahead so that they could take the maximum advantage of it when it started. To date, the projects approved in principle amount to $132,601,000, with total costs of projects approved and approved in principle to date of $236,625,000. A great deal of that money has already been spent.
Hibernia is not merely a promise repeated by politicians. Hibernia is already performance. From that fund we have constructed the Centre for Earth Resources Research at Memorial University in Newfoundland, $27,100,000; an offshore survival centre, $5,000,000; skills training projects, $3,000,000; computer aided design facility in engineering, $1,150,000; the centre for Cold Ocean Resources Engineering, $5,000,000; the Centre for Excellence in Marine Signal Processing, $7,400,000.
These are not projects for creating temporary jobs. These are all devoted to the long-term training of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the young people who will be trained in these kinds of facilities.
Other projects include the Offshore Technology Transfer Opportunities Program, $3,000,000; Petroleum Technology Training Programs, $21,100,000; access road to the Cow Head Oil Rig Repair Facility in Placentia Bay, $614,000; the Institute for Marine Dynamics and the new wave generator, owned by the Government of Canada in St. John's, $3,500,000; the Marine Offshore Simulator Training Centre, $12,818,000. On and on it goes, moneys expended from this fund, provided principally by the Government of Canada with a substantial contribution by the Government of Newfoundland.
Approved in principle is $34,500,000 to enhance the offshore fabrication capability of Maiystown shipyard, the great Newfoundland shipyard in Placentia Bay. The sum of $95 million is being committed to the construction of the gravity-based structure and the main support frame facility for Hibernia. This is $95 million to ensure that the gravity-based structure, along with other facilities, the main support frame facilities, the top-side facilities and the like can be constructed in Newfoundland. As a matter of fact the main site is going to be at Bull Arm in Trinity Bay in the district of the hon. member sitting opposite, Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It is just a mile or two from the great district of St.
June 7, 1990
[Stage Direction]
John's West and Placentia Bay, not far from the Bull Arm area.
This is going to be a great shot in the hon. gentleman's Bull Arm. It will be a great employment generator in the area of Placentia Bay and the district of St. John's West, in fact in all of eastern Newfoundland, and I hope in all of Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta, which will be the other main centre.
We are dealing with a project that is imperial in size and concept, difficult to carry out and execute. But I think that Mobil and its associated companies have the people who can pull off this construction feat and get this field going. But they cannot do it, because of the frontier conditions under which he project must go ahead, without the assistance of the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, with the $2.7 billion and other means as described in the bill that is now before the House.
There was a change of government in Newfoundland a year ago last April and former Premier Peckford was associated with the great battle to ensure that Newfoundland had at least joint management of this offshore resource. Mr. Peckford did not run in the last election and was succeeded by Premier Wells who led the Liberal Party to victory in April, 1989. Mr. Wells is in the capital today in connection with the Meech Lake Constitutional Conference.
Premier Wells said, and I really do not think he can be serious, but he did say publicly several times that this project was the equivalent of two fish plants being established in Newfoundland. That misses the point entirely.
I do not have the exact employment creation figures but I believe that during construction there will be approximately 35,000 jobs connected with the project. Once it is finished and the field is producing, direct employment will be in the area of 1,100.
That, of course, is directly on the project, but there will be dozens upon dozens and hundreds and thousands of Newfoundlanders employed in companies servicing the development and servicing further developments
Government Orders
that will come once Hibernia is established. A lot of those jobs will be high tech, very skilled jobs, just as they have been from the beginning.
We have dozens and dozens of entrepreneurs in Newfoundland who have prepared themselves, many of them with the help of government, for the opportunities that will come with this development.
This is a development not just in the economic interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the other parts of the country I have mentioned. It is a project in the national interest because it is in the national interest to overcome regional disparity in Newfoundland. If this project did nothing else, if it only assisted Newfoundland in overcoming regional economic disparity, it would be justified on that basis alone. But it is justified as well in developing a frontier offshore oil resource that Canada is going to need in the future as our on-land and more easily accessible oil and gas resources are steadily used up.
It is in the national interest that this development should go forward. It is certainly in the interest of overcoming regional disparity and of advancing regional economic equality in Canada that this project go forward.
Where are we at the moment? We are completing negotiations with the Government of Newfoundland and with the Mobil consortium as to what proportion of this great project must be carried out, from the benefits point of view, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador; what must be carried out in the nation of Canada; just what these benefits are; and, how the benefits are going to be distributed in that manner. I think we are at the end of that process. Good progress has been made. We have to go on to see. There has to be a test on the market to see whether a lender risk-sharing arrangement is viable when it comes to financing and issuing the bonds that will be required to finance the project, from time to time, as it is under way over the next few years. I believe 1996 is the year in which it is expected that production of oil from the field would start.
Those negotiations are now approaching their end. There seems to be no reason why we cannot conclude all this during the coming summer, in the next month or two. All the final documents could be signed in time for
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1990
Government Orders
this year not to be slipped when it comes to the project being accomplished.
However, for that to be the case, the Parliament of Canada has to enact this bill before we adjourn for the summer. I am hoping, and I have no reason to doubt, that we will have co-operation from the other parties in the House so that this can be accomplished. If Parliament does not enact this legislation before we rise, during the month of June, then of course we will not be back until September and there would be real doubt as to whether or not a year would be lost with reference to the Hibernia project and the project, itself, could be in some jeopardy as a result.
Therefore, I would like to ask fellow members of the House to deal with this bill as expeditiously as they think possible, keeping in mind that there is this urgency. If we hope to complete all of the documents this summer and not to lose this year, it is important for the House to deal with this bill which was introduced last November. It is not something that we are just introducing at a late date. It has been debated at second reading on December 18 and on February 9.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House, except to say that I am honoured that I am still in the House of Commons when this legislation goes through the House. I have supported this project since 1979. I did all I could to assist Mr. Peckford in his struggle to acquire some rights over the offshore oil and gas resources. It was a monumental struggle that he was engaged in with the government that preceded us. I intend to do what I can to work with Premier Wells to ensure that the project goes forward now because the province and the federal government have to work together for that purpose.
In closing, I want to thank the hon. minister for the fine work he has done in this connection. I hope that members of the House will co-operate with us in seeing that we do all that is necessary before we adjourn for the summer.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. minister's presentation and noted particularly his appeal for rapid consideration of the legislation.
I find it rather odd, when we have had a gestation period now of nearly nine months since this bill was first
introduced. Nine months have transpired and nothing has happened. Nine months later, at the eleventh hour, the minister stands up and says that he hopes that, now that we have sat on this for nine months, the House of Commons can set everything else aside and expeditiously deal with this one piece of legislation. I just say we will do our best. Of course, we always do. We will work as hard as we can.
I just find it odd, I must say to the minister with all due respect, and I mean that with all sincerity, that after having a piece of legislation sitting on his desk for nine months, suddenly he wants to move it in a matter of hours.
As the minister has said, it was introduced in December. Why was it not introduced again? It is the government that decides what we do in here, not the opposition. It is not the Official Opposition and not the New Democratic Party. It is the government that decides the business of the day. It has not called this business of the day for month after month after month-for nine months.
I ask my hon. friend, the minister, with all due respect, that, if this is so urgent, if this was such a high priority for the government and if this was such an important matter, why is it introduced on the day that Premier Wells is encouraged to make a decision at the First Ministers' Conference? I realize there is no association, of course. Why has the minister taken nine months to begin serious debate on this important legislation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is suggesting, of course, that the House has not been doing anything since December or February. As far as I know, the House has had important legislation before it the whole time.
He asks why this has not been brought forward. The last time it was brought forward, the House was in the mood to pass it with the exception of a few members who did not want to see it passed on that particular occasion. I have forgotten the date.


An Hon. Member:: It was the member from Juan de Fuca.


John Carnell Crosbie: It was the member for Juan de Fuca. One could easily be accused of profanity when one mentions his district. He did not want it to go through at that particular time.
June 7, 1990

I do not want to be bellicose today. I cannot avoid being "belly-cose", but I do not want to be bellicose today. I want to be in the mood of sweet reasonableness and simply say that this is not connected, of course, with anything that is going on in Ottawa today.
If the hon. member knew Premier Wells, he would know that it would be a wrong tactic to try either to encourage or discourage him. He told me that the Constitution was for 1,000 years. Hibernia is not for 1,000, it is only going to be for 20 or 25. He has a long-term view of the Constitution. Frankly, I think that Meech Lake will be forgotten long before Hibernia is. However, that remains to be seen.
The legislation that the province is required to pass is being debated in the Newfoundland House of Assembly now. I think the timing is right in both Houses. My hon. friend from British Columbia happens to be lucky enough to live in one of the booming parts of the country. Of course, they have had good government there for a number of years-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to correct the hon. minister. I think he has his politics wrong. The Social Credit Party has been in office in British Columbia for the past few years.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, on this same matter, I took the minister to imply that the government's hands would be tied in proceeding with further negotiation as required, or even with the disbursement of certain funds relating to the project, if this bill did not make it out of the Commons today or before the summer adjournment.
I am a little puzzled. If this is, indeed, his contention, would he be so kind as to inform the Minister of Finance of these requirements so that the Minister of Finance may stop securing rented accommodation, hiring staff, and renting and purchasing machinery and equipment for the purpose of implementing the GST, which, as we all know, has not yet cleared this Parliament?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Hibernia project, this legislation authorizes the government to do certain things which it cannot do unless the House of Commons approves the legislation. Unless I am advised mistakenly, the government cannot sign the
Government Orders
final agreements or execute final agreements without the legislation being passed first.
With respect to the offshore development fund, the spending from it has been approved from year to year in the Estimates and the budget.
With respect to signing and executing agreements, giving guarantees, and doing what the government agreed to do in July, 1988, we need the approval of the House. That is why it is important. If the legislation is not passed before we adjourn, then we will not be able to do anything until next fall and a year will slip from the construction schedule.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso-Scotia Synfuels Project; the hon. member for Chambly-Riding of Laurier-Sainte-Ma-rie; and the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Canada Post.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Newfoundland, the hon. Minister of International Trade, on the history and background of this project that is so important to Canada, to Atlantic Canada, and, in particular, to Newfoundland.
This project is about jobs, technology, and energy. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, it is about hope. Where hope is involved, I am not interested in being bellicose or in laying blame. I am not interested in political rhetoric. I am interested in getting this bill through the House of Commons so we can get on with this hope and make the hope a realistic thing, as opposed to the hope that it has been for almost 20 years now.
In as brief a time as possible, I would just like to recapture some of the background to demonstrate the tortuous history that this project has had. One may consider it a relatively short time, but if one is looking at it as an item of hope, it has been fairly tortuous.
The field itself is located 315 kilometres southeast of St. John's. The oilfield covers about 20,000 acres and the last capacity I saw was in the range of 600 to 900 million barrels. When capacity production starts, this amounts to

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
roughly 100 million barrels, but the daily production would be somewhere in the vicinity of 120 million barrels a day.


An Hon. Member:: That is impossible.


Fred J. Mifflin: One hundred and twenty million barrels a day?


An Hon. Member:: One hundred and twenty thousand barrels a day.


Fred J. Mifflin: One hundred and twenty thousand barrels a day. One of the things we are really concerned about is the total capacity.
As far as the hope is concerned, I would like to translate this into jobs and what it means to Atlantic Canada, indeed to the whole of Canada.
In fact, the exploration activities took place as far back as 1971, but there were really no successes until Hibernia was discovered. The exploratory drilling began in May of 1979, and it was by Chevron Standard in partnership with Mobil, Gulf, then Petro-Canada and Columbia.
In August of the same year, oil was discovered and a series of evaluation wells were drilled between then and 1984. From 1985 to July of 1988, a series of project-owner cost estimates, government proposals and tax reforms were exchanged between the parties. Then on the magic of July 18, 1988, a series of project-owner cost estimates and a series of statements of principles were discussed and signed in St. John's, Newfoundland by Prime Minister Mulroney and the then Premier of Newfoundland, Premier Peckford, together with the Government of Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Chevron Canada Resources, Columbia Gas Development, Gulf Canada, Mobil Oil and Petro-Canada. These were the organizations involved in the initial findings.
I recall that day. I was in St. John's and I believe the hon. minister was there as well. It was a day of jubilation across all sectors of Newfoundland. It cut across party politics, it cut across everything. It was a day of rejoicing for Newfoundland because the crisis in the fishery had arrived and as we are all aware in this House, it has got considerably worse since then. We felt that things were going to get better.
In the words of Premier Peckford at the time-and it may have been overstated-it was an indication of the way Newfoundland felt about this. He talked about the
sun shining and "have-not will be no more". That was based on something tangible happening on March 31 of the next year, 1989. March 31 came, and for reasons that I think are well known by the House, to our great disappointment, the agreement could not be signed.
We are looking at a delay of a year and a bit. During this time, we have had considerable discussion in this House. If my figures serve me right, the first reading took place on November 7. Some discussion went on over those days. The second reading took place on February 9. That is roughly four months ago. And we had some discussion just before we closed at Christmas time.
The purpose of the bill is to give the federal government the statutory authority to enter into a legally binding agreement based on the statement of principles put together in July of 1988 and subsequently negotiated between the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and the Hibernia project owners. Essentially, the bill will allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, to enter into one or more agreements on behalf of the federal Crown in respect of the development project itself.
I think it is safe to say that the reserves of oil are not truly known. The main concern of all of us in the House is employment benefits. The construction phase will take about five or six years. It is estimated that the field will last around 20 years. During the construction phase of the projects, the partners targeted 14,500 person-years of direct Canadian employment and 32,600 person-years of indirect Canadian employment. I stress if my constituents are watching this, it talks about 14,500 for direct Canadian employment. That does not necessarily mean it will all be in Newfoundland, although we certainly hope that the majority of it will be.
Specifically, after the construction phase, the targeted Canadian employment figures-if the ones that I have are not right I know the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources will correct me-we are looking at are 1,100 direct person-years, that is those directly employed with the production and 2,450 indirect person-years. That is wild compared to the opportunities for employment that one has right now in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada.
June 7, 1990

With respect to the construction stage, as I understand it, the winning bidder would be able to construct a community near Come-By-Chance, as the hon. minister said, in Bull Arm. Specifically, I think it is called Mosquito Cove. They would construct a community in this area for about 2,000 employees, would pour the 500,000 tonne base, join it with the topsides and then would tow the 1.5 billion tonne gravity based structure out to its spot out in the area where it would begin production, which is roughly 315 kilometres off Newfoundland.
I recall we had an enthusiastic and a very hopeful discussion here on February 9.1 spoke to the main bill on second reading and my feeling was that we were within days of having this thing go through. In fact we were making some arrangements with the House leaders for the next week. All of a sudden we hit a little bit of a snag and there were some concerns. Whether the concerns are legitimate or not, I would like to speak to that later on. However, I was disappointed and, quite frankly, I have had a bit of a rough ride from my constituents when I go back home because they wondered what was the House of Commons doing to prevent this from going forward.
We have had enough obstacles in the way. Again I promise, and I am going to stick to that promise, that this is not a time for political rhetoric. This is a time to get on with doing something for a region of our country which is badly in need and needs this particular project. I think we should look at the positive side, while still being concerned about those aspects that have been raised by a number of my friends on the left.
Newfoundland takes its resources from the sea and whether it is fish, or whether it is oil, or whether it is the tourist attraction of the beautiful bays and villages around the area. That is what we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in other parts of Atlantic Canada. It is not surprising that there should be concern about the environment, and it is really this concern that is the source of the amendments that have been put forward today.
One of my party's policies is to use energy in the most environmentally responsible way. Indeed, it is my understanding that after we get through with this business and
Government Orders
we get approval, that the revised project, scaled down from the 17 to the four or five modules that have been the result of a scrubbing down to reduce the cost of this project, is going to be submitted to the Canadian Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board for approval, along with the plans for the eventual abandonment of the Gravity Bay structure. When the production is completed, we will have to win environmental approval again before Ottawa makes a decision on this. My understanding is that this environmental decision will be made by an intergovernmental body involving the Department of the Environment, the Canadian Coast Guard and Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration.
I would suggest that when Hibernia gets that far down the pike we will have a number of options at which we can look. We could dismantle the topside and leave the structure manned. Perhaps by that time we will have found some other use for it. It would provide a structure for search and rescue, which is badly needed in that area of Newfoundland. We could take the structure down approximately 180 feet so that the largest vessel could navigate safely, or we could take the structure completely out of the ocean floor and either dismantle it or find some other use for it.
If this bill passes second reading and goes to committee, it is important that the committee concern itself with these particular concerns that have been raised by the NDP. Hopefully, we will not only be able to get this approved, but I am hoping that we can get it through committee and back for third reading before the House adjourns for the summer. Quite frankly, I do not think we can afford to wait another three months.
We have been working on this very assiduously and we have had some difficulty in getting the thing under way. Now we have reached the point where we can get something done. I would find it very difficult to support any impediments to this bill.
In the short time that I have been in this House there are many issues that have divided us. Heaven knows, we have seen so many of them here in the House. There is a place for partisanship, a time for political rhetoric, a time for being, perhaps, politically different from each other. However, I think this is one of the few issues that I have seen since I have been here where not only are members

Government Orders
anxious to approve this project but to go on record as having had their names behind approving this project. Everyone wants to get on with fuelling the hope of those people who are counting the days, in fact counting the moments, when some announcement of substance can be made and we can get on with tapping the vast reserves, and translate this into jobs, into the economy and into a working production.
Then we, in Canada, will not only be able to secure a sounder energy foundation and not have to worry about importing foreign oil, while at the same time being environmentally conscious. This will ensure the economic diversification that we have been groping for in Newfoundland since 1947. This is one of the hopes that we have. I am going to call on all members to put aside partisanship and, perhaps, the minor concerns that they might have so that this bill is approved and passes third reading before the House closes for the summer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment or two, if I might, to the Minister for International Trade and to the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception. Let me thank both of them for the comments which they have made today.
It is not my purpose to take the time of the House, but I think possibly it is important that I just put some figures on the record so that people in the oil industry and, more importantly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the latest play. If that is acceptable, I will use this opportunity to do so.
First of all, in terms of the number of barrels in the Hibernia field, members have been putting certain figures on the record and none of them are wrong because all of them have been in the public domain at one time or another. The best seismology work and information that we can put to that question is that existing reserves of Hibernia are in the range of 525 to 650 million barrels. I appreciate that while the science is specific, until one gets into the work, the actual results are subject to a fair bit of verification and one can only do that when the work is being done. The low estimate is in the order of 725 million barrels and the high estimate is one billion barrels-plus. Possibly that answers it just in quick form.
Additionally, what should be recognized is that this is light and medium crude. As our light crude, especially in the western sedimentary basin, starts declining, as it has already, there is also an additional advantage in terms of mix of crude for Canada.
The last point that I want to make is that in terms of the project now contemplated, we are looking to produce an average of 110,000 barrels of oil per day with a maximum production capacity of 150,000 barrels per day.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if perhaps the Chair, the minister, and indeed, the House, might agree to allow questions of the minister, being that the minister has just participated in the debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent. The hon. minister has used the period for questions and comments following the speech by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception to add a few things to the record. The hon. House leader.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I understand the member for Edmonton East is going to be speaking next and if he has questions to put, the minister will be delighted, I am sure, to try to answer them at the end of that period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Further questions or comments. Debate. The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate today, I would like to note that what we are debating is the reasoned amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, which would have the effect of rejecting this bill for the three reasons stated. First, granting a project more than $1 billion without securing an equivalent equity in the project for the people of Canada is wrong in principle. Second, the bill fails to contain specific provisions which provide environmental protection measures in connection with the project. Third, the bill fails to contain specific provisions which provide for the creation of job opportunities in relation to the project.
These are very large topics that the reasoned amendment addresses and, in consequence, we will be dealing with each in turn through three speakers this afternoon.
June 7, 1990

I would like at the outset to make it very clear that the New Democratic Party caucus in this House opposes Bill C-44 for those reasons. We do not oppose the Hibernia project per se.
If I may draw the analogy, Madam Speaker, it may be a very good thing to have a hospital constructed in your community. Presumably everyone in your community, if there is not one there now, would be very much in favour of having a hospital constructed there.
However, if the government that proposes to build the hospital proposes to do so with straw and plasticine, your constituents are not going to be terribly thrilled at the prospect. Although the project itself may be praiseworthy and commendable and certainly worthy of public support, the form and nature that that public support takes, as well as the consequences of the form and nature of that public support, are very much a matter of attention for this House.
If the form of that support is inappropriate or inadequate, then it is the business of this House to defeat it until such time as more proper form and content are brought forward.
For these very good reasons we oppose this bill. We do not oppose job creation. On the contrary, we want jobs in Atlantic Canada. That is why we oppose the government's cuts in transfer payments. That is why we oppose the reduction in important government services in the Atlantic. That is why we oppose the government's cuts to UI. And that is why we oppose the continued mismanagement of the Atlantic fishery.
We New Democrats believe that it is vitally important to create as many jobs as possible with the money available. However, before I consider the subject of job creation in greater detail, I would like to touch on the historic background of this project and very briefly on the specific contents of this bill. Given time limitations, I will have to leave the other important subjects of economic development and environmental considerations to two of my colleagues who will be speaking a little later this afternoon.
The history of the Hibernia project has been a dizzying roller-coaster of rays of expectations and dashed hopes. When the first major oil discovery was made on the Grand Banks in 1979, the expectation was that Newfoundland would blossom to become the Norway of
Government Orders
North America. Unfortunately, the first estimates of the amount of oil in the field were soon proved to have been much too high.
In 1979, it was estimated that Hibernia contained about 1.8 billion barrels of oil. In 1985, this estimate was halved. The field was estimated to contain, as the hon. minister noted, between 800 million and 900 million barrels in all likelihood.
The estimate on the most recent Hibernia background papers is down to just 525 million to 650 million barrels. The estimates and the benefits from the project that would be enjoyed by Newfoundlanders have similarly declined steadily. Initially, many Newfoundlanders believed that the province owned this offshore resource and that it could be used mainly to provide much needed jobs and to boost the Newfoundland economy.
This hope of exclusive provincial ownership and control was dashed by the rulings of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1983 and 1984 respectively, rulings to the effect that the federal government has jurisdiction over this offshore mineral resource. The Atlantic Accord, a long-term agreement on the joint management of offshore oil and gas development was, therefore, signed in 1985. As Newfoundlanders know only too well, the agreement does not change the fact that Hibernia will not by itself transform the Newfoundland economy.
On top of the disappointing realization that Hibernia would not be the bonanza that many initially thought, Newfoundlanders have been disappointed that politicians have repeatedly used the promise of the project for political purposes. Politicians have regularly raised the hopes of Newfoundlanders by big, glitzy announcements of deals before or during election campaigns. The project was announced once in 1979, again in 1982 and yet again during the 1988 election when the federal Conservatives made Hibernia an important plank in their campaign in Atlantic Canada. Each time the impression was given that a final deal was done and that this would mean great things for Newfoundland.
Listen to what the Prime Minister said during a pre-election speech in St. John's on July 18, 1988. I quote: "Hibernia has been the dream of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for decades". Given that

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
he said this nine years after it was discovered, that is a bit hyperbolic, but let it pass.
"Today the dream has been realized". During the last election campaign on October 6, 1988 the Prime Minister waxed lyrical about the project, saying, and again I quote: "For me, Brian Mulroney, Hibernia meant a lot more than barrels of oil. Hibernia to me was about dignity. Hibernia is about the future, about jobs for our kids. It is about a new tomorrow".
For his part the hon. minister of trade who spoke earlier this afternoon told more than 1,000 invited guests in St. John's on July 18, 1988 that the announcement "has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with justice". That was in 1988. That was yet another announcement that has come to very little after it was made. It is no surprise that Newfoundlanders are just a wee bit cynical about Hibernia announcements and just a mite suspicious about what repeatedly appears to them to be political opportunism of the first order.
Speaking of healthy cynicism, Newfoundlanders will recall the minister of trade has already suggested that the Opposition is somehow to blame for holding up this bill. This is a minister of a government that did not hesitate to use its majority in the House of Commons to stifle debate and ram through the hated GST, and that out-voted the Opposition to cut VIA Rail, to chop transfer payments and to slash UI benefits. This is the same government that introduced this bill on Hibernia last November 7 and then delayed further consideration of it until December 18, then until February 9 and finally, until today, a full seven months since the bill was introduced.
The government will still try to blame Hibernia delays on everyone but itself claiming that we are against jobs for Newfoundlanders, that we are against the Hibernia project itself. This is not true. We, New Democrats, do not oppose Hibernia. Again I say, we oppose this bill.
What is in Bill C-44? In a nutshell, Bill C-44 is meant to give the federal government the statutory authority to enter into one or more legally binding agreements based on the statement of principle signed in July 1988 and on the results of subsequent negotiations. It essentially sets out how the federal government will spend money on this project.
We are talking about a great deal of money. The bill proposes that the federal government contribute up to $1.04 billion toward capital costs in free grant money; up to $1.66 billion in loan guarantees for the capital project; $175 million in loan guarantees for a temporary financing facility; $300 million as a loan and no cap on the amount contributed as interest on the $1.66 billion in loan guarantees should interest become payable in consequence of those guarantees. In sum, this bill proposes that the federal government pay up to $1.04 billion in absolutely free grant money and up to $300 million as a loan and at least $1,835 billion in loans and interest guarantees for a total potential outlay of up to $3,139 billion or more. That is a lot of money.
The question we have to ask ourselves in considering this bill is: Is it a wise use of money? Does it provide the most jobs and economic development that can be had for the money?
In the rest of the short time available to me to speak today, I would like to focus if I may on the employment opportunities that will result from Hibernia if this bill passes without change.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need jobs.
Nobody in this House disputes that it is indeed incumbent on the Canadian confederation to come to the aid of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador to the degree necessary to bring them up to some kind of economic equality with the rest of the country. It is the contention of other people who have spoken here this afternoon that not only will Hibernia do that, but Hibernia is virtually the only vehicle that can do that.
It is true that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador need jobs. They need real economic development. Hibernia could help provide that but it is not likely to happen with this bill. Indeed, the terms of this bill will necessarily see a great many potential benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador squandered. In fact, this bill provides inadequate employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders for the public money invested and given away. Even Premier Clyde Wells recognized this publicly, pointing out in an interview published on October 2, 1989, in The Financial Post, that the number of permanent jobs generated by Hibernia would be about the size of the workforce of two fish plants.
June 7, 1990

The hon. Minister for International Trade disputed that contention earlier this afternoon. If he looks at the job creation figures involved, the 35,000 person-years created over the entire projected 25-year life of the project with construction and operation, if you take those person-years and you divide that by the 25 years, you will wind up with a figure of about 2,000 jobs a year. That is about the size of two decent fish plants. As Mr. Wells put it at that time on October 2, 1989, in The Financial Post: "The former government painted it as a saviour", he said. "It isn't."
The current estimates of job creation are much lower than the consortium that Premier Peckford predicted in the early 1980s. The 1989 Hibernia background papers suggested that up to 10,000 person-years of direct employment could be created in Newfoundland during the construction phase, and another 25,000 person-years of indirect employment and that makes up those 35,000 person-years during the construction phase. It is estimated that the 20-year operational phase will see the creation of 1,100 permanent jobs.
As the Federation of Labour President, Bill Parsons, pointed out in an interview published in the July 19, 1988 edition of The St. John's Evening Telegram'. "Those jobs are just a fraction of what is needed to turn the province's struggling economy around. As he put it, and again I quote: "The thing is there are 40,000 Newfoundlanders out of work and we won't get any revenue from Hibernia for 15 years".
In addition, some observers who suggested that because jobs are urgently needed in Newfoundland, the government's emphasis should shift to creating jobs more quickly by tapping the existing Terra Nova discovery, reportedly a much less complicated venture, leaving the more difficult Hibernia field for later.
This leaves but one alternative available. Hibernia jobs will be enormously expensive. Even if we use the government's own figures, which we know to be optimistic, Hibernia is a very expensive way of creating jobs. For example, let us use the figures published in the Hibernia background papers. These figures we know to be overestimates because they do not take into account the recent design changes. Redesigning the project to reduce costs by assembling the Topsides rig in five 'supermodules' rather than the 18 to 20 smaller components
Government Orders
originally planned could mean the loss of 10,000 construction jobs in and around St. John's. Let us be very generous and use these earlier more optimistic figures anyway.
On page 9, this 1989 government document states that for both the temporary construction period and the production period and I quote: "The combined total direct employment for residents of Newfoundland will be in the order of 32,000 person-years over the entire life of the project".
The total government involvement is $3,139 billion. That makes almost $100,000 of government money alone for the creation of every person-year of work. If we assume a 37.5 hour work week and a 50-week work year, that works out to over $50 an hour for the work. Let us be clear, that is not what people will be paid, that is the amount of public money the government is proposing to invest or spend to create that job. That is $50 an hour in government money alone, Madam Speaker.
As Newfoundland and Labrador New Democrat leader Cle Newhook put it, and I am quoting from an article in the September 15, 1980 edition of The Evening Telegram, he said:
It looks like an incredibly expensive way of creating a few jobs up
front and a few industrial jobs during production while making the
companies rich.
This is a telling and accurate assessment in my opinion. There are not many Newfoundlanders who would not agree that there are literally thousands of community economic development projects featuring hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs that can be created for the same outlay of money. In fact, when it comes to maximizing the number of jobs or getting the biggest bang for the buck, Hibernia does not stack up very well against other existing programs in the region.
Between 1984 and 1988 just over $14.5 million was spent by the provincial and federal governments under the CEIC, fisheries and rural development programs and the like, creating 775 person-years of work. That works out to just under $19,000 in government spending for every job. That is less than one-fifth of the cost per job that can be expected under the most optimistic predictions for Hibernia.
Allow me to quote at length an article from The Financial Times of July 25, 1988. The article was written

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
by William Mackness, the Dean of the Faculty of Management at the University of Manitoba. He writes:
As a regional development scheme, the project may have some merit, but not in terms of capital cost per job. Energy is one of the world's most capital-intensive industries and, accordingly, is a strikingly expensive vehicle with which to deliver regional employment. Temporary construction jobs in Newfoundland will carry a capital cost in excess of $500,000 per job. Permanent production jobs will carry a capital cost of several million dollars per job. Granted, the oil is there, but it would be difficult to find a more expensive way to deliver either oil or jobs in Newfoundland.
But, expensive or not, 32,000 person-years of work sounds like a lot of jobs.
Unfortunately Hibernia is primarily an energy project. It is not designed to be a job creation project. It will not provide nearly the boost the province needs, especially when one considers the funding and service cuts the Mulroney Conservatives have made since coming into office.
The Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council issued a report on Hibernia in July 1988. The 30-page report states that Hibernia "covers only one of the many aspects of economic growth possibilities in Newfoundland".
I would like to emphasize that point: "only one of the many aspects of economic growth possibilities in Newfoundland". When the hon. minister stands up as he did earlier this afternoon and says it is Hibernia or nothing, it is he who is betokening a terrible and even tragic lack of faith in the initiative and indeed the entrepreneurial zeal of Newfoundlanders.
In fact that same report, the CEIC advisory council report of July 1988, goes on to say that at least 70,000 permanent jobs are needed to bring Newfoundland's employment and economic figures up to the national average, just to the national average. That report was issued before the latest devastation in the Atlantic fishery.
Hibernia jobs will also be dangerous jobs. No one needs to be reminded of that awful night eight years ago, February 15, 1982, when 84 people, including 54 Newfoundlanders, lost their life when the world's largest semi-submersible drilling rig, the Ocean Ranger, capsized and sank in 18-metre lashing waves in a screaming 145-kilometre per hour wind.
There have been changes to procedures and safety equipment since then. Some people suggest that such a tragedy could never happen again. Other people are deeply concerned that we have let our guard down on safety since the Ocean Ranger disaster. The fact remains that offshore drilling takes place in one of the most inhospitable and dangerous places in the world. Offshore drilling jobs, by their very nature, are dangerous. Clearly we need to make worker safety a priority. This should include a review of the precise details of the provisions for worker safety on the Hibernia project before it proceeds.
Offshore jobs are also very stressful. According to a recent government and industry financed study, offshore oil jobs mean month-long shifts at sea, $60 for a five-minute phone call home, and a work environment some compare to a prison or a war zone.
This 118-page report based on a survey conducted in 1985 and entitled Family Life Adaptations to Offshore Oil and Gas Employment concluded that 40 per cent of women married to rig workers and nearly 20 per cent of married men working on offshore rigs were deeply unhappy with their jobs. What is even worse, many of these jobs could also go to Americans because of the free trade deal. The Mulroney Conservatives signed a deal that specifies that U.S. firms have, and I quote from the deal, "a right of national treatment". Remember that, John, the right of national treatment in seeking business opportunities.
That means that the Hibernia companies cannot discriminate against U.S. firms under the trade deal, and that means governments cannot insist on local employment and procurement guarantees. As a result, the target of 45 per cent to 50 per cent Newfoundland content in jobs and procurement-and do not forget that is the target 45 per cent to 50 per cent, half of jobs and procurement benefits-will remain just that, a target. This cannot be guaranteed because it runs directly contrary to the provisions of the free trade agreement.
In any event, the Canadian content rules in the Hibernia agreement were relaxed in the summer of 1988. Instead of regulations the Hibernia deal translated Canadian content goals of previous Hibernia policies and the Atlantic Accord into targets-again, targets not regulations-which are stated so generally that they
June 7, 1990

permit wide open bidding, but this too is required by the free trade agreement.
I am trying to keep within my time here. Before I run out of time, I want to focus on one way in which the Hibernia project demonstrates this government's ongoing, indeed continuous, stunning hypocrisy. We will remember that the Mulroney Conservatives campaigned in 1984 on a promise to provide jobs, jobs, jobs. They now claim to support this bill in part because it will create jobs, albeit expensive ones, in a region that desperately needs employment. At the same time, the Conservatives have proceeded to destroy existing job opportunities by cutting federal transfer payments, slashing VIA, closing rural post offices, closing CFB Summerside, and continually failing to address effectively the long-standing crises in the fishing industry. Then, to top it off, they slash unemployment insurance benefits for those people who do lose their jobs.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want yet another set of politicians dangling visions of prosperity in front of them. They do not need smoke and mirrors. They do not need more raised hopes and dashed expectations. They need well paying, long-term jobs- lots of them. It is about time their government began a concerted effort to assist them to achieve what they need, what they want, what they deserve.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I just want to make a comment following the intervention by the hon. member for Edmonton East.
First of all the hon. member mentioned job creation. He has heard many times in this House since September 1984 that approximately 1.6 million jobs on a net basis have been created by the economy during the tenure of this government.
The hon. member should just give some attention to this since he comes from a province that is energy rich, a province that recognizes more than possibly any other province that government policies can seriously damage the resource and the jobs related to that resource. He and I might disagree on the philosophical basis in terms of development of energy resources, but what he and I should not disagree on is that the energy economy, by
Government Orders
and large, has been an engine of growth particularly for his province. He should remember that, regardless of the political differences we might have in this House.
He also should recognize, regardless of partisan differences, that all of us have been concerned, for example, that the resources belong to the provinces and that the provinces and the people in those provinces get the maximum benefit from the ownership of those resources. He should also remember that resources regarding the offshore only were clarified with the accords, and particularly the Atlantic Accord, to which my hon. colleague the Minister for International Trade referred in his comments.
I say to the hon. member, let us look in committee at the differences we have. Let us look at the rationale for Hibernia, but at end of day let us remember that permanent jobs are not created by government or by governments transferring tax points or tax dollars. Those are needed for basic services. That is why the federal government and the provincial governments agree with equalization and Established Programs Financing. Let us not hinder the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from having the permanent jobs which he talks about, as well as the benefit of resources which that part of the country needs.
If anything has impressed me as minister of energy, it is when I go to St. John's particularly and Newfoundland and Labrador generally. The people there are no different from any other Canadians. What they want is the development of their resources to be done properly and prudently. At the end of day they want to have permanent jobs based on the merits of the case, not simply on the largesse that might come from Ottawa or other taxpayers. They are no different from anyone else. This project, while not being the panacea for all ills in Newfoundland and Labrador, it goes some distance in meeting that objective.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I agree with some of what the hon. minister has just said. I agree that it is not for the government to attempt to put everybody in Newfoundland on the dole, definitely not. It is the proper role of the Government of Canada to foster and encourage that economic development in

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
Newfoundland which will result in stable, long-term, well paying jobs. There is no question of that.
As long as we are remembering things, let us remember not to be mesmerized by the prospect of oil megaprojects. I come from a province which has had a great deal of experience with oil megaprojects. I come from a province with a great deal of experience with energy as the engine of growth. Madam Speaker, I can tell you it can be the engine of destruction for many. I can tell you that when the price of oil collapsed in 1985 somewhere between 15,000 and 40,000 Albertans lost their jobs and had their lives wrecked in consequence.
Beware of oil megaprojects. Beware of the energy economy. If ever you have the alternative, if you are talking about the expenditure of public funds, not loans but direct expenditures, direct free grant money, I would advise you to look long and hard at other possibilities because among other things a great deal of that expenditure will be to the benefit of people who do not live anywhere in this country. We are told that a great deal of the production from Elibernia could be destined to go straight to the United States and never see a Canadian refinery.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for Edmonton East whether he could be clear and tell the House, given all the concerns he has raised during the course of his remarks in this debate and looking at the amendments that are set out here, whether or not the NDP in essence is saying that this project ought to be put on hold. Is that what he is saying? I think the House should be clear on it.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, especially for reasons that will be outlined in far greater detail by my colleague from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, the NDP is saying that this bill is sufficiently flawed to warrant its defeat regardless of what one thinks of the Hibernia project itself. The principal problem is the proposal to give away more than $1 billion in government money without taking a penny in equity in return. That is the main problem, but there are others.
The Hibernia project itself, if we assume it to be a worthy vehicle in the energy market which is apparently the yardstick used by the government and the Official Opposition these days, fine, no problem. But to give away $1 billion in an area that could profit from that
scale of government investment much more in other areas is to fatally flaw the bill in our opinion.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I will have my own remarks with respect to the member's position in a moment in my speech, but I want to ask him a question about the principle of not putting money in without taking equity in a project. I happen to think that Hibernia benefits all of Canada. It benefits the nation, assists in the area of self-efficiency, and is good for the whole country.
But putting that aside for a moment, given this principle of cancelling the project if there is $1 billion and no equity, is the member saying that, in the case of the farmers of western Canada who have received each year over the last four or five years approximately $1 billion of federal assistance, it is the position of the NDP that the government should take equity in their farms or no assistance should be forthcoming? I am interested in hearing what he has to say in the House.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, the analogy is completely unreasonable. It does not apply. It is not individual Newfoundland oil producers who are heading out to the Hibernia site and digging up pails of oil and taking it in.
Nor, Madam Speaker, is it individual Newfoundland oil producers who work that field, sometimes for generations, building up an economic base that is fundamental to the survival of Canada as a whole.
No, there is no comparison between the two. Mobil Oil does not farm in western Canada.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
TVade): The hon. gentleman for Edmonton East says he supports this project. I hope to God he does not support any other projects that I am interested in, if he thinks stopping the bill will make the project possible. The people of Newfoundland have waited 11 years for this project. The hon. member supports the project, but, by golly, he is going to stop this bill going through the House so that he can really show the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how he supports the project. Tcilk about logic!
What about the question of jobs and comparing this to two fish plants or whatever. This is not just a question of the jobs that may be created directly by this project, and a great many jobs are going to be created directly by the project, it is a question of changing the nature of the
June 7, 1990

economy of Newfoundland so it is not dependent just on the fishery or on some jobs in pulp and paper.
It is to give the people another alternative, highly skilled jobs, not just the jobs out there on the rigs or in construction, or the jobs at Bull Arm, although we hope there will be more fields.
There is the Terra Nova field. There is the White Rose field and there are indications of other fields out there. Hopefully they will be able to construct rigs and so on at Bull Arm for another 50 or 60 years, as well as in the Newfoundland dockyard and the Marystown shipyard where we are putting $34.5 million with the province so that they can take full advantage of this.
It is not just the direct jobs. It is all of the companies that have been created in the last 10 or 12 years, the high technology companies and the kind of jobs they are going to be able to provide. Anyone who wants to compare this with another two fish plants for Newfoundland has something wrong with their mental processes or does not have sufficient scope to visualize what this is going to do.
I do not think for a moment that Premier Wells meant it. This is not creating 500 more jobs for women to go on a fish line and cut fish. This is not the kind of job this process is going to create, or jobs for 12 or 14 weeks of the year in an inshore fish plant and those types of jobs, though God knows they are welcome enough.
I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he and his party take a different approach to this. They are supposed to be the party that represents the labour movement and the like. When they have an opportunity to support a bill that is going to change the nature of the economy of Newfoundland and create some better paying, more skilled work, they oppose it. How else is this going to start if the government does not assist in getting it started?
If the NDP is going to vote against any assistance to the project, then how is the project ever going to start? If the NDP supports this project which took 11 years of struggle to get this far, they cannot really come down to Newfoundland and tell how helpful they were if they are going to vote against this bill and do everything they can to stop it going through the House.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I must say to the member for Edmonton East who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party that I am really quite amazed at the attitude of the New Democratic Party with respect to the Hibernia development. More particularly, I am quite amazed at the attitude of the new Democratic Party about Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. I frankly find it patronizing. I find it insulting, if not by design, I hope at the very least that it must be by accident, to the intelligence of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Hibernia project is not something new that materialized as a matter of debate before this House at the first reading of Bill C-44 on November 7, 1989. This project, its potential, its development, has been around for a long time, several decades.
I want to tell the hon. member who has been here for less that two years-and I am not reflecting upon him in any way, as he has been an active and engaged member all the time he has been here. The debate we are attempting to have today has its genesis in a debate between jurisdictions several decades ago. Certainly that debate has gone on in an intense fashion for the last decade.
I have to tell him in all frankness that to have an hon. member from Edmonton East, as well-intentioned in his own mind as he might be, stand and purport to speak for the people of Newfoundland, to understand the history and dynamics of this project and suggest that he and his party are going to save Newfoundland from a tragic mistake, I find patronizing and insulting. It displays an abysmal ignorance of the history of this development and the kind of agreements that have been negotiated and understandings that have been reached over a very long and difficult debate.
What do we have at the end of a very difficult and long process, sometimes a partisan process between parties and sometimes a difficult process between jurisdictions? We have at the eleventh hour the New Democratic Party storming into the House of Commons and suggesting

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
that they are going to put the brakes on an important project not only for Newfoundland but for Canada. That is an incredibly patronizing attitude.
Let me say, in all sincerity, that this is not the kind of approach we expect from the New Democratic Party. It is not the normal thing we see in this place. I find the member's attitude absolutely incredible, because what is Bill C-44?
I find the attitude incredible. I listened in silence to the hon. member and he ought to listen in silence to me. What is Bill C-44? The Canadian public has listened to a lot of rhetoric. In reality, it is a piece of enabling legislation. That is all it is, enabling legislation. It makes possible agreements. It makes possible the participation of the federal government with two other partners, one being the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the other being the private consortium.
This legislation represents the approval of Parliament for the government to participate with two other partners in an offshore oil development, the Hibernia Field specifically and other fields, if and when they have been proven viable. That is what it does. What does the New Democratic Party say? It says in essence-and I find this amusing-that it wants to impose certain conditions upon the Government of Canada-more particularly the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador which is not in this House but in another jurisdiction-and upon the private consortium. It wants the federal government to impose arbitrary conditions, without consent, knowledge, dialogue, discussion and the agreement of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the consortium.
The amendment moved by the New Democratic Party asks that the bill be not now read a second time because granting the project more than $1 billion without securing equivalent equity in the project for the people of Canada is wrong in principle. There is provision in this enabling legislation for the Government of Canada to take an equity position, but it is an equity position that will arise out of negotiation with the consortium and with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
two other partners in the project. That ability is contained in the enabling legislation.
The hon. member is asking the Government of Canada to move in arbitrarily, like a bull in a china shop, to state upfront what its position is going to be, notwithstanding changing circumstances. God knows, world prices change and therefore circumstances change. He wants that provision included in advance of any discussion or negotiation with the players.
That is not a reasonable amendment. That is a patronizing amendment that displays an abysmal ignorance about the agreement that has been reached between all of the partners and players in this agreement.
The second paragraph of the amendment states that the bill fails to contain specific provisions which provide environmental protection measures in connection with the project. The reality is that in 1985 the environmental review on the Hibernia project was completed. It was an extensive, veiy complex and public process. It was debated and circulated. It is debated still today, with many players and broad representation.
There has been an environmental process and there is provision on any additional or new field other than Hibernia which is being considered, for additional environmental review. I have no hesitation in saying as a member of the opposition Liberal Party that it would be subject to the full weight of guidelines that have now been laid out by the Minister of Energy. That is proper.
There is nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador, which for 500 years has depended upon the fishery, the harvest of the sea, who wants to risk the cod stocks in any way, shape or form. God knows they are in bad enough shape now because of the exploitation by man, both in this country and many other countries of the world.
We are not prepared to take that environmental risk, we have to be satisfied. The heritage of our province is the bounty of the sea. We have the patronizing attitude of the New Democratic Party, a party that rushes in at the eleventh hour, to say there must be an environmental review. There has been a review and we shall remain vigilant on the environment. To assume that that vigilance is not there, that Newfoundlanders are a people so much in a rush for a bit of prosperity that they would

turn their backs on their heritage, is an insult to the people of Newfoundland. Frankly, I find it insulting, and the hon. member ought to have known better.
The third provision in the amendment states that the bill fails to contain specific provisions which provide for the creation of job opportunities in relation to the project. Again, it is an amendment which displays a total lack of knowledge about what has gone on for 10 years and what the debate has been for 10 years between the national government, the provincial government and the consortium.
What has the debate been about? Hibernia is adjacent to the province of Newfoundland, located close to the province of Newfoundland. The debate has been about whether the benefits from that project would flow to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the long history of conflict, over a period of time, and negotiation has been all about, governments of Newfoundland and Labrador ensuring that, within the bounds of viability, there should be some long-term, permanent benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are sensitive to not having a boom and bust economy. We are sensitive to not overheating the economy, as occurred in Scotland, and seeing that the people prosper. We are sensitive to having a pace and control of development, not allowing it to be done totally by the private sector. That is why we as a province in a collective sense, essentially put away our ability to have this project six or seven years ago, earlier than it would otherwise come on stream. We said no to unplanned development. We wanted a plan; to know what the effect is on the society, the social structure, the values of our community, before we proceed.
The hon. member and his party, the New Democratic Party, now want the federal government to arbitrarily write into the bill what the pace of development will be, when the federal government is now obligated to consult with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the pace of development. The control and the assurances for the people of our province is vested in the legislature and government of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the hon. member wants to take that away.
The hon. member believes that we here in Ottawa, in this gilded chamber, are somehow supreme, wise and, in our wisdom, we can do better than those people down in St. John's, that fog-infested capital, in telling them what
Private Members' Business
the pace of their development should be. The hon. member is saying, "We in the New Democratic Party, given our usual bleeding-heart consideration for those unfortunate, unintelligent people, unable to help themselves, we will determine here in Ottawa, from this ivory tower, what their pace of development will be, because they cannot help themselves".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments when we return after six o'clock.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE REGIONAL RATES OF PAY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider abolishing the Regional Rates of Pay, now in force for certain federal government employees, in accordance with its stated policy of pay equity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 7 of last year, I spoke in the House on a very regressive piece of back-to-work legislation, Bill C-49. That will go down in the history of this Parliament as one of the most regressive, callous attacks on organized labour in Canada in recent history. I said at that time that I would hope that never again in this Parliament would I have to address the House on the discriminatory wage practice called regional rates of pay.
The government opposite has not listened to logic. The government shows no change of attitude at all in its perpetuation of discriminatory wage practices that primarily affect those individuals who live on the east coast of Canada.
Here is a little bit of history about regional rates of pay for anybody out there who is watching and wants to know what it is all about. Regional rates of pay have been practised by governments for a number of years. Over that period of time governments of the day put in a

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
system of regional rates of pay, probably reflecting society's view that it was all right to pay people based not on the work that they did, but on where they lived. There was all kinds of rationale used at the time, but most important of all, one has to understand that it was acceptable behaviour 27 years ago to do that.
The many times when I have raised the issue of regional rates of pay in this place, I received the rebuttal from the government members that previous Liberal governments did the same thing. We are now into 1990. What society may have accepted in 1957 is not necessarily what society will accept today.
The government's rhetoric on pay equity has been incredible. Time and time again we have government members speaking in the House and different mouthpieces of the government outside of the House talking about the government's commitment to pay equity.
Pay equity means equal pay for work of equal value, but time and time again in this place, in committees, and in public, when asked if it supports abolishing regional rates of pay, the government has said no, it does not support abolishing regional rates of pay.
Only 18 or 20 months ago, during the federal election campaign, we had a potential strike situation develop in a very important part of the public service. It was the CBRT and GW, the dockyard workers. On the east coast, there were over 1,500 men and women who work in the employ of the Government of Canada in the dockyards in Halifax and Dartmouth.
At that particular time, the primary issue that almost forced a strike was the issue of regional rates of pay. Quite simply, what the union was looking for, and what the men and women who worked in the CBRT and GW down on the east coast were looking for, was not a lot of money. They were not looking for great changes to their work environment. What they were looking for was fairness and equality. What they wanted was pay equity with their brothers and sisters working for the same employer, the Government of Canada, doing the same job, with the same job description on the west coast.
But the government dug in its heels and told them no, and there were offers going back and forth across the
table. Eventually, in the middle of the election campaign, there was an offer on the table which perpetuated the regional rate of pay and perpetuated that discriminatory wage gap.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Canadians who oppose the government-now 85 per cent-would now say unfortunately the Conservative government managed to bluff its way into another electoral term, one that will most likely be its last electoral term.
After the government got that term, it basically blackmailed the union. It told the union that the offer on the table during the election campaign would get worse, because now it had another term and it did not like what the union had been saying about the federal Tory policies in this regard. The union had better darn well accept it, and accept it now, because the offer would get worse.
Those individuals who were working at the dockyards in Halifax, in my humble opinion, are no less worthy of their pay for their day's labour than the people who are working on the west coast in the Victoria shipyards. The government insisted on perpetuating disparity based, not on colour, not on religion, or not on language of choice, but based on where people live in the country.
When we talk about pay equity and the need for the government to remove immediately regional rates of pay, we are talking about a matter of equality. That is what it boils down to.
It is rather appropriate that my motion got drawn to be debated this week, because unfolding across the street at the conference centre is a drama about the very future of our country. A key component of what is taking place is the discussion about preserving the equality of individuals who live in every province of the country, no matter if their mother tongue is Gaelic, as it may be down in my home province of Nova Scotia and as my grandfather's mother tongue was, or if it is French or English, or if they live in the Northwest Territories, populous Ontario, or in small Prince Edward Island. The whole debate that is taking place is about preserving that unique relationship of equality between all Canadians.
Yet, at the same time that it constantly and consistently talks about its desire to achieve wage parity, equal pay
June 7, 1990

for work of equal value, and at the same time that the great debate is going on about the very future of our country based on that fundamental principle of equality, the government continues to support policies and programs which discriminate against workers, most particularly in Atlantic Canada, not for any other reason than the fact that they live on the east coast and not in the golden triangle of central Canada or on the west coast.
I have said it in the House on a number of occasions, and I will say it again: Discrimination based on where a person lives is no less abhorrent to me and the people I represent-and I hope to all Canadians-than discrimination based on race, creed or colour. No longer does our society accept these discriminatory practices.
Last December a situation developed right across the country, on both coasts, with the ships' crews through PSAC when the ships' crews went out on strike. The ships' crews went out on strike again primarily for one reason. They were going to stand tough and stand on principle because they wanted to be treated equally.
The ships' crews, those men and women who work out in 15 metre swells at times on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but specifically on the Atlantic coast, said that they were going to go out on strike and did not care if they starved because it was a matter of principle. They were striking against the federal government because the federal government refused to move on the issue of removing regional rates of pay.
When that dastardly bill came to the legislative committee examining this legislation that Sunday-and I want to quote from this because this is absolutely incredible-I asked the President of the Treasury Board: Is your government not committed to eliminating regional rates of pay?" The response of that Minister was very short but it spoke volumes. His answer, clearly, unequivocally was: "No." I asked for some clarification and I said to him: "You are not in favour of eliminating regional rates of pay and I would like that clarified for the record." I am again going to quote the President of the Treasury Board who stated: "The labour markets are not national, they are regional. If the federal government decided to pay all of its employees the same wages it would pay, for example, in downtown Toronto, it would
Private Members' Business
wreck the local economies in many regions of this country."
That is the most bogus argument I have ever heard put forward in the House of Commons. The minister knows, as well as anybody else who has been involved with those two labour disputes I mentioned, that on the east coast of Canada those men and women who were going out in 15 metre seas on coast guard vessels to protect the individuals trying to eke out a living from our fishery and the marine transportation industry earn an average of $21,000 a year.
Even in Atlantic Canada, where the economy is almost in ruin because of the government's economic policy, those same individuals were being paid as much as 32 per cent less than individuals in similar occupations in the private sector in Atlantic Canada. Yet the minister had the nerve to come to a committee and misrepresent the facts. But, then again, the government is quite good at coming before the Canadian public and misrepresenting the facts, especially when they are facts relating to its commitment on pay equity and paying a person based not on where they live or their gender, but on what they do.
In the debate on regional rates of pay, we see a government that is committed to maintaining the disparity between various parts of the country. We are not asking for much in this motion that is put forward. We are asking for fair treatment. My goodness, how can anyone possibly tell me that, if I am a pipe-fitter in the dockyard in Halifax, or if I am a ships' crew working in the engine room of a coast guard vessel in Atlantic Canada, that somehow my labour is not worth as much as the same job being performed by another individual in another part of the country? It is outrageous.
If we were dealing with a minority group, this would not even be attempted. However, because we are dealing with groups of workers, particularly on the east coast of Canada, the government thinks that it is quite acceptable to perpetuate this incredible disparity.
Members opposite from Atlantic Canada have continued to support it, especially in light of the two labour disputes that I talked about, and knowing full well that those dockyard workers who fought hard to get wage parity, a decent living, and to be paid the same wage as

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
their counterparts in other parts of Canada who are employed by the same employer, the government of Canada. The workers are now in a position that they are going to have to start negotiating a new contract in July.
It is quite appropriate that at this point we are debating my motion in the House today. It suggests that the government abandon its perpetuation of this discriminatory, abhorrent regional rates of pay and start paying the people who are in the public employ of the country according to the work that they do and the worth of that work not based on where they live in the country.
We went through that strike and I have talked about Bill C-49, that infamous back-to-work legislation. The government had bargained in bad faith with the ships' crews. However, the government and the President of the Treasury Board were not prepared to close that wage gap between the east and west coast workers. In that particular strike situation, that was the major problem they were having with the government of Canada. All they wanted was to close that wage gap. They were not looking for a 50 per cent increase in their hourly wages. They wanted to be treated fairly. However, the government said: "No, you do not deserve it."
It went into the arbitration process and we finally got the decision which we found quite clear. The ruling of the conciliation board was as follows: "Upon signing, we will close the wage gap between the east and west coast ships' crews". Second, it was going to be paying payments over the course of the contract to try to raise the pay of those workers who were part of the ships' crews, so that they could try to achieve a more equitable parity with the private sector.
That proves the bogusness of the arguments the government uses that it cannot pay because it will disrupt local economies and that there is no basis for eliminating regional rates of pay. They should read very carefully the conclusions, recommendations, and orders of that board.
I would hope that today, as other members debate this particular motion, they realize this is not a partisan issue. It is a pocket-book issue affecting thousands and thousands of Canadians. Representing many of those Canadians who have suffered unfairly under the perpetuation of regional rates of pay, I ask this House to reconsider, as my motion asks, this government's commitment to perpetuating the regional rate of pay system in this country. Canadian workers deserve better. The men and women
who work in the public service of Canada deserve better than lip service from this government in this regard.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is proposing that the government consider abolishing the regional rates of pay now in force for certain government employees in accordance with its stated policy of pay equity. I respect the hon. member's sincerity, but from his remarks I still sense a little confusion.
I want to concentrate on the mistaken impression that the hon. member has that regional rates of pay and pay equity are somehow one and the same. They certainly are not. In fact, I recall the hon. member was told that quite explicitly by the President of the Treasury Board during debate on Bill C-49.
I think that a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act will help make it clear to the hon. member that what he calls pay equity is distinct from regional rates of pay. This act spells out what the federal government, as an employer, must carry out in order to eliminate discrimination, and in this particular context pay discrimination. The government's policy, as has been stated many times in this House in respect to what the hon. member calls pay equity is based on section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It may be helpful to quote section 11 of the act which
states:
It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.
What do we learn from this section? We first learn that what the hon. member is referring to is not pay equity but is in fact equal pay for work of equal value. More importantly, we learn that the government as an employer shall not maintain differences in pay between male and female employees performing work of equal value. That is to say that the government shall not discriminate on the basis of pay between male and female employees performing work of equal value.
Section 11(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act does not give us any guidance as to regional rates. It merely states that there shall not be any pay discrimination based on gender. Section 11 goes on to spell out the criteria to be applied to determine the value of work including the composite of the skill, effort and responsi-
June 7, 1990

bility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed.
Further, section 11 deems that separate establishments established or maintained by the employer solely or principally for the purpose of establishing or maintaining differences in wages or maintaining differences in wages between male and female employees shall be considered a single establishment.
I have just paraphrased sections 2 and 2(1) of section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and as yet we have seen no mention of regional rates.
I am trying to show that the hon. member has confused equal pay for work of equal value, or as he calls it pay equity, with regional rates of pay. I believe that by going through the Canadian Human Rights Act and the equal wage guidelines in a logical manner, as I have done up to now, it will be eminently clear when I have finished that the government's policy on equal pay for work of equal value is not in conflict with the government's policy on regional rates.
Let us go back to the equal wage guidelines. Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 deal with who is an employee of an establishment, complaints made under the act by individuals and complaints by groups.
The last area of the equal wage guidelines that I want to deal with is section 16 which spells out the reasonable factors that justify for the purpose of subsection 11(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act a difference in wages between male and female employees performing work of equal value in an establishment.
I believe that this section of equal wage guidelines is terribly important and as such I intend to quote the entire subsection. However, before I do, I want to remind the House, as I have already stated, that the government's policy on equal pay for for work of equal value is based on the Canadian Human Rights Act and as such the following quote from section 16 will reinforce that the government's policy on equal pay for work of equal value is not in conflict with the government's policy on regional rates.
Private Members' Business
16. For the purposes of subsection 11(3) of the Act, a difference in wages between male and female employees performing work of equal value in an establishment justified by
(a)	different performance ratings, where employees are subject to a formal system of performance appraisal that has been brought to their attention;
(b)	seniority, where a system of remuneration that applies to employees provides that they receive periodic increases in wages based on their length of service with the employer;
(c)	a re-evaluation and downgrading of the position of an employee, where the wages of that employee are temporarily fixed, or the increases in the wages of that employee are temporarily curtailed, until the wages appropriate to the downgraded position are equivalent to or higher than the wages of that employee;
(d)	a rehabilitation assignment, where an employer pays to an employee wages that are higher than justified by the value of the work performed by that employee during recuperation of limited duration from an injury or illness;
(e)	a demotion procedure, where the employer, without decreasing the employees wages, reassigns an employee to a position at a lower level as a result of the unsatisfactory work performance of the employee caused by factors beyond the employee's control, such as the increasing complexity of the job or the impaired health or partial disability of the employee, or as a result of an internal labour force surplus that necessitates the reassignment;
(f)	a procedure of gradually reducing wages for any of the procedures set out in paragraph (e);
(g)	a temporary training position, where, for the purposes of an employee development program that is equally available to male and female employees and leads to the career advancement of the employees who take part in the program, an employee temporarily assigned to the position receives wages at a different level than an employee working in such a position on a permanent basis.
(h)	the existence of an internal labour shortage in particular job classification;
(i)	a reclassification of a position to a lower level, where the incumbent continues to receive wages on the scale established for the former higher classification; and -
Here it is, and I appreciate your waiting:
(j)	regional rates of wages, where the wage scale that applies to employees provides for different rates of wages for the same job depending on the defined geographic area of the workplace.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. Subsection (j) of section 16 of the Equal Wages Guidelines makes it perfectly clear that it is reasonable and justifiable to have a policy of regional rates while at the same time having a policy of equal pay for work of equal value.

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
As I stated earlier, I felt that it was quite important to quote the entirety of section 16.
I did so because I did not want to leave the impression that regional rates of pay was the only reasonable and justifiable factor that allowed a difference in wages between male and female employees performing work of equal value. Section 16 specifies 10 different reasons, including regional rates, that justify a difference in wages between male and female employees performing work of equal value. I think the answer is clear that there is absolutely no conflict between the government's policy on regional rates and the government's policy on equal pay for work of equal value. The government's policy on equal pay for work of equal value is based on the Human Rights Act where I have shown that regional rates of pay are permitted.
Let there be no mistake about the government's commitment to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. I need only remind the House about the government's recently announced equal pay adjustments for clerical and regulatory, secretarial and education support employees. It is important to note that the employer took the incentive in making these adjustments.
While the government is committed to equal pay for work of equal value, it is also committed to its compensation policy included in which are regional rates of pay. The government's compensation policy, which has been explained many times in this House, is to compensate its employees with wages and other terms and conditions of employment that are comparable to but do not lead those employees in the private sector who do similar work. The compensation policy recognizes that the federal Public Service compensation should be sufficient to recruit and retain qualified employees. However, where there is a locally identifiable labour market and it is possible to recruit locally then the compensation policy calls for regional rates of pay. Regional rates of pay that are comparable to but do not lead those of employees in the local private sector and are sufficient enough to recruit and retain locally qualified employees.
A few examples of regional rates of pay are the general labour and trades group and the general services group. While it is true that in the context of collective bargaining with unions representing these employees, the number of pay zones have been reduced over the
years, this was done in direct reaction to local market conditions. Obviously, when it is no longer possible to identify or recruit from a local market, then market conditions demand a change in the regional pay zones to one that does reflect existing conditions.
To come back for a moment to my main theme of equal pay for work of equal value, the government's commitment to regional rates of pay does not interfere with equal pay but works in harmony with it, because it is obvious now that within any given regional pay zone equal pay for work of equal value applies and, as I have already stated and elaborated on, it does not operate between pay zones. Differences in wages for male and female employees performing work of equal value is justifiable and reasonable in terms of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but also in terms of a responsible employer, which the government certainly is.
This House has been told many times about the practice of private employers in respect of regional rates. The recognition of local labour conditions by other employers is growing yearly. I would say that the government is acting in complete concert with the private sector by paying regional rates when the local market warrants it. To do otherwise, would be a sign of an irresponsible employer.
What would be the result if the government were to abandon its policy of regional rates? What would be the affect on the local labour market? Let me note a few of the effects of such an action. Paying national rates of pay when regional rates of pay are warranted would only serve to over-pay employees in some regions and underpay employees in other regions in relation to the rates of pay prevailing in those regions.
A far more serious effect, I believe, would be the effect on the private sector in the different regions. They would be faced with the dilemma of the federal government paying national rates while their employees were paid local rates in response to local economic conditions. How could those employers possibly survive when faced with the prospect of having to raise the rates of their employees beyond what local conditions warranted in order to compete with a federal government for qualified employees.
Let me conclude by summarizing my approach to the hon. member's motion. Regional rates of pay are not in conflict with equal pay for work of equal value, but in
June 7, 1990

fact are consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act. Regional rates of pay are part of the government's compensation policy and, as such, match the practice of private employers and respect local market conditions. They are fair, reasonable and simply make common sense.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of this motion. I particularly want to compliment the member for Calgary Southeast who has just spoken for having made himself familiar with the Human Rights Act.
A number of actions by the government over the years have made it clear that it is not familiar with the act, and it has insisted on sending tens of thousands of its own employees off to the Human Rights Commission to prove their right to pay equity. It is only when court cases are hanging over its head that the government takes any action on pay equity. So I am not reassured by the fact that the member has read the act because it requires more than to read it, one should live by it.
However, the member seems to be rather poorly informed on how regional rates of pay are related to this issue.
I want to say that the government likes to rely on laws and only go as far as the law demands, which is usually until it is faced with a court challenge that it cannot ignore and cannot resist. But there is a simple matter of justice here. One person's day's work is worth the same as another person's day's work when they are doing the same work. It is a principle of Canadian society that opportunities and rewards should be relatively equal wherever you live in Canada.
The attitude towards regional rates of pay that has just been expounded by the member for Calgary Southeast is just another tool to keep poor regions poor while wealthier regions prosper. There is absolutely no justification for a west coast worker risking his life to be paid more than an east coast worker risking his life. Does this government really want to tell me that the life of a worker in Atlantic Canada is worth less than the life of a worker on the west coast.
The government has tried to put forward the argument that these regional rates of pay are necessary because
Private Members' Business
they are consistent with the local labour market. The member in making that argument merely showed that he is uninformed, totally uninformed, about this situation. On the east coast the old regional rates of pay, which discriminate depending on where you live in Canada, were 32 per cent below the private sector.
Now the principle put forth by Treasury Board when it went to the conciliation board on this matter was that the government should be able to pay more to keep up with the local market where it is necessary to do that. Here it was paying substantially less. Let me give a good example of where the member is totally out to sea on this and simply does not know what he is talking about.
On the west coast, public employees working as search and rescue personnel were being paid $11.68 an hour, while ferry workers were getting paid $20 an hour.
The conciliation board, fortunately, recognized both regional rates of pay and non-conformity with the local rates as being inequitable. It has added over 10 per cent over the term of the contract just to bring government rates a little closer.
The conciliation board admits that it is only inching closer and is not anywhere near parity with the private sector. It felt it had to do that as well as get rid of the regional rates of pay. It recognizes that with both those measures it is not being fair to these workers and that this is a long-term prospect that is going to have to be addressed in future contracts.
It is shocking that this country went through what it did last fall and winter. It is shocking that this government would jeopardize shipping on the Great Lakes, would tie up for over a week millions of dollars worth of shipping because it could not treat its employees differently. It knew and the conciliation board has confirmed that regional rates of pay are inequitable and I say, iniquitous. That is why I applaud the motion my colleague has brought forth today.
The government knew that and, instead of making a fair settlement, it allowed the economy of this country to suffer for weeks on end while the strike went on, while it brought in back-to-work legislation, while it forced these people back to work for inequitable wages because it did not want to do what was right and fair.

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
The conciliation board that dealt with these issues in depth and issued this lengthy report did not even have to give arguments for its decision. It simply said: "We are bringing east coast rates of pay to parity with the west coast rates of pay". It did not even feel it had to justify this decision. For this simple decision which the government could have made any time since 1988, it disrupted the economy, disrupted shipping on the Great Lakes, and disrupted search and rescue operations on both coasts of this country. There is no excuse. It is time to get rid of regional rates of pay.
If nothing else, I think the government had better be practical. It had better recognize that this conciliation board decision set a precedent and that it is not going to be able in the next round of contract negotiations to avoid the issue of regional rates of pay.
It is going to have to decide whether it is a game and negotiations will be dragged out at great cost to the taxpayer, or whether it is going to do as it did with the ship crews workers, force them to go on strike to get what is only fair and just. Is it going to do that or is it going to do the sensible thing by getting rid of the regional rates of pay and treating the day's work of one person the same as another who is doing exactly the same job?
Surely the government does not need a law to tell it to do that, or a court case, or another long and multi-million dollar strike that adversely affects not only the public sector but the private sector. Surely it just needs to face the inevitable and do what is fair.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the motion which was presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth concerning the payment of regional rates for certain federal government employees in view of the government's policy of pay equity.
Compensation policy for the federal Public Service since Confederation has embodied a number of guiding principles which have emerged with relative regularity and consistency. The public sector compensation must be fair to both employees and to the tax-paying public. That is very important. It must be fair to both. The Public Service compensation must be comparable to that found in the private sector, but does not materially exceed the compensation paid for similar services by private sector employers.
Public Service salaries should be sufficient to attract and retain qualified employees. In comparing the compensation paid in the federal government with the private sector for similar jobs, the terms and conditions of employment as well as the relative advantages and disadvantages of employment in the two sectors must be taken into account.
Restraint should be exercised in times of economic adversity as an example to the private and public sectors and that Public Service settlements should be fiscally responsible and contribute to the containment or the reduction of inflationary pressures.
Regional rates of pay should be established for groups where private sector data indicate significant variations and labour market rates among regions in Canada.
Compensation levels for the vast majority of the Public Service employees are established through the collective bargaining process. When collective bargaining was introduced in the Public Service in 1967, there was a concomitant revamping of the entire compensation system, including classification and pay.
In order to prepare the way for collective bargaining, the new system was designed to serve several objectives. The first was to provide a logical framework for the determination of bargaining units and a negotiation of pay rates.
The second was to make it possible for the government to respond flexibly to changes in outside rates of pay and at the same time to retain a relatively high degree of stability in the more important rate relationships between jobs and the Public Service.
The third objective was to permit different approaches to wage and salary administration and to personnel administration generally for different types of employees.
The fourth objective was to provide attractive career patterns and strong incentives to superior performance. This included the provision of classification and pay system which would support and encourage the best and most effective employment of human resources in the Public Service. Attractive career patterns marked by the absence of both artificial barriers to mobility and lateral transfers and by the opportunity for advancement by merit to higher income levels were advocated. A related objective was the provision in the pay plans of strong incentives to superior performance.

June 7, 1990

These objectives of the current compensation system, as well as the principles of government compensation policy are reflected in the legislation which currently governs employer-employee relations in the determination of compensation levels for the federal Public Service employees.
The compensation policies of different organizations vary accordingly to the objectives and goals each seeks to achieve. Within the collective bargaining context it is conventionally assumed that an organization's objective is to establish wages and benefits at a level necessary to attract and retain employees with skills and abilities sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the firm or organization. Normally this involves the payment of wages and benefits which reflect conditions prevalent in the appropriate labour market, a competitive policy.
For example, no one forces people to take a job in the Public Service. They can always look in the job market and take one with the private sector. One would assume that people take jobs in the Public Service because of the stability of employment, the pension benefits, and other benefits. What would happen if we increased the level of regional rates of pay? It would distort the local labour market and make people want to leave the private sector to go to the federal government, bidding up wages in the private sector, making them less competitive.
An analysis has been done, and I say this for my friend from Dartmouth, and it would cost the federal government $100 million. What would happen is the regional rates would rise to the highest national rate. A hundred million dollars. Now, where are we going to get that? Should we raise taxes? Is the hon. member in favour of another rate point in the GST? Where would it come from?
Does the hon. member want to distort the local labour markets all across the country, making the private sector uncompetitive? That is what the member is advocating. The member is advocating structural imbalances in our Canadian economy which bid up interest rates, inflation, and so on.
It is the structural imbalances created by the previous Liberal government through these programs which makes it harder to change the competitiveness of our
Private Members' Business
economy. We have been doing that gradually and it has been proven in the number of jobs created.
The government's aim is to pay a going rate in the labour market for the various classes of employees. The government expects a reasonably good quality of labour and it expects to pay employees fairly with respect to one another so that employees themselves feel that they are properly paid.
As I said before, and I will say this again for the hon. member's benefit, when you join the Public Service you join for a variety of reasons. One may be the stability of employment, or the pension plan, or other benefits.
Most private sector businesses do pay a regional rate of pay on a local market basis, particularly for operational, administrative and technical support jobs. The reason given most frequently by these firms for having geographic salary differentials is the nature of local salary and wage markets.
As an employer, the federal government is committed to paying rates of pay which are equitable and competitive with rates being paid outside the Public Service for similar occupations. Where the outside pay data of occupational groups indicates significant variations from the Canadian average and where the area of recruitment and the mobility of employees within the public service is limited, the government as an employer considers it appropriate to pay regional and not national rates of pay. As an employer competing with other employers, it is the government's view that the payment of regional rates contributes to the achievement of fair and competitive wages in the local market.
Currently most federal Public Service employees receive national rates of pay. However, some 30,000 employees, or approximately 16 per cent of the total Public Service workforce, are paid according to regional rates of pay.
The abandonment of regional rates of pay in the Public Service would have a negative impact on regional development and the fiscal framework. It would be very unlikely, or even undesirable, to have national rates emerge which would be based on an average of regional rates. National rates would gravitate to the highest regional rates. These rates would pose unfair competition to the private sector in the traditionally lower wage areas of Canada and would serve to dissuade industrial development in these regions. Is that what the hon.

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
member is asking for: less industrial development in his region? No.
Fiscally the estimated cost of moving public servants presently paid on a regional basis to a national rate is $100 million. Where are we going to get that? Are we going to raise taxes? Are we going to print money and create inflation? Is that what the hon. member wants?
As my colleague, the hon. President of the Treasury Board has stated in this House, this government is committed to maintaining regional rates of pay, where it is indicated that such an approach is in the best interests of the local labour market.
In summary, I think we want to be competitive in Canada. We do not want to distort the local labour markets. We do not want to raise taxes, which would cost us $100 million. I would say that our system is working very well now.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth. He proposes in his motion that "the government should consider abolishing the Regional Rates of Pay, now in force for certain federal government employees, in accordance with its stated policy of pay equity".
It has also been said that it is necessary for us to remind the government of its responsibilities as an employer and as a role model for the private sector. The government seems determined to be dragged into the 20th century, much less the 21st, kicking and screaming all the way.
As has been said here, last November we witnessed a strike by ships' crews and hospital services workers that could have been avoided if the government had respected the groups' concerns and sat down with them before the situation reached a critical stage. These people were trying to convince the government of the fundamental injustice of discriminating between workers who perform the same jobs but who live in different parts of the country or are of different genders. The government resorted to back to work legislation but still refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the terrible situation. When the conciliation board recommended that wage parity be given to these groups, the government filed a minority report objecting to the recommendations.
This attitude is shameful. If the government refuses to pay the same wages for the same job, then its so-called commitment to pay equity is a sham, as has been said before here today. We challenge the government to put its money where its mouth is. The government has made a tiny gesture toward these demands, but it is an empty gesture. Regional rates of pay differ according to zones and the general labour and trades groups have seen the number of zones reduced from 15 to 10. This is meaningless. The basic principle remains: certain people are paid less than others for doing the exact same job.
Pay equity is a thorny issue, but in this case the problem could not be clearer. The majority of trades personnel, as I said, are classified under the general labour and trades group. There are some interesting and some shocking figures to consider. The group is divided into 17 subgroups, and in 7 of the subgroups hourly wage rates in Atlantic Canada are the lowest in Canada and in 5 other subgroups they are the second lowest.
For instance, construction inspectors in the Atlantic provinces earn between $10.16 an hour and $13.30. For the same job in British Columbia, excluding metropolitan Vancouver and metropolitan Victoria, the pay is $11.82 and $15.63. What makes the job more valuable in British Columbia than it is in Prince Edward Island? This is the question Atlantic Canadians are asking. There are other examples, and they form an unmistakable pattern. An Atlantic Canadian makes less than his or her counterpart anywhere else in this huge country of ours, simply because of where he or she lives. There is no other reason.
I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the House, and they have already done so, will rush to tell me that indeed there is very good reason for this. When the President of Treasury Board appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-49 he said, and I quote from the minutes of the December 12 meeting: "Labour markets are not national. They are regional". This has been said here today. "If the federal government decided to pay all employees the same wages as it would
June 7, 1990

pay in downtown Toronto, it would wreck the local economies in many regions of the country".
I suggest that the government is already doing a very good job of wrecking local economies, such as that of Atlantic Canada. If this theory is sound-and since I am not an economist I will not pass judgment on that here-I say that pay equity would be but a drop in the bucket. Our regional economy is already in deep trouble largely because of federal measures such as the gutting of the UI program, the failure to renew the ERDAs, the cutbacks to ACOA, the mismanagement of the fishery, and the inadequate package offered in its place.
Some members might respond that regional rates of pay only reflect the fact that the cost of living varies between areas. I will grant you it is true that it costs less to live in some parts of Atlantic Canada than it does, for instance, in downtown Toronto, but I have other problems with this argument.
How does reducing the individual spending power do anything to help the local economy? I should think that if more money, whether in the form of consumer spending or income taxes, goes into the local economy everyone benefits.
The argument avoids the fact that workers are discriminated against because of where they choose to live and raise their family. This is just another way, as was said over here today, of preaching resettlement to Atlantic Canadians as an answer to their problems. They say: "You want to earn more money for the same job? Fine, move to Toronto and you will get it. Abandon your home. Abandon your friends. Pull up your roots". No, no, Atlantic Canadians refuse to accept this.
The minister stated, and again I quote: 'I will not in any way make a commitment that this government is going to get rid of the concept of regional rates of pay. It would not make sense".
What does not make sense and what is so offensive to workers is that the government is basically saying that some people are worth more than others. This has never been more obvious than it was last November when the east coast ships' crews were striking for wage parity with those on the west coast. Both groups risk their lives on the high seas to protect their coasts and to keep foreign fishermen from stealing even more of the fish than the government is already giving them. Both groups leave their families for months at a time to do this. According
Private Members' Business
to their pay cheques, west coast lives were more valuable than east coast lives. No matter what anybody says that is the impression left.
It is my fundamental problem with any argument against pay equity that it is a matter of dignity and of respect for the individual. Pay equity is based on responsibility, not on geography. If this government's commitment to pay equity is more than just hollow rhetoric, it will abolish regional rates of pay. The government must stop treating Atlantic Canadians as second-class citizens.
I have heard much rhetoric here today about the differences between pay equity and regional rates of pay. What it all boils down to is that people are being paid less for doing the same thing, and this is wrong. I am pleased to support this motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Dartmouth.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
abolishing the Regional Rates of Pay now in force for certain regional
federal government employees, in accordance with its stated policy of
pay equity.
I feel quite qualified to speak on this matter as an employer from Atlantic Canada with a lot of experience in competing with the government for employees. I am sure the hon. member has good intentions, but in my view his motion will be very, very damaging to our economy in Atlantic Canada.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that neither of the previous speakers have experienced the frustration and anger of losing their very best employee, the highest quality employee, the highest productive employee with years and years of training in whom they have invested or seeing them just walk away to go to a government job and leave them abandoned.
It is a frustrating experience and we cannot fight it because the private sector cannot compete with Ottawa for benefits and pay. The only way we can compete is to increase wages in our own business and sector to a level where we can compete and therefore the whole business expires and declines.
I believe it is absolutely essential to maintain equal pay for equal value in the private sector. It is interesting that the private sector with strong quality people will grow and prosper, but a government with strong quality

June 7, 1990
Private Members' Business
people will not grow and prosper and will not add wealth and jobs to the economy. It will just do the opposite.
I would challenge the members from Dartmouth and Charlottetown to take a survey of their small shop owners and small industry owners in their towns. They should ask them if they would like to compete with Ottawa for their wages and employees. Maybe they could set up a 1-800 number and have the employers call and vote as to whether they want to compete with Ottawa for their employees.
This motion does not seem to recognize that the government compensation policy for its employees already takes into account many factors, including the issue of pay equity. This government has an enormous responsibility in its role as an employer. This responsibility extends not only to its valued resource, our employees of the federal Public Service, but it extends also to the taxpayers and other important employers across the country.
It appears to me that the other speakers do not take into account the other employers. They only consider the government as an employer. For the government employees, we must pursue a policy on rates and pay that recognizes the valuable contribution made by our public servants to the delivery of government programs and the continued high quality of service delivered to the public at large.
The government's policy on compensation recognizes the following principles: First, that the terms and conditions of employment for federal public servants should be comparable to but not lead those employees in the private sector who do similar work. I ask those members to check with employers in their towns and see how they feel about that one.
Second, that comparison with the private sector shall take into consideration factors of employment such as job security, pensions, hours of work, and other benefits. Sometimes the private sector just cannot compete with these.
Third, the federal Public Service compensation should be sufficient to recruit and retain qualified employees and be determined so that appropriate compensation relationships are maintained among Public Service occupations.
Fourth, most public servants should have the right to participate in the determination of their own compensation and particular conditions of employment through responsible collective bargaining.
Fifth, federal compensation settlements will contribute to reducing inflation and be fiscally responsible.
Sixth, recognition of pay equity implementation under the Human Rights Act is based on entirely different principles from those contained in the employer's policy on compensation, that is, the Canadian Human Rights Act does not take into account either the relevant market salaries or internal organizational salary relationships. The objective of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to change purposely these relationships where there is evidence of gender or sexual discrimination.
The government's policy on rates of pay is based on a job classification system that recognizes the skills, the effort, the responsibilities, and the working conditions encountered in the employment in the federal Public Service.
It is these factors which must be scrutinized in the analysis of the appropriate level of compensation for our employees and then compared to a similar job classification in the private sector to determine if the rate of pay is comparable to that of the private sector.
As I stated earlier, it is the policy of the government as an employer that the compensation for its employees should neither leave nor trail that of similar occupations in the tax paying private sector.
Coincidentally, it is these same factors-skill, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions-which be analysed when comparing jobs within the Public Service to ensure that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is being adhered to.
It should be pointed out that geographic location is not considered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as a factor in determining whether wage discrimination is occurring.
In addition to comparing the rates of pay for public servants with those of their occupational counterparts in the private sector, the government as an employer must in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act, must also consider all the factors of employment, not just rates of pay.
June 7, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-14, an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order there have been discussions with the three parties. I believe that you will find that there is consent for us to proceed with the private members' bills to change riding names at this point, then to return to debate on Orders of the Day, Bill C-44 shortly after that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT MEASURE TO CHANGE NAME OF ELECTORAL RIDING OF BRAMPTON - M ALTON
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton) moved:: That Bill C-294, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Brampton -Malton be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I take it that there is agreement also that there will be no speeches. The agreement is that we will pass this series
Private Members' Business
of nine bills. If we start having speeches, the agreement will not stand.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that it is our understanding as well that there will not be speeches. Also, may I say that I believe the motion you just read was reference to a legislative committee.
Perhaps we can change that and do it in committee of the whole very quickly.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it possible for the Chair to do all the bills at once, then bring them back?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MEASURE TO CHANGE NAME OF MONTMORENCY-ORLEANS CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (for Mr. DeBlois) moved: that Bill C-296, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Montmorency-Orleans be now read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin) moved: that Bill C-298, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Elgin be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Ken Monteith: that Bill C-308, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Selkirk be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1990
Government Orders

Harry Chadwick: that Bill C-309, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Surrey-White Rock be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (for Mr. Ricard) moved: that Bill C-310, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Jacques Tétreault: that Bill C-311, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Laval-des-Rapides be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: that Bill C-305, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Gloucester be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Charles DeBlois (for Mr. Loiselle) moved: that Bill C-307, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Langelier be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Vincent Della Noce: for leave to introduce Bill C-312 entitled an act to change the name of the electoral district of Duvernay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the second time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Vincent Della Noce: that Bill C-312, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Duvernay be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I think it would be appropriate if the hon. member from Duvernay would explain briefly to the House why he wants to change the name of his riding.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member can do that in Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-44, an act respecting the Hibernia Development Project and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Barrett (p. 12464).
June 7, 1990
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte had 10 minutes remaining for his speech, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks on Bill C-44, particularly on the amendment put by the New Democratic Party.
When I spoke earlier, before debate on this bill was suspended, I dealt with each part of the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party on Bill C-44, one after the other. I think it is illustrated quite clearly that none of the amendments being moved by the New Democratic Party to Bill C-44, upon serious, sober reflection, have any substance. The net effect of the amendments proposed by the new Democratic Party is, in essence, to suggest to the government and the people of Newfoundland that they have no role to play in the Hibernia development.
It represents an attitude on the part of the New Democratic Party that, in essence, big brother in Ottawa, as represented by the House of Commons, has to provide a degree of assurance in a whole variety of areas for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because they are unable to provide for themselves any assurance about their future prosperity, the pace of development, the question of environmental protection, and, frankly, the question of equity participation by the federal government.
I think I was able to point out to my colleagues in the NDP, who I have to assume moved these amendments by accident and not by design, that, in fact, this motion is not well founded. It is my sincere hope that the New Democratic Party will withdraw these amendments and will not insist upon a vote on these amendments. Having heard something of the history of this development over the last decade or two, but in particular the last decade, for the New Democratic Party to insist upon these kinds of amendments in the House of Commons can only be seen as, first, an effort based upon an abysmal lack of knowledge about the history of the development. Second, it is essentially an attitude by the New Democratic Party-a paternalistic attitude at best-that says that the
Government Orders
people, and in particular the elected representatives in the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, are composed of people who have some kind of inferiority that prevents them from representing their own best interest and from participating in a full way as a partner in this development.
As a Newfoundlander, and one who has watched the 10 years of debate that have gone on, I cannot accept, no matter how well-intentioned, the paternalistic attitude of the New Democratic Party which says that Newfoundlanders are intrinsically incapable of seizing and seeing their own best interest and representing themselves; and that we, as members of Parliament from Edmonton East or elsewhere in the country, as well intentioned as we may be, really ought to look after those people of Newfoundland because they are not able to look after themselves.
I hope that it not the intention. In fact I have difficulty believing that is the intention of the New Democratic Party, and I would expect that members of that caucus upon reflection will withdraw these amendments which can only be considered by any rational, intelligent, informed, and engaged human being as, I hope unintended, insult and offence to the people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Clearly, it is unusual in the first instance for amendments to be moved on a bill even before that bill has gone to a legislative committee. That is rarely done in this place and, in essence, the attempt to move amendments becomes a form of filibuster. It becomes a basic vote of no confidence in the bill. They have not even given it a chance to be amended or studied in committee. They have not even heard witnesses and already they want to amend the bill.
I say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that, if they do not withdraw these amendments, no amount of woolly language and no amount of slippery words are going to convince Newfoundlanders of anything other than that the New Democratic Party of Canada, the national New Democratic Party, is opposed to the Hibernia development. The national New Democratic Party, as they say right in their amendment, does

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
not believe that Hibernia deserves the financial participation of the Government of Canada, and thereby of all Canadians, in this project on behalf of the notion of security of supply and, frankly, on behalf of the notion that Newfoundlanders deserve to share in the wealth and the opportunity for prosperity in the country.
My friend from Edmonton East, a member from Alberta, stood up and said: "I am from Alberta. I know all about energy development. It brings prosperity, but it brings problems too. It can bring disaster. It can bring misery. It can bring tremendous problems for the people who live in the province where energy development occurs." I found that an incredibly arrogant remark from the member.
I want to tell the member from Alberta, the member for Edmonton East, I know that energy development means challenge. I know and Newfoundlanders know that we have to be concerned about the pace of development. I know and Newfoundlanders know that we have to be concerned about protection of the environment, but let me tell him that the problems of prosperity are infinitely preferable to the problems of poverty. It is insulting and arrogant to suggest that he has suffered prosperity and that Newfoundlanders are far better off continuing to live in poverty.
It takes a special kind, may I suggest humbly, of pomposity to say: "I have had the wealth. We have rolled around in the prosperity of development and, believe you me, we have had difficulty from the vantage point of Alberta handling that prosperity, both the good and the bad. We want to keep you Newfoundlanders in your quaint little village with your high unemployment, with your particular culture, and with your particular way of life, shielded from the problems of prosperity, because you are really quaint, cute, valuable, and unique in your poverty." Well, I cannot accept that kind of reasoning from the New Democratic Party.
I have to believe that a couple of people ill-informed in that caucus, without the knowledge of the greater number of the members, hopefully without the knowledge of the leader and certainly without the knowledge of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, moved this ill-considered amendment. Right now, as I speak the truth of the words that I utter on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I
have to believe the confidence that I expressed in the ability of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be a partner in this project and to participate with the national government and the consortium, and the confidence that I have that the legislature of Newfoundland will represent the views and interests of Newfoundland will permeate the fog that obviously prevails around the minds of those who drafted these amendments, Mr. Barrett and others, and the New Democratic Party will withdraw these amendments. The choices are two: Withdraw these amendments, recognize the ability of Newfoundland to speak for itself and to be a full partner; or have the courage to stand up and say clearly and without any equivocation that the New Democratic Party of Canada opposes Hibernia development.
The New Democratic Party of Canada is saying to Newfoundland that it does not believe, as a party, that the investment by the national government is warranted in Hibernia. It does not believe that the opportunity for new kinds of jobs, high-tech jobs, and permanent jobs should happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is the challenge to the New Democratic Party. It is not to hide behind weasel words, not to hide behind phoney concern for Newfoundlanders, and not to assume that only the New Democratic Party can speak for Newfoundlanders, that they are unable to speak for themselves. The challenge is to admit honestly and openly that the party, the New Democratic Party, with these amendments, is saying to Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders everywhere: "You are not deserving. Hibernia is not deserving of the financial support of the federal government, and we oppose this project." Say it openly and say it honestly. At least it shall have the admiration of the people of my province for the courage of its convictions as much as we disagree. But do not hand us paternalism, do not hand us big brotherism, and do not tell us that they are doing it in our best interest because we, in our ignorance, know not what is good for us.
I say to the NDP: "Have the courage of your convictions, withdraw these foolish and insulting amendments, or stand clearly and say that you oppose the development of Newfoundland. Stand clearly and say that you genuinely believe that the so-called joy of poverty is preferable to the problems of prosperity. Say that to Newfoundlanders and they shall hold this New Demo-
June 7, 1990

cratic Party in judgment for this foolish delaying tactic of a project that is long overdue and urgently needed in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador."
Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's speech and I was astounded when he spoke of pomposity and arrogance because what I was hearing was exactly that. I heard a member who totally ignores, as perhaps governments in Newfoundland in the past have done, assistance or ideas from those outside.
I point the member to events in the have-not province of Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party. That was a party that knew where it wanted to go and how to get there. Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, this was a party with ideas, this was a party that was willing to come up with new ideas.
I ask the member, how many New Democratic Party governments has Newfoundland and Canada seen? Which parties have led the country and the provinces to the economic problems they have now? Which parties has it been?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question and I am glad to answer it. The member has asked how many New Democratic governments has Canada had. I am tempted to say in response to this so-called question that obviously we have had too many New Democratic Party governments in the country.
I am not one who usually spends much time having knee-jerk, philosophical reactions to the NDP. Frankly, on occasion, I find myself in agreement with it. But I must say that when I see this kind of bill I do not hesitate to tell my friends in the New Democratic Party that I think they have lost their minds. I do not think they have done their homework. I think they have been misled. I think they are confused. I think they do not even realize this is offensive.
The issue here is not that parties or people from other parts of Canada cannot give advice to Newfoundland. They are more than welcome to give advice to Newfoundland. They are more than welcome to come and visit my riding and give all the free advice they are willing to pass out. In many cases, it will be genuinely and happily accepted.
I do not subscribe to the notion that I am not able to speak about British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Sas-
Govemment Orders
katchewan, or Manitoba. I think I am and I have an interest, as a Canadian member of parliament, in those provinces.
What I do subscribe to, as well as a right to speak about B.C., is a responsibility to understand what it is I am speaking about, a responsibility to have done my homework, a responsibility to understand the issue, a responsibility to understand the history of the development and an understanding to have knowledge not just biases or instincts as forces upon which I make my statements.
All I am saying to my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party-and they have not responded in detail-is that this amendment, moved even before we go into the legislative committee, the normal process, is a vote of non-confidence in Hibernia. I asked the member for Edmonton East earlier whether or not this meant that the bill should be defeated. He said that whether the amendment is passed or not, the bill ought to be defeated.
The member for Edmonton East had the courage to say that the New Democratic Party of Canada is opposed to Hibernia. In reality he said that, hidden behind this agenda of so-called amendments to help the quaint people of Newfoundland, is a clear statement by the New Democratic Party, the party of the little people, the party of the impoverished, the party of the poor, the party of the least advantaged, that it has given a boot to the people of Newfoundland, the province of highest unemployment in Canada.
Hidden behind the so-called party of energy self-sufficiency and security of supply is the party that says that offshore oil and gas ought not to be developed. That is what we have, hiding behind the party that has a member from Alberta who has prospered and seen some prosperity from energy development. It is the hypocrisy that the prosperity can be handled by those who live in Alberta, as difficult as it is, but Newfoundland really is better at handling poverty. They say we ought to stop this bill.
The hon. members of the NDP ought to stand up and be counted, speak forthrightly and quit these weasel words, pretending to have an interest in somebody and in an issue on which they obviously have not done their homework.

June 7, 1990
Government Orders


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the hon. member who represents a riding in Newfoundland would not take this debate to such a low.
The hon. member has succeeded in doing that. What is happening is that the hon. member for Edmonton East happens to come from Alberta-I am treading on dangerous ground and implying motives. What we are seeing now is a dynamic that is tearing our country apart. We are seeing it on a daily basis, and it is this kind of analysis that only feeds that dynamic.
The New Democratic Party represents all of Canada and works for the interests of all Canadians. The hon. member can very well cloak himself in the Newfoundland flag and feel that he is speaking for his riding. That is his right and duty. But we see things on a larger scale. We speak for all of Canada.
In fact, I think there are international aspects to this deal that need to be looked at, and I will address those in my speech. I just caution the member that the kind of regional hit-list that he is invoking today is not creative. It does not bring a solution to the problem. Because the hon. member who moved or supported the motion was from Edmonton East, it does not disqualify him from making comments on economic projects, on billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars.
I ask the member this question. Does he believe that, because the hon. member for Edmonton East is from Alberta, it disqualifies him from commenting on this expenditure of Canadian taxpayer dollars?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear in my last comments that I would invite every hon. member of the New Democratic Party to come to Newfoundland to visit, to comment and to do some research to understand the history of the issue.
This hon. member has not been standing up and suggesting that hon. members outside Newfoundland have no right to comment, quite the contrary. In his last response, this hon. member made clear that he has a right and a responsibility to comment on issues affecting every other part of Canada. I frequently do in this place.
Along with the right to comment as a Canadian about Canadian issues, comes a responsibility to be informed.
Because I have a right to comment on what is happening in every part of Canada does not give me the right to comment without having done my homework. All I suggested to members of the New Democratic Party is not that they have no right to speak about Newfoundland issues, but that you have a responsibility to have done your homework. The issue I raise is not that members should not speak because they are from Alberta or British Columbia. What I have said is that the NDP should have done its homework on the issue.
Bill C-44 is a piece of enabling legislation which allows the federal government, the provincial government and a private sector consortium to reach arrangements for the development of Hibernia. However, the effect of the NDP amendments will eliminate the role of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP are saying that there is only a role to be played by the federal government and the consortium.
The Minister of Energy is across from me now. The effect of these amendments is that the Newfoundland government has no role. There is a role for Ottawa. There is a role for the big boys in the corporate towers of Toronto but there is no role for Newfoundland. I cannot accept that. I am saying that if the NDP do not understand that is the effect of their amendment, perhaps it is by accident, not by design. It is one or the other. If you have not understood that is the effect of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is what I am saying to my colleagues in the NDP, if it is an accident, withdraw the amendments and we will understand you made a mistake. If it is by design that you moved this kind of a motion, then have the courage to say it honestly and you will be judged accordingly by every region of Canada. This is not an issue about which you cannot speak. You have a right to speak. You have a responsibility to speak, but you have a responsibility as well to be informed. That is what I say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it has been over 10 years since significant amounts of oil were discovered off the east coast of Canada. In that short time there has been a revolution in the energy sector in this country. Oil is not just oil anymore. How we find it and how we use it is still part of our energy policy, of course, but there is a new way of looking at energy policy. There is a new criterion by which energy
June 7, 1990

policy is to be judged. That new criterion is the effect the exploration, development and use of our energy resources have on the environment. After all, in the words of the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, "choosing an energy strategy inevitably means choosing an environmental strategy".
When it comes to the environment, this bill does not cut the mustard. In the absence of other concerted ameliorative actions, Bill C-44 proposes a course of action that is environmentally unsound. It promotes unsustainable development.
In my remarks this evening I would like first to address some of the serious environmental problems associated with offshore drilling and development. Second, I would like to take a broader view. I would like to consider how this bill fits into the government's sorry environmental record. What name comes to mind when you think of oil tankers plying our coastal waters? How about when I mention tankers running aground such as the Exxon Valdez. Oil tankers, waves, rocks and in the inevitable human error make a dangerous mix. Add fog, darkness, icebergs or screaming winds and tanker accidents, given time, become a virtual certainty.
Marine accidents do not just happen off the west coast. On October 9, 1984 a 30-thousand tonne Liberian-registered bulk carrier nearly rammed the drill rig Sedco 706 which had about 80 people on board. The ship came so close to the rig that it actually came between the anchor chain and the rig before being intercepted by supply vessel.
Canadians will also remember the tragic loss of life that occurred when the semi-submersible drill rig Ocean Ranger capsized and sank in 1982 during a furious storm. Busy tanker traffic to and from Hibernia's tanker loading facilities will inevitably increase the chances that just such an accident involving an oil tanker will occur. After the television coverage of the Exxon Valdez disaster, I do not have to remind Canadians of the environmental devastation that is caused by the thousands of tonnes of oil that can spew from a stricken tanker. I do not have to remind Canadians of the damage to fish stocks and to other marine life so fundamental to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians in Atlantic Canada, people whose livelihoods are already threatened by actions of this Conservative government.
Government Orders
Oil spills also occur when offshore petroleum wells blow out. Since 1970 there have been six natural gas blowouts on the Canadian offshore, the most recent of which occurred in the Beaufort Sea just last June. In the Atlantic, three blowouts have occurred recently. On February 22, 1984, machine failure and lack of proper blowout prevention procedures caused a gas blowout of the semi-submersible drilling platform Vinland.
Another natural gas well blew out of control 290 kilometres off the Nova Scotia coast in February, 1985. That blowout lasted for several months. Yet another gas well blew out at West Venture, N-91, off Sable Island in April, 1985.
Natural gas well blowouts are more common and less harmful than oil well blowouts. But oil wells can blow too.
That is why I was shocked to learn that Canada is simply not prepared for an oil spill off the coast of Newfoundland. This fact is outlined in a report entitled Oil Spill Preparedness in the Upstream Petroleum Industry, released November 22,1989, by the Canadian Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada.
This report which was reviewed in the November 23, 1989 Financial Post, and again in the March 22, 1990, Globe and Mail, concluded that:
On the Grand Banks, industry does not presently have appropriate equipment or sufficient support vessels to respond immediately to an oil blowout and to clean up a blowout spill.
The report goes on to say that in a worst case scenario, as much as 32 times the volume of oil lost by the Exxon Valdez could be spilled into the most productive fishing grounds in the North Atlantic.
Moreover, the report states that in the event of a blowout during a storm on in the presence of significant amounts of ice:
- containment and recovery efficiency would be reduced, likely to zero per cent.
My colleague, the member for Edmonton East quizzed the president of the Canadian Petroleum Association, Mr. Maciej during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources on February 8, 1990. Mr. Maciej said that:
-if the project proceeds it will be accompanied by the necessary preparedness to deal with oil spills.

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
When my colleague asked how this was to be guaranteed, Mr. Maciej replied: "It will just happen." He later elaborated slightly by saying that: "The approval of the department plan-requires that kind of action."
Well, most Canadians would not be very reassured by those comments. You can bet that my colleagues and I will be watching the situation very, very closely.
There is another significant threat to Hibernia and other similar projects that is not well known among Canadians who do not live in Atlantic Canada. Icebergs, huge icebergs towering like skyscrapers above the water, some weighing up to 50 million tonnes, are one of the most serious threats to east coast offshore activities.
Icebergs and bits that break off them are obviously a serious threat to tankers in the vicinity of Hibernia.
Drifting icebergs are also known to have forced personnel on movable drilling rigs to halt activities and flee their destructive presence.
Such icebergs are capable of gouging massive trenches in the sea bed, trenches up to 15 metres deep, 200 metres across and several kilometres long. This enormous power threatens Hibernia's proposed loading facilities and oil-gathering lines.
To be fair, this issue was considered during Mobile Oil's Environmental Impact Assessment in 1985. However, Cle Newhook then executive director of the Ocean Ranger Foundation, now leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador NDP, was quoted on October 17, 1985, in The Chronicle-Herald from Halifax expressing serious concerns that Mobile's assessment contained, in his words, "dangerous underestimates" of the wind, wave, current and ice conditions on the Grand Banks.
Many other people remain unconvinced that Hibernia's cement gravity-based structure, huge though it will be, together with its more fragile pipelines and tanker loading facilities will be capable of withstanding the full force of a massive iceberg during a raging storm.
It seems clear that many environmental questions about this project have not been answered, and indeed are difficult to answer definitively.
Oil industry analyst Ian Doig asked a crucial question in a Financial Post article on September 16, 1989, when he wrote:
The gravity based structure, GBS, will not just disappear when its use is finished. How do you hide 450,000 metric tons of concrete standing 357 feet tall?
Mr. Doig then suggested that, and I quote:
The revised project will probably have to be submitted to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (CNOPB) for approval. And certainly the plans for the eventual abandonment of the GBS structure will have to win environmental approval from Ottawa before work begins.
Speaking of environmental reviews, the Environmental Impact Statement conducted by Mobil and released in 1985 did not even consider or mention carbon dioxide emissions that will result from this fossil fuel megaproject. It is possible by aggressively pursuing the development of energy alternatives and energy conservation to ensure the Hibernia development would not result in an increase in Canada's CO2 emissions, even given the emission reduction target that we should be setting for ourselves in the next decade.
A major report released last August by the Toronto consulting group, DPA Group Incorporated, indicated that Canada could combat the greenhouse effect by slashing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 and save $100 billion in the process.
The point is that the government, through this bill, has effectively ignored the global warming issue altogether. I imagine some hon. members across the way are asking: What has carbon dioxide got to do with Bill C-44? It is simple. Bill C-44 provides for the extraction of a whole new source of CO2 emissions. Listen to what the Prime Minister said on June 27, 1988, at the International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere held in Toronto.
The world is coming to recognize what we believe to be self-evident-that development and environmental protection are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. Our economic activity must be increasingly compatible with today's environmental facts of life.
Later in the same speech, the Prime Minister stated:
In no area is the link between our economic activity and environmental disruption more evident or more troubling than in the area of energy policy. Canada is committed to applying the principles of sustainable development to our energy future.
June 7, 1990

So what about CO2 and global warming? The conference statement for the 1988 Toronto conference entitled The Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security stated that, and I quote:
The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions.
It was stark language that the conference used in speaking of the changing atmosphere.
I want to draw the particular attention of the House to this quote:
Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war.
It should be noted that the Prime Minister did sign the Hague Declaration entitled Our Common Future: It's in our Hands. That declaration emphasized the importance of all countries doing their bit to prevent atmospheric pollution. It stated:
Because of the nature of the dangers involved, remedies to be sought involve-the duty of the community of nations, vis-a-vis future and present generations to do all that can be done to preserve the quality of the atmosphere.
More recently, before his untimely departure from cabinet, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean made many statements about global warming on behalf of his government. He stated in a Toronto Star interview published on April 18, 1990 that:
We have sufficient indications (of global warming) to implement whatever action we can now.
On April 17, 1990 in Washington, D.C., speaking to reporters after a conference on global warming, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said that:
The price of inaction is too high to wait for further research.
In a column published in the November 1, 1989 edition of The Finance Post the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean wrote:
We can accept our responsibilities as leaders or we can abdicate.
Even the Energy Minister admits that actions need to be taken. He stated, during the December 11, 1989 meeting of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, that:
Government Orders
Based on information I have received in the department from scientists and others who are working on global warming within the department, I am convinced that we have to reduce emissions, that they have negative effects on climate.
Clearly, on the level of government pronouncements, the Mulroney government is quick to agree that much needs to be done to protect the environment.
For its pronouncements to mean anything significant, Canada has to begin to put its own House in order. We clearly have a valuable role to play. After all, although Canada is directly responsible for about 2 per cent of the total global C02 emissions, we are one of the most energy-inefficient countries in the world. Canadians consume more energy per person than is the case in the U.S.A., Sweden, Germany, the U.K. and Japan, and the situation is getting worse.
From the perspective of energy use per thousand dollars GDP, we also use more energy than the U.S.A., Sweden, the U.K., Germany and Japan.
We live in a cold country, it is true, but in addition we are extremely wasteful. We could use substantially less energy, thereby polluting much less, without making significant changes to our way of life, but so far the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been heading in the opposite direction.
In the 1989-90 budget the government closed 12 conservation and renewable energy offices across the country. These offices provided information to people in the regions on how they could save money and energy at the same time. In fact they did not even interfere in the market-place, they only provided information, but the government closed them down. The government cut funding for conservation and renewable energy, according to figures from the Energy Department, from $410 million in 1984-85 to $40 million for 1990-91. That is a 90 per cent cut. This simply boggles the mind and it surely qualifies for yet another example of this government's stunning hypocrisy.
The Mulroney government publicly support the Brundtland Report and claimed to be very concerned about global warming. At the same time, it cut already limited funding for the most effective government programs to combat global warming and, instead, poured billions of dollars into Hibernia, a fossil fuel project that will add to global warming.

June 7, 1990
Government Orders
In conclusion, I urge the federal government to examine much more closely the environmental consequences of this project in particular, and its energy policy in general. This government has a long way to go to address environmental concerns.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is quoted as saying in The Globe and Mail report on April 19, 1990:
I don't think we should be afraid to be taking the lead.
Unfortunately, as this bill stands and in the absence of other concerted ameliorative actions, Bill C-44 proposes a course of action that is environmentally unsound and which constitutes unsustainable development.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, earlier today my New Democrat colleague, the member for Edmonton East, outlined why we in the New Democratic Party oppose this bill. Lie emphasized that we do not oppose the Elibernia project itself, but that we oppose this bill because it will not provide, among other things, the employment opportunities that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve.
I do not propose to go into the sad history of dashed hopes and political opportunism that lies behind this bill, nor will I enter into a detailed description of the financial arrangements in the bill itself. Instead I will proceed directly from the remarks of my colleagues and focus on another serious shortcoming of the government's legislation.
This bill fails to provide adequate economic benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, and for the people of Canada in general.
The Conservative government claims to support this bill, in part because of the economic spin-offs associated with the Hibernia development.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has repeatedly emphasized this point. For example, he was quoted in the Toronto Star on September 13, 1989, as saying:
We want the Hibernia project to take place. It is a project of
national importance and it is a project for regional benefits,
particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the House of Commons when my colleague from Edmonton East, the New Democratic energy critic, questioned the minister about plans the government
might have to minimize the project's environmental effects, the minister responded by claiming quite wrongly that we opposed economic development for Atlantic Canada. He stated and I quote:
New Democrats are opposed to Hibernia. I guess they want the unemployment in Newfoundland. They do not want the industrial benefits in Newfoundland. I am simply saying, you want all the benefits, but you do not want to take any of the responsibility.
I am pleased to say that the minister was totally wrong. We on this side of the House care very much about job creation, about everyday folk getting a fair deal, about our children having an even better opportunity in life than we have had.
That is why we examined the bill closely from the perspective of economic development. That examination demonstrated to us that the bill will not provide nearly enough benefit to Newfoundlanders and Canadians.
Contrary to the impression left by the minister that we imposed regional benefits, we want Newfoundlanders and Canadians to benefit from this project, and that is exactly why we oppose the bill. Just for a change, we want the federal government to take seriously the notion of economic diversification.
The simple fact is that the government, through this bill, is promoting a huge energy project that will bring precious little in the way of economic benefits to ordinary Newfoundlanders. That, to put it politely, is shameful.
The government should pay careful attention to the following statement contained in the background report prepared in 1986, written for the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador. It recognizes that Newfoundlanders will come up short in economic spin-offs. It states:
It is must be recognized that the majority of Hibernia development expenditures will be incurred outside Newfoundland. The skilled labour force in the province is limited. The number of local companies capable of significant involvement in the offshore industry is also relatively small.
Let me repeat that quotation from the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It must be recognized that the majority of Hibernia development expenditures will be incurred outside Newfoundland.
June 7, 1990

Newfoundlanders will remember the two cabinet ministers holding a news conference in July 1988 to tell Quebecers that they could look forward to landing a large portion of the Hibernia contracts available to Canadian companies. At that time the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion estimated that Newfoundland would receive about $770 million worth of Hibernia contracts, while other provinces between them would get more than twice as much, about $1.83 billion in contracts. All that was before the free trade agreement and its national treatment provisions.
One of the original hopes of Hibernia was that it would provide Newfoundlanders with considerable economic benefit. This bill certainly will not satisfy that aspiration.
A study about how much money from offshore oil and gas exploration actually stays in Newfoundland was conducted by the offshore Business Development Division of the provincial Department of Development in 1985. That study found that in the preceding five years, while oil companies spent nearly $1.5 billion in Newfoundland, less than 20 per cent of that stayed in the province.
Newfoundlanders have also been led to expect that Hibernia will bring royalty and tax money into the province. Incredibly, Newfoundlanders will gain much less than they thought they would just a few years ago.
Last year the official in charge of Norway's multi-billion dollar petroleum industry was quoted in the St. John's Evening Telegram of March 11, 1989 calling the Hibernia deal "more generous to the oil companies" than would be allowed in his country.
In fact, even before the recent redesign of the project which will result in fewer benefits accruing to Newfoundland, the Hibernia deal was severely criticized for being a very bad deal for Atlantic Canada.
For its part the provincial government has given up an enormous amount in potential benefits by granting a sales tax holiday, providing corporate income tax concessions and designing a royalty regime that will result in the province forgoing billions of dollars on royalties. Many observers have pointed out that the provincial government made so many concessions, and Newfoundlanders will benefit so little from the project.
Government Orders
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve more than this. Yet the Conservative government insists that Newfoundlanders should be grateful and they want us to support this bill, this financial strait-jacket for Newfoundland and Labrador.
We New Democrats are not the only ones to recognize that the Hibernia deal is not a good one for Atlantic Canada. A former federal Liberal energy critic indicated that a much better deal could have been struck. While in opposition the present Premier of Newfoundland was a vocal opponent of the deal. Mr. Wells' opposition is rather more muted these days, but he certainly was strongly opposed to the deal at an earlier stage when he was in opposition. It was instructive to remember what Mr. Wells was saying a few months ago. He said:
Mr. Peckford and the federal government did a terrible job on the Hibernia deal. The agreement in principle gives away more than we are getting in return. There are no significant benefits for Newfoundland.
He also said:
Unless there is a massive increase in the price of oil, which nobody at this stage is predicting, there will be very low royalties to start with, and the royalties that are paid will result in virtually a dollar for dollar reduction in (federal) equalization payments. So the net cash value to Newfoundland will be virtually nil.
The problems with the deal do not end with the provincial royalty and tax regime. What about the economic spin-offs? What about the opportunities for business in Newfoundland to supply goods and services for the project?
They do not look good. Based on the offshore oil experience in Norway and Scotland, Newfoundland's development minister is already warning local companies that they might have a hard time meeting the exacting standards the owners of the project will demand. He said: "Alarm bells should be going off in company heads right now".
The article from which I just quoted went on to refer to what he called a typical purchase order of Mobil Oil and said:
The quality control requirements imposed by the offshore oil industry are more stringent than those normally encountered by Canadian contractors and suppliers, excepting perhaps those involved in the nuclear industry.

Government Orders
That sounds a lot like a foreign multinational letting Newfoundland business know that it is going to be out of luck. But there is more: perhaps the government will help local businesses meet those exacting standards imposed by the oil industry.
According to one article, about $500,000 has already been spent on this, but according to the province's energy minister right now only three or four businesses meet the specifications for quality control. Three or four businesses only, Mr. Speaker, and according to the minister only a number of others will be able to meet those standards. That is clearly not economic diversification.
What about using the old to diversify the Newfoundland economy? There will be no luck there either.
In Alberta, petroleum feed stocks were provided to the petrochemical industiy at a reduced price to give it a competitive advantage. The trade deal prevents Newfoundland from enjoying this diversification tool. The deal prohibits government policies intended to result in energy prices for domestic purposes that are lower than export prices. It is practically impossible for Newfoundland to spur local refining or develop a profitable petrochemical industry using oil stock from the Hibernia and nearby fields.
Similarly under the trade deal there is no possibility that Newfoundlanders in particular, or Canadians in general, will have priority access to Hibernia oil subsidized with Canadian public funds.
What seems more likely is that most of the Hibernia oil will be shipped straight to the United States, and that most of it will not even be refined in Newfoundland.
Not only will Newfoundlanders not get the jobs that refining represents, not only will the province not get the economic spin-offs that could come from refining it, on top of it all Canadians by subsidizing Hibernia will in effect be subsidizing American consumers.
That is not what we in the New Democratic Party call economic diversification for Newfoundlanders.
Aside from these forgone financial opportunities, there are also very real social costs associated with any megaproject like Hibernia. These often receive veiy little attention, even though large energy developments in other provinces have all too frequently led to serious
social problems resulting from rapid population shifts, inadequate planning, and a lack of human services and facilities.
The Community Services Council recommended to the Hibernia environmental assessment panel that Mobile should be required to set aside adequate funding for social planning and research. The Canadian Mental Health Association indicated that not enough base line data existed to forecast accurately the social services that will be required.
Other organizations have stressed the need for additional day care facilities in the province so that women are not prevented from obtaining those employment opportunities that will exist.
All these things take planning. All these things will end up costing the people of Canada and Newfoundland money.
Given these often ignored costs and given the deal's shocking paucity of benefits for Newfoundland, it is not surprising that even the Premier of Newfoundland stated in a state of the province address on January 11 the following:
It may well be in the best interests of the people of this province to
leave the oil in the ground until we get the real benefits.
Whenever I think about this bill and the agreement behind it and about all those people who believe that it makes no economic sense for the people of province or the country, I am reminded of the great myth that Conservatives are supposed to be good economic managers. I think this is a good example of hypocrisy on the part of the government.
On the one hand the Conservatives frequently portray themselves as good economic managers and foster the ideology of the market oriented approach. Yet here they are using billions of dollars of public funds and a massive intervention in the market-place to subsidize a project that makes little economic sense and will bring few benefits to Newfoundlanders. This point is not lost on business commentators. Oil analyst, Ian Doig, points out that of all oil production in the world 99.5 per cent of it would be less costly than Hibernia oil. The Associate Editor of The Financial Post, Terence Corcoran, in an article on July 26, 1988 wrote:
At best, Hibernia and the other megadollar sinkholes re-establish corporations as corporate welfare bums-
June 7, 1990

Quite clearly, the Conservative market ideology demands that ordinary Canadians survive as best they can in the market-place. The wealthy and the powerful, however, apparently have to be induced to venture into those inhospitable climes.
And what an inducement Hibernia backers will get: up to more than $3 billion in free money, loans, and loan guarantees. Of that, more than $1 billion will be in the form of a direct grant, free money with no strings attached. A billion dollars in free government money can be a wonderfully comforting thing to have when the chill winds of the market start to blow.
Not even the Alberta government, which for years was rolling in petro-dollars, was ever that profligate. When the time came for it to ante up its contribution to the giant Syncrude oil sands plant in Fort McMurray, the Alberta government made sure that Albertans could share in the project's successes. Through a combination of equity and convertible debentures later converted to equity, the Alberta government came to hold 16.74 per cent of Syncrude directly. The 16.74 per cent share generated returns for the people of Alberta of more than $410 million in the 1980s alone. That is almost twice the original cost to Alberta of its participation in the project.
By investing in Syncrude through equity and convertible debentures instead of simply giving away money as this government is doing, the people of Alberta secured a tidy profit over time and have retained share holdings which have doubled in value over the years going from about $250 million to over $500 million. What is more, the $500 million is still there to be used in any future projects the government might desire.
The question which hangs on this bill is: Why not equity? Why did the Conservative government not obtain an equity participation in the Hibernia project? Why not secure for the Canadian people a dollar's worth of equity for every dollar they put into the project? Surely, if the Conservative Government of Alberta is capable of realizing and acting upon this sensible concept, the Conservative Government of Canada should take the hint, but no it prefers the role of corporate Santa Claus,
Government Orders
giving billions of dollars away, to the role of prudent husbander of the public purse.
In summary, this bill fails to provide for adequate economic benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular and for the people of Canada in general. That has been pointed out by many in Newfoundland, including the present Premier of Newfoundland. For this reason alone, as well as for the other reasons presented by my colleagues, the bill deserves defeat at second reading.
For those reasons, I support the amendments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Barrett. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On division. I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1990
Adjournment Debate

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to return to a question I raised in the House on May 25, 1990 to which the leader of the government in the House of Commons responded on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. The question concerned in a narrow sense the Scotia Synfuels Project for coal liquefaction in Cape Breton and specifically the approval by the government of an application by the company for a package of assistance containing principally the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit and certain loan guarantees available through the department of Industry, Science and Technology.
The Scotia Synfuels Project in its proposal to use a liquefaction process to convert high sulphur Cape Breton coal in an oil mixture into a clean source of energy to serve the needs of Atlantic Canadians and for export has been under development for several years. The technology has been proven.
The jobs and the spin-off benefits in eastern Nova Scotia are well established. As well, the general soundness of the project in environmental and other terms are widely acknowledged and well established. They were enumerated at some length in a speech in this House by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on May 28.
While the question concerned the narrow issue of the government's support for this project, it concerns broader issues as well. It concerns the seriousness of this government's commitment to seeking out more environmentally friendly ways of producing energy sources from our fossil fuels. It concerns the seriousness of the government's commitment to ensuring that Canada is on the leading edge of technology in an area in which we should have an important comparative advantage and
which is definitely going to be vital for the future success of our economy. It concerns as well the seriousness of this government's commitment to fostering industrial development in Atlantic Canada. It concerns the willingness of this government to take risks, even moderate risks, in support of progressive technology in a part of the country that badly needs it.
In his reply to my colleague's remarks on May 28 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out that his government had funded to the tune of 50 per cent the cost of a feasibility study on this project. He also said that "this government wants to be certain that an investment of public funds results in durable and viable jobs for the long term".
The principals of this project are anxious to do whatever they can to prove to this government and to demonstrate the technical and commercial viability of this project. They have been doing so for several years. They have had Wood Gundy, one of the prominent investment firms in Canada, produce a study which declared the project commercially viable, provided that the regular incentive programs available through this government were made available to the project, including the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit. They have responded to the concerns raised by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources about the economics of the project and have proven that the economics of the project are indeed favourable because and not in spite of its location in the east coast of Canada.
The principals are anxious to proceed with the next stage of the project, to firm up the cost estimates, to establish the market sources for the product, and to secure the necessary financing so that construction and jobs can commence.
The people of Cape Breton, and in particular the people of the Strait of Canso area where industrial activity has lagged since this government came to power in 1984, are anxious to see this project proceed. They are anxious to see the benefits and the jobs which will come through the commencement of this important project, but the government keeps waffling. It keeps passing the buck from one department to the other, from Energy, Mines and Resources to DIST, from DIST to ACOA, and from ACOA back to Energy, Mines and Resources.
June 7, 1990
[Stage Direction]
The company is frustrated. It wants to know what more it can do. What other information can it provide this government? What concrete conditions does it need to meet in order to be able to get a firm, positive answer on the part of this government as to whether it will be able to receive this investment tax credit which is vital to the success of this project? What is more aggravating is that the government does not really need to share the risk upfront on this project. The investment tax credit will only cost the government money once the company has developed investment sources and the project has begun to earn taxable revenue. The project could earn up to $800 million in tax revenue for the government during its life, not to mention some of the other benefits.
Although there are some risks in the loan guarantees and other incentives that the government would have to provide, they pale in comparison to the opportunity of developing an economically depressed region in Canada with a leading, environmentally efficient process for coal and oil liquefaction, a project which is Canadian owned and which will use our local coal resources in a cleaner, superior way which can lead to lower acid rain emissions and which can be a show-piece to Canada's future environmental agenda.
This government's failure to support fully the Scotia's Synfuels initiative is incomprehensible and amazingly short-sighted. The U.S. government is not so short sighted. It has already indicated through the Department of Energy its support for a similar project in Ohio. It has urged this government to support that project.
We have our own project in Cape Breton. Why does the government insist on demanding additional information from a company which has been so co-operative in the past? Why does the government not simply approve this project, take a risk on Atlantic Canada and allow these jobs to commence.
Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with the hon. member when he says that the Scotia Synfuels proposal in Cape Breton has considerable potential to economically benefit eastern Nova Scotia.
I would like at this time to reiterate some of the points which the minister responsible for ACOA made last week in this Chamber. Certainly the Government of Canada has been tiying to enhance economic opportuni-
Adjoumment Debate
ties in the Atlantic region by considering every alternative employment opportunity that will help to diversify the economy. I would suggest that the very creation of ACOA has been a step forward in that regard.
It must be pointed out, however, that while the hon. member has again pressed for the approval of investment tax credit for the Synfuels project, it is really Industry, Science and Technology, as the hon. member knows, rather than ACOA which has the lead role for the federal government on this project.
ACOA, as the development agency for small to medium sized businesses can, of course, and will play an advocacy role.
That being said, I wish to point out that federal officials have devoted a great deal of time to looking at the long term economic viability of this project, and its potential to create long term employment.
I wish to point out, as the hon. member has already indicated, that the federal government did help fund 50 per cent of the costs of a technical feasibility study to which he referred, at a very significant sum of some $650,000. That study, of course, was completed in November of 1989.
As has often been the case in the past, I speak of prior to 1984 when governments were interested in establishing projects in order to produce a quick fix, this government wants to be certain that any investment of public funds results in durable and viable jobs for the long term.
With respect to Scotia Synfuels, ACOA and Industry, Science and Technology officials want to be sure, and I think most Canadians would understand why this is so, that this project valued at well over $400 million is sufficiently viable to justify the substantial expenditure of public funds which would be required from Investment Tax Credit.
While a number of jobs this facility promised to create is certainly impressive, there is still more study required before any decision can be made.


RIDING OF LAURIER-SAINTE-MARIE
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, almost a month ago, I had a question for the Prime Minister concerning the people of the riding of Lauri-er-Sainte-Marie. In my question I asked the Prime Minister when the government was going to provide

June 7, 1990
Adjournment Debate
economic measures to help the residents of Laurier- Sainte-Marie. I was not satisfied with the Prime Minister's answer, and that is why I am asking the same question today, although I will be more specific. When will the government take economic steps to help the people of Laurier-Sainte-Marie?
I would like to explain that the unemployment rate in this riding is almost 20 per cent. At a time when direct government assistance is needed to help these people, it would seem the government is doing the exact opposite.
I will mention some of the economic measures that have had a disastrous impact on the people of Laurier- Sainte-Marie.
First of all, there is the GST, the Goods and Services Tax that will soon come into force. It will be a heavy burden for people who are in no position to pay this kind of tax, any more than other Canadians.
Second, a federal Budget has just been adopted, obliging the provinces to take over an increasingly larger share of the responsibility for various social programs. I will name some of the programs that are vital to Laurier-Sainte-Marie-medical care for the elderly, for instance. Federal budget cuts are going to affect medical care for senior citizens. Even the Government of Quebec has condemned the cuts affecting these people.
Third, this Budget is a blow to students who need federal assistance for postsecondary education. This budget will not provide the assistance we received in the past.
Furthermore, we also have a problem with the unemployment insurance reform legislation. The people in Southeast Montreal need the safety net. They need the unemployment insurance they have been paying for for years. Unfortunately, the so-called reform adopted by the federal government-I wonder whether this is not misleading advertising, because the reform gives less to these people. Instead of protecting them, it provides less protection than they received in the past.
That is why the Churches, unions, charitable organizations, local citizens groups and others objected to this so-called unemployment insurance reform. I deplore the
fact that after all the work done by Jean-Claude Malepart, who was very much a populist, to protect his people-and I think we in this House must recognize one thing, and I believe everyone will agree, Conservatives as well as Liberals, that Jean-Claude Malepart, the former Liberal member, did a terrific job of representing his constituents- not just Liberal voters but all his constituents. This was a guy who worked for the poor-people who are vulnerable, people who have no hope. He did a good job. And now, for more than six and a half months, these people have lacked representation in Parliament. And instead of providing tax measures to help these people, the government does the exact opposite.
What I would like the government to do is implement three things: first of all, measures to provide subsidies under the Employment and Immigration Act, through Challenge 90; second, provide grants for job development programs, and I am sure it would be a great help to the people of Laurier-Sainte-Marie; and finally, drop this unemployment insurance legislation, because it will make matters even worse for the people of Laurier- Sainte-Marie. This time I expect a reply, and I hope it will be a clear and sensible reply, one that will give genuine consideration to the needs of the people in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. However, I think it would better for both of us if I answered in English.

The hon. member, when he asked the question originally in the House, was asking about the date of the by-election because of the vacancy caused by the death of our colleague Jean-Claude Malepart, and he also asked us when the issues would be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I think, as you know and I am sure all members of the House know, that by-election has now been called for August 13 and I know that the Progressive Conservative candidate, who will make a very vital contribution during the course of that by-election, will be responding to those issues and we look forward to the campaign.
June 7, 1990


CANADA POST
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on May 3 of this year I rose in my place to put a question to the Minister responsible for Canada Post because I had just learned that 92 Canadian communities were going to lose mail-sorting operations and jobs within their communities.
One of those 92 communities is my own home city of North Battleford, Saskatchewan, a city and an operation that I know quite well. Canada Post announced on May 2 that they were going to increase efficiencies. I put quotation marks around that word "efficiencies" because that is the word that they use, but which is yet to be really defined in terms of Canada Post. Canada Post said it would increase efficiencies by streamlining the mail sorting process. The whole thing is to take effect on September 1 of this year.
What are these efficiencies that they are talking about? They are going to put a second mail collection box on street comers where ones already exist. These twin boxes, as they call them, will allow the postal user to deposit mail for local delivery in one box and mail for out-of-town delivery in another box. What on the surface seems very simple is otherwise crazy. In implementing this twin box policy, Canada Post will reduce the number of street box locations where mail can be deposited and across Canada reduce its work-force of inside sorters by 800 to 1,000 persons.
In North Battleford they eliminated positions that equal six full-time and two part-time, a situation the postal workers estimate in the city of North Battleford alone to be as much as $300,000 a year. There is no reason for this loss to these workers, their families, to our communities, and the disruption is as great on the service where the so-called simplification situation will actually lead to more handling of the mail.
Let us use the example of the mail going from North Battleford to Lloydminster now. This mail is now sorted in my home town of North Battleford. It is put on a truck in North Battleford and brought to Lloydminster where it is delivered. It is a very simple process.
Under the new system, after September 1, the mail will now be deposited in these out-of-town mail boxes in North Battleford. It will be trucked east to Saskatoon for sorting and then trucked west again through the city of
Adjournment Debate
North Battleford on to Lloydminster. The extra handling will result in slower mail and likely more losses. There are no efficiencies here.
Other small communities around the city of North Battleford will be effected in exactly the same way. Today, mail going to Maymont just a few miles outside of North Battleford to the east, is sorted and sent for delivery to Maymont, but after September 1 that mail from North Battleford to Maymont will first go through Maymont to Saskatoon for sorting, back through Maymont to North Battleford for putting on the contractor's delivery truck and then back to Maymont. That mail which previously took about 40 minutes to get delivered will now pass through Maymont three times before it gets to its destination. The more handling there is the greater the incidents of error.
Let me give one other situation concerning the town of Meadow Lake. Meadow Lake is north of the city of North Battleford. Mail posted before midnight in North Battleford today will arrive in Meadow Lake the next day. In September that mail posted in North Battleford will first go to Saskatoon in the south, then back through North Battleford to arrive in Meadow Lake. Unless mail is posted before 4.30 in the afternoon, it is guaranteed to take an extra day for delivery between North Battleford and Meadow Lake, just a short 100 mile distance. The service has obviously been reduced to these communities as a result of the new efficiencies introduced by Canada Post.
Let us not forget one other situation. If you are mailing locally, and you happen to make a mistake and your mail goes into the wrong box, your mail from North Battleford now goes to Saskatoon, whether you want it to or not.
Therefore, since this rationalization is not more efficient, it can only be for one other purpose, to get a reduced workforce, lower costs and a greater chance to increase the profile of the corporation. In this way, the government can sell it to the private sector as recommended by a government committee.
There is no justification for a privatized post office which would never provide service to rural Canada adequately. The Crown corporation exists to meet certain communication needs for Canadians and only a Crown corporation accountable to Canadians through Parliament will meet those needs.

June 7, 1990
Adjournment Debate
On May 3, I called this latest move by Canada Post a stupid idea and I called on the minister to maintain the Crown corporation and establish a full-time postal commission to return accountability to the post office and give Canadians some control over the type of service they deserve.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's network rationalization program is another step in the corporation's efforts to optimize the use of both mechanized sorting equipment and better transportation links.
Once the program is implemented, as it has been in a number of communities already, mail will be streamlined into mechanized plants for maximum efficiency and faster sortation and distribution. Some delivery improvements will be achieved, particularly forward mail, and in all cases the corporation will maintain its present delivery standards. The program allows for the elimination of one step from the existing mail processing operation.
Through the twin-letter box system, local mail will continue to be sorted by the local post office in most cases, while mail destined for other locations will be moved immediately to the nearest mechanized facility for speedier handling. Similar changes have already been successfully implemented in other communities.
The changes undertaken with the network rationalization program are proven methods of increasing efficiency, while at the same time improving service.
So I ask, why is the hon. member so opposed to this positive accomplishment, when the corporation has already stated that no one, and I repeat, no one will lose their employment because of this, and all affected employees will be dealt with in accordance with their respective collective agreements. The allegations that this program will cost jobs, as some have alleged, of close to 1,000 postal workers is clearly based on erroneous information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 10 o'clock, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 8, 1990