1991-06-03

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved: that Bill C-202, an act respecting a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak to my private member's bill which would establish a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, and which has received all party support in this House of Commons.
This bill is being co-sponsored by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and also by my colleague, the member for Halifax.
An official day of remembrance and action on violence against women to be commemorated every December 6 is an appropriate, meaningful and positive memorial to the 14 young women who were so tragically killed in Montreal on December 6, 1989.
I am pleased to have the support also of Suzanne Edwards, the mother of one of the victims of the massacre, who herself is now very active on the issue of gun control. She serves as an inspiration to all Canadians to first mourn and then to work for change in our society.
The man who murdered the 14 young women separated the women from the men in the classroom and systematically shot the women. He believed that because they were engineering students they were feminists, and
he saw them as women who had stepped outside of their rightful place. He put an end to young promising lives, lives filled with hard work, joy and plans for the future. He did not see these young women as human beings. All he saw was that they were women and that they had stepped out of what he considered to be their traditional role.
Unfortunately, there are people in Canada who share that outlook on life. There are people who see rape victims not as people who are suffering from a trauma, but as women who "deserved it". There are people who think that wife beating is something to laugh at or nothing to be concerned about. Some believe that the woman deserved it, like 25 per cent of the children who lived at a shelter and said it was appropriate for a man to hit a woman if the house were messy.
There is a deep and serious problem in our society, one that I do think Canadians are slowly starting to come to terms with. Women are now reporting violent crimes to police more often than they did in the past. Some people in our society think violence is increasing, but I do not think so. I remember 20 years ago when a badly beaten woman appeared on my doorstep with two very small children, looking for a safe haven. At that time there were no shelters for battered women. Our society did not acknowledge wife battering as a problem. The police did not charge husbands with any crime. Before that, wife beating was a perfectly legal activity; women could not get a divorce on the grounds of assault or because their husbands had beaten them to a pulp. That was not considered a good enough reason. It was a private shame to be hidden, lied about and suffered in silence.
These attitudes still run through our society as an undercurrent in the 1990s but committed groups of people have set up shelters. They are talking about the issues. They are making educational videos and anti-violence television commercials. They are protesting against unfair court decisions.

June 3, 1991
Private Members' Business
This bill is designed to help that work by focusing attention on the facts of violence against women. I hope that the media will participate by having special issues of newspapers and magazines or TV and radio programs on violence against women at least on that day.
The more we talk about it, learn the facts and teach our children and society that violence against women is wrong and never justifiable, the more progress we will make as a society toward a fair and equitable community in Canada.
The national day of remembrance and action could be a day on which people are encouraged to donate time or money to shelters for battered women and to rape relief centres, and to talk about the attitudes and circumstances that allow violence against women to continue.
We should be aware of violence against women every day of the year, but at least we can start with one day.
One hundred women a year are killed as a result of domestic violence and a woman is raped every 17 minutes in Canada. This horrible situation warrants at least one day of prevention and education.
One in 10 women is or has been battered by the man with whom she lives or did live. Every 17 minutes a sexual assault is committed in Canada and 90 per cent of the victims are female.
Between 63 and 83 per cent of female victims are assaulted by someone they know and trust. Incidence of assault is far greater for aboriginal women and disabled women. Forty-eight per cent of Canadians reported that they personally knew of situations in which women were physically assaulted.
A Canada-wide survey in 1985 found that fewer than 40 per cent of female sexual assault victims and less than half of wife assault victims had made a police report. Studies show that women's reluctance to report violent attacks against them is related to the fear of retaliation that would result in further violence or death. It is also related to a lack of confidence in the police and the courts, and to feelings of shame and embarrassment. The more we talk about violence and its causes, the
more confidence it will give women who have been assaulted to report it to the police and to take action.
The physical effects of this violence include broken bones, internal injuries, bruises, black eyes, bums, bites, lacerations, knife wounds, gun wounds and death. The psychological effects are low self-esteem, constant fear for her own safety and the safety of her children, loss of control and isolation.
Women who have been sexually assaulted are approximately five times more likely to have a nervous breakdown, six times more likely to attempt suicide and eight times as likely to commit suicide or die prematurely. Physical and sexual abuse may lead to drug and alcohol abuse.
The sheer volume of female victimization makes it unlikely that these incidents are independent of our system of values and attitudes or that the perpetrators are all aberrant or insane individuals. Perpetrators overwhelmingly hold views about sex roles of male authority and female compliance, and believe they have the right to control persons with less status than themselves. Our society is not telling them that they are wrong.
We live in a society which has tolerated incest, sexual assault and wife beating for centuries.
It is a problem of global proportions. Sexual assault and wife beating have been used to control the behaviour and the sexuality of women not only by the men who resort to violence, but by the society which ignores it.
Rape victims are still raked over the coals not only by the courts but often by the families and by their own friends: "What were you wearing? Why were you out so late? Why did you trust him? Could you not see it coming? But he is your husband, you owe it to him." It is as if human rights are suspended if a person is wearing a particular piece of clothing.
Nowhere in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have I seen a clause that says one's right to security of the person is suspended based on the article of clothing one is wearing. This argument seeks to make women responsible for the violent acts of others. Sexual assault is not about sex; it is not about sexual desirability; it is about power. It is about a man believing he has the right to force something on a woman against her will. It has happened to women of all ages, from babies of three
June 3, 1991

weeks of age to 96 year-old women. Women with little or no power are especially targeted. Disabled women and aboriginal women, the women whom our society allows to be discriminated against, are at a special risk of violence.
It happens in war time, it happens in peace time. People have said there is a war being waged against women all the time. Racism, discrimination against the disabled and all forms of discrimination and oppression merge with the sickness of sexism to intensify the hatred and violence against disadvantaged women.
Women in all strata of society are abused. Why should we be afraid on our own streets, the streets for which we pay taxes? Why should we be afraid in our own homes? We are most likely to be assaulted in our own homes by someone whom we know and trust.
Studies of male college students in Canada and the U.S. show that one third of these students said they would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it. In the U.S., 15 per cent of college women had been raped within the legal definition of rape.
Research shows that the public perceives physical and sexual assault against women to take place mainly among the poor and among those with little formal education, and committed by deviant individuals. Unless grievous bodily injury results, these injuries are not regarded as causing long term harm to the victim. Many of these victims are seen to be the authors of their own attack because they are seen as too provocative, too sexy, too angry or too imprudent.
We lack an understanding of the social and economic circumstances and of the threats of more violence or death that keep battered women from leaving abusive situations. Most people do not realize that many of the women killed are murdered by former husbands and lovers after the women have left the abusive situation. All of our society must take responsibility to help women in crisis.
Some people even believe violence against women is natural because men tend to be stronger than women. I think this takes a very dim view of men. If one in ten women is battered, then nine out of ten men do not batter.
Most men are responsible and caring. Violence against women is a learned and an unnatural behaviour. It is based upon the premise that men should be able to control the lives of the women with whom they are
Private Members' Business
intimate. An example of this is Jean-Guy Tremblay who tried to force Chantal Daigle to bear his child and was violent and abusive toward her. It is worth noting that this man continued his violent behaviour toward other women who came into his life after Chantal Daigle refused to see him any longer.
Men who are violent most often do not stop simply at physical abuse. They may bum or destroy a favourite picture or possession, kill the woman's pets, or threaten violence toward her children. Battered women may live with psychological terror, never knowing when the next outbreak will be, or for what inane reason.
The man often makes her quit her job or gets her fired by harassing her at work. He isolates her from her workplace, her family and her friends. He tries to have complete control over her life and thoughts.
Similarly, sexual assault is a matter of control.
The woman's will is overrun, what she wants does not count and she is humiliated and violated in a v/ay that is unmatched by any other experience.
People have talked about having their homes, their territory, robbed and the violation that they feel as a person when this happens. Can you imagine what it is like when it is your own body rather than your home and your possessions?
The lack of understanding many Canadians have about this issue makes me want to weep. But instead of, or maybe in addition to, weeping, I want to do something concrete about it.
My bill is non-partisan, one of the very few bills of this nature ever to reach the House of Commons. We have left the days when politicians simply joked about this issue. Today, most of us can co-operate on an issue as serious as this.
All of society pays for violence against women. We pay in health bills, in the court system and in penal institutions. Studies show that 80 per cent of women in Canadian jails are victims of sexual and physical abuse. Half of young offenders were exposed to domestic violence.
With few economic options, women who leave abusive situations often end up on social assistance.
How long are we going to put up with the violent abuse of our mothers, sisters, and daughters? It is wrong. It must change. The time for change is long past due. We

Private Members' Business
must join together, men and women, to prevent this violence.
As the Church Council on Justice and Corrections and the Canadian Council on Social Development have stated in their document "Family Violence in a Patriarchal Culture", family violence does not happen in a vacuum. Social circumstances support it and allow it to continue.
I urge men to participate in social change by speaking out when they hear others make derogatory comments about women, comments which rob women of their dignity and their humanity.
We can all help our neighbour who is being abused. We can give our time and money to groups and organizations which help survivors of violence. We can educate our society. We can make change.
We can press for policies that give women economic options so that they can achieve meaningful equality. Once all of society accepts women and men as equal human beings, that the place of women and men is where they want to be and not some role simply designated to them at birth, that is when violence against women will no longer be tolerated and may no longer occur.
Judy Chicago, a well known feminist artist, expressed her vision of a future without violence, a world in which both female and male are valued and respected. She said:
And then all that has divided us will merge
And then compassion will be wedded to power
And then softness will come to a world that is harsh and unkind
And then both men and women will be gentle
And then both women and men will be strong
And then no person will be subject to another's will.
I want to thank the House for its support of this bill. I want to thank Suzanne Edward, the mother of Anne Marie Edward who was killed in the massacre, and I want to thank women's organizations and groups in every region of this country which have supported this effort.
Together I know that we can make a difference. We can do no less.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say I support this bill designate a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, to be held on December 6 of each year, the anniversary of the slaughter of 14 young women at the University of Montreal in 1989.
Members of all parties have acknowledged the significance of this tragic event in the lives of Canada's men and women. Every year on December 6, we will think back to that sad day in our history and we will remember the victims. Those who experienced the events of that day will relive the shock, horror and anger that they felt. We will remember the candlelight vigil in the snow for 14 young women who were killed simply because they were women. We will remember the grief and sympathy we felt for their families and friends.
This bill guarantees that future generations will also remember. It ensures that the memory of 14 brave women will always remain with us. In fact, their spirit lives on, if we consider what has been done since the tragedy at the Ecole polytechnique to eliminate violence against women. Everywhere in Canada, the initial shock was followed by an increased awareness of the constant threat of violence against women in our society.
People are now determined to act. The loss of these young women has made people realize there is a need for accelerating and co-ordinating efforts to eliminate violence against women.
As we become more aware of the extent of the problem, we realize this is not an easy task. Violence against women is deeply rooted in a social process that stresses the traditional roles of men and women, the so-called stereotypes. These stereotypes can become apparent in many ways, ranging from sexual harassment to mental cruelty, from sexual assault to murder.
Attempts to deal with the problem of violence against women must consider the social, economic and political structures that today confine women in a position of inequality. At the same time, we must keep looking for ways to increase the opportunities and choices open to women.
June 3, 1991

I think that if we want to deal with or try to deal with the problem of violence against women, we must base our efforts on four principles.
First, we must take a co-ordinated, many-facetted approach. This approach is reflected in the $136 million initiative on family violence announced by this government in February. It establishes a partnership between six federal departments and agencies with common concerns in this area.
But there is more. No single government can deal effectively with the problem of violence against women without the co-operation of other levels of government, without the interest and expertise of other parties, including those who work directly with the victims as well as the researchers, women's groups, service clubs, educators, unions and professional associations. Creating and strengthening alliances between these parties is one of the objectives of the family violence initiative.
The provinces and territories play a key role in our efforts to combat violence against women. Last year, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women issued a declaration on violence against women at Lake Louise in Alberta. At their annual meeting, to be held two weeks from now in Newfoundland, the ministers will discuss the strategies designed by their respective governments following this declaration. They will seek ways to integrate and co-ordinate their activities and those of municipalities, the private sector and non-govemmental organizations.
The second principle is the need for examining the underlying causes of violence against women. Causes are deeply rooted and the solutions are complex. Yet, little research was done on the underlying causes of violence against women. Before we can find effective long term solutions, we must determine the underlying cause of violent behaviour.
Professional organizations such as the Canadian Association of university teachers (CAUT) are among those which have been spearheading the action. Our government is presently working with CAUT to set up centres of excellence to promote research on the underlying causes of violence against women.
Private Members' Business
Better data and better research will help develop effective solutions relating to prevention, which I consider as the third component in this approach.
While it is important to help those who are presently victims of violence, more needs to be done yet to protect would-be victims. More needs to be done to fight the widespread attitudes that perpetuate violence against women. More needs to be done in the way of channeling our innovative imagination and our resources towards durable long term solutions.
One thing we could do to start with is change attitudes in our families and schools. In a number of schools, the approach used to tackle the problem of violence against women is to teach children some conflict resolution skills as an alternative to violence. Also, the Canadian Teachers' Federation has launched the "Thumb" project with the financial assistance of the Family Violence Prevention Division of Health and Welfare Canada to encourage discussion in the classroom as well as activities aimed at preventing violence.
Fourth, we must consider the challenge of preventing violence against women in the broader context of a program to empower women.
As long as women remain afraid of violence, they cannot become fully equal. As long as there are women beaten up by their spouses, women sexually assaulted on dates and women harassed at the workplace, women will be deprived of the fundamental right to personal safety.
Mr. Speaker, our government is trying to free women from violence and the fear of violence. Last month, in the Speech from the Throne, this government announced the appointment of a blue ribbon panel of Canadian men and women to inquire into the various dimensions of the problem of violence against women and suggest innovative solutions.
This announcement provides an opportunity to put in place an innovative, responsive and flexible system to try and find solutions. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the hon. Mary Collins, asked women's organizations across the country as well as the provinces and territories to make suggestions on what the mandate and membership of this committee should be.
The committee will also benefit from the invaluable recommendations contained in the soon to be tabled report from the sub-committee on the Status of Women. As you will know, the sub-committee has heard, over the

June 3, 1991
Private Members' Business
past six months, the testimonies of about 35 groups representing a wide cross-section of Canadian men and women concerned about violence against women.
Mr. Speaker, this government is determined to act on this. Things will not change overnight, not even within a week or a year. While I fully support this bill, I have to say, that I hope this national day of remembrance can be taken off our calendars in the future and that the day will come when there is no need for a day dedicated to action on violence against women. I am convinced that, with the help and cooperation of the thousands of Canadian men and women who have voiced their determination to eradicate this plague from our society, some day this problem will disappear.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I stand today to support this private member's bill initiated by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
I want to take a moment to pay a tribute to the member for New Westminster-Burnaby and say that in our time here in this Chamber, over the last two and a half years, in spite of political differences and differences in political philosophy, I can truly say that one of the people who has taught me that sisterhood is powerful is the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
I give this bill very strong support. To say that it is an idea whose time has come is to understate the case. None of us who lived through that terrible night, December 6, 1989, will ever forget the horror of the deaths of those young women in the prime of life, cut down because they were women. None of us will forget the shock we felt at the fact that this kind of senseless atrocity could take place in a country which, in spite of all its difficulties, we all felt somehow was better than that. None of us will every forget the numbness and then the pain that followed when we realized that this terrible incident had, indeed, taken place and that those young lives had been snuffed out.
One of the things we can do to put some meaning into that senseless atrocity is to support this bill. I am delighted that we have put down the cudgels of partisanship on this matter and that all parties are supporting this bill, and its quick passage.
I spoke some weeks ago with Madam Susanne Edward, mentioned by my colleague from New Westminster- Burnaby. She spoke of the necessity to give meaning to what had happened, to give meaning to those lives being cut off in their prime. Nothing could be more essential to this meaning than bringing the issue of violence against women into the national spotlight.
We all lived through the horror of December 6, 1989, but horror is a daily occurrence for literally thousands of Canadian women. Every day begins with the anticipation of an attack, the fear of an attack, the worry that an attack may take place, and often that attack will come from the person closest to her.
We have talked a lot about the causes and the reasons for the increasing violence against women in our own society and in western society in general. The hon. parliamentary secretary, and I compliment her as well on her speech on this bill, talked about the fact that we do not have the empirical data, the research that we need to tell us what the reasons and the causes are for this horror that takes place.
What we do have is something that is actually also rooted in women's experience, and it is what we call anecdotal evidence, of women talking to each other in their homes, in women's centres, in classrooms. Not that this is not valid evidence, but we need hard scientific proof to show us what the different causes are. We all know, through this anecdotal evidence, that a cause of some of the violence against women is alcoholism. We all know that a cause is bad economic circumstances. We all know that a cause is the cycle of violence. In other words, someone who was abused as a child or saw his mother being abused or saw women being abused has a very strong chance of growing up to be an abuser himself.
These are not the only causes. There are other causes that we know little or nothing about. We also do not know the intertwining linkages of these causes, the tinderbox effect which sets it off.
Just this past weekend, yesterday as a matter of fact, I was in my apartment in Halifax.
June 3, 1991

My telephone rang. It was a woman who had been a client of mine. She had experienced an outbreak of violence by her partner on Saturday night. She was upset, she was still in a certain amount of pain-both physical pain and emotional pain-and most particularly, she was ashamed.
I became angry on the telephone, trying very carefully to make her understand that I was not angiy with her but angry at the situation where the victim bears the shame for someone else's act.
All women are aware of this whole aura of "victimology" that violence against women has set up, whether that violence is abusive in the non-sexual sense or abusive in the sexual sense. We are all aware that the general accepted theory in our society for hundreds of years has been that if a woman is assaulted, somehow it is her fault.
This has become so ingrained in our society that women themselves believe it. It was that belief that I could hear in her voice that set off a chain reaction in me, and I got a little bit preachy, I am afraid, and said: "Look, stop thinking that it is your fault. It is not your fault. It does not matter what you did, no one has the right to hit you".
No matter how many times we say that, no matter how many times counsellors in transition houses and social workers and doctors and all of the various professionals and experts who work in this field say that, deep down in every abused woman's heart and mind is the belief that: "Yes, it is my fault".
Again, we have to get at the root causes that take a woman's self-image and drive it down to the level where she can be convinced to believe that canard.
Another of the reasons that I support this bill so strongly is that it is another spotlight on the question of violence bringing the issue into the public forum of discussion. As a result of this, people will finally be made to understand that this is not something that happens to some fringe group, that it is not something that happens to some under-class of society, that violence against women takes place at every level, in every economic bracket, in every social strata, in every educational strata in our country. No woman is free from fear of violence in Canada, and if she thinks she is I can only say she is
Private Members' Business
misguided. Every woman sitting in this House today knows that and knows it viscerally.
I am happy to say that I think a great many of the men sitting in this House at least acknowledge it intellectually-
There is a continuum of violence against women. It begins in some cases with sexual harassment, with demeaning cracks, with jokes that we are supposed to accept and take in good spirit, and runs the gamut to actual physical beating and death. We have seen too much of this in this country. We have sacrificed hundreds of women as we refused to face this question head on and deal with it.
I hope and I pray, along with all of my female colleagues in this House and my male colleagues as well, that taking this day, December 6, and making it a day of remembrance but even more a day of action will start the kind of action that we need, that we must have in this country to ensure that women, and most particularly our daughters, will be able to walk out of their homes and into their classrooms and into their jobs without fear.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the motion of the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
No member of this House will ever forget the day we received the tragic news from Ecole Polytechnique. None of us will ever forget the wave of grief and anger that swept the country when we learned that a lone gunman had brutally taken the lives of 14 young women engineering students.
All members of this House were united in expressing our profound sense of loss and horror and in extending our condolences to the families and loved ones of those women whose lives, which had shown such promise, were exterminated without any provocation by a young man insanely jealous of the achievement of women in a non-traditional field.
December 6, 1989, is a day that many Canadians, and particularly women in Canada, will recall vividly for all their lives. It was one of those searing events when a story we hear on the news manages to hit home with a sense of personal loss and tragedy.
For all Canadians, women and men, who had believed that we lived in a progressive society, a society of

Private Members' Business
compassion and the pursuit of equality, the event has been a reminder of how far we have yet to go.
For women across Canada who saw, in the brutal slaying, an extreme example of the terror and violence inflicted on women every day, often in more subtle ways but sometimes with blood and death, the event has left deep wounds.
For those who lived through the terror, for those who knew the young women personally, the event has also left deep wounds. This legislation is about healing those wounds.
We cannot bring back to life those 14 young women, but we can ensure that their deaths will not be forgotten. In our remembrance we can ensure that their loss will continue to call us to action. Our remembrance will rally us to renew our efforts to eradicate violence against women in this country. We will vow to rededicate our efforts to ensure that violence against women will not be tolerated.
Let no one forget that the capacity for such brutal misogyny exists in our society. Let no one forget that acts of violence, less sensational, less publicized, but every bit as pernicious, occur every day in our streets and even in our homes.
In the same year that these 14 lost their lives, another 100 women in Canada were murdered by their partners. These deaths are part of a much larger phenomenon that covers a range of violence: murder, physical assault, sexual assault, psychological abuse and emotional abuse. These are all examples of violence against women and we are just beginning to acknowledge the enormous scope of this violence in our society.
We know, from a 1981 Winnipeg study, that more than 6 in 10 female victims will be assaulted by someone they know. We know from Battered but not Beaten-Preventing Wife Abuse in Canada, a 1987 publication of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, that at least one woman in 10 is battered by her male partner.
These tragic statistics are available to us, but one of the most serious problems when dealing with violence against women is that there is so much we do not know. Much of the violence goes unrecorded, much of the data is incomplete. Some victims fear the consequences of continuing to live in their homes after reporting a family member who has abused them. Some victims think they
would do best to forget. They try to bury the violence deep in their thoughts and deny its existence. They do not fully understand the deep-seated trauma that such violence inflicts and that will, in all likelihood, stay with them the rest of their lives.
By recognizing December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, Parliament will send a signal to those women. As members of this House, we will be telling them that we know such violence takes place, that we know of their trauma and that they are not alone in their suffering. We will be inviting them to join us as we move forward together to eradicate violence against women from Canadian society.
We will be sending a signal to all Canadians through our solidarity of purpose in ensuring that violence against women shall not be ignored. We will be helping to create a social environment in which attitudes toward women which promote such violence must wither and die.
The idea of designating the date of the Ecole Polytechnique disaster as a day of remembrance and action has wide support. It is being supported by members from all sides of the House and it responds to recommendations that have come from women's groups across the country, as well as from the many individuals who were touched by the tragedy.
The National Council of Women of Canada and a number of other national women's groups recommended December 6 be proclaimed a national day of mourning.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women proposed that the day be set aside as a day of recognition of women victims at the hands of male violence.
I commend the hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby for tabling a bill that is not content to let December 6 be solely a day of remembrance. It will also be a day of constructive action. Already we have seen many examples of how the tragedy has galvanized Canadians to act.
At universities and colleges across Canada students and faculty are speaking out against practices that contribute to the sexist environment in which violence against women festers. We are seeing the establishment
June 3, 1991

of sexual harassment policies and committees, as well as status of women offices and women's centres.
The federal government has shown leadership and vision through its commitment to Canada's first national inquiry into violence against women and its $136 million renewal of the family violence initiative.
The tragedy of December 6 has also led to action by fostering a renewed commitment to opening career opportunities to women, particularly with respect to science and engineering.
The Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Council of Engineers Memorial Foundation, Societe Alfred Dallaire, and Ecole Polytechnique are among the organizations, institutions and corporations that have established scholarships in memory of the victims.
Many of these scholarships are designed to encourage women to pursue careers in engineering, the discipline studied by 12 of the Ecole Polytechnique victims. These scholarships will help to break down the barriers that have prevented women from assuming full equality in our society.
When we break down the stereotypes and open nontraditional careers to women, we undermine the attitudes of sexism that can give rise to violence.
Our efforts to eradicate violence against women cannot be separated from our concern for economic equality of women. The two are bound together.
When we provide women with economic freedom through employment equity and measures to integrate work and family responsibilities, we provide women with the freedom to leave abusive situations. We again contribute to breaking down the stereotypes.
At the same time, we will never fully succeed in removing the obstacles to full equality so long as violence against women continues to plague our society.
When the basic right to security of the person is denied, no one can participate as an equal. Violence and the fear of violence are depriving women in Canada and around the world of their ability to achieve equality.
Private Members' Business
No one can doubt the persistence of violence against women, but at the same time no one should doubt our determination to eliminate it.
By setting aside December 6, we will have occasion each year in Canada to pause and consider what we have done to eradicate this evil, and what remains to be done.
We will have occasion to mourn those whom we have lost to violence, and honour those who show their determination to work toward equality for women.
One example of that determination came to light this past year when one of the prestigious Canada Scholarships was awarded to Nathalie Provost.
Nathalie was among the women wounded by the gunman at Ecole Polytechnique. At the Canada Scholarship Assembly at Ecole Polytechnique, she declared: "He did not win."
Determined words. They are words that speak on behalf of the women engineering students at Ecole Polytechnique. A year after the tragedy, a record 222 women, a quarter of the class, enrolled as first-year engineering students.
The words "he did not win" are a call to action as much as they are a declaration of how women have overcome the Montreal tragedy. They are words that speak for women everywhere, women who face the threat of violence in their lives, on the streets and even in their homes every day of the year.
It is a fitting memorial, a day to assess and remember and look at the issue of violence against women. It is a particularly fitting memorial because these young women were the victims of a young man, himself a twisted product of a violent father whose attitudes affected his son.
Such sick attitudes and actions should not be tolerated in our society. Their consequences are terrible.
As members of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that the declaration of Nathalie Provost rings true for all women.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find the House disposed to complete this matter and put it to a vote.

Government Orders


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I fully support the bill. We are looking forward to its passage with the agreement of all parties in the House of Commons.
We need to see more of this in Private Members' Business. We need to see more opportunities where members of Parliament from all political parties can stand in their places and speak their minds on matters of interest and concern to them. It serves as part of the policy of trying to reform Parliament so that it becomes more creditable with the Canadian people.
I am pleased to put my support behind this bill. I hope it can be used as an example of what members of Parliament can do if they decide to work together as backbenchers, not always looking to government or party position on private members' initiative.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, because this is a very important bill.

In addition to what the member for Peterborough said, it is very important to point out that the concerns raised by this Private Member's Business are shared by many in the House of Commons as well as by women. I think there will be unanimous support from all parties and from both genders in supporting this initiative.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a quick moment to thank all of the members in the House of Commons, regardless of their political affiliation, for the support that they have shown me in this Private Member's Bill. I would particularly mention the minister responsible for the status of women and my colleague
from Halifax, but more than that there has been support in all political parties for this private member's bill. I want to thank all members who spoke today and those who have not had an opportunity to speak for their support as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Would the House agree to let the Chair call it twelve o'clock, so that we can proceed with Government Orders?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions, and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning some difficulty on my part, and I believe the Official Opposition as well, of adapting to the new rules. The new rules that this House approved required any motions to have been in by 2 p.m. on Friday. Unfortunately, we got our amendments in at 2.15 p.m. They are fairly similar to the motions that were placed before the committee itself and rejected by the committee so, therefore, there is another aspect of it. But I am wondering, in the interests of trying to make a bill better, whether there would be a disposition in the House to allow us to waive that particular rule and have the motions tabled.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there are obvious precedent setting and other consequences to such a request. It might be appropriate to have discussions between House leaders to reach a conclusion to it, but certainly on the spur of the moment it would not be a wise precedent, particularly given the two sides to the issue. It is not
June 3, 1991

simply a timing issue, but there is also a substantive issue buried there.
If he and his party want to pursue it with the House leaders, as we move through the debate, I think that might be appropriate. But at this point it would not be appropriate to simply, on the spur of the moment, give that kind of permission.


Iain Francis Angus: I appreciate the comments of the chief government whip. However, there is another reality. There are no motions before us at report stage, so my understanding is that all we can do is pass judgment on the bill and then move on to third reading immediately. The only way we could do it is if there would be agreement at some point. I agree that reverting back to report stage should be done by the House leaders, assuming that we don't complete third reading today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: One of our long-established traditions in the House is the tradition of unanimous consent for the House to do what the House chooses to do, and that would be available to us today. It would take that kind of consent at this moment to do what the hon. member is suggesting. It will take that kind of consent if, in fact, there is an agreement reached to seek it.
By refusing unanimous consent at this point we are essentially in the same position in terms of what he would like to do as I described earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair is somewhat at a loss, since there is no minister of the Crown present. Do I hear a response from the government Whip?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There are some cabinet meetings going on and with the transition at 12 o'clock, they have gone by their intended termination time, and I think we will have a minister in the House in the not too distant future. If we would care to just simply suspend for a moment or two, we will be able to meet that technical requirement.


Mr. Boudria:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, since we do have a moment because no minister is here.
I want to take the opportunity to raise this matter with the government whip. If there is an agreement to
Government Orders
recognize amendments, as was suggested a few moments ago, I want to indicate to the House and to the government whip that my colleagues would also like to move amendments as well. Perhaps in a discussion among House leaders there would be consideration to that particular proposal as well as the acceptance of amendments coming from our colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I just wanted to take this opportunity to so inform the government whip.
No, I am not admitting that we have missed on something. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply that if this courtesy is extended to one opposition party, I cannot see why the other opposition party could not similarly avail itself of the same opportunity. That is basically the request I am not formulating, not in anticipation of receiving an answer right now, but one in the future.
With that, I see a minister coming into the House and the government has just resolved the embarrassment that it had put itself in.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it would indeed, be a surprise if we moved into a negotiating session that there were not comments and requests to come from all corners of the House. Indeed, we might expect that to be part of the conversation as well.


Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the report stage of the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that the government was going to lead off as usual, so I would like to give the normal courtesy.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today for third reading of Bill C-15, an act to provide for certain matter respecting official languages, employees'

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.
Bill C-15 will allow the government to proceed with negotiations that are under way, to effect those transfers and fulfil the objectives of the government's policy in this matter, keeping in mind that this bill deals exclusively with employee related matters.
As all members are aware, the government's objectives from the beginning were to allow the airports to better serve local community interests, to enhance regional economic development potential, and to permit the national airport system to operate in a more cost-effective and commercial manner.
This policy aims to enhance the efficient commercial operation of federal airports through a more locally responsive management structure.
This government's vision is that this new structure will allow airports to respond quickly to changing needs and market forces with innovative ideas.
The local airport authorities, or LAAs will benefit from increased flexibility that will enable them to take advantage of the entrepreneurial opportunities that present themselves. They will be in a positive position to directly contribute to regional development initiatives.
The government set out very clear principles for these transfers in the original policy statement and the supplementary principles which set out the conditions under which airports would be transferred to local authorities.
It might be worth repeating that under the government's principles, permanent employees must be offered work by the local airport authorities in a job with pay and benefits comparable to what they received while employed by Transport Canada. Airport employees will be properly looked after.
Airport staff are dedicated and skilled professionals. This bill, along with the principles of the transfer process, will ensure that they are treated fairly and equally.
These local airport authorities will be non-profit organizations. Current and forecast net revenue generated by the airport must be guaranteed to the government, along with a share of the increased revenue produced by the local airport authority.
Passage of this bill should greatly contribute to allaying any concerns that affected airport site employees may have by dealing with their major questions concerning pensions, benefits, and collective agreements.
This airport transfer legislation would also ensure that the LAAs continue to provide bilingual services to the public at former federal airports.
Negotiations are well advanced with local airport authorities in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Montreal. The signature of former transfers in these communities could take place as early as this fall. This House may already be aware that serious interest in airport transfers is also evident in such communities as Moncton, Quebec City, St. Foy, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, and Kamloops.
In summary, this bill, which will allow the government to proceed with the transfer of airports to locally established airport authorities, will allow Transport Canada to be in an even better position to focus its energies and resources on the vital aspects of transportation in Canada.
In closing, I just want to thank all hon. members for their interest in this bill and in this process.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation before the House at third reading. It is the bill which will transfer the authority of airports in Canada to the local community groups that have shown interest in developing programs and business plans to take over the operation of airports throughout these communities.
Let me say at the outset that the comments I intend to make today are much the same as the comments I made when we went through committee and second reading in the House. We on this side agree in principle on the initiative of transferring the authority for the management of airports in Canada to local and community groups.
During the implementation of this program, though, we have some very vital concerns with respect to how this transfer of authority will take place, and those are the areas I wish to address today. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the House will take some interest in these remarks because it will mean a smooth and easy
June 3, 1991

transition from Department of Transport administration to that of local airport authorities.
What we will see here in the transition period is a similarity in Canada developing with what we already have seen in the United States where most of the airports are already operated by what is termed the local authority or a local management group. They have a far-reaching input into the affairs of airport management in their country, and we would hope it would be something analogous to what we will have here in Canada.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that unlike the government's ill-conceived policy of deregulation in the transport industry the concept of local airport authority means better service to the communities we represent, and not less. Mainly for this reason we support in principle the idea and the thought of local airport authorities.
Local airport authorities are proceeding across Canada. Already, as we have heard, large communities are preparing to implement this policy. During the debate, as we crossed Canada on the Open Skies inquiry into getting better service between the United States and Canada, we heard very many vigorous approaches from people who had done a great deal to put themselves in place for the eventual taking over of the airports in their communities.
We were impressed with were the representations made by the airport authorities of the communities of Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. I am told, but I am not sure at this stage, that there is an airport authority or steering group in the process of trying to bring local management in at Dorval airport.
It was interesting to hear these representations because the provincial governments in these three areas, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver, were playing a very strong role in financing the local airports' initiatives. They are playing a strong role in fostering the idea that the area of responsibility should be at the local level.
Our cause for concern is simply-and I hope that this government would address this issue-the local airport authority act is dealing with every major airport in Canada and with smaller airports throughout the communities, but it is not addressing itself to the city of Toronto. One asks oneself: if local airport authorities are
Government Orders
good for the rest of Canada, why have we got a different plan for Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto?
Toronto is becoming the hub of Canada. It is not the hub of Ontario; it is the hub of Canada. This is the paradox and the dilemma we on this side find ourselves in. If government members are proposing local airport authorities, why are they not proposing the same administration for Lester B. Pearson Airport as they are for other regions in Canada? Why are they so intent on local airport authorities, with which we agree in principle, but not intent on establishing a local airport authority for Lester B. Pearson in Toronto?
As we know, the Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto has already proceeded on a mode of privatization. They have already privatized Terminal 3, Trillium Airport. They are in the process of asking for requests for the privatization of Terminal 2, which is the terminal Air Canada mainly uses. Since most of the international lines have moved out of Terminal 1, there is a refurbishing of that terminal and there will be a proposal to ask for its privatization.
Any of us who have travelled through Terminal 2 in the recent past since the refurbishing program has started know full well that Terminal 2 is becoming one of the fine airports not only in Canada but in North America. With limited resources-I think the spending estimates are somewhere around $57 million-they have done some magnificent work in Terminal 2. They have opened up the sides to let the people look at the aircraft and loading zones, improved the loading zones, increased the ability to walk that long corridor with raised stairways and stairwells and assisted the handicapped in that airport. It is much easier to use that facility now than what we have experienced in the past.
What I am saying is that an expenditure of $57 million is a lot of money. When we start talking about airports, $57 million does not go that far when we consider that Trillium cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million to build.
What I am trying to say is: Why would we want to privatize a very functional airport such as Terminal 2 and lose control of those very important areas that bring some form of regulation back to the airline industry? I am talking particularly of the gates and the slots, the two most important elements in the administration of an airline carrier within an airport proper. We all know that at times when we land on an Air Canada flight at Pearson Airport, and we are waiting to get into a slot and a gate at Terminal 2, we can look over at Trillium,

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
Terminal 3, and find empty slots. The airline we may be using cannot get into that gate because it is not part of its system.
What I am saying is: Why should we be on a program to privatize Terminal 2 and take it out of public control or of local airport authorities whose main interest is supplying a good basis of airline traffic and control in the country?
I have nothing against private enterprise, but we know it has to pay $500 million or $600 million to recapture their investment in airline travel. I think the privatization concept, especially now with what Air Canada has done in Terminal 2, is something that I would wish and advise this government to reconsider. It should think of the consequences of totally privatizing the most important airport in Canada, while on the other hand we are asking to bring all other airports in Canada under local authority.
It is a paradox. It does not make sense. Why do we not just try to use one system throughout the country? The best system we see is a local airport authority. We on this side of the House think that Pearson International Airport with Terminals 1 and 2 should be considered for the local airport authority program-I see my colleague from Hamilton nodding her head-as well as what will happen under a local airport authority in Hamilton, to enhance the service to the travelling public.
I am sure this is not of prime consideration when privatization will cost upward of $1 billion for Terminals 1 and 2. We know that money, although the facilities at Terminals 1 and 2 are already very adequate, will just add to the cost to the air travelling public in Canada. It is something now that we should be looking at to try to defray the cost and keep the costs in line rather than let them expand.
I hope in the debate today as we discuss this bill that we get some response from our friends across to give us their idea of why on the one hand Terminals 1 and 2 in Toronto are not subject to the local airport authority as are all other airports in Canada.
As we talk about Pearson International Airport, we all know that the airlines in the United States have gone into what is called the hub and spoke operation, where they develop hubs throughout certain sections of the country. Then all the spokes of all the smaller airlines feed into this hub.
One of the unfortunate occurrences that we have seen in air travel in Canada is that when the hub does not operate the spoke cannot operate. If we continue to want to privatize Lester B. Pearson Airport in Tbronto and for some reason that hub does not work, it affects all air travel. All the spokes across this country coming into Toronto Pearson are then inoperative because of the events and the weather that could affect the operation of that main hub in the Canadian air system.
I often think of an analogy when we talk about hub and spoke. When we were kids we had bicycles, and the most important part of that bicycle was the rear hub. If that did not operate, you had tremendous problems. All the spokes that would lead out into this wheel would cause tire repairs. You just could not operate your bicycle.
When we take that analogy into consideration, if that hub at Lester B. Pearson is not going to be operative, the spokes are going to be inoperative. That is not good for the air travellers in Canada.
I would like to suggest-and I hope I get some comments from our friends on the other side in the interests of air travellers, air cargo, special services and all other incidental items that are involved in the vital transportation industry in Canada-that we retain some degree of control.
When I say "we", I mean Canadians through the ability of local airport authorities should maintain some degree of control through Terminals 1 and 2 in Tbronto. We could ensure that not only those who are using that facility but all other travellers from across Canada will have public input into the continued operation of that important hub at Lester B. Pearson Airport.
I would like to be parochial for a moment. In my own riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, a committee has already been in place for well over 18 months and is preparing with great enthusiasm and great energy to meet the challenge of what local airports can bring and mean to our community.
June 3, 1991

The steering committee is a very competent group of people who have been gathered together and who welcome the chance to meet the needs of the community and run an airport authority in very cost efficient manner which because of bigness in our transportation system in this country leaves somewhat to be desired.
In establishing local airport authorities in general, efforts must be made to convince municipalities that this is not just another attempt by the government to divest itself of yet another financial burden. It was our concern in committee, it is our concern at second reading, and it is our concern today that as we transfer the authority to local airports we must ensure to every community in this country that the financial burden, if any, placed upon the operation of those airports will not result in the municipal taxpayer in every area of this country from being burdened with the operation of air services. That is not the intent. Members on this side of House would have nothing to do nor would we agree in any way with participating in this bill if it meant that the financial burdens of operating an airport would finally find their way into the local or municipal level. That is not the intent.
We on this side will always be on guard to make sure that the municipal taxpayer in Canada will not be forced or obligated to pay for air services in their own communities. It has always been a federal responsibility. It should continue to be a federal responsibility. What we are saying is that with the local airport authority we think and we trust that it will be an enterprise that can be self-paying.
Let me say, again with emphasis, that it is not our intention on this side of the House to place the financial burden of these airports on municipalities. It is an opportunity for municipalities to decentralize from Ottawa and other regional transportation offices so that the control of the airports themselves will become part of the local concern.
We must bear in mind that the intent of the legislation is to make airport management more responsive to the needs of any given community in Canada. At the same time it is imperative that Transport Canada remains responsible for all air side operations of the airport. Another cause of concern on this side of the House as we went through committee hearings was that an airport
Government Orders
has two components: it has an air side and it has a ground side.
The air side is not in any part negotiable in this agreement. The air side is responsible for the safety of air traffic in Canada, and I am talking about air traffic controllers and the training of air traffic controllers, their work schedules, the climate control and the atmospheric control. All those areas and all those government agencies are responsible for ensuring good, safe quality of air transportation in Canada. It is not part of this legislation and it shall remain intact for the safety of all air travellers in Canada.
We have a record in Canada with respect to air safety that is the envy of every country in the world. It is not our position on this side of the House that any of those safety features which respect air side be part of this. It should remain under the management and under the control of Transport Canada.
The ground side is the other aspect of air passenger services. Ground side operations, which is what we are referring to in this legislation, is the part we consider could be better administered by local airport authorities in the communities in which we reside.
It must be understood that the way in which a new system will operate is to afford the local authority the flexibility to manage according to local needs as far as the terminal and ground side facilities are concerned. As I said previously, ground side services only. The operation of the airport proper, the operation of the concessions, the operations of the grounds surrounding the runways and the use of those grounds to the best advantage of the community are all ground side services. Up to this point in time maybe the community has not had a fair chance to direct its best ability toward running that operation. That is where the local group will place its emphasis.
Consequently, given the sensible rationale approach to airport management, local authorities will be able to effect the changes the community needs, effect the changes the community deserves, and effect the changes on a very cost efficient basic.
I am speaking of improving services. When we talk of local airport authorities, I am speaking of improving the services these local airports already enjoying, not denying them any services; attracting more passengers to the air industry; attracting more industry that is responsive to the needs of the air industry; attracting more jobs

Government Orders
within the airport community than we heretofore have had; meeting all the needs of a region that an airport service requires; and operating these airports on a very cost effective basis.
Anyone should be able to see that these goals can best be met at the local level. I want to say at this time that in saying they can best be met at the local level, I am in no way insinuating or impugning any degree of not running these airports to the best of their ability by the present method of operation. They have done the best they can with the finances that they have had available to them and, as I say, the best they can not being part of the community. Being part of the community means they can offer better service.
As an example, if I can talk again about the community I represent and the airport, I think I can speak with a little authority on this because in one of my previous careers I spent several years working on airport property. There are several areas I have noticed that were perhaps not cost efficient and not properly administered mainly because of the absence of direct responsibility at that particular level.
Every major decision in the area that I represent was made 450-500 miles away from us. The decision affecting obligations in Ontario was made not in the province of Ontario but in another province. Perhaps these people who were making the decisions were not fully aware of the needs of Thunder Bay or north western Ontario; not only unaware of the needs, but these divisions operating under certain financial constraints which left the community, a smaller community like Thunder Bay, perhaps wanting because there were more important needs in other perhaps larger areas.
Let me perhaps give one example that I noticed when I was working at an airport. We are not talking a great deal of money. There was in the budgetary allotments for a period of time a request for security fencing around certain areas of the airport proper. I know this was on the expenditure side for several years and had been approved and taken out, approved and taken out. Then one day in the middle of winter, in fact it was toward the end of February, a construction firm moves into the local airport and starts to build the security fence around certain sections of the airport proper.
Building the fence is not an onerous job, but building a fence in the middle of February in Thunder Bay is not reasonable. We have a frost layer of approximately four feet. When they brought these huge machines in to dig holes to put the posts in, to dig through four feet of frost was next to impossible. The machines were there for about 30 days trying to get enough post holes dug through the frost layer in order to lay the fence.
After 30 days they gave up. They moved all of their equipment out of the community. To this day that fence has never been built. All I am saying is that if we had a proper airport authority on the site, first off we would not attempt to build a security fence and dig holes in the ground in the middle of February. We would do it on a more cost efficient basis and bring in contractors. Perhaps local contractors would be given the opportunity to come in and build that fence during the time it is conducive to do building of that type in the climate in which we live.
Another example that always caused me some concern in airports, not only in Thunder Bay but airports right across the country, was the methodology used in granting concessions on airport property.
I think we all know, those of us who live in smaller communities with airports, that the facilities provided at smaller airports are very, very important to the travelling public. During this period of time we have seen several concessions, especially the food concession, being administered and tendered out, and companies not from the community being involved in providing the service.
What eventually happens is that these companies find out that perhaps in smaller communities they do not have the volume of business they anticipated, that because of the fees charged for operating on airport property they are not doing as well as they expected. Then, several things happen: the service that is supposed to be provided starts to diminish, the facilities are not kept open during the time the travelling public requires those facilities, and the quality expected of an airport facility is not there. This is a trend that happens over a period of time.
What I have noticed is that when local concerns go into business enterprises at airports, they offer a good service and their reputation is involved. Just by way of example, the food service at the airport near where I live has had excellent service for the last 10 years, having taken over from a national company that could no longer provide the degree and the quality of service the people in our community expected. By bringing in a local
June 3, 1991

restaurateur to supply those services, we have had magnificent service in that airport for the last 10 years. I hope that in whatever expansion programs are going ahead in our area, he will be given an extra added responsibility to continue the fine service that he has provided over the years.
Those are just a couple of examples where local airport authorities can make a real contribution to the services that are needed by the travelling public in Canada.
While we on this side of the House affirm our support for the policy in principle, we are concerned that the aims of the policy do not meet the obligations in a very sensible and fair manner.
We on this side of the House feel that the objectives of local airport authorities should be three-fold. I am hoping that we will monitor, and I am sure we will monitor, the transfer of local airport authorities, considering that their primary objectives would be, first, to serve the local community interests, second, to enhance economic development and, third, to operate airports in a cost-effective manner.
When we talk about serving local community interests, we can look at different airports in this country that provide air services, usually Toronto because it is a hub. All of us have gone to smaller airports and have seen the competitive airlines leaving the airport basically at the same time, within 10 or 15 minutes of each other, both leaving at seven o'clock in the morning or 7.15 in the morning, both leaving for the same destination and both travelling with less than a full load-sometimes less than 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent of a load.
If we are really and truly interested in this country in cost saving and efficiency of fuel and in having our airports operate in an environment that allows them to produce a profit, perhaps the local airport authority could get involved in managing and assisting in the scheduling and providing of air services so that we would not see congestion at particular periods of time at airports, and then an absence of anybody at all waiting for the next aeroplane to arrive. This is clearly an area
Government Orders
where the authority, operating on a local level, can serve a community.
I should also mention that I am very proud of a facility which happens to be in our airport, and is there because of the great generosity of a local family. The facility is for a search and rescue group which covers all of northern Ontario and parts of northern Manitoba searching for missing aircraft. With the combination of the tremendous volunteer involvement of a friend of mine, John Illingworth, who was the instrument that provided the leadership in this area, and the contribution of this very fine family in providing an airport facility which they were not using at that time, we have been able to establish one of the finest search and rescue units in all of Canada. This is something we are very proud of.
That is the type of local initiative which is needed and perhaps will be increased as each airport in this country becomes governed by people with a local concern.
Let me address the enhancement of economic development. As we travel with the transport committee, and through our responsibilities as critics, visiting most airports in the country, one of the things that comes to mind very clearly is that airports are surrounded by huge tracts of land. What we see in this land that is available for development is an almost instant industrial site that has all the services-water and sewage, and fire treatment facilities-that every industrial site in this country requires. With each local authority which takes over in its community, we have immediately another industrial site available for the community to develop. On these industrial sites I would envisage all services of an industrial nature that are required to be in the approximate vicinity of the airport proper.
The cargo industry, which is developing and increasing throughout the country, indicates that cargo facilities would be very important additions to airport properties. The packaging business, getting packages from point A to point B overnight, should be on airport properties. If an airport serves a large regional community, storage areas for goods before they are transferred either to the job site, a mining site, a forestry site, or any other economic area that requires that service would be useful.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
These facilities are not now available at small airports throughout the country, but I am confident that if local authorities were to assess the needs of regional enterprise, they would begin to establish such facilities at all local airports.
This would also afford the opportunity to provide specialty services such as fire fighting, picture-taking facilities for designating areas for mining exploration, topography and cartography. Those facilities could be made available through the combined efforts of the authority and the local community.
Private recreational facilities which are growing by leaps and bounds in Canada can be further enhanced by local authorities in this country.
All of these ventures and initiatives taken by local authorities will enhance the cost-effectiveness of airports and perhaps create viable enterprise, the proceeds of which can be applied for the further benefit of the air-travelling public in Canada.
This legislation has only the bare bones of a policy which will become widespread throughout the country. It is so important that each community begins with good direction and guidance. Local airport management is in its infancy in Canada and this is a logical point to ensure that the policy gets off on the right foot, that mistakes are prevented, and that sound management principles are effected so that the community will benefit.
One of the very important considerations in this legislation is the fair treatment of personnel when authority is transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the local airport authority.
In my opinion, this bill does not go far enough in ensuring that Transport Canada employees will be totally protected during this transfer process.
I was surprised during the committee hearings, when we discussed this matter with the unions representing the employees working for Transport Canada, that there was no provision in their labour legislation that dealt with successor rights. Legislation like that should have a successor right provision in Canada, inasmuch as in the last four or five years we have seen a great change-over of Canadian ownership and businesses to private concerns. Without successor rights for the employees, it seems that there is some uncertainty with respect to
employees' benefit packages and all of the obligations for which Transport Canada is responsible that have been negotiated over the years.
Successor rights in labour legislation simply mean that if someone takes over the operation of a business, leases a business or by any other means starts to run an enterprise that up to that time has been run by someone else, then every union agreement that was entered into by the previous owner, lessor, or whatever the case may be must be maintained by the business enterprise taking over the venture.
Without that in the legislation, I can see why the employees in these areas across Canada would have some degree of concern.
Successor rights provisions provide for the same union representing the same employees from the previous employer to the future employer. It says in the successor rights provisions that during the transfer of ownership there will be no raiding of employees by another union. That is forbidden in the successor rights provisions.
These provisions guaranteed the veiy same terms of employment, working conditions, grievance procedures, wage package and benefits for employees under a local airport authority that they experienced while working for Transport Canada.
We are going to be looking very closely at the progress of this government program. Inasmuch as it is selling off many of the Canadian assets, during the transition period we are going to recommend to the government that successor rights be included as a very important addition to the legislation that governs federal employees in federal ministries.
In the transition of authority from the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport to the local airport authorities, even if successor rights are not in the contract or in the labour legislation, all successor rights provisions under the Canada Labour Code should be adhered to.
In this government's headlong rush to deregulate, privatize and sell off every institution we have in Canada, individuals have the right to be protected. There is no better way to protect those rights than invoking the successor rights provisions we have in other labour legislation in this country.

Another crucial area that we are concerned about as we start to transfer authority is the matter of safety and security from federal standards in our airports to local airport authority standards.
I have already gone through the process of stating the differences between air and terminal security. On the air side, there will be a continuation. On the terminal side, there will be additions to the ground security areas and the baggage claiming areas. We hope that we will be able to implement through local airport authorities security measures ensuring that every piece of luggage be subject to an X-ray and not only carry-on luggage, and that the owner of that luggage is responsible to fly with it.
Those are some of the safety items we can implement through the local level that up until this point we have not been able to implement because of some divisions across the country with respect to how we analyse the luggage that goes on to our aircraft.
With respect to carry-on luggage, it is getting to be a terrible consideration in Canada because of the spoke and hub concept. We in smaller communities are not getting on to DC-9s or 727s or 747s anymore. We are getting on 30 passenger aircraft and 40 passenger aircraft which do not allow the passenger to carry on the amount of luggage as do the larger aircraft. We have to come to grips in Canada with this program of carry-on luggage, especially at small airports.
I am sure that local airport authorities can come to grips with this issue and implement procedures which will be beneficial to all Canadian travellers.
I can see that my time is up. If I had had more time, I would have liked to discuss some of the recommendations we had put forward, some of the changes we had hoped for in the previous bill.
Let me close with a proposed amendment to the bill before the House. I move, seconded by the member for Kingston and the Islands:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a
third time and do pass" and by substituting therefor the following:
"be not read a third time, but be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill in clause 2
(a) by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
"body to which the minister is to transfer an airport by lease as a desig-"
(b) by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ister is to transfer an airport by lease to a designated airport author-"
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make those remarks with respect to the transition of responsibility to local airport authorities in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair will take under advisement the admissibility of the motion moved by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I am wondering whether there might be a disposition to call it one o'clock, that way I could start fresh at three.


An hon. member:: We go right through.


Iain Francis Angus: My apologies for once again forgetting about the new rules and the new hours.
I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-15. I want to say at the outset that I do not support the concept of local airport authorities. I was surprised; I thought the Liberal Party did not support the concept of local airport authorities. From the speech by my neighbour to the north, it seems that has changed.
I want to explain why I do not support the concept. In part it is because of the work of the special committee on transport when we were examining the whole question of Open Skies.


Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West):: I think just to clarify the confusion being put forward by my colleague from the NDP Party, the previous speaker from Thunder Bay- Nipigon did say that we, as a party on this side of the House, support in principle the airport authority and the idea of an airport authority. But those initiatives, and this is the point of order, and the transfer of the administration and management of airports to local authorities, meet certain criteria and certain conditions that we are very concerned about on this side of the House.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I think this is a matter of opinion. I give the floor now to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention of the member from one of the Hamilton ridings. One only has to look at the full text of the speech to see the amount of time spent glowing over the concept to appreciate what was being said.
Let me come back to the point I was making, why I oppose local airport authorities. One of the obstacles in the way of an agreement between Canada and the United States in a new bilateral air arrangement is the fact that the federal government of the United States no longer has control over its airports. They have local airport authorities. They have state authorities. They have airports that are run by airlines.
The federal government of the United States cannot go in and implement a bilateral agreement without first having to seek the approval of each and every one of those local airport authorities. Their system is fragmented.
Second, my preference as a Canadian is to have a national system owned and operated by the people of Canada. This system has been in place for years, ever since C. D. Howe started Trans-Canada Airlines and set up the airports across this country. If we allow the airports to run their own show, then no one can be assured of consistency of service from one end of this country, from coast to coast to coast, because each airport authority will do its own thing.
Nor can we be assured, and certainly this bill does not speak to it, that each and every airport authority will be selected in the same manner. During the legislative committee meetings, and we heard from a number of the local airport authorities which are up and running and ready to use this act, we heard some excellent examples of how they selected their people. It was not a bunch of boys in the back room who got together and said: "Let's take over the local airport", but it was municipal chambers of commerce, municipal councils, who together developed a process for selecting the members of the local airport authority.
In the area around Montreal, individual members of council from the participating municipalities all sent representatives. Others draw from a cross-section of the community but they do it in a public way, unlike the city of Thunder Bay, where a group of individuals decided on
their own that they wanted to take over the local airport. There is no consistency and no protection for the public that have to use those facilities. That is where I am coming from in terms of the concept of local airport authorities.
Specifically, the purpose of the bill is to protect the collective bargaining rights, language rights and pension rights of federal public sector workers currently employed by Transport Canada during the transfer of airports from Transport Canada to local airport authorities. While we agree with the principle that the workers must be protected, we do not believe that this bill really does that. Certainly there is a lack of clarity in the bill, and in light of current worker-management relations, it does not provide the protection it purports to provide.
The union representing the workers, the Union of Transport Canada Employees, has cited several problems with this bill. Let me be specific. Workers or their representatives have not been a part of the process of negotiation and consultation that has gone on between Transport Canada and various local airport authorities. They are being presented with a take it or leave it option. This is not a good basis upon which to build good worker-employer relations. Second, the procedural and substantive rights of workers with regard to their existing pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act are not clear under this bill. It is being left up to Treasury Board to make regulations. Again, there has been no consultation on the development of these regulations with the workers involved.
Most importantly, the bill contemplates removing the workers from these plans. In the case of other privatizations of work places, workers have remained in these plans. This bill needs to incorporate the desires of workers to continue under these plans because it should be noted that the local airport authority in British Columbia is having difficulty finding an insurance company to take on the disability insurance plan currently provided workers. They have been told that it would be too expensive to continue this type of coverage. What are they to do? Third, the continuation of the bargaining agent is also a matter of great concern. The bill provides for the continuation of the terms and conditions of an existing collective agreement at the time of transfer. However, past experience with other privatizations is that the determination of the appropriate bargaining
June 3, 1991

agent is a very long and disruptive process. This bill should incorporate provisions so that the existing bargaining agent remains in place for the period of one full collective agreement after the transfer in order to ensure the protection of workers' rights and the orderly determination of a bargaining agent.
The bill also fails in clause 4 to make clear that all services to the travelling public will continue to be provided in both official languages. Let me repeat that. The bill fails, in clause 4, to make clear that all services to the travelling public will continue to be provided in both official languages. We need to see in this bill provisions ensuring that third parties under contract to the local airport authority be required to provide their services under the linguistic terms currently set out in the Official Languages Act and any regulations made under that act.
The exclusion of those parts of the Official Languages Act dealing with services to the public and language of work are a serious undermining of the quasi-constitutional status of the Official Languages Act. According to the Official Languages Commissioner, any dismemberment of quasi-constitutional legislation can only be perceived as an erosion that is incompatible with the importance of its guarantees to Canada and Canadians. The commissioner recommended that all provisions of the Official Languages Act be incorporated by the local airport authorities.
That is something we attempted to do in committee. Both myself and the Liberal transport critic had identical motions which would have put back into the act certain sections, including Part V of the Official Languages Act, that would have provided protection for both language groups the ability to work in the language of their choice, the requirement to serve their customers in the language of the customer's choice.
The government said no. It said no to the English speaking minority in Montreal. It said no to the French speaking minority of Ottawa or any other community outside of Quebec that has a reasonably sized French speaking population. But the government has failed to
Government Orders
protect the minority rights of the English speaking workers at the Montreal airport.
We made an attempt to change that. The two Liberal members on the committee, the critic, the associate critic, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and I all voted to put that clause back into the act. One of the amendments I had wanted to have debated today and would have argued to you that even though it had been defeated in committee it was of paramount importance for the matter to be seized again and debated here in this House.
Perhaps there will still be an opportunity should we, through our House leaders, reach some kind of agreement to revert to report stage at a later part today.
I want to say it is a fundamental issue that if we are going to take a federal service, a federal airport and turn it over to a local airport authority, then along with that transfer should be the transfer of obligations under the Official Languages Act. We should not have two different classes of airports in this country. What is next? Our train stations or perhaps, part of the House of Commons. Maybe we will have an English speaking wing, or a French speaking wing and we carve them out.
No, Mr. Speaker. I think the government has made a fundamental error in this particular bill, in the need to provide legislative protection for workers, at what will still be federal airports. They will have a local management, but they will still be federal airports and there is no reason on earth that I can find, that is acceptable to me, why they should be exempted.
This bill may not be the privatization of airports, but it is the privatization of the workplace. The government has a responsibility to ensure the rights of its workers are protected before, during and after the transfer. This bill gives only more uncertainty. If the purpose is to stabilize worker-management relations, then the workers must be consulted and their concerns heeded before this legislation is implemented. Given this government's current disdain for its own workers, how can it be trusted to act in their best interests when negotiating with local airport authorities? Clear legislation is needed, setting out the obligations of the government, the obligations of the local airport authority and the rights of workers.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
Other instances of privatizing the workplace, for example, security services at airports, have been of questionable benefit. Let us not forget that one of the airports we are talking about devolving to a local airport authority is the Edmonton International Airport, which has just come through a strike by their security guards searching for a decent contract. What did this airport do? They laid off the workers while they were on strike. Is that the kind of labour-management relations we expect to see, by passing this kind of legislation and this kind of privatization of the workplace?
There have been ongoing discussions between the minister and his staff and my caucus colleague, the critic for labour, who has been handling this bill. There were some agreements. There was some willingness on the part of the government to, in fact, accept a provision for retroactive payment for employees who have left the Public Service.
In fact, the former Minister of Transport, Mr. Lewis, wrote back, as follows, with a suggested amendment.
That Bill C-85 be amended by adding, immediately after line 26 on page 5, the following:
8. Where the Minister has sold, leased or otherwise transferred an airport to a designated airport authority and, after the transfer date, a collective agreement or arbitral award under the Public Service Staff Relations Act provides for a retroactive increase in remuneration to a day before that date for employees in a bargaining unit in which designated employees for the airport were employed immediately before that date, the provisions of the collective agreement or arbitral award respecting retroactive increases in remuneration shall apply to those designated employees in respect of the retroactive period before that date.
The former minister was prepared to see this particular change made in the legislation. I understand that the government has other items it needs to incorporate into this legislation to ensure that this bill is workable, matters relating to taxation for one.
I would encourage the government to give serious consideration to reopening this bill today for clause by clause review at report stage. Both the Liberals and myself have given the Table the amendments so it will
have had an opportunity to review them if this House decides, through unanimous consent, to revert.
I would like to spend the last couple of minutes going back over the philosophy of devolving to local airport authorities. It is not in the best interests of Canadians. There is a carrot out there that these local airport authorities believe, and I do not doubt their belief, that they can manage that building and those grounds in a way that is different from the way the local airport manager, under the policies of Transport Canada, can do.
I would suggest that if there are problems with the policies of Transport Canada, let us change those policies to provide the local manager with much more flexibility to use the capital funds available to enhance the operation, but let us not fool ourselves. In a lot of cases any wealth that is created at an airport will not necessarily be new wealth. It might be redirected wealth.
For example, in the city of Thunder Bay the proposal there, as I understand it, is that they are looking at more retail opportunities within the airport itself. Is that going to take away retail opportunities in the downtown core? Is that just going to rob Peter to pay Paul, with none of us really benefiting? If it is just aimed at the travelling public, then perhaps it might work from that point of view.
Will they be in competition with the city of Thunder Bay in terms of industrial land? Will they be taking needed revenue away from some of our light industrial areas and having them located at the airport and not contribute in the same way? We have to be careful that when we embrace these concepts we fully understand the impact on our communities.
Are people going to be happy finding different levels of services from airport to airport to airport? Some would say that is the case today and I would agree. However I think in the case of the Thunder Bay airport, which incidentally is in my riding of Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan, we work very closely with Transport Canada-we being the municipal politicians, myself, the Chamber of Commerce-to bring about improvements. We have a program under way this summer to do a temporary upgrade in the building.
June 3, 1991

We have on stream, on track, on time a major replacement of the airport terminal building, in time for the 1995 World Nordic Games, a commitment made by the former Minister of Transport to the people of Thunder Bay. We did not need a local airport authority to do that. We just needed a willingness to work toward an end.
One of the ironies is that the group that now wants to be this local airport authority were the backers of the previous government who made promise after promise after promise for a new terminal or for expansion that they never carried through with.
I know I have a few seconds left. I urge the government to reconsider the concept not to go forward with the devolution of airports to local airport authorities, but to enhance the operations, enhance the flexibility of the airport managers, some whom I have met. They are excellent representatives of the Crown and do a fantastic job, whether it is Thunder Bay, Toronto or elsewhere, in providing services to people because that is what it is all about.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I am intervening in this debate because this bill has serious implications for our official language policy in Canada. When our airports were owned and operated by the Government of Canada, they were fully subject to the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
That meant that all our airports under the ownership and control of the government had to respect the two official languages in Canada, had to provide services in the two official languages of Canada and had to respect employees who worked in those airports who were of one or the other official languages.
With this bill and the privatization of certain of our airports, the government is allowing these privatized airports to escape certain provisions of the Official Languages Act. For example, under the bill only Parts IV, VIII, IX and X of the Official Languages Act, 1988, will apply to privatized airports but not Parts V, VI and VII.
When Air Canada was privatized by this government a short while ago, the bill was changed or amended so that all provisions of the Official Languages Act would apply to the privatized Air Canada. So there seem to be some anomalies here. While the government agreed to the
Government Orders
application of all provisions of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada for some reason or other, it is hesitant to go that distance in this bill dealing with the privatization of airports.
We are in a debate and we are hopeful that the arguments of opposition members and some others, one would hope some others on the government side, would convince the government that it should do the same for airports as it did for Air Canada.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, whose job it is to look out for the language rights of minorities in this country, appeared before the appropriate committee in the last session of Parliament when this bill's predecessor was going through the various stages. The Commissioner of Official Languages objected to those provisions in this bill which exempted the privatized airports from various sections of the Official Languages Act.
The commissioner said: "I therefore strongly recommend to the committee that section 4 of Bill C-85" which was what it was called at that time, "be amended to ensure that, as in the case of the decisions taken in the privatization of Air Canada, all the provisions of the Official Languages Act continue to apply to the designated airport authorities. Any weakening of this policy would seem to us to be unacceptable and an unjustified step backwards."
That is what was said by the Commissioner of Official Languages.
He was even concerned about those clauses that pretend to give service to the public in both official languages. He said, with respect to section 4: "I refer here to services provided by third parties under contract, specifically the various tenants and concessionaires in airport terminals concerning whom we have received more than 200 complaints in the past three years." He goes on to say that this section 4(2) is ambiguous and it does not clearly set out that service to the public must be provided, not only by the airport authorities, but by the concessionaires operating in those airports.
He said: "I therefore strongly recommend that the wording of subsection 4(2) be revised to ensure that third parties under contract are required to provide their services under the linguistic terms currently required by the Official Languages Act and the regulations made under it."

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
That is what was said by the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Strange as it may seem, those who manage the Montreal International Airport have approached myself and other members of Parliament objecting to the application of all the provisions of the Official Languages Act to the Montreal International Airport. The reasons given by the authorities in Montreal are that if the Montreal airport and other airports that are privatized must comply with all the provisions of the Official Languages Act, they will not be competitive with the airports in Boston and New York, or Terminal 3 in Toronto.
Let me deal first with Boston and New York. Of course the American airports have not provided bilingual services in English and French for any period of their history, as far as I know. However, that has not prevented us in Canada from providing services in both those languages because we have populations which speak those two languages. We have pilots who speak those two languages. We have employees working in the airport who speak those two languages. We have always thought, and so did the Conservative government in 1988 when it passed the new Official Languages act, that services to the public should be provided in two official languages.
It also thought that in federal institutions there should be equitable participation by both official language groups and that there should be fairness and justice with respect to the employees and their language of work in both official languages.
I find the argument of the authorities in Montreal rather strange because I was in this Parliament a few years ago when there was an attempt to make sure that air traffic control services in this country be in the two official languages. That received strong support from Montreal.
The people there who were air traffic controllers whose mother tongue was French and pilots who were French-speaking felt that air traffic control in this country should be in two official languages. We fought for that and put it into effect.
Despite the fears that were raised by certain opponents at the time, we have had bilingual air traffic
control in several airports for many years now, and there has been no danger or great concern. It has worked very well.
Consequently, therefore, I cannot see why we, in order to compete with Boston and New York, should lessen our commitment to official languages. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if Montreal was to operate totally in the two official languages, it would be more competitive because it would attract travellers, workers and employees who were competent in both languages. However, in Boston you are not assured that they can speak your language at all.
This is something that has to be examined more closely. For this reason, I am pleased that my colleague from Thunder Bay moved that this bill go back to committee so we can examine some of these issues.
I am not convinced that applying the provisions of the Official Languages Act, as we have for years to all our airports, will hurt our competitiveness with the airports in Boston and New York.
With respect to Terminal 3, the manager of the Montreal airport says this would also make the Montreal airport non-competitive with respect to Terminal 3 which he says is not subject to all the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
Terminal 3, which is a new terminal and was only opened recently, was built as a privatized airport from the beginning. It was never under government authority as were the other airports and it was built on a contract with a certain private firm. It is principally served by Canadian Airlines International.
I have looked at the contract between the Government of Canada and the Terminal 3 developers. It seems to me from reading the contract that Terminal 3 is subject to the Official Languages Act, but this requires some serious legal analysis.
This is another reason for this bill to go back to committee. If the government in the contract with the Terminal 3 developers did relax the provisions of the Official Languages Act with respect to airports even before this bill was passed, then I would say the government is speaking with a forked tongue.
On one hand, it is supporting an official languages policy such as it set out in the Official Languages Act of 1988 and on the other hand, it is already privatizing or
June 3, 1991

setting up privatized airports which do not respect all the provisions of that law.
Either the Official Languages Act of 1988 means something or it means nothing. When the government put that bill before Parliament in the early months of 1988, the Prime Minister stood in his place and said that this policy was so important for Canada that if he had his way, Parliament would sit all night in order to have it passed.
We did pass the bill. It was passed with the support of the Liberal and the New Democratic Party opposition but the opposition came not from the opposition parties but from certain members of the government's own party who, at that time, were known as the dinosaurs. They sort of opposed the bill, held it up and so on, but the opposition did not come from the opposition parties.
Despite the words of the Prime Minister in 1988 when the bill was passed that it was so important to pass that revised bill on official languages, we still do not have the regulations for that bill. It is more than two years since the bill was passed. The government has presented to committee the draft regulations with respect to service to the public, but it has not yet presented the regulations which are required for the language of work or equitable participation or promotion or advancement of the official languages in Canada. One wonders about the commitment of the government to official languages.
The reason for the Official Languages Act and for an official languages policy is that we have in this country large numbers of people who speak both official languages. About one-third of the population of the country is French speaking. The other two-thirds are English speaking but come from many backgrounds.
There are some who would suggest that all of Quebec should perhaps be French speaking: we would allow those airports and those institutions to be unilingual French and in the other nine provinces everything would more or less operate in English.
That sort of suggestion forgets that there are almost one million Canadians who speak French, living outside the province of Quebec. Almost one million francophone Canadians are living outside Quebec who speak
Government Orders
French and want to be served in their language and want to work in their language, where they are in sufficient numbers.
We are not talking about one employee in Vancouver in some particular office. We are talking about large numbers of employees and particularly when they are dealing with the travelling public. Very often businessmen from Montreal go to Winnipeg for conferences. They go to Halifax to deal with governmental matters and so on. That is the nature of our country.
When the government introduced and passed the Official Languages Act in 1988 it was committed to that policy. It was a good law. It had to be completed by regulations, but it was a good law. Now we are bit concerned that the government is backing off from that.
We say that this bill is defective in that it does not apply all the provisions of the Official Languages Act to the airports the government is attempting to privatize under this bill. We are asking the question: Why is it members of the government agreed to apply all the sections of the Official Languages Act to Air Canada when they privatized Air Canada, and rightly so? They should have done that. As I said, Air Canada is our major airline and it is dealing with the travelling public, both English and French speaking Canadians. If Air Canada is to follow all the provisions of the Official Languages Act, surely the airports where these Air Canada planes land, take off and work should also follow all the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
I fully support the amendment presented by my colleague from Thunder Bay, that this bill be sent back to committee where we can once again examine certain provisions, certain sections of it, and especially those sections that relate to official languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before resuming debate, I declare that the motion moved by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon is in order. Therefore debate is on the amendment.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate today, both on the amendment-

June 3, 1991
Government Orders


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not the trend or the custom of the House of Commons to recognize two speakers from the Official Opposition before moving to the third party?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I ask for the
co-operation of the member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, while confessing my rookie status and thus my lack of familiarity with all of the precedents and usages of this House, I must say at the outset that I know of no Standing Order providing for such. I know of no Speaker's ruling providing for such.
However, in the interest of amicability and goodwill in the House, in the interest of that non-partisan tradition that we are striving so mightily to create here, I will yield the floor to the hon. member.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is no Standing Order of the House that says the Chair should recognize one member rather than another. The Chau-must recognize the first person it sees, but there are some conventions. There is a certain practice in these matters.
We all know that the Official Opposition has 81 members and is therefore entitled to be heard more often than a third party that has only 42 members. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Edmonton East has the floor because he was recognized. But I would urge the Chair to give a little more consideration to the way the parties are represented in this House, when recognizing speakers in future. This is important to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, an experienced member of this House, has made a very good point. However, the Chau-recognized the hon. member for Edmonton East. In the circumstances, I would ask all members to cooperate. First, I will again recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East, and subsequently, I promise to follow the convention of respecting the ratio of members in this House.
The hon. member for Edmonton East, and then the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, might I preface my remarks on the bill and the amendment by noting, for the benefit of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, that our caucus is in fact composed of 44 members, not 42. There may be two who you would wish expelled, but that is not yet the case.
I would like in rising to speak on the amendment, and of course therefore on the bill as well, to note that I think there is considerable merit in the amendment. When the vote comes it is my intention to vote for it, as I believe is the case for all members of the caucus of which I am a member.
I cannot be quite so charitable in the instance of the bill itself. There are flaws with the bill, especially given that, ostensibly at least, the purpose of the bill is to protect the collective bargaining rights, the language rights, the pension rights-the workers' rights-of federal public sector workers currently employed by Transport Canada during the transfer of airports from the authority of Transport Canada to the so-called local airport authorities, the LAAs.
There are elements in this bill which make it very unlikely that that goal will be properly and fully effected. I would like to deal just briefly with two of those elements.
The first has to do with, generally, the rights of workers at what are now federal government airports. I should note that given this government's current disdain for its own workers, it is somewhat problematic that we accept the assertion that it can be trusted to act in their best interests when negotiating with local airport authorities. Clear legislation is needed setting out the obligations of the government, the obligations of the local airport authorities and the rights of the workers employed by either or both.
This was brought home forcefully to me in the past six months in consequence of the situation faced by the passenger screening guards at the Edmonton International Airport. The service provided by these guards was contracted out quite some significant time ago.
Whereas at one time they were like all other employees at the Edmonton International Airport, employees of Transport Canada, in consequence of the government's ongoing program of contracting out, deregulation and privatization-you know the litany, Mr. June 3, 1991

Speaker-they ceased being Transport Canada employees some time ago. They remained, for the time being, members of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees, that union which represented them when they were Transport Canada employees. However, other than that, their formal ties as employees of Transport Canada were severed and they became employees of another company.
The company at the time was Canadian Protection Services. The contractual arrangement was one that saw Air Canada, as the lead airline using the Edmonton International Airport, contract for passenger screening, which is to say security services, with the private sector company, Canadian Protection Services. This was, I suppose, to start at least an agreeable contract for the signing parties, they being Air Canada on behalf of all airlines using the airport and Canadian Protection Services.
It was most clearly not terribly acceptable to the passenger screening guards, 66 of whom were employed at the airport by Canadian Protection Services, that is CPS, and all of whom were most desirous of improving the conditions of their work and the wages for which they worked.
Bargaining with CPS for a first collective agreement began in the spring of 1990, more than a year ago. At that time the union, the Union of Canadian Transport Employees, wished to have addressed several questions including the annual 200 per cent turnover rate among the employees retained as passenger screening guards by CPS at the Edmonton International Airport.
Number two was the fact that these employees were the only ones in the entire airport required to pay for their own parking, at a rate of $20 a month. Another was they were required to place $150 deposit on their uniforms. Of course, of key importance were the seriously low rates of pay. The union had hoped to raise the current levels of pay in the $6 to $6.49 an hour range to about $8 an hour, hardly a princely sum.
Unfortunately no agreement with CPS was reached. In November of last year the parties went to conciliation. This too proved fruitless. This left the employees in a no-win situation. They could strike but, if they struck, that would immediately create a situation in which their employer, CPS, was in violation of its contract with Air Canada. That being the case, the provision in that contract that allowed Air Canada then to cancel it would kick in, or they could simply knuckle under, as indeed
Government Orders
CPS had to knuckle under, because CPS was not getting the money from Air Canada and the other airlines using the airport to pay the passenger screening guards a reasonable amount. In that sense, CPS too was also locked into a no-win situation.
The predictable happened. In March of this year the 66 passenger screening guards went on strike. After two weeks, Air Canada determined that in consequence of the strike CPS was no longer able to live up to its contract to supply passenger screening services at the airport and, accordingly, Air Canada cancelled that contract. This meant, of course, that in the twinkling of an eye those 66 passenger screening guards were not on strike; they were unemployed.
Air Canada quickly reached an agreement with another security company, Aeroguard, which itself is a union company.
Its employees are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers. This company, Aeroguard, resumed passenger screening services at the airport.
Many of the 66 passenger screening guards who had previously worked for CPS in that capacity at the airport now signed on with Aeroguard. Several did not.
The point here is that in the context of a contracted out privatized service, the protections of the Canada Labour Act which otherwise would have been completely available for those passenger screening guards were not there.
They were treated with contempt by Air Canada and the other contracting airlines at that airport. There is nothing that they or anyone else could do about it.
I wrote two letters, on March 7 and on March 21, to the then Minister of Transport, now the Solicitor General. I noted in the second:
For exercising Iheir right to strike, these 66 workers have now lost their jobs. This is grotesquely unfair. If, as ought to be the case, these workers were employed by Transport Canada and thus afforded the coverage of the Canada Labour Code directly, such jack-boot union busting, strike breaking would be illegal. And that's as it should be.
I received a reply from the current Minister of Transport dated May 13 of this year. He writes in part: "Security screening guards are employed by private industry." True. "They are not contracted to or through the federal government and cannot be considered as contracted out employees." True. "Nor, in this instance,

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
are they employed for the purpose of government agencies." True.
"Security guards are, like many Canadians, performing important jobs as employees of private industry in accordance with government regulations." Again, true.
"I must stress that they are not in any way denied rights or benefits to which they are entitled as a result of their status." Absolutely true, and that is precisely the problem. Their status is such that they are now denied the coverage of the Canada Labour Code.
I greatly fear that in the legislation we have before us today, we are setting the stage for hosts of other federal employees now employed at Canada's airports to join these unhappy passenger screening guards in that nonstatus situation.
For that reason, I find the bill inadequate. I would hope that when the amendment of the hon. member is passed by this House, as I hope, and the bill is therefore referred back to committee, these matters too will be addressed in committee at that time.
I say "these matters" because there is a second matter I would like to raise. It has to do with official languages.
I have, on numerous occasions in my home riding of Edmonton East and around Alberta, defended the Official Languages Act. I have defended the French language in Alberta. I have especially defended its general use in federal institutions in Alberta.
I believe that every Canadian has the right to deal with her or his federal government in the official language of their choice, regardless of where they are in this country. I will not abandon that position. I will continue to defend it in Edmonton, in Alberta and everywhere else in Canada where I can be allowed the privilege of raising my voice.
It is in this instance that I note with some dismay that portion of the bill which would exempt from the operations of the Official Languages Act the LAA airport in Montreal.
The bill would specifically omit that airport from the operations of Part V and Part VI of the Official Languages Act which provides, among other things, in Section 34 that:
English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.
Which in section 36(2) reads:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that, within the National Capital Region and in any part or region of Canada, or any place outside Canada, that is prescribed for the purpose of paragraph 35(l)(a), such measures are taken-to establish and maintain work environments of the institution that are conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees.
The effects of one of the main elements in this bill will be to remove that protection from the workers at the Montreal airport. This means that there is nothing to prevent the emergence at the Montreal airport, or at least those Montreal airports operated by what will be its local airport authority, of a strictly francophone language regime.
That is bad for two reasons. It is bad for the employees who work there, who require English as their first language to do their work. However, in some cases, more importantly, it is bad for the anglophone language minority in Montreal which may depend on the provision of anglophone services at its airports for their use of those airports. Again, this is not unreasonable. It is a keystone element of the Canadian Confederation that any citizen of this country may be able to deal with her or his government and its agencies and institutions in the official language of their choice.
To the degree that this bill detracts from that fundamental Canadian right, indeed detracts from that constitutional provision, the bill is flawed. Therefore, it is a second reason why I cannot, in conscience, fully and enthusiastically endorse this bill as it now stands.
Therefore, I would recommend to all members of this House, in the interest of equity and in the interest of prudence and, to hearken back to my first point, most of all in the interest of fairness for the workers at these airports, that this bill be referred back to the committee and that the hon. member's amendment be adopted.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to rise on third reading debate of Bill C-15, the Airport Transfer Act, which was Bill C-85 in its previous incarnation before the government decided to prorogue, a government action which we, on this side of the House and
June 3, 1991

probably most Canadians, are still puzzled about and are asking ourselves why.
The bill concentrates on some technical matters related to the transference of what are currently Transport Canada operated facilities and will become local airport authorities under negotiations with Transport Canada. There are currently four major airports entering final negotiations with the federal government. They are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal.
There are a number of other airports which are interested in becoming local authorities. This means that the control and direction of the facilities will be shared at the local level between business, local officials and public representation.
Bill C-15 falls short, however, in attempting to deal with the maintenance of certain aspects of the day-today operation of federally regulated institutions-namely the official language protection for services and workers, job security, pension benefits and labour relations. It is enough to send shivers down anyone's spine.
On the first point, I support the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that the protection for both official languages in terms of services provided to the public and for job opportunities is, at best, weak. I am surprised that this government, which attempted to put a new face on the Official Languages Act, should now weaken its support with this bill.
The point is that the responsibility for these airports is federal until such time as it should be contracted away. All aspects pertaining to the Official Languages Act with respect to certain services are protected and should remain so once the facilities transfer over to local control.
In the case of Air Canada, for example, I am sure most Canadians would recognize the duality of Air Canada in its operations. It has a bilingual staff and there is equal opportunity for both language groups to advance within the corporation.
Once Air Canada was sold off, the government ensured that all aspects of the Official Languages Act remained intact.
Government Orders
In the case of these federally regulated facilities, regulated by the Canadian government, the same protection must apply. Services must be offered to all travelling Canadians in both official languages. In the same spirit, equal opportunity to both languages groups must be granted in hiring and advancement policies.
The second point of the bill essentially deals with labour relations. The bill as it stands does not satisfy this side of the House. At committee stage we tried to move several amendments which we thought would improve the bill, but were of course voted down by the Conservative majority on the committee.
Under this bill, job security for airport employees is not guaranteed. Airport managers will have full control over the work force of the airport and if management were to decide that 20 employees should be laid off to meet costs, a six month notice is all that would be required. That is shameful. Perhaps that may appear to be generous by others on the other side of this House, but the point is that it will severely undermine the collective bargaining process.
Airport employees at Transport Canada facilities have worked long and hard for their rights, which include job protection, among other things, and they should be protected under this privatization drive by the government and not sacrificed.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport declare just this veiy morning that one of the blessings of this bill is that it will allow the local authorities to function on a non-profit basis. What that means is that yes, 20 or so employees who have worked for years to obtain their rights may be laid off in six months in order to meet costs, but the facilities must be self-supporting and the authorities will have to do what they must to operate on a non-profit basis.
An important point which I would like to take note of in relation to the non-profit basis of these authorities is that our party strongly opposes local taxes in municipalities considering these transfers being raised in order to finance the debt load of a local airport authority.
At this point I would also like to clarify a point that was made a little earlier in this debate with regard to Hamilton airport. Hamilton, interestingly enough, has witnessed a move not to a local airport authority but it is the creation of a regional airport management board. That is a wonderful blend of the private sector and government accountability. It is not becoming an independent authority. It still has the arrangement of a lease

Government Orders
agreement between the management group at Hamilton airport and Transport Canada.
The regional airport management board at Hamilton is now in the process of selecting five community representatives. Six members of that management board will be selected from the regional council. There is that wonderful blend between business and what it has to offer and the government accountability.
We in Hamilton have to be cognizant of, and this relates back to taxes, the fact that Hamilton airport does receive $700,000 in subsidy money from the federal government every year. If we decided to move to a local airport authority, where is $700,000 going to originate from? We can guess that it will be saddled right back with the taxpayer.
I mentioned in this House last week that Transport Canada lacks a master plan for air traffic in southern Ontario. It also lacks a master plan for the entire country's air traffic system which consists of our airports.
While the government negotiates a variety of contracts with various Canadian cities in order for them to move to local airport authorities, there are a host of other airports which will remain in the hands of Transport Canada.
Communication is essential for the over all system to work. The lack of an over all vision in transportation has created what I like to refer to as a helter-skelter approach to air transportation in this country.
Just this very morning I drove to Pearson International Airport and boarded the Air Canada flight at seven o'clock and picked up the local Toronto newspaper. In the editorial was an example of why there should be some kind of an over all vision for transportation in this country.
We on this side of the House are appalled by the inconsistency of government action. Here in part is what the editorial had to say.
"It all began when Ottawa gave Terminal 3's private owners 'sole and absolute discretion' over cab licences at the new facility where-" -as we are all familiar-"one
airline promises travellers 'the Dawn of Civilized Air Travel.' "
"Realizing its error in creating two different taxi systems at Canada's biggest airport, Ottawa bought back the licence rights for an undisclosed amount. To recoup its loss, the government hiked annual fees for Pearson taxis to $4,250 from $1,000; limo rates have gone to $6,000 from $1,000."
The ministers office still regards the payment to Terminal 3's owners as some kind of a state secret. We find that quite incredible. This piecemeal approach does little to address many issues of-you can put it under this title-"protection". We are talking about protection for the safety and security of the air travelling public. We are talking about protection for existing employees at our airports, protection for the physically challenged, protection of the Official Languages Act and protection against local taxes being increased to finance the debt load of a local authority.
These conditions can and would be addressed if, as so eloquently enunciated by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon, we consider his amendments to Bill C-15, put forward in this House, such as the amendment to return this debate to a committee where we can address these outstanding issues. These issues are of a vital concern, not only to this party, but to the New Democratic Party. It will stand today and say: "Yes, we oppose this legislation." What it is not saying is that this is an idea that can be flushed out and it can be done in a non-partisan way in a committee where it belongs. Let us take it back to committee, have another look at it, bring it back to the House and let us accomplish something here today.
Today we have established many reasons and conditions for the granting of our support to this bill. Especially, we focus and highlight official languages and job security. Those two are paramount.
I cannot understand why this government would transfer airports without justly guaranteeing full job security and fully protecting the linguistic rights of the employees at different airports in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
June 3, 1991


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this week will be our twentieth National Environment Week, in as many years. Why not decide this week to act now?
1 want to invite all municipalities in my riding and all my constituents to take an active part in National Environment Week. Plant a tree, sow flower seeds, hang flower pots from your balcony, clean up the yard, tune up your car's engine and especially, Mr. Speaker, think in terms of recycling and reducing the quantity of garbage we produce: those are a few of the things we can do to help the environment.
Mr. Speaker, cleaning up our environment is good for us and our quality of life, but it is even better for future generations to whom we want to leave a healthier environment and a better world.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as we begin Environment Week, Canadians across the country are questioning this government's commitment to a sustainable future.
Canadians are thinking globally and acting locally to protect our planet and are yearning for leadership from government.
Sadly, it is all too clear that the green plan is a whitewash and that no leadership is forthcoming from this government.
This past weekend, I proposed the creation of a biosphere reserve in the Gulf Islands of my constituency as a positive step toward preserving this pristine region and as a tool for economic development. This proposal meets community concerns, will prevent the further erosion of a delicate ecosystem and will lead to economic growth.
I challenge the government to show that it means what it says, to act to protect unique and threatened areas of Canada's coast, to establish a Gulf Islands' biosphere reserve for the benefit and interest of all Canadians.
I challenge the minister and this government to take some initiative, learn from the environmental activists they applaud and to act to fast-track environmental concerns for a change.
My constituents want to see jobs and a better environment. Now is the time for action.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a society composed of people from many different ethnic, regional, linguistic, religious and racial backgrounds. It is a nation whose very identity is defined by its diversity. Canada must not forget that the debate on national unity is not only one between English and French nor only one between Quebec and the rest of Canada, but is one for all Canadians. It is a quest for a national identity that includes Canadians of all backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we can only build a strong united country if we do it together, a country that acknowledges that every person, whatever his ethnic origin, race or sex, is entitled to a good quality of life.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech made reference to changes the government is considering to give more independence and freedom to members of Parliament.
While this is being planned, I would like to let the government know what changes the member for Halton-Peel would like to see. The member would like to have more free votes in the House of Commons so the views of his constituents could be well represented. The member would like to have parliamentary committees empowered so that the government is under some obligation to act on all-party committee reports and recommendations.

June 3, 1991
The member for Halton-Peel would like to see more checks and balances with respect to cabinet appointments. They should be reviewed by members of Parliament sitting on committees. This member wants parliamentary reform with new mechanisms for public involvement and participation. This member never again wants his vote in the House of Commons wiped out, annulled by the vote of unelected and unaccountable senators.
The people want change. The government has indicated it is ready to listen and act. Freer MPs, Mr. Speaker, will make for freer Canadians.


GUN CONTROL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the new gun control bill was tabled in Parliament, the gun lobbies started their usual propaganda that the new bill will not reduce violent crime, but only interfere with legitimate gun owners.
This is total nonsense and it is the nonsense that has been repeated by the gun lobby every time we attempt to tighten our gun laws. As a matter of fact, each time we tightened our gun laws, the rate of crime with guns declined. Countries with stricter gun control have lower rates of crime with guns. In the United States, 70 per cent of homicides are committed with guns.
In Canada, due to stricter laws, only 30 per cent of homicides are committed with guns.
In the United States, the homicide rate is 10 per 100,000; in Canada, it is 2.2 per 100,000. While this bill on gun control is not perfect, there is no doubt that it will make it more difficult for irresponsible and dangerous persons to obtain and use guns.
This bill should be supported and, if possible, strengthened.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after statements by some federal members of the Liberal party
and members of the Bloc quebecois, especially those from large urban areas who know nothing about regional development programs in Quebec's resource regions, I have a few comments to make.
Today, these opposition members are upset by the federal government's decision and especially by the effective work being done by the minister and member for Roberval, the hon. Benoit Bouchard, They should read the article by Gilles Normand, published in La Presse on May 31. Mr. Bouchard simply implemented an administrative change which does not in any way affect funding procedures, but will make it easier for companies to have access to the program, and Quebecers will benefit, all of which will be done in co-operation with the Government of Quebec.
I would urge those federal members to come to Abitibi-Temiscamingue today and tell residents that federal participation and co-operation with their communities has been cut off. Mr. Speaker, they will get a warm welcome!


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in China it is almost June 4. Two years ago began one of the most horrific incidents of bloody, violent massacres by a government against its own people.
The scene was Beijing's Tiananmen Square, and overnight the Chinese government chose to end a peaceful youth protest by opening tank and machine gun fire upon the crowd of pro-democracy demonstrators.
What were the youth asking? Freedom from totalitarianism through political reform, more opportunity and personal dignity. In return, they were murdered. Some survivors of that horrible night have Subsequently been executed, incarcerated or, at the very minimum, stripped of basic human rights and dignity.
The repression continues. On the second anniversary of this massacre, I encourage the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take a look today at Canada's policy on China. Let us not follow the lead of the United States' by giving China most-favoured nation status.
June 3, 1991

The Canadian government has not followed through on its initial bold policy, and has changed little in Canada's relationship with the Government of China since the Tiananmen Square incident.
We must reaffirm our own commitment to democracy and freedom by standing with the Chinese people as they aspire to a way of life that Canadians take for granted.


CHILDREN AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, environmental degradation is killing children. According to the 1990 United Nations state of the environment report on children and the environment, every year 14 million children under the age of five die in the developing countries as a result of unsafe drinking water, poor sanitation, environmental pollution, common diseases and malnutrition. A further 3 million are seriously disabled.
In the industrialized countries, the main environmental source of death and disability among children is exposure to various forms of pollution and hazardous chemicals in the environment. Even the unborn are affected by chemicals in the air and toxic substances taken in through the mother's body.
As adults working together with the government and industry, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to take advantage of current knowledge, technology and resources to improve the well-being of the world's children and the planet itself before it is too late.
Planet earth must be made a safe home for future generations.


NATIONAL UNITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council met with members of Parliament to discuss their concerns for the future of Canada and the right of ethnocultural minorities to be directly represented in the process of constitutional reform.
National unity requires an affirmation that all Canadians from diverse backgrounds are equal in a multicultural, multiracial Canada.
New Democrats support the CEC in its request for a representative constituent assembly and the addition of a strong Canada clause to our Constitution.
We also must actively counteract racism in Canada. Public education on the values of immigration and more positive media race relations are a first step. Employment equity must be mandatory. We need increased funding, especially in western Canada for English language programs. There must be amnesty for refugee claimants who have waited years in the backlog.
The many issues raised today prove once again how essential advocacy groups like CEC are to make our democracy work for all Canadians.


PLEASANT VIEW JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, students at Pleasant View Junior High School in Don Valley North, North York, are taking an impressive leadership role in ensuring that citizens today and tomorrow will have a healthy planet. This Thursday, June 6, they will be having a conference to spread their message to their elected representatives and children and parents in the Pleasant View family of schools.
Since 1989 they have a long list of projects they have accomplished, including recycling in various ways and composting of waste. The one thing I particularly like is an environmental assessment of every student's home, followed by a letter to Mom and Dad advocating a family meeting. This meeting resulted in a family action plan to improve relations with the planet.
They are also looking internationally. They have bought 25 acres of rain forest through the World Wildlife Fund and have purchased shares in the World Wildlife Fund's endowment program.
Congratulations on your leadership, Pleasant View students. Together we can have a green world.


NATIONAL PEOPLE FIRST
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Last week was National Access Awareness Week, a time when this government should have been sending out positive

June 3, 1991
messages of support to the disabled community. Actions, however, always speak louder than words.
The National People First project is a voice for developmentally handicapped people in this country. It is a self-help organization dedicated to the empowerment of developmentally handicapped persons to protect themselves against abuse and to assert their rights in the event that they have been abused.
National People First was funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare for six years, from 1984 to 1990. This funding has not been renewed for 1991 and the future of this movement looks bleak.
I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to live up to this government's commitment to support abuse prevention programs. I urge this government to allocate funds to this unique and invaluable organization so that the progress it has made will not be tragically lost.


FRASER RIVER
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the many British Columbians who live and work in the Fraser River watershed, I would like to commend the government for its $100 million commitment toward the cleanup of the Fraser. The Fraser is so much more than just a large river. It has become a barometer reflecting the state of British Columbia's environmental health.
This program, announced over the weekend, will be directed toward such high priorities as restored salmon populations, protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, as well as monitoring and improvement of water quality.
The Fraser River is important to many British Columbians and they will recognize the significance of this initiative. But these same people are equally important to the health of the Fraser for it is their ideas and help that will ensure the effective and successful implementation of this plan to restore the Fraser River to its former greatness.
1991 CITATION FOR CITIZENSHIP AWARDS


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, to be a citizen of Canada, whether by birth or by choice, involves the unwritten responsibility to contribute to the betterment of this country. Our society values freedom and participation and respects those who are willing to accept the responsibility of contributing.
Today, the 1991 Citation for Citizenship awards are being presented to 21 individuals and four organizations whose contributions to Canada merit national recognition. These people have given their time and energy to making Canada a better place in which to live. From health care to human rights, from education to multicul-turalism, every aspect of our society has been touched in some way by these dedicated Canadians.
I am sure that I can speak for all members in this House when I express our congratulations to the people and organizations honoured today. A citation for citizenship is a symbol of the gratitude that we feel toward these people and others like them all across Canada.


THUNDER BAY-ATIKOKAN
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, this was one of those "good news, bad news" weekends in north-western Ontario. First, the good news: Thanks to the efforts of the Ontario NDP government in securing a strictly commercial solution to the shut down of Atikokan Forest Products sawmill, we were able to announce the mill's reopening and, in fact, some workers started today and the rest of the 160 will be due next week.
Thanks, Ontario.
In Thunder Bay, the news was not as good. Abitibi Price arbitrarily closed its Thunder Bay paper mill for two years, putting 400 people out of work directly, with considerably more out of work indirectly. Both the Sapawe sawmill and the Thunder Bay paper mill suffer from the same federal government policies, softwood lumber tax, high Canadian dollar and high interest rates.
June 3, 1991

The federal Conservative government did not help Atikokan during its crisis. Will it help Thunder Bay? It better help.


RAOUL WALLENBERG
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I remind all Canadians that the search for Raoul Wallenberg, one of Canada's two honorary citizens, goes on. This Swedish diplomat who disappeared in Hungary in 1945 saved as many as 20,000 Jews from Nazi death camps. Even though the Russians reported he died in 1947, Montreal lawyer Irwin Cotier of the International Commission searching for Wallenberg and members of the Wallenberg family itself still say there is no proof that he is dead.
Now highly supportive evidence says the Soviets offered to exchange Wallenberg for a Soviet spy jailed in Sweden in 1968, two decades after claiming he was dead. This only adds to reports of Wallenberg sightings in Soviet prisons in the 1980s and so we certainly hope that glasnost prevails as the search for clues in KGB files continues.
Luckily heroic efforts like Raoul Wallenberg's are remembered in the hearts of many for generations. I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to strongly urge Soviet co-operation in the search for Canada's honorary citizen whom we all admire.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to see the Prime Minister is back in the House. Canadians will now be able to rest easier, and let's hope he will stay in the country from now on.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Thursday of last week, the Minister of National Revenue said that the government has gone "too far", that Canadians are over-taxed and that the federal government should do something about it. On Friday, the Minister of Finance said Canadians are not over-
Oral Questions
taxed and so the government is not planning to do anything about it.
I ask the Prime Minister which minister is speaking for Canada on this issue, the Minister of National Revenue, who is right, or the Minister of Finance, who is wrong?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should start off by saying that nobody likes to pay taxes, but we must have taxes in this country to pay for the services that we all enjoy from being Canadians and living in this great country of ours.
If you compare Canada's taxes with those in the OECD, we are on average with them. Canada's tax burden today is about the same as it was in the early 1980s when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Finance. The tax burden is vis-a-vis the same for the taxpayers of this country. Personal and corporate income taxes are higher in Canada than on the OECDwide basis. We will concede to that, but I can tell him that social security contributions by Canadians are less than half as burdensome in Canada than in other countries in the OECD.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the third Minister of Finance, or whatever he is, likes to compare Canada with other industrialized countries.
Today a study by Global Economics shows that taxes on individuals are higher in Canada than in any G-7 country. More than $1,500 in new taxex have been slapped on Canadian families since this government took office. The study concluded that today the system is more complicated than ever and less fair than ever.
When will the Prime Minister take the advice of his Minister of National Revenue and do something about it?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right when he talks about personal income taxes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Horton McDermid: They are higher in Canada than in other countries in the OECD. Let us just take a look at some of the other things that are lower in Canada than the other countries, which he fails to talk about. Social security contributions are less than half of what they are in the OECD and sales tax is considerably lower in

June 3, 1991
Oral Questions
Canada than in other countries in the OECD. Taxes have to be paid to pay the bills.
The hon. member may remember very well, because he was one of the ministers of finance who rang up huge deficits. We now have to pay the bills for those deficits and we have to do it through taxes. That is the only way we will be able to do it, plus cost cutting in the federal government, which we have done a very good job at.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, I had the privilege of bringing down two budgets during the only period in the past 20 years, excluding inflation, when there was no increase in government spending and when in fact, we managed to reduce the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Canadian families are not the only ones to suffer as a result of this government's unfair and complex tax policies. Today we heard that public and private libraries will have to reduce their purchases of books, periodicals and newspapers by about 10 per cent annually, because of the GST.
I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: Doesn't he realize that Canadians must read books, periodicals and newspapers to be competitive and aware of what goes on in the world? Why promote ignorance by taxing knowledge?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that that is not the case. Maybe I should explain the situation with libraries. Libraries pay GST, but they get rebates. If the libraiy is owned by a municipality, it gets a 57 per cent rebate; if by a university, 67 per cent; and by schools, 68 per cent which, by the way, keeps them at exactly the same tax level they were under the manufacturers' sales tax. There is absolutely no change in tax levels for libraries, so the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely wrong.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns Canada-Mexico free trade.
Last Thursday, his minister for International Trade said, and I quote: "Canadian companies shouldn't even try to compete in the same areas as low-wage countries".
Mr. Speaker, how can we do otherwise, when all this government's policies are leading us straight towards a Third World economy: crushing interest rates and taxes and a high dollar, plus cuts in research and development? That is the kind of economic policy that will strangle us.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: What specific measures does the government intend to introduce and when, to prepare us for free trade with Mexico, something his government wants so desperately?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we should probably put this in perspective. Our free trade agreement with the United States involves some $257 billion to $260 billion. We are talking about two-way trade with Mexico of $3 billion or $4 billion now. Most of the trade coming into Canada from Mexico today is tariff free.
What is happening is that Mexico is opening up its borders and it is giving Canadian businesses new opportunities to get into Mexico to sell their goods and services there. That is what we are interested in, creating more jobs in Canada through sales to other countries, and Mexico is no exception.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, this government is as thick as a brick. What the Minister for International Trade said was very clearly that we should not try to compete with Mexico in areas where Mexico produces products. Well, Mr. Speaker, from cars to computers, Mexico is already exporting fully integrated modern technology, and at the same time this government is allowing our manufacturing base to die.
June 3, 1991

The issue very clearly is not whether our modem economy can compete with Mexico's Third World economy, as the minister said last week.
The real question, and I put it to the Prime Minister is that, given the suicidal bent of his government's policies, which country, Canada or Mexico, is ultimately going to be the Third World economy?


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member should know full well the results of the free trade agreement, and what has happened since it has come in, that are positive for Canada.
Pre-free trade in investment alone, there was an out-flow of $2.5 billion in 1988. In 1990, there was an in-flow of investment in Canada of $4.3 billion, which means increased investment in this country, increased employment, modernization of industrial plants, better productivity and more jobs in the long run for Canadians. That is what it is all about.



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week we learned from the Minister of National Revenue-not that most of us had to learn it-that Canadians were unfairly taxed. Not only are they unfairly taxed, Canadians are over-taxed. When the Liberals were in power, of course, taxes on working Canadians increased and on corporations went down.
A new study indicates today that in fact this government has continued that system of taxation, and there is no question that the tax system is a mess. The tax system is unfair. The government in 1987, under the Minister of Finance, said it had three principles for taxpayers: equity, efficiency and simplicity. We do not have any of them.
Will the Prime Minister consider implementing a fair tax commission so that we can get public input and the experts' input and get a fair tax system in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the leader of the socialist party of Canada that if she took a look at the countries that we trade with and that we deal
Oral Questions
with, she would see there is a socialist government in France and its tax burden is 44 per cent. Canada's is 34 per cent.
There is a socialist government in Sweden. Its tax burden on its citizens is 55 per cent; Canada's is 34 per cent. We can compare it with other countries. Germany is 37 per cent; I will remind the hon. member that Canada's is 34 per cent. The United Kingdom is 37 per cent; Canada's is 34 per cent. The only two that are lower are the United States at 29.8 per cent, and Japan at 31.3 per cent.
Canadians are paying taxes, yes; fairly, fairly.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
Clearly, the Minister of National Revenue is saying the system is not fair and that Canadians are over-taxed. Canadians knew that. It is clear that the per capita Canada personal income tax rate is the highest of all G-7 countries.
The Prime Minister talks about competitiveness. Again, in 1987 this government said that the tax system should have a broader base and lower rates and that it should minimize the preferences to high income individuals and profitable corporations.
When is the government going to take its own advice from 1987, the advice of the Minister of National Revenue in 1991, bring in a fair tax system, and implement a fair tax commission?


John Horton McDermid: As the hon. member might know, in 1987 tax reform was brought about here in Canada by the Minister of Finance to improve the tax system, and has in fact made it more fair. Let me just point out that in corporate taxes alone, it is a much fairer, much simpler system and corporations today are paying $1 billion more in taxes than they were before tax reform because a lot of the write-offs have been taken out of there.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary for the Prime Minister, on the question of competitiveness.

This government's financial and economic policies are responsible for the declining competitive position of

June 3, 1991
Oral Questions
Canadian businesses, according to a report by a committee of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.
The same report recommended creating a financial institution for businesses involved in technology. The government has had this report for more than three months.
Is the government prepared to act and implement some of the recommendations of this report on competitiveness?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the work of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology has made a significant contribution to the whole concept of what is needed to make the country competitive.
We have the NABST reports and it is significant that if you look in the Speech from the Throne, the whole concept of an agenda for prosperity and consultation with Canadians is based, to a large extent, upon what NABST said, not only about the cost of capital, but about other things as well.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will now know that the government has provided several different versions of what happened in the Al-Mashat case.
On May 15 the Prime Minister told the House that he first became aware of this matter on April 30. We now know that senior officials in his office were informed on April 8, three weeks before the Prime Minister says he found out.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to revise his original version of what happened, or is he really trying to have Canadians believe that senior officials-


Mr. Speaker:: There is a very fine line that has to be kept in mind in questions on this matter, especially now that it is in committee. I would ask hon. members not to put in preambles or at the end of preambles, suggestions of dishonesty, impropriety or imputation of motives.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago when the matter was raised, I
provided the House with the information which is on the record. It will be sustained by evidence before the committee, which I understand began hearings last week.
I understand as well, that the committee is scheduled to take evidence this evening and tomorrow. Among those appearing before the committee will be the Clerk of the Privy Council and my chief of staff, who will deal with these matters, I am sure, to the satisfaction of my hon. friend.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the committee will not be in a position to question the Prime Minister.
I would like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Public documents indicate that on April 8 his legislative assistant and his deputy press secretary were informed of this matter.
On May 15 the Prime Minister said in this House that he did not find out until April 30. That is some three weeks.
I put the question again to the Prime Minister. Is he saying to Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. member can ask the Prime Minister whether he did or whether he did not know something. But that question is clearly designed to put in doubt the honesty of the Prime Minister. If it was put in plain language it would not be allowed. It ought not to be allowed if it is put in very careful language, if that is what the imputation is.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will now have had the opportunity to review the record again. The record that was made public last week, indicates that senior officials in his office were informed on April 8.
In view of the release of this new information, does the Prime Minister still maintain that he was first informed of this matter three weeks after senior officials in his office were told?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already indicated to the House. I have told my hon. friend that will be totally sustained by evidence before the committee.


Mr. Simmons:: Or they will be fired, right?
June 3, 1991


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Senior officials will be there this evening and tomorrow. My hon. friend can, I am sure, ask them any and all questions in regard to any concerns he may or may not have. I am sure he will be well satisfied with the responses.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
Last Thursday the minister of external affairs stated in a public document that ministers, "-are constitutionally responsible to the House of Commons for their actions and the actions of their officials". She also said that officials include staff and political appointees, as well as bureaucrats.
The question is simple. Will the Prime Minister agree that his minister's statement is a correct summary of the principle of ministerial responsibility and will he further agree that the principle applies equally to him as the highest minister in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some difficulty with the question. It may be asking for an opinion, but the right hon. Prime Minister might want to deal with it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in responding to my hon. friend.
Members from all sides of the House requested, given the nature of this matter, that a parliamentary inquiry be convened. That presupposes presumably that my hon. friend will want to participate in that parliamentary inquiry, adduce evidence in a conventional manner and on the basis of that evidence, and only on the basis of it, make his own value judgment. Then he may or may not want to put questions like that.
Why does he not wait until the parliamentary inquiry that he sought does its work?


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about ministerial responsibility and had not mentioned anything about any particular committee of this House. In any event, my supplementary is this.
In version B of the Al-Mashat saga we learn that Mr. Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council, sent a memo to the Prime Minister on April 30 indicating that ministers
Oral Questions
Valcourt and McDougall would respond to questions that Mr. Al-Mashat "was processed under normal standards and was not accorded preferential treatment". We know that this was false because he was fast-tracked in 28 days.
My question is again simple. Will the Prime Minister assume responsibility for this blatant falsehood and what is he prepared to do about his ministers being-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. That is as much an accusation as it is a question and the matter is in front of committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must respond on behalf of Mr. Tellier, given the very malicious slur on his reputation by the hon. member. Mr. Tellier will be before the committee tomorrow, I believe, and will provide, I am sure, answers that are full and honest, that inspired the confidence of the Leader of the Opposition when Mr. Tellier was his deputy minister in Indian Affairs in much the same way that he inspires the full confidence of me as Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of health. I understand that the minister has invited the provincial ministers of health to a meeting in Toronto on June 19.
Can the minister say whether all provinces will be attending and most importantly, will he reassure this House that the meeting is not linked to the current round of constitutional bargaining and that the federal jurisdiction in maintaining national medicare standards will not be on the table and will not be bargained away?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with the hypothesis that the member has raised. First of all, I just want to say that I am not the one who makes the decision if the provinces will attend. They will do that themselves.
Second, I think my friend knows, because I told him personally, that I believe it is time for the federal minister of health to meet with the ministers from the provinces. At that time we will see exactly the concerns that the provinces have in terms of health. I do not want to presume what they will bring forward. Personally, I

June 3, 1991
Oral Questions
believe the meeting will be the time to do that. I believe that all the provinces will agree.
Will they be there? You should ask that question of the provinces.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. In his letter of Friday to the provincial ministers, the minister speaks of the need to discuss cost containment on the one hand and service expansion on the other.
How can the minister speak of service expansion when he has cut billions of dollars to medicare programs? Can the minister assure this House that as a cost containment measure, he will insist that no province violates the Canada Health Act by introducing user fees, a move that is now being initiated by the Liberal government of Quebec?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member should wait first of all to see what the province of Quebec will do.
The legislation is not passed yet. We will see.
Second, there is nothing wrong in looking at with the provinces the problem of the cost of services in Canada. All provinces agree that the costs are increasing. Usually we do not have all the same resources that the NDP have, but normally the provinces will say to my friend that they want to look at the way they could manage those services, keeping in mind-and I already committed myself-that the principles of accessibility and universality of the Canada Health Act are not at stake. He should know that because I already said that.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and it concerns the dockside monitoring program being imposed on fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I have sent the minister a report which demonstrates that the user fee portion of this program is without legislative basis and, as such, these fees are illegal. In light of this information, will the minister today rescind
these dockside fees and reimburse those fishermen who have been illegally and improperly forced to pay them.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that lawyers have differing opinions. If that was not the case, I suppose we would never have court cases occurring at all.
The legal advice given to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is that the system in place is certainly not illegal or ultra vires. Apparently the hon. gentleman refers to another lawyer who believes that it is. However, I am acting in accordance with the legal advice given to me by the solicitors for the government.
With respect to this system, it is not a system imposed on fishermen, Mr. Speaker. It is a system that fishermen and fish processors and others who want an orderly fishery, a fishery where the rules are observed and obeyed, want instituted. This is a method of paying for that system which is for the benefit of all fishermen and women and processors in the industry generally and, therefore, the costs of it had to be met by the industry generally.
I am certainly prepared, of course, to keep revising it so as it is competitive and efficient as possible and as fair as possible.
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): My supplementary is for the same minister. I find it surprising to say the least that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would not have secured a legal opinion before imposing a program that is so clearly out of his authority.
Will the minister undertake today to, first, make public his department's legal analysis of this issue and, second, rescind these offensive fees and reimburse the fishermen affected if, as I fully expect, the analysis confirms their illegality?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, naturally the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received legal advise in this matter before the program was instituted and acted in accordance with the same.
That is not to say that the solicitors acting for the government are perfect. They have in fact from time to time been found to be incorrect in their opinions, or courts have held differently than the opinions which the government received. If that were not the case, we would
June 3, 1991

not have some of the embarrassments that governments, no matter what their political stripe are, receive from time to time when judges have a different view than government lawyers.
I notice from the opinion that was done that the hon. member refers to that the author of that opinion said this: "It is my view that a court could very well find that the imposition of fees" and so on. Well, a court might very well find anything. I have been terribly surprised by what courts could very well find in the past and, doubtless, I will be very surprised by what they find in the future.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We learned today from the National Aeronautics Space Agency that the ozone layer in southern Canada has thinned by 5 per cent. The medical profession is of the view that every percentage decrease in the ozone layer leads to an increase of 3 to 4 per cent in the incidence of skin cancer. Therefore, this becomes a matter of urgent public concern.
Will the minister indicate in the House whether he is willing to commit himself today to the deadline of 1995 for the date when chlorofluorocarbons and similar chemical substances will be fully phased out in Canada?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to say, first of all, that this government is, and has been for many years, very concerned with the issue of CFC emissions and their impact on the ozone layer, as the hon. member has just expressed.
I am very proud of the fact that this government has displayed a greater amount of leadership on this issues than many other countries in the world. In fact, as you know, the Montreal protocol talks in terms of the total elimination of the manufacture and import of CFCs by the year 2000. I am delighted that this government has already made a commitment to do that by the year 1997.
Oral Questions
We have shown leadership in the past and we will continue to do so now and in the future. I am also pleased to say that almost 85 per cent, I believe, of the use of CFCs will be prohibited in this country by the year 1995.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the concept of leadership is only in the mind of the parliamentary secretary and his government.
Australia, Norway, Sweden and Germany have committed themselves to 1995. The question is this. Because the health of the public, and particularly of our younger people, is at stake as a result of the thinning of the ozone layer, will this government reconsider its deadline and move it from 1997 to 1995?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity with which the member approaches the issue of the environment. I am reminded that this member was a Minister of the Environment in a former government.
I am very proud of the fact that we have made tremendous accomplishments since we came to power because that administration was not doing so in the years up to 1984.
As I explained before, this is very much a moving issue. The government believes that any new targets that are put in place will have to be done in co-operation with other governments throughout the world. In the meantime, we are a leader despite what the hon. member has just said.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On May 16, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Alcan project in northern British Columbia should be submitted to a full environmental assessment review. This is Environment Week. Will the government announce a full environmental assessment of this project?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. gentleman has given me a chance to recommend to members of the House that they look at the details of the

June 3, 1991
Oral Questions
program just announced for the Fraser River on Saturday by the Minister of the Environment and I, where $100 million is going to be spent on the Fraser River to ensure that over the next 20 years salmon stocks are doubled in their size and that the environmental and pollution problems of the whole Fraser River system are dealt with in a more than adequate manner.
With respect to the particular question he has asked about, that matter is under review by the three or four departments intimately concerned and an announcement will be made within a reasonable time as to what action we propose to take.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the plans for the Fraser River are incomplete without the full environmental assessment of the Alcan project.
Alcan has said that it is business as usual and that construction on the project is continuing. In order to avoid a Rafferty situation, will the minister issue an order today to Alcan to immediately halt construction? Will the minister see that the Government of British Columbia also participates in a full environmental assessment review?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the matter that the hon. gentleman refers to certainly had an environmental review before any permission was given for Alcan to proceed with construction at all.
The question is whether or not it should have the kind of an environmental review that is dictated by the EARP process. That is the question that is now before the government as a result of the decision referred to the British Columbia courts. It is being given serious consideration and a decision will certainly be announced within a reasonable period of time as to whether or not we wish to go forward with that kind of a formal review. There certainly has been a great deal of review of this situation before.
Translation]


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, if he is a aware of this. In a press conference held in Montreal last Friday, the Quebec Manufacturers' Association has joined forces with the CNTU and the FTQ to denounce the federal government monetary policy, including the negative impact of the Free Trade Agreement. Is the government prepared today to consider the important demands of these three major organizations to allow the manufacturing industry to survive in Quebec and throughout Canada?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that, commenting before a committee of this House, on a proposal made by the hon. member's party to change the monetary policy, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association cautioned the Canadian people against reverting to the previous Liberal policy which gave us the extremely high interest rates that caused major problems in Canada and that we are only starting to recover from.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. After opening our borders under the Free Trade Agreement, why is the government monetary policy to maintain the Canadian dollar too high relative to the American dollar, which reduces our access to the American market? Can you explain that to the Canadian people?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the economic situation, especially the recession, of course has not been very favourable to implementing the Free Trade Agreement to the fullest. Nonetheless, I think that we should be happy that a country like ours, which depends more than any other on its exports not for little extras but to maintain its standard of living, has gained access to the American market. The economic situation may not be as great as it has been, but let me remind the
June 3, 1991

Oral Questions
hon. member the figures that were quoted in this House last week to illustrate the progress we have made in our trade relations with the United States since the Free Trade Agreement was signed.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, another week has passed and there is still no help from this government for the port of Halifax.
I appeal to the Prime Minister. Why will he not go after his Minister of Transport and make him make good on his promise of last week when he said he would do everything in his power for the port of Halifax and act to change the unfair tax structure?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, incredibly the Minister of Transport is away on government business. I will certainly take the representation of my hon. colleague and relay it to the Minister of Transport who, no doubt, in his usual efficient fashion will be right back as soon as he is able.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted to see that this government has such an interest in the ports on the east coast, particularly the port of Halifax. There is nobody on the government side who can give me an answer.
Freight rates have become a rallying cry in eastern Canada, a cry for thousands of Nova Scotians concerned over our historic port.
Why will this government not do something about unfair competition, particularly Canadian Pacific's Delaware and Hartford Railroad in the U.S., which is the main competition against CN's link from Halifax to Montreal. Doesn't anybody over there know?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been anything but acknowledgement of how important the port of Halifax is to Canada's future.
As the hon. member said, it was just last week-I think Thursday-that she raised the question. She is saying: "How come in the last three days there has not been something done about it?"
The fact of the matter is the Minister of Transport is seized with the problem. The hon. member has made a representation. She did ask for information and I indicated I would pass on that representation to the Minister of Transport. You can be sure that as was attempted by the current Deputy Prime Minister when he was Minister of Transport, we will continue to make every effort, in spite of some opposition from the hon. member's party, to get a level playing field of the type we sought but which was resisted by the Liberal Party when we tried to do it.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. When the GST was being drafted, the government said it would be a flexible living tax which adapts itself to changing conditions.
There are real concerns right now as to how the tax applies to the sale of used cars. GST is applicable to the sale of used cars on dealers' lots but not on cars sold privately and that appears to be a real disadvantage for used car dealers.
Can the minister clarify for the House and for consumers exactly how the GST applies to the sale of used cars? Are dealers being put at a competitive disadvantage and, if so, what is the government going to do about it?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, unlike the provincial sales tax in Ontario where they tax the car every time it is sold, the federal sales tax only applies to the mark-up between the price that the used car dealer paid and the price he sells it for. GST is paid only on the service of the used car dealer.
It is interesting to note that before the goods and services tax, about 75 per cent of all used cars were sold privately. That has not changed dramatically since GST has come in.


EDUCATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration. As he knows, the meeting this morning with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council confirmed many concerns of

June 3, 1991
Oral Questions
ethnic minorities. Some of these involved immigration, of course.
Since racism is on the increase and this often results in the scapegoating of immigrants, what plans does the minister have for comprehensive public education programs on the benefits of immigration that will help people be more accepting and counteract their fears and prejudices?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a point that the Ethnocultural Council raised with me earlier today. The hon. member will remember that my predecessor brought in the five-year plan for immigration. Given the importance that this government attaches to public education on the question of immigration, it has been fully integrated into the plan. We are in the process of consulting with organizations across Canada, with provinces and with people to put in place this education campaign which the hon. member refers to. Over $8 million will be spent to try to raise the level of awareness to the benefits of immigration.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, another problem is that many immigrants simply are not getting adequate language training which is essential if they are going to adjust and contribute to Canada. This is largely because federal funds simply are not adequate. For example, Vancouver City College, in my riding, laid off 80 experienced language training teachers recently while they have a waiting list for 4,000 people. This is because they simply do not have funds.
Will the minister be increasing the amount of funding for language training? Will he find a fairer funding mechanism so that in particular western Canada will get their fair share of funds, and will he also look into this specific problem that I mentioned in Vancouver?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the importance of language training and of integration of immigrants in our communities in Canada, the government has increased, as she may recall, the envelope to immigration by $315 million over the life of that plan.
She asks how that money will be divided up. It will be divided in accordance with the needs in the country and the region of B.C. I know will get increased funding for
language training. As for the particular case of her own riding, I will look into it and get back to her.


QUEBEC'S REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
He must know that during his absence, members of his government made a number of statements and acted in a way calculated to provoke Quebec. The National Assembly went so far as to pass a resolution with 85 in favour and 3 against, condemning the government for its action with respect to education, and it wanted to table another resolution to condemn the government again.
Meanwhile, always in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare appropriated the right to intervene unilaterally in the field of regional economic development, thus denying Quebec the right to be master of its own development.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: Since he is back, will he stop all this foolishness, rap the knuckles of his Minister of National Health and Welfare and finally show Quebec some respect?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the hon. member's comments. Eveiybody knows that if he were given the same treatment, he wouldn't last very long in this House.
That being said, I repeat what I said last week, which is that the federal government-and the hon. member for Shefford ought to know, since his party was once on this side of the House-and the provinces have always shared jurisdiction over regional development. Agreements were signed with the Government of Quebec in 1985 and 1988.
We operate within the framework of these agreements, and the responsibility I was given by the Prime Minister for regional development means that I must have the appropriate administrative structure. I can only confirm what I said last week, what I have repeated time and time again and what the people of Gaspe, for instance, were very relieved to hear, and that is that as long as the federal government has a responsibility for regional development, it will continue to shoulder its
June 3, 1991

Routine Proceedings
share of those responsibilities, for the benefit of Quebec and Quebecers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to formally designate tomorrow an allotted day for Supply.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table in both official languages, the government's response to 47 petitions presented during the Second Session.



POSTAL SERVICES REVIEW ACT


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an Act to provide for the review of postal rates and services and to implement certain Acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give the public the assurance that it plays a role in setting postal rates and establishing postal services. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that we had a similar system before, which was abolished by the government opposite.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an act to amend the National Capital Act (description of National Capital Region).
He said: Mr. Speaker the purpose of this bill is to amend the territory of the National Capital Region easterly from Ottawa to a distance approximately as far as it extends west of Ottawa, namely to the region of Plantagenet, Ontario. This bill comes with the support of all municipalities in the area and the author of it locally was the mayor of Rockland, Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Canada Day).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to repeat a section of the Holidays Act which states that when July 1 is a Sunday, July 2 is the legal holiday. What happens now is that some federal civil servants, namely post office employees, if they regularly work on July 1, are not eligible for overtime while those who work on Monday, July 2, are. It is clearly not the intent of the Holidays Act and this bill is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to restore Canada Day for post office employees.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).

June 3, 1991
Routine Proceedings
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a conscience clause. It would make it a criminal offence for anyone to reprimand or to dismiss an employee of a hospital or a physician who refused to participate in an abortion if that is against their will. The purpose of this bill is to protect the conscience of individuals working in hospitals who do not want to participate in this kind of a procedure.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of the foetus).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence to destroy the foetus, save and except when the mother's life is threatened.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (abortion).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that government funds are not expended for the procurement of abortions, save and except when the mother's life is in danger.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a Criminal Code amendment respecting propaganda that advocates the physical destruction of persons as an identifiable group, particularly children.
This is the private member's bill that I proposed in the past to do away with a product known as Garbage Pail Kids, a most offensive product.


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


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (peeping Toms).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present definition of a peeping Tom in the Criminal Code is someone who prowls in the dark upon someone else's property.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it unlawful to similarly prowl in the daylight. It has been brought to my attention by constituents, particularly women, that they were unable to have charges laid against peeping Toms when these individuals took part in those kind of unwanted activities in the daytime.


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


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an Act respecting beverage containers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I wish to introduce today is the same bill I introduced during this Parliament's last session.

The purpose of the bill is to require that all beverages sold in Canada, including alcoholic beverages, be sold in bottles upon which a deposit would be chargeable. The bill sets out the rate of deposit.
June 3, 1991

The bill would require that the deposit be charged by retailers upon sale and be refunded to a person returning the beverage container. It is clearly designed to clean up our environment and, accordingly, I hope it will commend itself to all environmentally minded members of this House.


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

Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition to this House signed by several hundred people from 47 different communities in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.
These people are protesting the systematic destruction of the infrastructure of rural Canada including cutbacks to VIA Rail, the abandonment of railways, neglect of the fisheries, forestry and agriculture, and the erosion of the postal system.
Therefore, these people call on the government to reverse these cutbacks, particularly to reverse its policy of closing rural post offices.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting to the House today a number of petitions signed by some 4,000 people mainly from the area of Windsor, Ontario.
In these petitions the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes which would apply uniformly to all regions of Canada.
These petitions have been duly certified by the clerk and meet the requirements for tabling in this House, pursuant to our Standing Orders.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of over 100 very young constituents of my riding.
As most members of this House are aware, the world's rain forests are used to regulate climate, control floods
Routine Proceedings
and conserve soil. Of course, over half of the world's known species of plant and animal life also live within the rain forests as do some 200 million native people.
Therefore, the petitioners request that no Canadian foreign aid be dispersed to projects which destroy rain forests and that the Canadian executive directors of multilateral development banks vote against projects which destroy rain forests.
Further, be it resolved that Canada ban the import of tropical timber which is logged in primary tropical rain forests.
I humbly submit this petition on their behalf.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my petition, which has been certified by the clerk to be in compliance with the standing orders, is on behalf a number of my constituents in Ottawa South who are expressing their concerns about the recent cuts to the budgets of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In particular, my petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the CBC be strengthened rather than weakened to serve as a primary instrument of Canadian cultural sovereignty, providing high quality service to all Canadians.
I am proud to present this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadians living in Park-dale-High Park.
The petitioners humbly sheweth that whereas Bill C-21 has reduced adoptive parental leave from 15 weeks to 10 weeks, it has at the same time increased biological parental leave to 25 weeks: 15 weeks maternity and 10 weeks parental leave.
Bill C-21 is a discriminatory step backward from previous legislation in 1983 when the House of Commons amended the UIC Act explicitly to end discrimination of adoptive parents and recognize the need of adoptive parents.
The petitioners call upon this government to review Bill C-21 with regard to adoptive parental leave, considering the literature that deals with the adoptive process, the bonding process, the needs and rights of adoptive parents, proper terminology in adoption and discussion

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
with adoptive parents and to change Bill C-21 so that all parents, whether biological or adoptive, receive the same paid leave of 25 weeks to spend time with their new children.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a petition certified by the clerk of petitions and signed by residents of Kenora, Keewatin, Upsala, Thunder Bay and Graham, Ontario.
All of the petitioners have lost their rail passenger services. They call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore the VIA Rail service cut on January 15, 1990, to maintain and where appropriate upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and to make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modern, passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.
In addition, the petitioners say they want to put Canada back on track.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands who object to the fact that Canada has no law that makes it an offence to destroy or desecrate the Canadian flag.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass such a law.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed primarily by residents from the Prince George, Vanderhoof and the Fort St. James area of my riding.
The petitioners call on the government to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. Certainly with the publication of the report on the weekend showing that Tory times are taxing times, I heartily endorse this petition.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of
western Canadians who indicate that they support the New Democratic Party plan to restore VIA Rail service which was cut on January 15, 1990.
The petitioners want to maintain and where appropriate upgrade the remote services on which many Canadians rely. They want to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-15, an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relationships in connection with the transfer of certain airports, as reported without amendment by a legislative committee, be read the third time and passed.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are at the-


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the start of Question Period, if I am not mistaken, one of the hon. members from Hamilton had finished his speech. Some of us had certainly hoped to be able to ask questions of this member. He does not seem to be here at the moment, but-
June 3, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. As the hon. member for Elamilton West is not in the house there will be no question or comment period. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Ottawa-Van-ier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, I take it that members of the Elouse accept that we all have duties in committees and the member for Hamilton West is possibly preoccupied with his duties on committees. We sometimes fail to make that point in debate.
We are dealing with third reading of Bill C-15 and, more specifically, with an amendment put to the House by my colleague for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Mr. Joe Comuzzi. The amendment in question is rather complicated so I will just address the amendment, as we should all do, and try to be relevant to the subject matter before us.
The purpose of the amendment is to delete from Bill C-15 any words which give the idea or the impression that the government intends to sell these airports either to meet with a hidden agenda of privatizing just about everything it can get its hands on, or to eventually privatize a national service that is and has been traditionally very useful and appreciated by Canadians.
In the bill we will find the word "sell" for example in the interpretation and application on page 1:
(2) For the purpose of this Act, the Governor in Council may, by
order,
(a) designate any corporation or other body to which the Minister
is to sell, lease or otherwise transfer an airport -
If one looks on the next page, page 2, the word "sell" appears again:
- the minister is to sell, lease or otherwise transfer an airport to a
designated airport authority as the transfer date for that airport.
All through that bill there are the words "sell" or "sold". Section 4, page 2 says: "Where the minister has sold, leased or otherwise transferred an airport-"
We want to clarify the bill. This is the purpose of the amendment. The Liberal caucus opposes the privatization by sale of Canadian airports. However, and we made this clear in debate, we support the initiatives to transfer the administration and management of airports to local
Government Orders
authorities under certain conditions. In no way will we support a bill that sells airports. I think we made that point clear in committee. We asked the minister if he had a hidden agenda and if he had any intentions of selling these airports. He did not answer the questions.


An hon. member:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear a member on the government side say "no". If that is the case then take the word "sell" out of the bill. It is very simple. Thke the word "sell" out of the bill and you will have a clear and concise bill.
Is the government trying to deceive Canadians once more with its obsession with privatization?
I would maintain that to keep the word "sell" in that bill is two faced and less than honest. If it has no intentions to do it then it should be taken out. It seems quite simple. I would hope that government members who are here today supporting the contention that the government does not intend to sell these airports would have the honesty to stand up in their places and vote for this amendment because that is all the amendment does. It takes the word "sell" from the main body of the bill and would therefore make it totally acceptable.
I have other comments on section 4 but I will wait until we get back to the main motion.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us this afternoon is a bill which has some very serious dangers behind it, dangers which concern us as a party. It is clear to us that the question of transfer of airports to local authorities has not been thought through. It is clear that the tough questions about the national responsibility which has existed in the past for air transportation in this country and for facilities associated with air transportation have not been confronted by this government.
It seems to us that this is once more a question of an ideological commitment to doing away with as much community ownership as possible; control by society of elements which should be important parts of our communities' infrastructure.
Despite that sense of concern, that sense of real uncertainty about whether this government has thought this issue through, we are pleased to see a bill which does

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
try to lay out ways in which the workers involved in such transfers will be protected.
One of the things which is most devastating is to see privatizations take place and shutdowns occur and to see not the people who are responsible for those decisions taking the brunt of the difficulties of adjustment but the workers who have had no say in the decision themselves.
We have seen that with so many things which this government has done. We have seen it with free trade in which the great adjustment problems that the workers in this country have experienced in the context of free trade have not been dealt with by the government. Workers instead have been forced to carry those responsibilities themselves.
We have seen it with the shutdown of VIA Rail facilities in different parts of the country. We have seen it with respect to the CBC. Many parts of the country have experienced loss of CBC services, and workers have found themselves faced with the loss of jobs which they thought were jobs which were serving the community and which would continue to serve the community.
Yet the adjustment process has not been considered as a responsibility by government. Therefore, it is good to see a piece of legislation come before us which provides for some consideration with respect to employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of some of the airports involved.
Nevertheless, even when we get to the question of how the workers affected in this case are themselves treated in this piece of legislation, there are some serious problems and some serious gaps which will lead us to vote for this referral back to committee. They will also lead us, assuming that vote is lost, to vote against third reading of this piece of legislation.
What is interesting is that there were some amendments that were suggested to this piece of legislation, some amendments which our labour critic, the member who sits beside me in the House here, put forward to the previous Minister of Transport, who is now the Solicitor General. One of those amendments suggested that in the event that employees are transferred to a designated airport authority prior to the negotiation of a new
collective agreement on behalf of their previous bargaining unit, the government will ensure that they receive any retroactive remuneration that they would otherwise have received for the period commencing on the date of expiry of their previous collective agreement until the date of their transfer to the designated local airport authority.
This in fact was quite a sensible amendment which was put forward.
The government indicated-and I have here the letter in which the previous Minister of Transport made this commitment on April 9, 1991-that there would be a change made which would effectively introduce that concept into this bill.
Now, the Solicitor General says that this was part of a deal. Let me suggest that if this was a sensible amendment which should have been part of the legislation and the government was prepared to put it into the legislation as part of a deal, surely it makes sense to put it into the legislation at this stage.
So that the minister's comments can be put quite carefully, this is a letter which was written to my colleague and I quote:
Dear Ms. Langan:
I am writing to you with respect to possible amendments to Bill C-85 -
Which is, of course, the new bill as it is now before us, Bill C-15.
-which you are considering proposing for Third Reading debate.
Departmental and Justice Canada officials have had an opportunity
to review the various draft amendments which you have made
available to us.
The minister then goes on to make his comments, and I hope that the minister would not suggest that I am misrepresenting the position which he took in this letter.
With respect to the second amendment which was put forward, our labour critic, on behalf of our party I might say, put forward the following suggestion that this should have an amendment with respect to clause 6 which would read as follows:
(4) Where an airport has been sold, leased or otherwise transferred to a designated airport authority, any designated employee for the airport shall retain the same rights and benefits as the designated employee enjoyed in the position held by the designated employee in the Public Service on the transfer date.
June 3, 1991

(5) The rights and benefits of a designated employee referred to in subsection (4) may not be altered or abrogated except pursuant to a new collective agreement that is binding on the designated employee, or, in the absence of any collective agreement binding on the designated employee pursuant to a decision made by the designated airport authority with respect thereto.
The minister continues to discuss this particular amendment and suggests that there may be some problems with the wording in subsection (5) and for that reason, it would not be acceptable to the government to accept that particular amendment.
There is a further amendment suggested by my colleague which, again, was not accepted.
The key point, however, is that the government was quite prepared, as given in this commitment from last April from the then Minister of Transport, to make some changes in this bill which would provide more protection for workers affected by this bill. One would have thought that in bringing this legislation back before us the government would have seen fit to see to it that these extra protections, which they were prepared to commit themselves to back last April, would be part of the new legislation.
Unfortunately that is not the case. This is yet a further reason, from our perspective as a party, to see this piece of legislation sent back to committee to consider some of the points put forward in the amendment which the Liberal Party has moved, and also to put at least one change into this piece of legislation which the previous Minister of Transport said he was prepared to do in order to provide a further safeguard for workers affected by this bill.
Without such changes, we have before us a piece of legislation which is faulty on a number of levels. It is faulty, first, because workers have not been consulted with respect to the changes which they would like to see in the legislation. The bill is in front of us. There has been no consultation with the the union of Transport Canada employees. What possible recipe for disastrous labour regulations could be chosen but to bring forward a piece of legislation meant to supposedly serve workers and not even to consult the union representing those
Government Orders
workers? What could possibly be achieved with that kind of approach?
What will be achieved will be a situation in which workers are affected by a bill and will feel aggrieved, almost regardless of what is in the legislation, because the bill has not been discussed with those workers.
Surely one thing we should have learned as members of Parliament trying to do something in this vast, difficult country is that no action is taken without consultation, without discussion.
I see the previous minister is here. I welcome him to participate in the debate, to stand up and explain why this particular piece of legislation was not discussed with the working people of the country. "Why were the working people affected by this bill not consulted", I ask the minister. If he says that the union of Transport Canada employees were in fact part of the process of negotiation and consultation that has taken place between Transport Canada and various local airport authorities, contrary to what I am told by our transport critic, I welcome the former minister to get up and make that point. I think it would be a valuable contribution. The procedural and substantive rights of workers with respect to their existing pensions are not clear under this bill.
That is not the first time we have seen this kind of reality emerge. We had to fight very hard to get pension rights established for workers when Canadian Arsenals, for instance, was privatized. We were successful in that case, but in this case the wording is not yet clear.
The bill needs to incorporate the desire of the workers to continue under the plans which they are presently part of as part of the Public Service. That is not just a sort of hypothetical question. The local airport authority in British Columbia is having difficulty finding an insurance company to take on the disability insurance plan which is currently provided to workers.
In short, we have a piece of legislation in front of us which, as usual with this government, betrays a lack of consultation, a lack of concern and a lack of responsibility to the working people of this country. For this reason, I hope very much that this House will accept the amendment which has been put before us to send this piece of legislation back to committee for certain types of review, and hopefully for other kinds of review as well.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
If we do not do that, we will have broken faith with workers who have given many years to the airport authorities throughout this country.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to delay the progress of this bill, I want to reiterate that it was quite clear in our introduction of the bill on third reading that the bill deals exclusively with employee related matters.
For the record, and for the hon. member who just spoke, I just want to note that the following parties were consulted in the preparation of this bill: the Alberta and Quebec provincial governments, the Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary airport authorities, Labour Canada, the Canadian Labour Relations Board, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Union of Canadian Transport Employees, a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees representing the Edmonton municipal airport employees, the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs, and Public Works Canada,


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information that the parliamentary secretary has put forward. I am not certain if that deals completely with the question of the process of negotiation and consultation which has taken place between Transport Canada and various local airport authorities.
If in fact the unions at the various airport authorities affected by this bill have been involved at each stage of negotiation and consultation, then I am quite prepared to withdraw any suggestions that I meant to the contrary.
As I say, that was certainly not the information which had been provided to us by the trade union which represents these workers.
I think it is also important in cases like this to ask what the nature and outcome of the negotiation and consultation actually was. In the case of the Official Languages Commissioner, for instance, to whom the parliamentary secretary made reference, the Official Languages Commissioner certainly has expressed some concern with respect to the bill which now stands in front of us.
The fact that consultation takes place does not necessarily mean that some kind of satisfactorily negotiated solution is the outcome of that consultation.
I suspect in this case that that is indeed the fact. [Translation]


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with much interest. In fact, with regard to this amendment moved by another colleague, I would like to ask him what he thinks about this whole idea of privatization, because it seems that privatizing everything is very fashionable for this govemement.
Now, I am sure that the govemement is not looking for the complete privatization of airports, but maybe the privatization of the workplace. I would like to hear a bit more from my colleague about what he thinks are the pros and cons. Is there a positive side and, if so, it seems to me that we are trying to fix something that does not need fixing.
I would really want to know where the present system needs fixing, and if it does not, why are we trying to fix it?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a guarantee of the usefulness of the process of transfer if it is made clear that the process is not a sale, if we are not talking about privatization in the usual sense of the word, of assets to a private corporation for purposes of operating that asset in order to generate profits.
It seems to me that there often can be advantages to the transfer of something like a local airport to a local community. I think, for instance, of the airport in our community in Windsor where the transfer of the airport is something that would make a good deal of sense because there is within the community itself very much a feeling that under the direction and operation of the federal government, the airport's capacities and potential have not been fully utilized.
There are a great many people in our community who say that if the community itself through a community board had the ability to direct the strategy of Windsor's airport, it would be able to market it as an airport much
June 3, 1991

more successfully than the federal government has been able to do.
Frankly, I think that kind of transitional approach is what we should be looking at in this context. That is why I think the amendment which has been put forward here, which makes it clear that we are not talking about sales but instead are talking about transfers to community based boards and community based authorities, that kind of transfer, can make a good deal of sense.
Regardless, however, of how it is organized, there has to be ironclad protection for the workers involved. They have made commitments to their communities with the clear understanding that their work was part of the Public Service and part of everything that comes with the Public Service, both the downside, the fact that you get hit by governments like this that decide to treat you unfairly on wages, but also the upside, the fact that you are part of a public pension system which is indexed and which provides some security for the future.
It is the fact that those kinds of things are lost which is especially unfortunate about this piece of legislation.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-15. My intervention today is veiy timely in that my riding is an area that is very rural in nature and has small airports. I know that a lot of members who have entered the debate so far continue to focus on the larger airports in the country and probably the ones that have more opportunity to make money.
My colleague, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, has made an amendment suggesting that we take a good look and make sure that the transfer of these particular facilities to airport commissions or to municipalities is not indeed privatization or selling of the facility.
That is a very important initiative. I think that if the intention of the government were to sell these facilities then truly there is an ulterior motive. There are some very grave difficulties with some of the airports in the areas that I am going to speak about.
One of the best ways I find to debate these issues is to pick a couple of examples and talk about those examples. That to me is an easier way of bringing the message across to our constituents and the people of Canada as to
Government Orders
what the difficulties are out there as they relate to Transport Canada, and specifically to airports in rural Canada.
Before I get to those specific examples, I want to talk about some of the issues that I think have to be addressed before we get into transferring these particular facilities to municipalities or airport commissions. First of all I must emphasize that this government and Transport Canada itself have to set up some guidelines. They cannot just hocus-pocus or holus-bolus take these airports, depending on their condition-and I will talk about that in more detail later-and decide to transfer them to particular communities without having at least minimum standards.
The guidelines for the transfer of airports have to be maintained across the board and they have to be decided upon based on population and based on size of airport. I know people will argue this point, but I am a firm believer that airports are used almost as political tools, as a slush fund to give this member of Parliament a brand new terminal this week because an election is coming up. That terminal, even if it is way oversized for that community, will be put there anyway to make that particular member look good in the eyes of his constituents.
We have that all across the country now. It has become very obvious, as I travel around the country, that the airport facilities of some communities are much better than those of other communities almost identical in size. That is why I think it is very important. If we are going to get into transferring all these facilities to the communities, first of all they should only be transferred if they meet certain guidelines. Those guidelines should be standard and meet the safety purposes that we as parliamentarians would like to see for the future of those airports.
Second, I think we should look very seriously at the guidelines and make sure that when we do transfer these airports, the employees who are being transferred with the facility are looked after in a way that is compatible with what we think is fair. Those individuals were Transport Canada employees all along for many years and all of a sudden became employees of a different type.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
We have to look at those very seriously. We also have to look at guidelines for capital improvements. It is very simple to transfer a facility, but not to discuss with Transport Canada the improvements of those facilities over a period of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.
Without those kinds of guidelines, the community may be taking over a facility that is in good shape today but 10 years from now, when we want to improve our facility or to do some renovations, Transport Canada could easily say: "Well, we are sorry, we do not have the money any longer. You will have to go to the municipal taxpayer and get the dollars from them". That is a very sad and real issue that we will have to tackle before smaller communities would even consider taking on such an endeavour as running an airport.
We also need guidelines to make sure that we have increased funding for the maintenance agreements that we would be entering into.
One of the issues that hit home not too long ago in my riding was that Transport Canada put a freeze on the amount of dollars that it was going to allocate to the Dryden airport. The community said that it could not continue to run this facility with the amount of dollars being given to it. There has to be some sort of guideline or some sort of mechanism that would allow these communities, even though the airports are transferred, to be able to go to Transport Canada and the minister and suggest that because of some circumstances, there has to be an increase in funding in order to resolve those issues.
We are not all in the position, in these small airports in smaller towns and cities in Canada, to be able to make enough revenues from these particular facilities of not having to rely on the taxpayers of Canada, on Transport Canada, on the Ministry of Transportation in order to maintain these facilities in the way that we expect them to be maintained.
Those are a few guidelines that we have to set down if we are even going to consider transferring these facilities to smaller communities. If we are not going to put those kind of guidelines in place then this really is a scam. It is really saying to Canadians: "Listen, we do not want to be bothered any more with your airport facilities. We deregulated it for you. Told you that when we deregulated it the services would be better". That did not happen. "Well we deregulated this particular facility for you so that you would get lower fares". That did not happen. Now the government is saying: "Well, we cannot seem to run this facility very well as a government, we will give it to you at the local level and we are sure you can do a better job. But then again, do not come back to us at any time and suggest that we will protect you to a certain extent. You will just basically have to look after yourself."
That is not the kind of message I would hope that the government is sending to the small communities and the many, many small airports across this country.
Having said that, I want to give a few examples of some of the difficulties I see in transferring smaller rural airports. When I say smaller rural airports, I am talking about communities with 5,000 people, with 10,000 people and, in some cases, as in the one example I have in my hand, of a community of 22,000. Now this facility, when I describe what is wrong with it and the lack of guidelines and procedures that Transport Canada does not seem to have in place or, if it does, only in place where it feels that someone might be watching, it makes you kind of wonder just what the government has in mind.
Let me give an example of what is happening in a community of mine, Kenora, Ontario. Kenora has three communities in its area, Kenora, Keewatin and Jaffray-Melick. Those three communities have a population of roughly 22,000. You would think that there would be a pretty decent facility there with an area and a population of that size, not to mention that the population in the summertime blossoms to about 50,000 people. We are now talking about the tourism component of an area like Kenora-Rainy River, which is probably one of the most beautiful parts of Ontario and, indeed, probably one of the most beautiful parts of Canada.
This airport that I am talking about has a maintenance agreement with hours of operation of 42.5 hours per week. Everyone says: "Well, that is not too bad when you consider that roughly most airports run on a hundred hours a week" and people will ask: "Well, what seems to be the problem?"
Let me give an example. There are four other airports on my list and I will just list them: Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and Fort Frances. Those are four
June 3, 1991

other communities of my riding. All have smaller populations than the one I am talking about.
Sioux Lookout receives funding for 15 hours a day, seven days a week which works out to 105 hours per week. That is over double the amount of hours and maintenance dollars given to the community of Sioux Lookout compared to the community of Kenora.
Red Lake is funded for 12 hours a day from Monday to Friday which is 60 hours per week.
Fort Frances has a maintenance operating agreement for 14 hours a day, seven days a week, which is 98 hours per week.
Atikokan, which is another one I did not mention, has 84 hours per week.
Those four or five communities all have double and some almost triple amounts of hours per week in funding for maintenance agreements which are signed with different governments, not all federal, some provincial. They have different agreements with senior levels of government to operate their facilities.
I have difficulty understanding where Transport Canada is coming from when looking at the facilities, the population and the potential of these different communities and their maintenance agreements.
I am very pleased that a community like Dryden gets 105 hours per week of operation dollars in its maintenance agreement.
That kind of facility is necessary in a community like Dryden. However, then there is a community like Kenora which has double the population, almost triple the population of a community like Dryden but has half the maintenance agreement that this community has.
You say to yourself: "Well, what does that mean, operating cost?" Let me put it in dollars and cents. That is a good way to explain to our residents and constituents what it means. It is right here. I will just quickly grab it for you. It explains in detail the operating costs.
Kenora in 1988-89 had an operating cost, money that it was given by the federal government, of $204,000 and made revenues of roughly $131,000 for a cost recovery of 64.5 per cent.
Government Orders
Dryden had an operating cost of $897,000 from money that was given by the federal government with revenues of $308,000 for a recovery of 34.4 per cent.
Fort Frances had operating costs of $273,500 and revenues of $81,000 for a cost recovery of 29.8 per cent.
I guess you are sitting there thinking: "Well, what are you getting at?" Let me tell you what I am getting at. The fact remains is that, if you are familiar with the region, the community of Kenora and the airport is a very essential component of that community's long term goals and hopes and aspirations for the future. Now, Transport Canada in its wisdom treats that particular airport much differently than it treats the one down the road a hundred miles. We cannot understand for the life of us why that is.
There cannot be any reason other than there are political decisions being made as to whether to fund a particular airport or to not fund a particular airport. It cannot be used as an argument that this airport is any less important than the other, considering that the population is double the size of the other communities that I mentioned.
I want to switch to the other example because I know I will end up running out of time as I usually do. I want to talk a little bit about another airport, the Sioux Lookout airport.
In March 1990, the town of Sioux Lookout submitted an application under the Local/Local Commercial Airports Financial Assistance Program to the minister. This Local/Local Commercial Airports Financial Assistance Program is run directly through the Minister of Transport, which means that when you apply for this program, in order to get assistance to improve your airport, you have to convince the minister and not Transport Canada of the importance of this particular project and whether he should fund it.
The town of Sioux Lookout went to the minister for this application. It was the previous minister. I will explain why this community went for these improvements and I will give some statistics just to show what has happened, but before I do that, let me give the groundwork.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
This is a community of about 5,000 people. Why would a community of 5,000 need a large airport? This particular community is the jump-off point to go up north, to northern Ontario and to all the isolated aboriginal communities of practically half of Ontario. People fly out of this particular airport and go to that region which has, roughly speaking, about 10,000 aboriginal people. They have no alternative but to go by air for medical purposes and to get to the outside world, unless you consider a canoe or a dog sled to be a good alternative. That is the only possible way to get to Thunder Bay or Winnipeg, to fly out of there over to Sioux Lookout and from there transfer and on to points west or east.
Let me show the traffic trends. This particular community has increased seven fold in traffic in the last 10 years. It is the busiest airport in north-western Ontario, next to Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay has a population of over 100,000 people and this particular community of
5.000	has a large amount of traffic coming out of it.
In 1977, 8,100 passengers used the airport. In 1988, the number almost reached 50,000 passengers. It is estimated that by the year 2001, more than 60,000 passengers will use the airport. When the airport was built in the early 1970s, it was built for 8,000 passengers, it is now almost at 50,000 passengers and is expected to see over
60.000	passengers by the year 2001.
What did the minister say? He said: "We do not have the funding right now. You are not high on the priority list, therefore maybe you can apply next year and you will have to live with the airport you have". We are not talking about service to one community. We are talking about people from 30 communities who come from the far north to this airport and we cannot even get it on the priority list so that somewhere down the line we can tell all those communities in north-western Ontario that they will have a decent airport facility.
In that airport there is not even a confectionery, there is not even a place to grab a sandwich. There is a bubble gum machine, a place where you can buy cigarettes- heaven forbid-and a place where you can buy chocolate bars and chips and that is all. There are almost 50,000 people using that facility already. There is a population explosion going on in the north and I am sure they will continue to use it.
The only alternative is for the Minister of Transport to build us a road up north.
Those are two examples that I think bring to light the issue of how important it is to understand where the Ministry of Transport is going, before we start transferring these airports to municipalities and to the individual communities. Is it suggesting that it does not want to get involved in the future of these particular communities and their airports? Is it suggesting that it cannot afford it at the federal level? Is it saying: "You look after it municipally or provincially, or to hell with you?" I get the impression that is the kind of scenario we are looking at.
I think we are quite prepared as communities to take over these airports.
If we are given the proper guidelines, if you are quite honest and frank with us and tell us just what you are proposing to do as far as a long term capital for the improvements of these facilities, and if you are prepared to give us the kind of guidelines to help with the employee transfers and make sure that they get the same kind of benefits they got before, then I think we as a party will be prepared to take a good look at it.
First of all I think we have to clear up the most important part of this whole bill, and I was so very impressed that the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon brought it up: We must make sure that this is not a privatization but a transfer of facilities, if the communities can come to some sort of understanding of just what the transfer means to them and if it is an improvement to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. Before resuming debate it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma, steel industry; the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, trucking industry; the hon. member for Scarborough West, immigration; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, the environment; the hon. member for Saint-Leonard, the economy.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words about this legislation. The reason why I do so is because Canadians must be wondering what is
June 3, 1991

going on. Are we talking about taking all of our airports in Canada and passing them over to organizations?
I picked up a brochure which says "airport transfer." It shows a picture of an aeroplane leaving an airport, and in the middle of it is the Maple Leaf; "Airport transfer, Transport Canada". I read these words in this brochure and I want to put this on the record: "The broad objectives of the policy are (1) to allow national airport systems to operate in a more cost-efficient manner."
If that were not enough, further down it says: "Key elements of the policy specify that federal funding requirements will not increase."
Finally: "Each LAA (local airport authority) will be an independent, incorporated business entity and will finance its operating and capital needs without recourse to the federal government."
In other words, we have a bill being passed in this House right now that will pass Canada's airports over to local authorities which are supposed to find the money to operate them and the capital expenditures to build new runways without recourse to the federal government to pay the bills. It is an interesting proposition.
I looked at the bill a moment ago and it is rather a strange one. I have the secret copy here, that is, the copy that came out before the other copies, I suppose. It should be called "secret" because what is in the bill is really a secret. I cannot figure out what is in the bill. I have looked at it and I cannot figure out what is in it. It says here that it is an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages. Official languages; I looked in the bill and in the section under "official languages" it says that parts 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Official Languages Act apply. The really relevant parts in the Official Languages Act are parts 5 and 6. We assume from this legislation then that parts 5 and 6 do not apply. If the other parts are singled out as applying, then the other parts of the Official Languages Act do not apply to the transfer of airports.
If it is the law of the land that the Official Languages Act applies to all the airports in Canada then the bill has to be rewritten. Montreal is changing hands and is no longer being operated by the federal government. Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary are changing and are no
Government Orders
longer federal government airports. I believe the others are Edmonton and Calgary. Then there is a whole bunch of airports like Moncton and several others that are also going to be transferred from federal hands. The federal government will no longer be operating them.
This is certainly confusing here where it says an act respecting official languages and then it says employees' pensions. I looked up the clause affecting employees' pensions and it said in that regard: "The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board", and the Governor in Council is what the layman would call the cabinet, "make regulations (a) respecting the manner in which" the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act will apply.
In other words, there is nothing at all in the bill that deals with employees' pensions. There is not a thing. It says that the government will make regulations after the bill is passed in relation to employees' pensions.
One might ask how an employee of an airport, who is no longer a public servant because it is now passed over to a public authority to operate it, can come under the Public Service Superannuation Act anyway. He is no longer a public servant. How can that individual come under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act when he is no longer a public servant?
The truth of the matter is that you need not be a public servant to come under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Petro-Canada employees are under that act. The post office is under that act. The Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the federal government is under that act. They are not really public servants and they need not be either.
I suppose it is rather confusing to the layman, but the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada can also represent them even though they are not public servants. It sounds strange, does it not, to have the Public Service Alliance of Canada represent somebody who is not a public servant? But that is the way it goes. It represents people in Crown corporations, for example. The Canadian Union of Public Employees represents employees who are not public employees.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
Nowhere in the act does it talk about and spell out the employees' pensions. That is two gone now: an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, but there is nothing in there to cover official languages, and then it says employees' pensions but there is nothing in there to cover employee pensions. There is a section that says the government may make regulations respecting employees' pensions.
The last part mentions labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports. I looked up the section under labour relations and it says that the whole matter will be passed over to the Canada Labour Relations Board. I can recall when the post office was passed over to the Canada Labour Relations Board. There were two years of status quo and then the Canada Labour Relations Board was supposed to determine the bargaining agents and the unions representing the employees. They have been at it now for nine years, and they still have not decided the question of bargaining units and bargaining agents.
I do not know why the government presented the bill to the House. What it means by official languages is confusing. It does not talk about employees' pensions and labour relations is left to the Canadian Labour Relations Board, so what is the purpose of the legislation?
To find the purpose of the legislation, of course, we can look at the brochure called "Airport Transfer". I asked for and received, a few moments ago, the outline of what is called the supplementary principles of airport transfer.
In other words, you have all of these airports in Canada now being passed over to local authorities. You have all of these employees in Canada who have families, who have been working for the federal government for years, wondering: "What is going to become of me and my job?", and then you have the travelling public who is landing at those airports. They are wondering: "Should I be landing at this airport? What kind of an airport is this? Does it have federal standards? If the plane catches fire, who is going to put out the fire? Whose standards are they? Are they good standards?" You have two of those concerns.
I had sent to me the actual list of supplementary principles which have now been sent to all of these airports. I want to put a couple of them on the record.
First of all, the federal government says that inspection agencies like customs and excise, immigration, health and welfare and agriculture will be provided free of charge to the Crown by the local airport authority. Then it says: "The local airport authority will provide at no cost to Transport Canada space requirements for such services as air navigation free of charge to the federal government."
It says that as far as the employees are concerned: "In any case, all terminated Transport Canada Public Service employees, whether or not they transfer to the LAA," that is the local airport authority, "have a right to have their name placed on the priority list for one year. More particularly, employees who were laid off by the LAA," local airport authority, "up to the end of the first year after the date of transfer would benefit from placement on the priority list."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, you could have an employee or employees terminated with no rights to any other job in the federal government, would lose his or her seniority rights, would lose all of their benefits, would have no more standing than a member of Parliament as an airport employee.
Then the ultimate of all of the regulations. I want to highlight this condition: "The LAA as operators," that is, the local airport authority, "will ensure the provision of crash, fire and rescue services at the airport." That is quite a statement. The local airport authority as operators will ensure the provision of crash, fire and rescue services. The LAA will development emergency and contingency plans, conduct exercises among the various jurisdictions and operating entities, for example, police, ambulance, hospitals and airlines.
The whole operation of the airport, including the fire department is being passed over to the local airport authority. Then it says the local airport authority will be responsible for dealing with air pollution, solid waste management and other airport related environmental issues. That is quite a change for Canadian airports. All airports in all of those communities across Canada will be passed from the federal government to a local authority and that local authority will ensure the safety of the travelling public. The only thing the federal government will do, according to these guidelines, is guard against terrorism and provide air traffic control services.
June 3, 1991

That is quite a change for Canada's airports, isn't it? That is quite a change. How do you provide, as a local airport authority, all of the policing that is required at international airports, for example? How do you provide for all of the environmental checks and balances that are required at every airport in this country?
The bottom line is that the federal government, in presenting the bill to this Chamber, and saying that it is a bill respecting employees' pensions and labour relations, and yet not having it in the bill what it is going to do, the federal government in passing over to local authorities responsibilities that should be nation wide and responsibilities by the Government of Canada.
Finally, the federal government is saying to every single airport employee in this country that the day is going to come for some of them immediately, when you will no longer be an employee of the federal government, when you will no longer have seniority rights, or sick leave, or vacation benefits. "We are going to transfer all of that", as the brochure says, "to operate in a more cost efficient manner", and then to say that "the LAA will be an independent incorporated business entity and will finance its operations and capital needs without recourse to the federal treasury". The bottom line is that the federal government is trying to get out of the business of transportation in this country.
The only thing that I can see moving this policy is the efforts of the Government of Canada to try to save money in every single area of responsibility that it presently has, and to pass all of that responsibility over on to someone else's shoulders. In the case of an environmental issue at one of our airports, say, with noise pollution, the federal government will very shortly say: "Too bad, but that is the responsibility of a group of businessmen in that community because they actually own the airport". If they do not own the airport, then why is it that they are responsible for environmental matters and noise pollution?
The government will be able to say to the Auditor General: "We are getting rid of thousands of employees next year. We have reduced the Public Service by thousands of people, because we erased all of those thousands of people working at airports in Canada". The
Government Orders
travelling public, when they learn and when they hear on the news media about the firefighters at the airport saying: "We want to still stay in a federal system. We want to have our federal standards maintained". Someone will say: "Yes, they are still federal standards, it is just you are not a federal employee any more. You are operated by some incorporated body in the community of such and such".
The federal government should rethink this. I do not think they should bring a bill which does not guarantee a man his job after this is passed. I do not think we should allow them to pass a bill that does not guarantee a man or woman their pension after working at an airport in this country for the past 20 or 25 years. I do not think that we should allow the Government of Canada to cop out on its responsibility to provide security and environmental protection for the people of Canada at Canadian airports.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words about Bill C-15, legislation introduced this past session. Before I start my comments, I would like to compliment the critic from our party, the member from Thunder Bay who, has led a lot of the debate on this particular legislation and to thank yourself, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to say a few words.
Bill C-15 is one of these interesting administrative pieces of legislation, I suppose. You look at the title and read through it and wonder exactly what is the purpose of the bill. You usually have to have a stack of other bills and information at hand to try and figure out what is happening. I guess as a short description of the legislation, the purpose of the bill is to protect essentially the collective bargaining rights, language rights and pension rights of federal public sector workers currently employed by Transport Canada during the transfer to airports from Transport Canada to local airport authorities, the LAAs that we have heard about.
You will be familiar with some of the attempts by this government to basically, privatize if you like, or localize the airport authority. The running and managing of a particular airport, is transferred to a local organization. I understand from some of the notes, in fact, it is being attempted for the first time in Edmonton.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
In any case, this legislation attempts to ensure that when that is the case, that employees who will then start becoming employees of that local authority will be protected by some of the benefits they have now in their collective agreement under federal legislation.
While the general thrust of the bill is good, it suffers from a lack of clarity and in light of current worker-management relations, it does not provide the protection it purports to provide.
I would like to go through a couple of the points that have been raised by the union that represents the employees, the Union of Transport Canada Employees. They have cited a number of very important aspects of the bill that I think will obviously have to be addressed.
The first one is that workers or their representatives have not really been a part of the process of negotiation and consultation that has gone on between Transport Canada and various local airport authorities.
That has become an unfortunate aspect of legislation under this government. I think it is important that the government attempt to establish good employer-employee relationships, that the employees are taken into consideration and are given every opportunity to see in advance what is being planned in any particular legislation and especially a case that affects their future, their occupation, their livelihood and for many people, their pensions.
The procedural and substantive rights of workers with regard to their existing pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act are actually not clear under the bill. It is being left up to Treasury Board to make regulations. There has been no consultation on the development of these regulations.
I would hope that every effort is made, when new regulations are developed that the employees have ample opportunity to comment on that.
It is increasingly a part of legislation in our country that a bill gives a general mandate and instructions to government. However, in reality the real nitty-gritty of a law comes in the development of regulations which are developed by the department and eventually approved by the Governor in Council and by cabinet. I think it
takes a generous government to give the people an opportunity for input. It also requires a vigilant public, employees group or union to see that when those proposed regulations come forward they are looked at, circulated and considered.
The bill needs to incorporate the desires of workers to continue under these plans. I mentioned earlier the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
We understand that the local authority in British Columbia is having some difficulty in trying to find an insurance company to take on the disability component and the plan that is currently provided workers. They have been told that it would be too expensive to continue this type of coverage.
Point number three. The continuation of the bargaining agent is also a matter of great concern. The bill provides for the continuation of the terms and conditions of an existing collective agreement at the time of transfer. However, past experience with other privatizations demonstrates that the determination of the appropriate bargaining agent is a very long and disruptive process.
The bill should incorporate provisions so that the existing bargaining agent remains in place for the period of one full collective agreement after the transfer, in order to ensure the protection of worker's rights and the orderly determination of a bargaining agent.
That sounds like a pretty logical way to approach this particular idea. It gives the workers and the employer a chance to know that there is a grace period prior to, likely, some initiatives from an employer. We would probably expect that. They might not be good initiatives, but under law employers certainly would be allowed to do that. Of course, the employees who have a new employer, obviously as time advances would be looking to approach that employer for new provisions in any collective agreement they have.
The bill fails to make clear that all services to the travelling public will continue to be provided in both official languages. One of the proposals is to ensure that any third parties who are under contract to the airport authority are required to provide their services under the linguistic terms currently set out the Official Languages Act and any regulations made under that act.
June 3, 1991

That is a matter of a great deal of concern for some of the members of the House who have pursued this particular issue a great deal. Obviously, when we travel a lot as most members do, we realize that it is important that standards developed from airport to airport should be the same. It makes for ease of travel and ensures that people travelling from one airport to another understand safety requirements and public notices, and the employees who provide that service can assist them the best they can.
Just as an aside, what bugs me is that there are different TV monitors in each airport. Trying to read the monitors in some of the airports, trying to figure out which airline and which aeroplane is landing at what time, is difficult. I know that is a fairly minor point, given the importance of this legislation. I suppose I will suffer along. However, it is obviously a small example of the kind of general services we would like to see from airport to airport.
The general theme of Bill C-15 is that this may not be the privatization of airports, but it is certainly privatization of the workplace. The government has a responsibility to ensure the rights of its workers are protected before and after the transfer.
In the United States, after its rush with deregulation, and now in Canada, we were told just a short time ago that with deregulation we would have all these new airlines and new services. Well, we are right down to two airlines now. Some are suggesting that we may end up with only one airline in the future. The point I am making is that there is no guarantee that once the local authority takes over and runs one of these facilities that it is actually going to do a good job of it.
We certainly hope it does, but as the public trustee of Canada's airports, obviously the federal government must have in the back of its mind at least a back-up plan to reassume control of a particular airport if it does not work. Then we would be looking at taking care of employees' various benefits and rights as well as if the government was to resume control.
The bill gives only more uncertainty. If the purpose is to stabilize worker-management relations, then the workers must be consulted and their concerns heeded. We have to underline that point. Too often when a
Government Orders
number of these projects go ahead, we end up with bad labour relations. That is not going to be any help at all to our airports.
We are supporting the bill. We have some concerns, obviously, about what the government is planning to do. There are some very clear concerns that we have laid out and there have been comments made in the House by other members concerning employee relations. We feel that is important. We certainly hope the government will consider those in the future in the management of these airports. We respectfully ask these new authorities, when they are the employer, to treat their employees well.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-15, an Act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 contains an issue which is of particular interest to me. I will focus my remarks on clause 4 of the bill, which deals with official languages.
Clause 4(1) states that:
Where the Minister has sold, leased or otherwise transferred an airport to a designated airport authority, on and after and transfer date Parts IV, VIII, IX and X of the Official Languages Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the authority in relation to the airport as if
(a)	the authority were a federal institution; and
(b)	the airport were an office or facility of that institution, other than its head or central office.

Mr. Speaker, subsection 4(2) also recalls that nothing in subsection 23(2) of the Official Languages Act shall, in relation to an airport transferred to a designated airport authority by the Minister, be construed or applied so as to impose a duty on any institution other than that authority.

Clause 4 is sufficiently ambiguous to bring into question whether official languages regulations will be fulfilled at any airport which has been transferred to a non-governmental authority.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
In subclause (1) only parts 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Official Languages Act will apply.
In subclause (2) one is left wondering if certain parts of the Official Languages Act will only apply to the airport authority itself and not to other aspects or other individuals involved with the operation of that airport after the transfer has occurred.
The Liberal Party opposes the privatization of Canadian airports. However, we do support initiatives to transfer the administration and management of airports to local authorities under certain conditions.
One of these conditions is that the Official Languages Act apply in full to the local authority and its employees, and as well to services provided at the airport which has been transferred.
Bill C-15 leaves too much doubt as to the full application of the Official Languages Act upon the local airport authority, the employees of that authority and to the various services that will be provided to the public at the airport. Section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act clearly sets out that the entire Official Languages Act would continue to apply to Air Canada, its employees and the services it renders after its privatization.
Bill C-15 does not extend the same stipulation concerning the full involvement of the Official Languages Act as does the Air Canada Public Participation Act of 1988. As a result, one questions why this is the case.
The Official Languages Act has 12 parts, yet Bill C-15 only includes parts 4, 8, 9 and 10. Part 4 deals with communications with, and services to, the public. Part 8 involves responsibilities and duties of Treasury Board in relation to the Official Languages Act of Canada. Part 9 concerns the commission of official languages and part 10 provides for court remedy. It is understandable why all these parts are worthy of inclusion in Bill C-15.
Obviously, one can understand why certain parts of the Official Languages Act are not included in Bill C-15. Some, such as parts 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12 are non-applicable as they deal with such matters as the proceedings of Parliament and the administration of justice. However, it is not clear as to why parts 5, 6 and 7 have been excluded from this piece of legislation.
Each one of these three parts are important components in our official languages legislation. Part 5 deals with the language of work, part 6 concerns the participation of English and French speaking Canadians and part 7 concerns the advancement of English and French. Certainly these are important issues.
In addition, parts 5 and 6 are designed to protect workers of both linguistic groups. Part 5, as I have said, has the mandate to protect the language of work, while part 6 protects equal opportunity to gain employment.
It is very difficult to determine the reasons behind their exclusion from Bill C-15. Why, indeed, were they left out of this legislation, but included in the Air Canada bill? Why should workers at Air Canada be protected and not workers at Canada's airports? Both institutions offer somewhat similar services to the public across the country.
Furthermore, the removal of part 7 is of equal concern. The exclusion of this part removes the right of the Department of Secretary of State to encourage and co-operate with both the provinces and the public to accomplish the objectives given to it by the Official Languages Act. This mandate is to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities throughout Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both official languages in Canada. I cannot think of any worthy reason as to why the minister would omit such an important part of the Official Languages Act from Bill C-15.
I would like for the minister to inform this House why his government does not want parts 5, 6 and 7 of the Official Languages Act to apply to local airport authorities and their employees. Has the government taken a change in course concerning official bilingualism in this country? Are they prepared to safeguard and protect the federal principle of bilingualism in all of its relevant legislation or in just some?
These are very important questions and Canadians want the answers.
We have a case here in Bill C-15 where vital parts of Canada's Official Languages Act are being excluded from legislation which should contain them.
The fact that these three parts of the Official Languages Act are, indeed, excluded from Bill C-15 is even further cause for concern given the current constitutional climate in Canada. How can this government talk of
June 3, 1991

fairness, equality and national identity one day and then turn around and introduce this legislation the next? The government cannot afford jeopardizing national reconciliation and preserving Canada's linguistic duality by watering down the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
The government cannot pick and choose which parts of the Official Languages Act it will include and what parts it will leave out of legislation, such as the one before this House today. The parts in question are not inconsequential, they are very important.
While there were obvious reasons for omitting certain parts of the Official Languages Act, as I have discussed earlier, there are no valid reasons I can think of to justify the removal of parts 5, 6 and 7 from Bill C-15.
I would like to conclude by quoting from the remarks made by the Commissioner of Official Languages when he appeared before the committee of the House of Commons responsible for examining Bill C-85, the designation given to Bill C-15 in the last session. At that meeting on March 7, 1991, the Commissioner said:
That section 4 of Bill C-85 be amended to ensure that, as in the case of the decisions taken in the privatization of Air Canada, all the provisions of the Official Languages Act continue to apply to the designated airport authorities. Any weakening of this policy would seem to us to be an unacceptable and unjustified step backward.
I believe the Commissioner speaks for all Canadians on this issue and I fully concur with his recommendation.
[Translation)


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak, and especially to support the hon. member's amendment regarding the sale of airports. I think this is an important issue because we are being asked to trust this government and go along with its claim that it does not want to sell airports.
I am not so sure about that, and that is why I support the hon. member's amendment concerning the sale of airports, and his proposal to remove the word "sell" from the bill, because in committee, the government had said constantly that it had no intention of selling airports.
Government Orders
Since it has no intention of selling airports, why did it put this in the text of the bill?
So I am rather wary of this government when it puts a word in a bill that doesn't have to be there. And that is why I want to support the hon. member's amendment, and I don't think we are being overly suspicious when we simply ask this government to remove the word "sell".


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: , seconded by Mr. Keyes:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
"be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"4(1) where the minister has transferred an airport leased to a des" and
(b)	by striking out line 28 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"an airport transferred by lease to a designated airport".

June 3, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair will take the motion moved by the hon. member of Kingston and the Islands under advisement, for a few minutes, and meanwhile we will resume debate on the main motion. Resuming debate.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the Chair to move another amendment? I move, seconded by the member for Kingston and the Islands:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
"be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee considering amending the bill in Clause 4 by striking out lines 17 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"transfer data part 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On a point of order the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could clarify. Some of us thought that you would not be in a position to receive another amendment at third reading until such time as the one before you has been disposed of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is right.

The Chair will first consider the motion moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and then decide whether to consider the second motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I have asked the Table to advise the Chair as soon as possible.
I can now rule that the motion moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is in order. Resuming debate on the motion in amendment.


Some hon. members:: Question.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the amendment lost.

I am told by the Chair's advisers that to be in order, the hon. member for Hamilton West will have to move his amendment now, if he still wishes to do so.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed a very important amendment that I would like to bring forward to the House right now. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a
third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
"be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill in clause 5 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: where the minister has transferred an airport by lease to a des-".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In that case, the Chair will take a few minutes to take the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West under advisement.
Resuming debate on the main motion. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to speak on third reading because I have an amendment I would like to table in the House. However, if you call third reading, I cannot do so, since the Chair has to decide whether the motion is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: So far, the Chair can say that the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West is in order.
June 3, 1991



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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment, seconded by my colleague the member for Kingston and the Islands:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read the third time and pass" and substitute the following therefor: "be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the biil by adding immediately after line 31, page 2, the following new clause:
"Section 51 notwithstanding any other act of Parliament, no designated airport authority to which an airport has been sold, leased or otherwise transferred shall use any moneys in the pension and or benefit funds managed by it for the purpose of operating or financing its airport activities.
2.	Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20 million, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
3.	When a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on summary conviction to the punishment provided for the offence whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion of the hon. member is in order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Defeated on division.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment also. I am certain that the people on both sides of the House will want to support this one in light of last week's National Access Week. It is seconded by by colleague from Hamilton Mountain.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read the third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
Be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill by adding, immediately after line 31 at page 2 the following new clause:
For greater certainty where an airport is sold, leased or otherwise transferred to a designated airport authority, such provisions relating to assistance for the physically handicapped persons apply in an airport under any Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder shall apply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion of the hon. member is in order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
Be it not now read a third time, but referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill in clause 6 by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
Minister has transferred an airport by lease to a designated
airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The motion is in order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be now read a third time and do pass" and substituting the following therefor:
Be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee with instructions that the committee consider amending the bill in clause 7(a) by striking out lines 26 and 27 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
7.1 Where the minister has transferred an airport by lease and
(b) by striking out line 6 and page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
After the date of the transfer by lease, the Canada Labour


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-15, which is the Airport Transfer Act. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. It has been one of considerable concern to me since I was elected.
I have been in constant pursuit of the three various ministers who have been appointed since the election in 1988, to discuss not only the transfer of airports but also
a number of components that deal in particular with transportation in the north.
We have a government in the Northwest Territories that has quite handily carved out a fairly comprehensive transportation strategy that includes and probably compliments the whole issue of airport transfer. In fact they have gone one step further to deal not only with the transfer of airports but also with communications and the whole issue of safety.
In the north the majority of the population is highly dependent on air travel. Considering that particular concern, my constituents in the Northwest Territories have specific concerns that they want to share with the authorities that be. They want those concerns to be made known to the minister who has the authority and the department officials who have the responsibility.
In particular, there has been much concern with the transfer of airports that not only is there a priority list of communities that would have their airports upgraded before the transfer was made, but also that there are communities which need complete refurbishing or rebuilding of their airports.
An example-it is not only one-would be Fort Franklin which has its own airport located right at the end of the schoolyard. When you fly into the community of Fort Franklin, the minister should know that you fly over a schoolyard and a school. This is quite a dangerous situation if we talk about safety.
There has been much of a push over the last four or five years by this community to have a complete relocation.
This is not the only community. There are other communities that asked for a complete rebuilding mostly because of safety.
The other thing that the northerners, my constituents, would like the authorities to know is that we have currently the proposal to build a new terminal in the very busy community of Norman Wells.
A cost analysis team went in, but the cost analysis has not been returned to the community. In the greater scheme of things across Canada, on an economy of scale, the northerners feel they are not at the top of the list of priorities.

They feel they would not want to miss the opportunity for this proposal to go forward. That is one particular concern which they want to be made known.
When I am speaking about the transfer of airports, I also want to speak about the conditions of some of these airports. These responsibilities have been transferred but to the over all infrastructure, upkeep and refurbishing of this infrastructure, the costs are prohibitive.
It is very expensive in the north and the amount of use that these particular airports get is very high because many of these communities rely solely on air travel. They do not have highways or railways attaching them to the outer communities.
These are expressed concerns. With the main carriers that land in some of our main terminals throughout the Mackenzie Valley, specifically in my area, we find that on the whole issue of official bilingualism we have taken it one step further.
Canadian Airlines should be applauded for the steps it has taken by way of tapes and technology to serve the people in that area in various languages. It serves the people in Inuktitut, Chippewan and in all the Dene languages.
It has been quite innovative and quite ingenious in the way it has done that. I would like to take the opportunity to applaud this type of activity which has been undertaken by a particular carrier.
I have one other concern. If you are a northerner you may have had the opportunity for the government to have transferred the authority to the Northwest Territories for airports. We have little power when it comes to the kind of services we receive at those particular airports from the main carriers.
For instance, if you live in the Northwest Territories you will notice that when the schedules have changed through the two main airlines service is reduced. It is impossible for the working public in the north to get out of Yellowknife, the capital of the north, on a Sunday.
On a Sunday, a working individual travelling to the east must leave the Northwest Territories at 9 a.m. and arrive perhaps at a destination of Ottawa at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. That is a complete day of travel.
Government Orders
If that is not your preferred choice, you could leave Yellowknife at 7.30 in the evening, wait in Edmonton until a quarter to or twenty to one the next morning, take the all night flight and travel from Edmonton to Ottawa to arrive 8.05 bleary eyed and ill prepared for a full day of work.
It has been extremely difficult for the working and travelling public to appreciate the kind of situations that have arisen every time the schedule is changed. We appreciate the service. We know it is far better than we had 10 or 20 years ago, but still we believe that every time the schedule is changed, service is reduced.
We want to say that we are appreciative that our government in the Northwest Territories has essentially taken on the responsibility. We have a lot of reservations about the prohibitive costs it entails when a program is transferred and the authority is taken over. It is one thing to have the authority, but it is quite another thing to have adequate resources, not only to upkeep, maintain and to refurbish, but to completely relocate for the purposes of safety.
Since we have a new minister, many of my constituents have urged me to welcome this minister to come to our communities and to have a look and see the conditions that exist there. We would like to extend an invitation to the minister and to the senior officials to come and meet with our chiefs and our people who have concerns, and to meet with the Government of the Northwest Territories, if it so desires.
I just want to take the opportunity with regard to National Access Awareness Week last week to raise an issue of particular concern. I was honorary chair for the disabled in my area and I believe that as much as possible, although we live in the remotest parts of Canada, we have to make accommodations for the disabled, we have to ensure that there is mobility where it is possible and if there are additional costs, that those have to be incurred. Those people have to be put on an equal level with everyone else in terms of mobility and accessibility.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the third reading stage of Bill C-15. I would like to focus on official languages and the application of the Official Languages Act in airports which, according to the bill,

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
will be a municipal responsibility if they are leased or possibly sold to municipal or regional airport authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I have an abiding interest in the Official Languages Act and-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Always did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -this act will not have the kind of impact on municipal or regional airport authorities that one would like to see in this country, in relation to a service that we feel is an essential one for Canadian travellers. Clause 4 of Bill C-15 now before the House provides that only four of the twelve parts of the Official Languages Act will apply.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why Parts I, II, III, XI and XII of the Official Languages Act do not apply but I find it hard to understand why Parts V, VI and VII do not, and I intend to explain to the House the impact of this oversight or this government decision not to include Parts V, VI and VII.
Mr. Speaker, Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act are designed to protect employees belonging to the two language groups, in other words, to respect their legal right to work in the official language of their choice, which may be English in Montreal, where the majority official language might be French, and French in Winnipeg, for instance, when the majority official language is English.
Mr. Speaker, the idea is to allow any Canadian to work for an institution as important as a company dedicated to public transportation, and to obtain from that agency and its managers the right to work in the official language of their choice. Yet, there is no such guaranty in the legislation before us.
Part V protects the language in the workplace, whereas Part VI ensures equal employment opportunities. We have discussed this on second reading and in committee. Mr. Speaker, we have tried to convince the government of the importance of that issue, but our requests have fallen in deaf ears. That is why we are back, in third reading, after a rather short debate-let's face it-because the government has used a rather unusual procedure. The government has reinstated, so to speak, the bill in this third session of Parliament when, normally,
this legislation, which was not passed during the second session of the House, should have died on the Order Paper after the House prorogued, and should therefore have followed the normal legislative process afterwards.
We now find ourselves in a somewhat exceptional situation. On Wednesday May 28, the government, using its majority, passed a bill reinstating former bill C-85, which is now bill C-15.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that Parts V and VI are important to us because, in our opinion, they deal with the most fundamental issues, that is the rights of individual, the rights of Canadians to equal employment opportunities but also the right to work in federal institutions in the language of their choice. Mr. Speaker, if this policy applies to Air Canada which, as we know, must follow all the provisions of the Official Languages Act, I fail to see why an employee of Air Canada would be entitled to equal employment opportunities and would also be entitled to work in the language of his choice, whereas an employee of a local, regional or municipal authority in charge of an airport would not enjoy the same protection.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment was made at the committee stage. The government rejected it, so we are trying again. As regards Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the fact that this part is omitted deprives the Secretary of State of his right to support the public and to cooperate with the provinces in order to fulfill the mandate given to him in the Official Languages Act. The Secretary of State must foster the use of the official languages, promote the rights of the Francophone and Anglophone minorities, and ensure the full recognition and use of both the French and English language in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this omission is rather difficult to explain. Why is it that Parts V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act are not integral parts of this legislation? This is beyond us and that is why we bring it up everytime we have a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, does bill C-85 give a measure of protection as regards the services that are presently provided in the airports affected? Such airports as in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Montreal. Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, and that is the cause of our concern.
June 3, 1991

Local airport authorities are free to choose the criteria, strategies and priorities they consider necessary to manage and operate the airports to be transferred.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I have to make myself clear again: All we, the Liberals, want is to be sure that Canadians can get from these airport authorities the same hiring and working conditions other companies, such as Air Canada, can offer them. No more, no less. We insist, because we have often seen this government forget extremely important matters, in its haste to privatize and transfer everything. That is why we are back with this motion to amend Bill C-15, which I want to introduce, Mr. Speaker.
Consequently, I move, seconded by my colleague from Saint-Denis:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be read the third time and passed" and substituting the following therefor: "be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Legislative Committee for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 of the Bill, by striking out line 17, at page 2, and substituting the following therefor: Parts IV, V, VI, VIII, IX and X of the Official Languages Act".


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I followed the debate this afternoon with considerable interest because I introduced the original bill in the House. That bill passed second reading and then went to committee where it was considered in depth, returned to the House and amendments at report stage were placed on the Order Paper by members of the House. The House then prorogued and those amendments were lost.
The bill was then reinstated at report stage by means of a motion along with other bills in an effort to not redo the work that the House and members had already done. Then I understand that a time limit was missed and there were no report stage amendments placed on the Order Paper for debate.
I would ask my hon. friend if he thinks that maybe the House and the Table should review the transcript of this afternoon's proceedings to see if we are not reinstituting report stage at third reading.
As a bill goes through the House, once it has passed second reading, it goes to committee where seven or eight members, including the chairman, can hear witnesses and consider the bill in depth. No member, except
Government Orders
those eight people, can place an amendment at committee. That is the reason for report stage.
Report stage allows any member who was not on the committee to make an amendment. I think that process has served this House well.
I ask my hon. friend, who has served considerable time in the House, if he thinks we are using the time of the House properly if we allow a specific amendment, in other words, to send the bill back to committee with instructions to consider whether or not clause x should be amended by y.
I would submit to my hon. friend that obviously he does not want to quarrel with an opinion of the Chair. I would ask my hon. friend, without quarrelling with that opinion either, with the benefit of his experience around here, to comment on whether or not, by allowing this process to go on, we have not reinstituted report stage at third reading.
I know what Beauchesne reads because I took the time to read it, but I just wonder if Beauchesne should be interpreted that way, in light of our Standing Orders as they exist today and what we try to do with our Standing Orders in terms of committee consideration and report stage by the whole House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer to that question is very simple. The member is a former House leader and he knows that the opposition has a certain time to put amendments at report stage.
In this case, it is because of the exceptional measures the government used last week when they forced this House to adopt by closure a motion reinstating five bills. On Friday we had our amendments. We were ready to table them at report stage, but 2 p.m. is the deadline for tabling these amendments.
The government did not tell us they were going to call this bill today, but they knew, and on Friday afternoon after the deadline for report stage had been passed, they called the bill for today. Mr. Speaker, do you call that fair? Do you call that what I would call playing the game? Do you call that really being a good parliamentary organization. Do you call that leadership, Mr. Speaker? I said to the minister, with all due respect because I like the guy, he is barking up the wrong tree.

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
The question is well put, but the answer is that it was all planned by them to make us unable to present the amendments at that time. If they had not used that exceptional-exceptional I say, underlined-procedure of forcing their will on the House of Commons and then playing games with the rules as they know them and as we understand them, we would have had our motions by 2 p.m. on Friday. They would have been put within the 24-hour period which is, I think, 76.(2) unless I am mistaken here, which covers that 24-hour period, the time one requires to put amendments at report stage. If that is not the answer, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the minister knows that this morning at the opening of government business at, I believe, 12 o'clock, there was a request made by the House leader for the New Democratic Party or the Whip to have unanimous consent of the House to put his amendments. We would have gone on the same basis, but Mr. Speaker, the government members denied unanimous consent to put these amendments at the report stage. Therefore, the only way we could have a decision of the House on these very important amendments was to move them in this way at third reading.
It is unusual, but then usually we get some co-operation from the government. It was not forthcoming.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I always enjoy my hon. friend, who is usually very, very accurate with his facts. The suggestion was made that the opposition did not know what was going to be debated on Monday.
I refer the members of the opposition to page 826 of Hansard May 30, 1991. The words of their eminent House leader, Mr. Dingwall:
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House, but to be
clear, we will be on C-6 this afternoon, Friday will be an allotted
day, Monday is airport devolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. The Chair rules that the motion moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is in order.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I am most reluctant to get involved in this discussion between two of my colleagues who are far more experienced than I am. I also took part in the discussions on Bill C-85, now Bill C-15.
We are faced with a fait accompli. We are faced with a bill this government wants to get through the House, over the reasonable objections of the Official Opposition and the NDP. We objected to several aspects of this bill. There is of course the issue of official languages, the Official Languages Act, and I have another objection, reflected in the motion we tabled which was voted down. In this motion we asked the government, quite appropriately, to remove that part of the bill concerning the sale of airports. I know this is all over and done with, but I was really very disappointed to see that the government was so emphatic about keeping the word "sell" in the bill.
Why? Because when I sat on the committee, the government said: We have no intention of selling. So why put this word in the bill? Are we being overcautious? I don't think so. Are we being overly suspicious of a government that told us the GST would be a visible tax and a revenue neutral? Are we too suspicious of this government when it says that we must stop selling arms outside the country while proposing a bill aimed at doing just that?
Are we too suspicious of this government, Mr. Speaker, when it says that we must sell Canada abroad, in the other countries, in order to present it in a flattering light, while the Prime Minister is a little too critical of Ontario following its last budget?
Are we too suspicious of this government when it speaks about reconciliation between provinces while trying to create a new department? I think it is about the fortieth department in charge of regional development in Quebec, created I might add without consulting the province.
So, I wonder, are we too suspicious of the government when it uses the expression "has sold-an airport", even though we are told today that it is not considering selling any airport?
June 3, 1991

I don't know whether or not we are too suspicious, but the government is neglecting a good opportunity to say: "Yes, you are right, we do not need to use the word "sold" in the bill, this is an oversight on our part." Well,
I don't think it is an oversight, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is all planned. We are not yet privatizing airports. For the time being it is only privatization of the workplace, of all services inside airports. However, with the word "sold" in the bill, privatization through sale of airports to private companies is only a question of time.
This is why I object to this bill and why I support the hon. member's motion. I think he is right to oppose the inclusion of the word "sold" in this bill.
I would like to talk about another objection I raised in the committee this bill was referred to and it concerns the official languages.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face of all Canadians with regards to official languages. I have always maintained-and I know some hon. members opposite have come to the realization-that, wherever you are in Canada, whether you are francophone or anglophone, services have to be provided in both languages. This is, essentially, what I think tourists and Canadians alike see as typical of Canada. We have two languages. Why? Because there are two groups of taxpayers: the English-speaking taxpayers and the French-speaking taxpayers.
So, on the subject of official languages, we should have the right to be served in the language of our choice anywhere in Canada, without exception. As a Quebecer, I can tell you that I am proud because, in Quebec, we have always respected the other language. Yes, there were clashes here and there, but on the whole we show due consideration for the language of the minority, the English language. But when it comes to federal institutions, I find it very important to preserve the intent of the Official Languages Act and to keep the provisions of the said Act because, only through these provisions can the intent really be respected.
It is not the case here, Mr. Speaker. In this instance, and I am sure there was no mistake on the part of government, in the terms under which it can contract out services to a third party in an airport, the government did not make it mandatory to comply with the Official
Government Orders
Languages Act. The Official Languages Commissioner had to criticize the government saying that it contravenes the intent of the Official Languages Act of Canada.
When I took part in the proceedings of the committee that examined this bill, I asked to what extent the government could enforce the Official Languages Act if it was not specified in the bill. The answer I got is that it cannot be enforced and that it is left to the good will-quite an interesting phrase-to the good will of companies or individuals who will get the airport management contracts.
You should be wary of good will, Mr. Speaker. I heard that authorities who will be in charge of the Dorval airport expressed the view that they would not be able to compete with airports in Boston or New York if they had to comply with the Official Languages Act. It is a shame because it will create a system whereby workers in Dorval will not know what to do and passengers will have problems obtaining services in their own language, be it English or French, because there will be no obligation to provide services in both languages.
It is a shame because, when we studied the bill in committee, we tried to define which services should be provided in both languages, under the Official Languages Act, and which services could be provided in one language or the other. They said before the committee, Mr. Speaker, that only those services related to the act of travelling should be provided in both languages. It means that, if you have to eat in a restaurant, yes, you can be served in both languages, but if you want to buy an apple or an orange or if you want to have a haircut, those services do not have to be provided in both languages.
Then, they talked about places where one can order a drink, among other things. In such places, services might have to be offered in both languages. In fact, a real- how would I say-cacophony was heard from the committee trying to describe the services or the products to be available for sale in both languages.
Mr. Speaker, when people like my hon. friend from Edmonton-East say they have stood up for French in Alberta and are sorry that the Official Languages Act has not been respected, I think it is important. If people from Alberta and from across the country are saying: "Listen, we would like that law to be enforced", I think it is important and that the government should have considered including in the bill the enforcement of the

June 3, 1991
Government Orders
Official Languages Act. It should have been done and that would have had a very beneficial effect.
Who do govemement MP's want to please? Who do you want to please? Certainly not Canadians who are proud of their language, be it English or French. We are proud of our Official Languages Act.
Thus, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the govemement has failed to understand that we, Canadians, are for the enforcement of the Official Languages Act. We believe it is part of Canada, part of our heritage, and it is unfortunate that the govemement has but a short-sighted vision of Canada that only goes as far as the next election. I think they made a mistake and that, in fact, most Canadians are disappointed by this government's performance.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to pass the following motion at this point:
That notwithstanding any standing or special order of the House:
When the House adjourns on Thursday, June 6, 1991, it stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday, June 10, 1991, provided that one allotted day for the current trimester be deemed to have been disposed of on the said Friday, and provided that one additional allotted day for the autumn trimester of 1991 be designated in the said autumn trimester.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. There have been discussions among party representatives and we would concur with this motion, keeping in mind that Friday normally would have been an allotted opposition day for the New Democratic Party which will be postponed to a later date in accordance with the motion, as indicated by my colleague previously.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there have indeed been discussions. I thought the timing would be slightly different. I thought we would dispose of Bill C-15 with the voice vote and a deferred vote tomorrow night and then pass the motion, but I am quite prepared to see unanimous consent for the passage of this motion on the
understanding that we will at least be through Bill C-15 in preparation for a vote before we leave here tonight.
That is my understanding and we will not see the clock until we are finished.
I see that members are agreeing to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil, and of the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p. 940).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We are now considering motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, seconded by Mr. Prud'homme.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declared the motion lost, on division.
The motion is negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is now on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
June 3, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.
The Government Whip, on a point of order. [English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and we are all prepared to defer the vote until 6 p.m. tomorrow, so the bells can cease.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have today I would like to put on the record some important comments regarding questions I posed to the government specifically last Friday, and as well a similar question that
Adjournment Debate
I put today by chance to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It relates specifically to a veiy important issue in northern British Columbia in my riding. It is the whole question of a major hydroelectric project in my area commonly referred to as the Alcan project.
The question I put on Friday to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and today to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerned the government's intent as it relates to a very important court ruling on May 16 of this year regarding this particular project. The Federal Court ruled that the Government of Canada must have an environmental assessment review of this Alcan project in northern B.C.
It is a very important ruling. There is a newspaper article on the ruling which quotes the decision of the judge in this case. It is an incredible indictment of this government's environmental policy and an indictment of the policy that this government has had over the last number of years as it relates to this entire project and its subsequent impact on the Nechako and Fraser Rivers.
The judge in this particular case declared, and I am quoting from the article in the newspaper, that the former environment minister's decision at that time to exempt this particular project from the full environmental assessment review process was "a failure to undertake a legal obligation". The judge certainly slapped, if not the government's wrist, the government around a bit and rightfully so. To not have an environmental assessment of this very major project draws into question this government's intent and its concern for the environment. It is also inconsistent with the announcement over the weekend of this government's plans under the green plan to tiy to clean up the Fraser River.
No plan to clean up and protect the Fraser River will be complete without a full environmental assessment of the Alcan project.
Just briefly, there are a couple of concerns that have been raised about this project that we have to repeat time and time again so that this government understands what it is a partner in. It is a partner in destroying the recreational fish habitat in the area, lowering the river flows, and increasing the temperature of the river affecting the salmon stocks in that particular area. It is a massive project that the government has allowed to continue.

June 3, 1991
Adjournment Debate
So far to date, as recently as this afternoon, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has yet to make a decision about an environmental assessment review process.
It is critical and important, given all the evidence and information that has been made public about this project.
Former fisheries officials have commented about the late night closed door decisions that have been made. It is clear to me that we need an environmental assessment review hearing process so that all the information can come out concerning this project.
We also must ensure that this government will follow the law as issued by the Federal Court to see that a decision is made. The right decision should be to have a full environmental review of the Alcan project in northern B.C.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to inform the House that the Kemano hydroelectric project near Kitimat, British Columbia, was subject to detailed examination related to fisheries and other environmental issues.
The 1987 settlement agreement among Alcan Aluminium, the province of British Columbia and the federal government was a unique agreement providing an excellent example of sustainable development allowing economic development to proceed with ongoing implementation of mitigative measures as required.
Mitigation measures identified during environmental studies and a scientific inquiry by 10 experts chaired by Dr. David Strangway, President of the University of British Columbia, are being implemented by Alcan.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the province and the company continue to work through the mechanisms established by the agreement, such as the technical and steering committees to ensure that fishery matters are dealt with satisfactorily with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans monitoring the fisheries' mitigative measures to ensure their success.
The agreement among the province, Alcan and the federal government was based on several environmental considerations. Alcan prepared an extensive environmental impact report to describe the potential impacts of the project.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans carried out consultations to determine public concerns for impacts on fish and fish habitat, and government decisions were taken only after consideration of these impacts.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to inform the House that Department of Justice officials are actively involved in analysing the complex and numerous legal issues raised by the recent Federal Court decision regarding Alcan's Kemano project.
I am also pleased to inform the House that a full and proper interdepartmental consultation process is well under way to ensure that the many legal and policy considerations arising from the court's decision are carefully and thoroughly addressed.
A decision on whether to appeal the court's ruling will be made in the near future following the completion of this analysis.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on May 28, I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and the Minister for International Trade concerning the very serious situation which faces the community of Sault Ste. Marie, and specifically the plan which has been made public in the past week concerning Algoma Steel.
I asked the Minister for International Trade what specific plans the federal government has to assist the city of Sault Ste Marie, Algoma Steel and most important the families and the workers who have not only been laid off, but the 1,300 who are on recall at the present time.
The plan that has been put before the public calls for the loss of some 3,500 additional jobs in the community. These are devastating proposals which have been made by the company.
The Minister for International Trade, in responding to my question, gave no real specifics. He got into the question of countervail and the difficulty of government making specific proposals or providing direct support.
In my supplementary question, I asked the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for older workers adjustment,
June 3, 1991

if the Government of Canada was prepared to make a commitment right now to the program for older workers adjustment which provides up to $1,300 per month of assistance to workers in the age group from 55 to 64 when people, of course, would become eligible for old age pension, Canada Pension and other benefits.
The minister suggested that a committee made up of representatives from the Ontario government and the Government of Canada has been holding meetings, that they plan to make recommendations on this matter and that he hopes the recommendations will be favourable.
It would be really good to have more of the details because there are workers in Sault Ste. Marie who have been laid off for many months now, perhaps some for over a year. If this program is going to become available immediately that would be good to know.
Actually, it is necessary for a worker to have exhausted his severance pay and his unemployment insurance benefits in order to be eligible for the program for older workers' assistance, but I cannot think of any particular program that would be so important. I am told that of the people in the employ now. There are some 1,780 who would be in the age group of the proposal. It is slightly modified from the original plan, but then there are all those other workers who have been laid off during the last year or two.
Clearly, if there is an industry and a community where this program should be provided, it is to those workers who have been laid off by Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie. Many of them are older workers who have very little chance or opportunity of being eligible for finding other jobs, especially in the current economic situation which faces us in Ontario, throughout Canada and certainly in the city of Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, the federal government continues to have a strong interest in the situation at Algoma Steel. We are particularly concerned for the future of the company and its workers and the possible impact on the people of Sault Ste. Marie.
Adjournment Debate
As the hon. member knows, in February of this year Dofasco announced that it was writing off its investment in Algoma and that the firm was on its own financially. At that time, Algoma announced that it would be meeting with its lenders to restructure its debts and begin operating under the company's Creditors Arrangements Act. This has afforded the company a measure of protection until July 31, 1991 to have financial arrangements worked out with all its lenders and creditors.
The federal government participated with the province of Ontario, Dofasco and the Royal Bank in providing Algoma with a $60 million loan guarantee. The federal government's share was $15 million. This guarantee, provided at commercial rates of interest, provided a bridge loan to allow the company to continue operating and meet its payroll and other financial obligations until it received the money for the sale of its coal mine properties in the United States. Before the end of March, Algoma had repaid this loan, and the federal government's financial commitment to the company ended.
The federal government is represented on the Algoma task force. It is composed of representatives of the federal government, the province, the banks, the employees, the suppliers and the community. While direct financial assistance to the contrary is not appropriate, the federal government will continue to work with Algoma and the other stakeholders to assist the firm in becoming more competitive.
In addition, federal efforts will include working with Algoma through External Affairs and International Trade Canada to develop new overseas markets for the company, identifying possible investors or partners for the company, and working with the community and the workers to help them adjust to the situation.
As to the employees of Algoma, the Canadian Steel Trade and Employment Congress has government funding and the mandate to assist laid off steel workers. In addition, the Community Futures Program of Employment and Immigration Canada has been operating successfully in the Soo since 1986.
The federal government has great interest in the Algoma situation and monitors the situation on a daily basis.

June 3, 1991
Adjournment Debate


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that on May 23,1 put a question to the Minister of Transport about three Montreal apartments leased by the National Transportation Agency. I have in hand a brochure describing the characteristics of these apartments located at 2000, Saint-Marc St., Montreal. And I see here a little map showing they are just one block from the Forum.


An hon. member:: Coincidence.


Don Boudria: Of course.
Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the brochure, the Saint-Marc is located in the Montreal city centre. Be comfortable, relax, enjoy the pool. The magic of Montreal is within reach (Above all, at the taxpayers expenses.) Characteristics: air conditioned, colour TV, Cable TV, china cutlery, linen, large balcony, indoor swimming pool, sauna. There is almost everything in there, Mr. Speaker, except mirrors on the ceilings and, of course, padded toilet seats. All in all, there seems to be everything but that.
The National Transportation Agency has not rented only one such apartment in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, a mere block from the Forum-surely a coincidence-but three of them. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how devoted the people working for that transportation agency are, there are so hardworking that they always want to use the apartment located two blocks from the Forum on weekends.
An non. member: Precisely on weekends.


Don Boudria: Precisely on weekends. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. On the long weekend of September 1989, all there apartments were occupied. You see what I mean? It was a long weekend which indeed encouraged those people to work.


An hon. member:: Was there a hockey game?


Don Boudria: We do not know whether there was a hockey game or any other activities. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you now about the long weekend in October, in the fall of 1989: it was a glorious weekend,
with beautiful fall leaves on the trees in Mont Royal park and elsewhere- But I know that the people involved did not use the weekend for the purpose of admiring nature, Mr. Speaker, they were too devoted to their work. Every apartment was occupied of course at 200 Saint-Marc Street, in Montreal, two blocks from Forum Street, but it was sheer coincidence.

The government has a housing policy, we have now discovered. It has a housing policy for Erik Nielsen and his friends at the National Transportation Agency; such a good housing policy that they get free housing when they go to Montreal.
I have the booking list here. It apparently is every now and then registered to guests. Who are those guests? Guests of whom? Why does the National Transportation Agency have an apartment in Montreal? Why does it have three apartments in Montreal? What is the purpose of this exercise? What does it cost the taxpayers, in addition to the $31,000 every nine months that it costs to rent the place, to administer the program?
I even have a sample form here of how you apply to use the fancy digs in Montreal if you happen to work at the National Transportation Agency or a as member of the board of the agency or others. Here is a request form: "Form for booking Montreal apartments, Part 1, general information, date, request submitted, requested by" and so on, "authorization from director, Part 2, confirmation". This is for the boss to say whether you can have the apartment in Montreal and so on.
The minister told us in the House she would investigate this, but I want to know what the answer is. What is the excuse for this abuse of taxpayers' money?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that after that entertaining interlude all of us would want to have the answer. In response to the hon. member's question I would like to put some facts before the House.
The National Transportation Agency has advised that it did rent three apartments in July 1989 in Montreal. One of the three apartments was used on an interim basis for an employee who was relocating to Montreal. It was cancelled when no longer needed.
June 3, 1991

The other two apartments were used for auditors travelling on a regular basis to Montreal to audit the books of CN and CP. One of those apartments was let go in April 1990.
The decision to rent the apartments rather than use hotels was made for a combination of reasons. First, economically it would provide a cost benefit to the National Transportation Agency. Second, it would ensure availability of space in Montreal. The hon. member may know often hotel rooms are difficult to locate, particularly during the convention season. Third, the location: the apartment offered affordable access from both the headquarters of CN and CP to the Montreal offices of the agency.
The use of the apartments was carefully monitored for the first four months and it was shown to provide a positive cost savings to the agency.
The accusations of the hon. member as to the luxuriousness of the apartments are quite exaggerated. A comparison with other similar apartment hotels in the government directory shows that this one comes in at the low end of the scale.
As she indicated in her response, the Minister of State for Transportation asked for a full review of this matter. A cost analysis indicates that there are no longer cost savings and thus the agency advises that it has cancelled the rental effective June 19.
The decision by the agency to rent this apartment was made by employees who were seeking a better solution to management problems, which is very much in keeping with Public Service 2000 philosophy.
I think that rather than criticizing the agency for this initiative, the member should be complimenting its employees on trying an innovative approach to solve a management problem.


IMMIGRATION
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that I have this evening, I want to expand a little bit on the question I posed to the minister of external affairs May 30.
At that time I was talking about the Al-Mashat affair and specifically about the differences between version a
Adjournment Debate
and version b. I want to go back briefly because I think it is important for the House to know that version a of the Al-Mashat affair was provided to us at a press conference with great fanfare by the minister of external affairs and the minister of immigration, at which time they assured us that the matter was full and complete.
This was a report which contained four pages plus one paragraph. Is it my wording that says that the report was full and complete? It is not. On May 15, the day after the report was submitted, the hon. minister said: "A report was made. It is as complete as it can be and it tells people what they need to know". Lo and behold, two weeks later on May 30, another report was released-version b.
The first report was four pages and one paragraph. The second report was 26 pages. It does not take a mental giant to realize that there are additions and amplifications in version b. Are there any discrepancies? There are.
I chose to ask the minister about one of those discrepancies on May 30. At that time I pointed out specifically that on page 11 of version b, the report makes specific mention of a written memorandum dated March 8 which was prepared by the enforcement branch of Employment and Immigration Canada. It was to go to the minister of immigration. To say what? To advise of what was happening with the Al-Mashat application.
Interestingly enough, if you looked at version a you would find absolutely nothing whatsoever about that memorandum. It is not even mentioned. It is not even brought to our attention and yet we were assured by the minister of external affairs that the report was as complete as it could be and it told people what they needed to know.
Two weeks later, it seemed we needed to know more and so we got a little bit more.
What is even more troubling is the response that I received to my question. My question, very simply, was: Why is there something in version b that is not in version al What does the minister answer? I am quoting: "I am going to have all these documents in front of me before the committee. I will be very happy to answer all these questions, as I was this morning when-let the record show-this member" referring to me, "walked out too".

June 3, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Let the record show that the minister did not have the documents when she appeared. Let the record show that at 6.25 today I still have not been provided with the documents.
I ask the question again: What is going on? Why is version a different from version 6? Why are there documents mentioned in version b that are not mentioned in version at Which is the true version or is there going to be a version c?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in releasing the report of the deputy ministers on May 14, which provided a chronology of events, every effort was made to provide as complete a record as possible concerning the arrival of Mr. Al-Mashat in Canada on the basis of information then available.
The question of differences between the report released on May 14 and the chronology tabled at the committee on May 30 was referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the Standing Committee meeting of May 30. At that time she responded that minor differences between the two documents were easily explained by a closer examination of events as time permitted and the coming forward of private citizens to reveal their involvement.
In particular, this resulted in clarification of some points regarding the source and timing of representations on Mr. Al-Mashat's behalf. It also allowed for further amplification of the information on the record.
The matter is still under examination before the standing committee where the government is making every effort to provide a complete and accurate account of the Al-Mashat case.
With regard to the particulars of the memorandum prepared for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, officials of that department will be appearing before the standing committee tomorrow.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to follow up on the question I raised on May 28, 1991, concerning the economy in the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands area.
The area, Mr. Speaker, is undoubtedly in deep economic trouble, its youths are discouraged and demoralized because the unemployment rate in Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands is over 27 per cent a figure matched in Canada only by one area in Newfoundland. If there is no change, the whole province of Quebec will soon have this record. That is why the level of self-confidence of the Gaspe people is at its lowest. These people wonder what the future holds for their children in terms of job opportunities.
We must avoid or prevent an exodus of residents in search of lasting jobs they cannot find in their region. Such an exodus, that we must prevent, explains why I raised the issue of the Gaspe economy last May 28.
I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare when his government would table economic policies that would give some hope and create employment for these people, so that they can work and raise their children in one of the most beautiful regions in Canada.
The minister did not answer my question. Instead, he told me to wait for an announcement he was going to make on his trip to the Gaspe region, on May 30. I listened carefully to what he said, and I must say I am very disappointed with the empty shell the minister unveiled to the people of the Gaspe region. He did not unveil a long-term plan to create long-lasting jobs. Instead, he chose to announce the creation of an Economic Development Agency for that region. The new Agency will receive a $1.7 million subsidy, over the next five years, from the federal minister of Quebec Economic Regional Development. The subsidy will cover the Agency's operational costs. Mr. Speaker, that may look like a considerable amount of money, but over five years, it only means $340,000 a year.
Does the minister really think this Agency will be able to promote the economic and industrial development of this region, as well as attract new investors, with only $340,000? Surely he must be dreaming. But the worst of it is that this subsidy is not new money. That amount had already been allocated by the Conservatives, before the last election, under the 1988 Canada-Quebec Agreement. Is it another election commitment? An old commitment with a new look? We do not know. I remember that, in 1988, before the election, they announced a Canada-Quebec Region Development Agreement worth $800 million.
June 3, 1991

After almost three years, Mr. Speaker, they are still left with $1.7 million to invest in the area where they did nothing since 1988. Are they recycling those promises? Are these new promises? It is definitely not fresh money and the Gaspe people are disappointed by this announcement, by this empty shell. They have not only put forward an empty shell, they have provoked everybody, every circle in Quebec have been incensed by this announcement.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide me with more concrete answers than the ones the Minister gave me, either in this House or by his announcement.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will give some information to my hon. colleague. Gaspesie is a region I am particularly fond of. I was bom there and I still have relatives on my father's and my mother's side living there, more precisely in the area of Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Riviere-Madeleine and other villages in the same county.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Saint-Leonard that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in this House last week that people in Gaspesie and iles-de-la-Madeleine would be quite happy with the announcements that would be made in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member and other members of this House read the documents prepared for the visit of the minister in Eastern Quebec, they know that the Minister did not announce only one measure but a whole series of concrete initiatives to promote development and job creation in that region.
The first concerns the creation of the Societe de developpement economique de la Gaspesie et des Iles-de-
Adjoumment Debate
la-Madeleine. This agency will strive to develop the region, it will be active in economic prospecting, investment and promotion of industry and tourism in Canada and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, the government will support the operating costs of this agency for five years, by giving it $1.7 million in financial assistance. The Canadian government will also give $2 million in contribution to the new agency, so that it can take part, as a limited partner, in the new venture capital corporation called Investisse-ment-Gaspesie-Les Iles-de-la-Madeleine Enr.
The minister also announced, Mr. Speaker, the creation of a new loan insurance program which will apply specifically to the Gaspe and Magdalen Island area. With this program, important initiatives will be realized in the area initiatives which would not otherwise get started for want of adequate financing.
I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that, under this program, our government will be able to offer loan guarantees totalling $6.4 million for the period up to March 31, 1993.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, last week, the hon. minister had the pleasure to announce the extension of the industrial component of the business development program. The objective of this initiative is to make new activities related to the primary and tertiary sectors eligible for federal financial assistance.
If my hon. colleague calls that an empty shell, Mr. Speaker, I personally think that it is very substantial.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
mi
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 4,1991