1992-04-28

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present five petitions signed by Canadians who strenuously object to the government's decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program.
Your petitioners maintain that thanks to this program, many individuals and minorities were able to ask the courts to clarify their constitutional and language rights and to uphold the equality provisions in the Constitution.
This government program directly benefited the democratic system in this country by making it possible for Canadians to defend their constitutional rights before the courts at very reasonable cost.
Your petitioners ask Parliament to consider the possibility of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners throughout British Columbia who, in anticipation of the two-day session next weekend on water diversion that is being held in Vancouver, are opposing the notion of interbasin transfers of water.
They are asking that we as a Parliament and the Canadian government state categorically that Canadian rivers will never be dammed and diverted into the United States of America.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions which I want to present.
The first one is from petitioners who point out that a number of Canadians can now get receipted child care while those parents who stay at home cannot do so. They feel that this is unfair and discriminatory.
They want other practices that are unfair and discriminatory removed and they want a harmonization of various programs to attempt to help the family.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from petitioners who want to ensure that Parliament regulates the use of foul language on radio and television. They believe that what happens now often undermines efforts of the family. They want strict rules of conduct in the use of language on radio and television.


Ron J. Duhamel: My third petition, Mr. Speaker, deplores government cutbacks in post-secondary education and the tax on student loans which, it feels, is a contradiction of the government's policies on competitiveness, and so forth.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
Your petitioners are asking for a review of these policies.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my last petition was received some time ago. It deals with petitioners' requests for our support of Ukrainian independence but more lately they ask for closer economic cultural, political, and diplomatic ties between our two countries.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions which are all the same. I suppose there are more than a hundred people mostly from the Concert, Alberta area and give a number of their objections to nuclear power, environmental concerns, the moratorium on nuclear development, the funding for Atomic Energy of Canada.
They want a level playing field for all forms of energy and they call on Parliament to take such actions as required to fulfil their request for renewable alternative energy sources and cleaner fossil fuel plants and the phase-out of nuclear.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 245 and 246.


Mrs. Gaffney: With respect to the issuance of special government cheques for the 125th birthday celebrations of Canada (a) how many old cheques were shredded (b) what was the cost incurred by printing and storing the cheques prior to being shredded and (c) what was the cost of shredding these cheques?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: No government cheques are being destroyed as a result of the 125th birthday celebrations. The government cheque has been redesigned for the 1990s to ensure its continued integrity and security. During 1992 Government of Canada cheques will carry a Canada 125 logo at no additional cost.


Mr. Gardiner: Has the government shredded any unused cheques since January 1,1992 and, if so, (a) how many (b) what is the cost of this shredding to date and what are future estimated costs (c) why was this shredding undertaken (d) what is the total cost of replacing the cheques (e) can the shredding be attributed to Canada 125 Corporation?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Yes. (a) 27 million cheques related to a faster than forecasted direct deposit program which replaces cheques by electronic payments and will save the government approximately $9 million in direct costs annually, 13 million cheques related to a contingency program to ensure eligible Canadians received their October 1991 GST credit cheque, 6 million cheques related to reduced requirements for the 1991 Revenue Canada tax refund program, and 33 million cheques due to the introduction of the new cheque design on a one-time basis; (b) the total cost is approximately $15,000; (c) refer to (a); (d) the unused cheques will not be replaced; they are redundant; (e) no.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
April 28, 1992
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention what I believe to be irregularities in Bill C-54 which may require your intervention.
The government and the Official Opposition have been notified of my intention to raise a point of order on this bill, as has indeed your office.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture made six amendments to the bill and presented its report to the House on April 6, 1992.
Three of these amendments added new clauses to the bill each of which was ruled to be out of order. In two cases the chair ruled that the amendments sought to change the parent act and in the third he ruled that the clause went beyond the scope of the bill as passed in second reading.
The chair's rulings were overturned by a vote of the committee unanimously in the first two cases, but with dissent in the third.
My specific concern is with the third amendment which extends the application of the bill to farm products regulated under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. When this amendment was proposed in committee, the chair made the following ruling:
I've received advice similar to that which I've gotten on previous motions, that this is indeed out of order. It apparently introduces a new concept and assigns the responsibilities to the Governor in Council that go beyond the scope of the bill and beyond the scope of the clause to which it is amended.
The chair expressed some reservations about his own ruling but I think there can be no question that this amendment clearly goes beyond the scope of the bill that was referred to committee by this House.
Mr. Speaker, your intervention is required in this instance to preserve the careful and historic balance between the powers of the House and of committee and powers between government and opposition.
There are two courses of action available. The first would be to rule the committee's report irreceivable and have the committee submit a new report which is in order. While in many cases this might be the preferable option, I do not think that this course of action is necessary at this time.
Instead, I would respectfully request that, as Beau-chesne recommends in paragraph 715 of the 6th edition, you order that the offending amendments made in
Government Orders
committee be stripped from the bill before we proceed further with it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment because there are a number of points with regard to Bill C-54 where the government's approach seems to be to vote down every opposition amendment that comes forward even when the bill seems to be reducing the powers or placing in jeopardy the powers of established agencies like the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency where an important amendment was proposed in a section in the bill.
At the same time, while they are putting in jeopardy some of those established agencies which are operating now in the country under a proclamation issued by the Governor in Council, they are bringing in amendments which are out of order, according to the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. These things need to be taken into account. The motion before the House standing in my name, the first one on the Order Paper today, is very important, yet the government seems intransigent in that regard.
The three amendments which were put and which were ruled out of order by the chair include a new clause 9 on page 8 of the bill and a new clause 10 on page 8 of the bill. That one deals with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as the member for Mackenzie has indicated.
Another difficulty with the bill is that the government has chosen not to reprint the bill so anybody in the House who did not attend the committee meetings would have great difficulty in determining exactly what is in the bill because the amendments which have been put and accepted, whether they were in order or out of order, are not in the reprinted bill. I think there needs to be some review of the decisions by the Chair, as the member for Mackenzie suggested in his intervention.
I would certainly hope when we get to the substance of the bill the government would consider my proposal with regard to Motion No. 1 standing in my name, and would by unanimous consent agree to having it re-put here at the House. I will put that proposal at a later date.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of comments on Bill C-54, enabling legislation for check-offs for commodity groups across Canada, a bill that was requested by the commodity groups which appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
The hon. member mentioned the inclusion of an amendment dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board. We have a letter from the Canadian Wheat Board indicating it is in favour of Bill C-54 as proposed by the committee and as reported to the House. I would table that letter as evidence of their support for the bill.
We have made all attempts to keep Bill C-54 general so that it does not in any way interfere with the legislation that enables marketing boards and the Canadian Wheat Board to carry out their duties on behalf of producers. Even though we in the committee overruled the chairman on the inclusion of that one particular amendment, we felt it was required for Canadian wheat producers to have check-offs so they may along with other groups across Canada have funds to promote their products. That is the intent of the whole bill. It is enabling legislation. We have tried to keep it general and simple so it will not interfere with other aspects of the marketing agencies in Canada.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a couple of comments. I look forward like some of the speakers before me to your comments on the handling of Bill C-54 as it was handled at the committee. I have not been here as long as many members in the House. It was my understanding when a bill came to the committee it was to be dealt with as that bill and we could not go back to the parent piece of legislation and change that at committee. There were some amendments put by the government at committee stage which did do that and I look forward to your comments.
As a colleague has said, the bill has not been printed. I personally do not think that is fair. Maybe that is not a very good choice of words but there are many people who really were not able to be at committee and followed as closely as they could. They look forward to seeing how the bill is printed when it comes back to the House at report stage. We just do not have that today. I repeat again that I look forward to how that should be dealt with as far as Bill C-54 is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Mackenzie, commented upon by the hon. member for Algoma, and I heard a colleague, the hon. member for Elgin, and of course the hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings. I think the first thing I should make clear to the House is that whatever has been done was done by the committee, not by the government. I think it is important to keep that in mind.
I have had notice of this, and I am very grateful to hon. members for ensuring that I have been given some indication of what the concerns are. I will try very hard to return to the House after three o'clock with a ruling.
I want to say to all of the members who have spoken in the last few minutes that I thank each one of them for their intervention and contribution.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that you will need some time to consider the arguments and make your ruling, I think you would find that we are prepared to move to Bill C-33 at this time to allow you the time to make your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary who also has been very helpful in this matter.


COASTING TRADE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, we only received notice at about 5.15 p.m. yesterday afternoon that Bill C-33 was going to be brought forward. As a result of that and discussions between opposition parties and the government, we were not in a position to have tabled our amendments in the normal manner.
I would seek consent of the House, on behalf of all sides, to allow us to put those motions before you today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?
April 28, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


Mr. Manley:: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, in addition to several amendments that my colleague from the NDP has brought into the House and shown us today, there is an additional amendment, which I understood had been properly filed yesterday. It did not appear in the Order Paper and I understand that likewise there is unanimous consent for the presentation of that motion at report stage as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House is being asked to consider two motions, one presented by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and one by the hon. member for Ottawa South.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So ordered.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is one motion on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa South, will not be selected because it was already presented, debated and defeated in committee.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I understand I cannot debate the ruling. However, in the spirit in which we are dealing with a number of motions today, I think this presents a very important issue which could well use some airing in the House of Commons and I would seek unanimous consent for the consideration of the motion as it appears on the Order Paper.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been a number of discussions back and forth among the three parties and I just want to ask the hon. member if he can assure me that part of those discussions was dealing with the very subject he is raising right now, in other
Government Orders
words, re-debate of an issue that was dealt with in committee.


John Paul Manley: No, by no means. In fact it only came to my attention this morning that this motion would be found out of order.
I must say I was surprised at the ruling because although the issue is the same, the period of time which we are seeking by this motion to impose as a waiting period in respect of the issuance of licences under the act is considerably reduced, and although it may be said that the substance is the same, that is like saying the substance of $10 is the same as the substance of $1 million. It makes quite a quantitative difference.
There is quite a large discrepancy between the time periods that were discussed in committee and those that are proposed in this motion.
The list of speakers who want to debate this is not long and I am suggesting to the government that it is a worth-while issue to be aired in the House and I am asking for their consent to do so. It was not the subject of previous discussion, however.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, although I would concur with what my colleague, the member for Ottawa South has just said with regard to the specifics of his motion, I can tell the House that two of the motions that I have been discussing with the department and members of this House are, in fact, motions similar to those dealt with in committee.
In the spirit of the working relationship that we have developed over this particular bill, and basically it is a desire to make a good bill that much better, I would ask the government to give consideration to letting the member for Ottawa South move his motion. I do not intend to prolong debate on any of the motions that I see and I suspect that we will not in any way interfere with the timetable of the day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to prolong this point of order. We are essentially negotiating on the floor now because of some of the confusion that happened earlier.
I want to indicate that there seems to be some common sense in the arguments that have been put forward. It is my understanding, and I just want to be clear on this, that what we would do is after the completion and the co-operation over report stage that we would then proceed to third reading. I would just ask that that be confirmed. If it is confirmed then I am more than happy to give the consent to proceed with thismo-

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
tion even though it has been found out of order, but to group it with the others for discussion and for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to consider the motions to be presented by the two opposition members and once we have disposed of report stage to proceed with third reading of the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MEASURE TO ENACT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order, the House will now proceed to the consideration of all motions that have been grouped for debate.


John Paul Manley: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after line 40,
at page 6, the following:
"5.1(1) Where any person believes that the person may have an interest in the outcome of any action that may be taken by the Minister of National Revenue under section 4 or 5, the person may, in writing, request the Agency to record the person's name and address in the register.
(2)	A request referred to in subsection (1) shall set out the nature of any interest referred to in that subseciion.
(3)	Where the Agency receives a request referred to in subsection
(1)	and is satisfied that the person making the request may have an interest referred to in that subsection and that interest is not frivolous or vexatious, the Agency shall record that person's name and address in the register.
(4)	The Agency shall establish a central register for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5)	Where a person notifies the Agency of any change in the person's name or address as recorded in the register, the Agency shall record the new name or address therein.
(6)	For the purposes of this section and section 5.2,
"person" includes any body or corporation;
"register" means the register established pursuant to subsection
(4).
5.2 (1) Where the Minister of National Revenue receives an application under section 4 or 5, the Minister shall forthwith provide the Agency with a copy thereof.
(2)	Within three days after receiving any application referred to in subsection (1), the Agency shall, by letter, inform each interested person
(a)	that an application for a licence has been received;
(b)	of the matter to be considered in respect of the application; and
(c)	that the person has ten days from the day the letter is dated to make written representations with respect to any matter to be considered in respect of the application.
(3)	Where a letter referred to in subsection (2) is sent to more than one interested person, each letter shall be dated on the same day and posted, not later than the following day.
(4)	The Minister may issue a licence under section 4 or 5 only after the expiration of the ten-day period referred to in paragraph 2(c).
(5)	For purposes of this section, "interested person" means any person whose name and address is recorded in the register established pursuant to subsection 5.1(4).".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Angus, seconded by Mr. Althouse, moved that Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after line 29 on page 5 the following. Shall I dispense?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, given that these amendments were not processed in the normal way I think it is the responsibility of this House that they be read into the record so that there would be a permanent record thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Angus moves the following motions:
That Bill C-33 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 28 on page 5, the following:
"(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to any foreign ship registered in the United States of America used for the purpose of transporting goods of Canadian origin to a port in the State of Alaska for transhipment to the Yukon Territory."
That Bill C-33 be amended in Clause 4 by
(a)	striking out line 9 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"party are valid and in force;"
(b)	striking out line 13 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"foreign ship; and (f) the owners of the ship have provided sufficient guarantees that all laws of Canada including laws respecting labour standards and revenue shall be obeyed".
That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 42 to 46 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"gers by ship, the agency has determined that an identical or similar adequate marine service is not available from any person operating one or more Canadian ships,"

April 28, 1992

That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 5 by striking out lines 32 to 35 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"that an identical or similar adequate marine service is not available from any person operating one or more Canadian ships; and"
That Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after line 14 at page 16 the following new clause:
"21.1 Where any Canadian ship engaging in the coasting trade is required to undergo refits or repairs other than emergency repairs, the master of the ship shall ensure that such refits or repairs are carried out in shipyards located within Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion the hon. member for Ottawa South has moved is identical to the one of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan. It reads:

That Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after the heading "Consequential Amendment" on page 16 the following:
"Customs Act"
22. Paragraph 164(l)(h) of the Customs Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

(h) prescribing how the coasting trade shall be regulated in any case or class of cases and exempting any case or class of cases, subject to conditions that the Governor in Council sees fit to impose, from any of the requirements of this Act that the Governor in Council deems it inexpedient to enforce with respect to vessels engaged in such trade;


Iain Francis Angus: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, for further clarification. When you commenced reading the amendments you used the term grouping. I did not rise at that point but I want to make sure that in so doing you were not suggesting that we would be allowed only one speech in total for all the amendments but each of the amendments will be dealt with separately. Again I make a commitment that we will not unduly use the time of the House, but I think we need to have them dealt with separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If that is what hon. members want, the Chair has no objection to being the
Government Orders
servant of the House in this case as for the other motions.
We now begin debate on Motion No. 1 moved by the hon. member for Ottawa South.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to recognize the co-operation of all government members and NDP members who agreed to debate Motion No. 1, which as has already been said is exactly the same one that was presented to the Committee, except for a change that I believe was very important, namely reducing the period prescribed in that motion from 30 days to 14 days.

The idea behind much of what is in Bill C-33 is to inform at least and to preserve the Canadian coastal shipping trade to Canadian vessels with Canadian crews. That is the scheme of the act.
However, this bill also provides that this can be circumvented by the granting of licences to foreign vessels, in many cases with foreign crews, to perform duties in Canadian waters. These licences which are provided for under sections 4 and 5 of the bill are to be granted in situations where a suitable Canadian vessel is not available.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to create a situation in which it is clear that suitable Canadian vessels can make themselves available to ply the Canadian coastal trade where reasonable notice is given to them of the availability of work to perform.
The amendment seeks to create a registry in which Canadian ship owners can register their vessels and in which Canadian ship owners and others can become registered so as to receive notice of applications for licences to engage in a coastal trade.
In addition, and I am looking here at section 5.2 of Motion No. 1, the scheme we have devised and are proposing in this motion is simply that three days after receiving an application to obtain a licence for a foreign vessel to engage in the coastal trade the National Transportation Agency informs concerned parties who are registered under the registry. Only after a further 10-day period can the minister issue the licence to the foreign vessel. In total from the time the application is

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
made until the time the licence is granted could be as little as 14 days or two weeks.
Our submission is that where there is absolutely no waiting period required in order to obtain a licence to engage in the coastal trade, the result inevitably can be the elimination of a Canadian coastal shipping operation altogether.
What has happened in many cases-and some of these cases were presented to us in committee-is that we have such a tight, cosy network engaged in the granting of these licences that shippers can arrange their affairs, if they wish to do business with a foreign ship, to ensure that their request is presented in such a way or goes in at such a time that no Canadian vessel can be obtained. Even though an appropriate Canadian vessel does exist, it may be otherwise engaged or it may be in other waters.
A very short waiting period of 14 days such as is suggested in this amendment creates what might be called an economic vacuum into which Canadian vessels can become available, already being suitable, in order to engage in this trade with no waiting period whatsoever. Ultimately what can happen is the collapse of that period and the request for the licence and the issuance of the licence become so immediate that there is indeed no reason to have Canadian vessels in order to ply the trade. There is no delay. There is no disadvantage whatsoever to shippers if they can request and immediately receive a licence.
All we are asking the government to do with this amendment is to put a very small obstacle in the way of obtaining these licences. In what other business would we be so open to foreign concerns coming in and providing service within Canada, with non-Canadians, other than this one? We are not talking here about international trade. We are talking about coastal shipping between Canadian ports. We are also not endeavouring to talk in any way about cruises or about passengers. We are talking about the transport of goods between points on the Canadian coastline. We are merely suggesting that 14 days is not too long to wait to ensure that a Canadian vessel with a Canadian crew is not available to carry out that trade.
In short, it seems to us to be a very reasonable and very minor reform to an act which as I say is intended by its scheme, by its objects, to preserve to Canadian vessels the Canadian coastal trade and yet creates within itself a
very large loophole through which even the largest foreign vessel can easily cruise.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief intervention. I want to say that I support the principle of the member's amendment.
Certainly during committee consideration we heard a number of concerns raised about questionable tactics by companies that also own ships of foreign registry. They would decide at the last minute that they had 100,000 tonnes of bunker oil ready to move and, lo and behold, they did not have time to go and find another ship so they brought in one of their ships from offshore. It met the qualifications and they got away without having any duties to pay.
I think the member's amendment makes sense. I like the concept of a registry, of requiring some initiative on behalf of Canadian carriers to record their names and the types of ships available, perhaps even as far as when those ships may be available because obviously they know their season, when the regular workload will occur, within reason. These days grain ships are never sure if they are going to work at all on the Great Lakes and out through the east coast. Certainly in other industries, particularly with specialized cargoes such as tankers, they have a good indication.
I have one concern about the wording of the amendment. The time period I agree with, the 10 days plus the 3, but using the mails perhaps is not the safest way these days. It does not specify priority post or any of the quicker ones. Obviously that would be an option for the agency or for the minister. Probably what would make more sense is a new marine bulletin board which is in existence. It is an on line data base, kind of like the electronic mail we have on the Hill in our constituency offices. It is available to all of the marine sector, at least on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. That would be an ideal place for this information to be recorded and an opportunity for almost instantaneous response by the industry to say: "Hey, I have a ship. I can position that ship at dock* three days from now. I want a chance at that work. I do not want it being given out to a company that probably was Canadian, maybe Canadian-owned, but for reasons of dodging the Minister of National Revenue has been reflagged to the Bahamas or wherever in order to avoid Canadian taxation, in order to avoid Canadian labour laws, certainly wage standard laws because they bring in a crew at $100 a month or less to operate their ship and undercut Canadian jobs, Canadian workers and Canadian taxpayers".
April 28, 1992

I would suggest that it is in the best interest of Canada to accept this amendment. We can always fine-tune it in terms of the method of informing the ship owners, but I think the principle is worth supporting and I hope the government will give due consideration to that.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the hon. member for Ottawa South for his determination in this matter. As he mentioned, this matter was discussed at length in committee and we have exchanged considerable information over it. I would say however that on the basis of that information I do not believe the current system is being abused. The facts indicate that the number of waivers has remained relatively stable over the past four years. Foreign vessels carried less than 1 per cent of the total tonnage carried in the coasting trade.
The waiver system is used on those rare occasions when a suitable vessel cannot be found as a result of canvassing in the domestic trade. In most of the cases the applicant has contacted existing Canadian operators prior to the filing of the application. The length of time required to process the application will depend on the specific circumstances of each application.
Bill C-33 provides the Governor in Council with regulation making power for prescribing the criteria to be applied by the agency for the making and the determination of applications for licence. If abuses were to be identified, that regulation making power could be used to correct the situation.
Bill C-33 also has provisions that allow regulations to limit the number of vessels granted coasting licences if it becomes necessary due to abuse or for any other reasons. I think for those reasons we will find this amendment unnecessary.


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 Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Iain Francis Angus: That Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after line 28
on page 5 the following:
"(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to any foreign ship registered in the United States of America used for the purpose of transporting goods of Canadian origin to a port in the state of Alaska for transhipment to the Yukon Territory".
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the House for its consent earlier to allow us to proceed with these motions. I thank in particular the government for its co-operation in dealing with all of the motions in terms of trying to make a good bill that much better. I also thank my colleague, the member for Ottawa South.
This particular amendment philosophically gives me some difficulty, although I am fully supportive of my actions obviously. We have a situation in Yukon where it is for all intents and purposes a land-locked territory and must rely on goods being moved through Alaska in order to provide them in Yukon.
What happens is that we have a monopoly situation. A company called White Pass is owned by Federal Industries. It is a Canadian owned company. It provides the marine service to Skagway, Alaska, operates the port in Skagway, Alaska, operates and controls and I gather owns the pipeline from Skagway to Whitehorse, the trucking company from Skagway to Whitehorse and the railway from Skagway to Whitehorse. It has a monopoly situation.
Normally in those kinds of situations within Canada I would argue for some form of regulation. The government of Yukon feels and rightfully so that it is being charged what is termed a monopoly rent by White Pass for any of the goods that move through its system. There is no competition. It is the sole provider of that service. Although trucking up the Alaska Highway provides another form of service and competition, it is not deemed to be adequate for the purposes of Yukon.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
Turning to bulk commodities, particularly fuel, Yukon is almost totally dependent upon fuel oil for its energy.
Yukon has very little domestic hydro electricity and must rely on diesel engines and other kinds of carbon generated engines to provide its electricity. A study done shows about 8 c. a litre is charged over and above what normally should be charged because of the monopoly situation. Yukon is looking for some form of redress.
The Yukon government and I are quite supportive of a Canadian company being the exclusive provider of service. What we are not supportive of is that company using that position to extract more than its fair share of the cost of moving those commodities.
It is also a question of trade-offs in jobs. Yes, the marine jobs are there, the port jobs are there, the railway jobs are there, albeit on a very limited and reduced basis. The White Pass service operates twice a month-not exactly what you would call on time delivery.
Because of its high prices and schedule, firms in the Yukon have turned to purchasing their goods in the United States instead of Canada. Crusher balls for use in the mine at Faro are not purchased from Kamloops where they could be if it were economical to transport them, but they are purchased from down in the southern United States; in Missouri, I believe.
Fuel oil which could be purchased in Vancouver, and I assume at any other point along the Pacific coast, is purchased in Seattle. Because of the high marine costs, the rail costs, the handling costs and trucking costs brought about by the White Pass monopoly, Canadian jobs elsewhere than in Yukon are being lost. They are certainly being lost in Kamloops. They are certainly being lost wherever bulk fuel can be transported or loaded from shore to ship in Canada, as well as the production jobs. We lose there.
The other side of the equation is that the people of Yukon are paying higher prices than they need to in order to sustain themselves. By forcing in effect the diversion of traffic from marine mode, which is the most efficient and energy effective and environmentally friendly mode of travel, to trucking up the Alaska
Highway from Edmonton, we are not only doing additional pollution damage but we are damaging that highway which is about 50 years old this year. It is in need of rebuilding and it is being beaten to death by the truck transport of providing the daily goods to the people of the Yukon. All around there are problems.
I said before, my preferred option is regulation, government intervention. When I looked at it in a serious way I realized that even if Canada were to say to White Pass it can only charge so much per tonne on the marine section and it can only charge so much per tonne or per litre or whatever for the pipeline, for the trucking, for the railway, all White Pass has to do is up the ante on that short bit of space in Alaska and Skagway and between there and the Alaskan-Yukon border and it would be no different off and nobody would be any different.
I recognize this is one of those unique occasions in which the only way to compress the charges is at the very least through the intimidation of regulation or the intimidation of competition brought about by regulation.
I would prefer to see White Pass provide the service at a greater frequency at a lower cost, but if the only way we can put pressure on White Pass to treat the people of Yukon fairly and not take advantage of the unique monopoly situation is providing competition, then so be it. I am a realist. I have to recognize there are a number of tools available and you pick the most appropriate tool given the circumstance. Quite frankly, I regret to say, the only tool available as I see it is an amendment to this bill to give that specific exemption to the Yukon.
What is interesting is that 10 to 12 years ago, the United States government amended its sacred trust called the Jones Act, which is the most protectionistic marine law in the world. It amended it to allow for the transshipment of goods through British Columbia to Alaska.
All Yukon is asking is the quid pro quo. Alaska received reasonable treatment from its government to recognize the realities of transportation in that part of the world. I am suggesting that the Government of Canada should give the same kind of recognition to the people of Yukon in order to give them that protection as well.
April 28, 1992

I know, in the minute or two left as we close, that the Parliamentaiy Secretary to the Minister of Transport is just salivating at the thought of the NDPer calling for competition.


An hon. member:: More.


Iain Francis Angus: I want to say in closing that we have to recognize that each situation is unique. We cannot always look at things with blinders on. I am prepared to be open to recognize that in some cases my philosophy does not apply. In other cases, it works really well, and I would ask the government to consider it in the same light and look at things with its eyes open and recognize that perhaps in this particular instance the Yukon needs a realistic break.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am rising with some joy to respond to a motion from the NDP on behalf of the leader, the member for Yukon.
The leader of the NDP wants to support a motion that would support the free market system and competition in Yukon ports by encouraging American ships to come into Yukon. It is with some delight that I stand to respond to that motion and the request of the NDP to allow that kind of free market system in Yukon through the use of bringing in American ships.
We are not, on this side, convinced that we need to have American ships going to Yukon to provide the service that the hon. member requests. I do sympathize with the fact that there have been problems in the past getting appropriate waivers as desired by the Yukon government.
The waiver system, as it is currently administered, presents certain difficulties in cases in which the suitability of Canadian ships offered cannot be disputed. While the current interpretation of suitability includes economic, technical and commercial aspects, it is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria with flexibility.
When dealing with the provision, previous applications filed by Alaska Marine Line, both the National Transportation Authority and its predecessor, the CTC, received Canadian operators. The variety of vessels offered made
Government Orders
it clear that there are suitable Canadian ships available for service from Vancouver to Alaska.
If a licence were granted to AML to carry Canadian cargo in competition with White Pass under the current rules, there is a strong possibility that White Pass would terminate its service and the users of that service would be faced with a monopoly situation with a sole American operator.
It is because of this and similar situations which have occurred in the past that the government included a provision in Bill C-33 in order to avoid such problems in the future. Bill C-33 reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the
criteria to be applied by the Agency for the making of the
determinations referred to in subsection (1).
In applying the power granted in this subsection, the Governor in Council will be entitled to draft specific regulations in order to deal with problems faced by isolated communities or specific needs of users of transportation in any sector requiring special treatment.
Thus, I am happy to advise my hon. colleague opposite that Bill C-33 provides for the necessary regulation making power in order to deal with the problem raised by YTG.
Consequently there is no need for an amendment of the bill.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot resist the irony of the situation in which we have the NDP proposing an amendment that would open competition and the government refusing to support the amendment.
I suppose it is possibly unprecedented in the House that we would be in this situation.
What seems to be the essence of the problem is the lack of alternative shipping suppliers in the very small market of the Yukon and the concern my colleague from the NDP for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has expressed that in the absence of competition, the monopolistic tendencies are going to result in a loss of use of a service or perhaps a loss of choice to shippers in that region. The government seems to be responding that the discretionary power given under the regulation making authority is

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
going to be sufficient to deal with this issue. This really points out in a microcosm the essence of the problems which this bill tries to deal with.
On the one hand, while we are hoping to encourage a strong and vital Canadian coastal shipping trade, we likewise recognize the need to ensure that services are available at a reasonable price and with the competitive choice that in the long run provides the most economic and most worthwhile service.
Under the circumstances, the regulation making power is the one to look to because of the fact that it provides the flexibility to deal with the situation in an involving fashion rather than risking the possibility that through competition, which could be on an uneven playing field, given the relative economic strength of the players, we could be in peril of losing the Canadian shipper.
Although I am sympathetic with the motion, for those reasons I am not inclined to support it. However, I do find it interesting that the government, in this case, is willing to argue that its ability to regulate is sufficient to ensure the protection of the Canadian shipping industry. In other cases, in committee and even with the motion we debated earlier, it was resisting regulatory powers.
For example, regarding the licence granting power contained in sections 4 and 5 of the act, it was moved and debated at committee that the power itself should be discretionary. In other words, give the minister the right to decide whether it is good to grant a licence. In those cases, the government refused to give the minister that discretion. In this case, it is relying on the discretion to answer the concerns raised by the NDP member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. I find it more than slightly ironic and somewhat discouraging.


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 first motion of Mr. Angus. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


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


Iain Francis Angus: That Bill C-33 be amended at clause 4 by
a)	striking out line 9 at page 6 and substituting the following
therefor:
"party are valid and in force;"
b)	by striking out line 13 at page 6 and substituting the following
therefor:
"foreign ship; and (f) the owners of the ship have provided sufficient guarantees that all laws of Canada including laws respecting labour standards and revenue shall be obeyed".
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the committee hearings on Bill C-33 and its previous bill, Bill C-52 which died just before the last election, we heard from labour in particular a legitimate concern about foreign vessels coming in and taking our jobs and cutting our competitive ability as a nation to have an effective marine industry.
They expressed concern about a ship that has met the criteria and the minister has granted them an exemption to come in and provide service that "is not being provided, is not available by an existing Canadian ship". But if they are operating at $100 per month crew levels, if they are not following our same kind of health and safety standards, our very strong health and safety standards in the marine sector, then they are undercutting our ability. That in itself puts pressure on our marine companies, which in turn will put pressure on the government to dilute our laws.
We have certainly had the call from the maritime sector for the second registry which would allow Canadian flagships to operate outside of our waters and not pay any income taxes or the crews would not pay any income taxes in order to deal with the reality of the international maritime industry.
What they would like is a built-in protection that is written in law, that is there and stands out in the Coastal Trading Act, not in Revenue Canada's acts or the Income Tax Act, not in the Immigration Act. They want something in black and white in the piece of legislation that deals with coastal trading that says that the owners of the ship have provided sufficient guarantees that all laws of Canada, including laws respecting labour standards and revenue shall be obeyed.
April 28, 1992

In committee we were told that they have to do that. Revenue Canada says they have to do that. Labour Canada says they have to do that. Immigration Canada says they have to do that. However those are covered in other pieces of legislation.
They may very well be, but what the industry wants is something in what would become their rule book, the Coastal Trading Act, that they could point to as opposed to the bureaucrats playing games and trading off one department to another and maybe the shipping industry trading off one department to another.
They want it right there in that one act to say: "Hey, you have to abide by our labour standards. You have to abide by our tax laws. If you do not, you do not come in. You do not take jobs in Canada. You do not provide services to Canadian ports or carry Canadian goods. Regardless of the other circumstances, you just do not do it."
This kind of protection will reduce the ability of a foreign flag carrier to undermine the financial stability, what little there is left, of our maritime industry. They are undercutting, whether it is Patterson and Sons, CSL, Algoma Central Marine or any of our other shipping companies. The competition from offshore makes it more difficult every day for them to survive.
The downward pressures to reduce costs are in large part because of the cheap wages, the low health and safety standards on those offshore vessels, in spite of international maritime law. They are there and they are a reality and we have to reduce that pressure if we want to have anything left of our marine industry because it is going down very quickly.
We have lost 40 or 50 ships in the last 10 years from the Great Lakes fleet alone. We do not have an international fleet any more. We used to have the biggest merchant navy in the world coming out of World War II, but that is gone. Let us put this in so we can keep what we have.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the intent of the hon. member's proposal but again I do not think it is needed.
This amendment would not add anything to the power already provided in the existing labour laws under the current system as the hon. member has mentioned. The Immigration Act and the regulations pursuant thereto
Government Orders
govern the employment of ships crew within Canadian waters. Any provisions added to Bill C-33 to govern the employment of ships crew would be redundant.
This matter again came up in committee. On inquiry the committee was advised that as soon as Revenue Canada receives the advice from the agency that no suitable Canadian ship is available an authority is issued to the applicant that spells out the conditions prior to the issuance of a licence, including the obligation to meet with the requirements with respect to labour and immigration. Revenue Canada sends copies of that authority to the Canadian Coast Guard, the agency and to the Department of Immigration.
As I say I think these matters are already covered in both the Immigration Act and regulations pursuant thereto and the amendment is redundant.


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 second motion of Mr. Angus. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


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


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would suggest that Motions Nos. 3 and 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan be grouped for debate and voted on together since the wording and spirit of the two motions are similar.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Iain Francis Angus: That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 42 to
46 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
"gers by ship, the agency has determined that an identical or similar adequate marine service is not available from any person operating one or more Canadian ships;"


Iain Francis Angus: That Bill C-33 be amended in clause 5 by striking out lines 32 to 35
at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"That an identical or similar adequate marine service is not available from any person operating one or more Canadian ships; and"
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me try a third time to see if I am any luckier on this one. I have a funny feeling I might be.
Basically what this amendment does is delete the words "regularly scheduled" from both clause 4 and clause 5. We certainly had a number of witnesses who were concerned about that part of the legislation because it was too limiting. When we say "regularly scheduled" we mean something that has a normal timetable, that serves port a on Monday and port b on Thesday, et cetera. We wanted to ensure, since things like the charters could be caught up in this, that we deal with the question of identical or similar adequate marine services not being available.
It helps to refine the language of the bill in a much better way.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the third time lucky. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan will be pleased to know that we are prepared to accept this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I need some indication from the members.

Do you agree that I should put the question on Motions Nos. 3 and 4 and that there should be only one vote?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the third and fourth motions of Mr. Angus. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt these motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.
Iain Francis Angus: That Bill C-33 be amended by adding immediately after line 14 at
page 16 the following new clause:
"21.1 Where any Canadian ship engaging in the coasting trade is required to undergo refits or repairs other than emergency repairs, the master of the ship shall ensure that such refits or repairs are carried out in shipyards located within Canada".
He said: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can make it two and two. I like the direction we are heading.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it a requirement that when any Canadian ship which engages in the coasting trade is forced to do repairs or refits other than that of an emergency nature it be mandated to do them at a Canadian shipyard.
This House and Canadians know full well the desperate situation our shipyards are in. The government policy has been that of downsizing the industry. It has certainly facilitated a number of yard closures. I can think of the Collingwood shipyard closure, which incidentally built the last commercial vessel in this country. It was built for Patterson and Sons and came off the dry dock in 1985 I believe. That was the last time Canada built a private commercial vessel.
We have built some smaller ones since then in terms of trawlers and small fishing boats. We do some pleasure craft, but a Great Lakes style grain and iron ore boat is a thing of the past in terms of being constructed in Canada. Some 92 per cent of all contracts to the remaining shipyards come from the government sector, primarily defence but also transport and fisheries and oceans.
We need to do something to redirect business back to our yards while we still have a few. In Ontario we are down to two yards: Port Weller and Portship in Thunder Bay. We know from the testimony before the committee that there is not enough work on the Great Lakes as it is to sustain those two yards. One of them is bound to close and regretfully it is more than likely going to be the one in Thunder Bay because it has already lost its construction capacity. It is down to a repair facility whereas the Port Weller yard still has construction capabilities. In fact it has one small government contract that will kick in about a year from now.
We are in desperate straits in the shipbuilding industry. At the very least we should say to companies that earn their bread and butter in the coastal trade in Canada, that are owned by Canadians, crewed by Canadians and operate in Canadian waters, that they should give their repair business to Canadian yards, not take
April 28, 1992

them across to Europe, down to Brazil or over to Japan or Korea. The repairs and refits should be done here at home because we all win by eliminating outshopping in ship repairs.
We would have loved to have put in an amendment that said: "And thou shall build any new ships in Canada". We would have loved to put in an amendment that said that the Government of Canada should match any subsidies of any other shipbuilding countries until such time as they agree to reduce them instead of what this government did-it was actually started before it came into power-unilaterally to reduce subsidies to shipbuilding. We unilaterally did it assuming that because we were so good and righteous the world would follow suit.
It has not. It is still subsidizing its ships. It is still subsidizing its shipyards because Canadian companies can go down to get their ships built with a subsidy from another country. They would be crazy not to especially when they are fighting for pennies in terms of the cost of carrying commodities.
We have to do something-and this is a very small step-because as I said before there are not many ships left to repair or to refit. We are down to about 60 in the Great Lakes fleet and that number is continually declining. At least one ship will be cup up every year for the next 10 to 15 years. By the year 2000 we will probably have a fleet which is one-third to one-quarter of what we started with in the mid-1980s. That is a big loss. When we think about it in the broader sector-and my colleague who seconded my motion will know this better than I-at some point we will not be able to move our grains off the prairies because the west coast will be choked. It will handle the maximum anybody ever dreamed of. But how do we get the rest out? Will we end up railing it right to Quebec City or to Baie Comeau or Port Cartier so that the salties can pick it up? That is what we might have to do because we will not have the capacity on the Great Lakes to carry it.
This also means that we will not have the capacity to carry iron ore to feed the steel mills. We will not have the capacity to carry coal to feed those same steel mills. We just will not have the capacity any more.
Government Orders
I say to the government: "Please take this small step and give us some hope for our shipyards".


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House can sympathize with the member's intent here. None of us likes to see the closing of shipyards in the country, particularly members like the hon. member who represent a riding where this business is undertaken.
However this bill deals with coastal trading. Bill C-33 is not intended to revise the government's current shipbuilding policy nor to replace existing Revenue Canada regulations.
Bill C-33 provides increased opportunities for Canadian shipyards by extending the coastal trade definition to include the Continental Shelf and all commercial marine related activities.
By encouraging the cruise industry that would not otherwise exist, Bill C-33 provides opportunities for maintenance and repair of more foreign ships.
There is already a policy in place that aims at encouraging Canadian ships to be repaired in Canada. All repairs that are not of an emergency nature to permit the vessel to return safely to Canada are subject to a 25 per cent customs duty before the ship can revert to coastal trading.
Again, this is a bill to deal with coastal trading. It is not intended to revise the government's current shipbuilding policies so we cannot support this amendment.


John Paul Manley: It gives me some encouragement, Mr. Speaker, to hear from the parliamentary secretary that the government has a shipbuilding policy. This is something we have been trying to determine over the course of the hearings on this bill and it has been rather difficult to find.
We are supporting this amendment, but I want to be able to put in context what our concern is. It is not strictly the survival of this or that particular shipyard. Indeed the problem in our shipbuilding industry is one of competitiveness. If we do not do something to address that with measures to require Canadian ships to be serviced at our Canadian shipyards, it will in fact over the long term hurt our shippers, many of whom are shipping into an export market. We are conscious of the problem.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
However, what is happening internationally in the shipbuilding sector should be looked at by the government from the point of view of what can Canada take to the table in the OECD, as well as in other international fora, to try to persuade other countries to stop asking their taxpayers to subsidize other countries' ship owners by subsidizing their shipyards.
Canadian shipyards on the lakes and elsewhere have stated again and again that they feel with their experience and with their skilled workers they could attract capital investment to compete with shipyards elsewhere if only other nations would stop subsidizing their shipyards.
Our government ought to be strongly pushing for the end of these subsidies in other countries. If we go to the table with nothing ourselves, what leverage, what bargaining position do we have?
Once again we will be the boy scouts of the international community, stripping ourselves bare and then going to the bargaining table and asking other countries to do the same. This does not strike me as the way to persuade others to understand what is in everybody's best interests, which is to stop asking taxpayers to subsidize industries to serve other countries' foreign fleets.


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 fifth motion of Mr. Angus. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


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


John Paul Manley: That Bill C-33 be amended by adding, immediately after the
heading "Consequential Amendment" on page 16, the following:
"Customs Act
22. Paragraph 164(l)(h) of the Customs Act is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
(h) Prescribing how the coasting trade shall be regulated in any case or class of cases and exempting any case or class of cases, subject to condition that the Governor in Council sees fit to impose, from any of the requirements of this act that the Governor in Council deems it inexpedient to enforce with respect to vessels engaged in such trade;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward this amendment with the indulgence and previous unanimous consent of the House, I want to say it was to us important that this amendment be dealt with in the House in the proper way.
This amendment was brought forward by the government in the committee. Upon questioning, it was ruled out of order by the clerk and by the chairman of the committee. It is my understanding, as it was then, had the bill been adopted, including this amendment, without the unanimous consent of the House at this stage, it may have been found that the bill, as reported, was out of order. Therefore it became essential that this amendment be dealt with at report stage with the indulgence of the House and with unanimous consent.
It does involve the amendment of the Customs Act which was not otherwise amended by Bill C-33 and therefore was at the committee stage found to be out of order. It is our pleasure to move and support the amendment with the indulgence of the Chair and with the unanimous consent of the House.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my support to this motion. As you indicated at the outset I had also submitted an identical one which quite frankly was the one the government submitted in committee.
I think it is clear we all have an interest in again improving the bill. It was missed in the drafting and we picked it up during our discussions at committee. Once again it shows how important committee deliberation is in assisting the government in drafting legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?
April 28, 1992


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present for third reading Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade. This bill is intended to bring Canadian coasting trade legislation up to date.
I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport for their excellent contribution in bringing the bill up to par with the needs of the Canadian shipping industry, and more specifically, in clarifying the definition of coasting trade.
We are now confident that the legislation meets the requirements of the deregulated operational environment as sought by Canadian ship operators and shippers.
The purpose of this bill is to reserve to Canadian ships what is commonly called the coasting trade in waters over which Canada has full jurisdiction. That reservation applies to all commercial marine activities within the 12-mile territorial sea and the internal waters of Canada.
With respect to the Canadian continental shelf, that is beyond the territorial sea, all commercial marine activities related to the exploration and exploitation of nonliving natural resources are reserved to Canadian ships.
Government Orders
At the present time, coasting trade activities in Canada are governed by part X of the Canadian Shipping Act. The current legislation defines coasting trade as the carriage by water or by land and water of goods or passengers between two places in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port. That carriage is reserved to British ships which includes all Canadian and Commonwealth ships.
Time is pressing for modernization of the legislation. For one thing, the concept of a British ship has changed since the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was terminated in 1979.
Many important events have occurred during the past two decades to necessitate that Canada adjust its coasting legislation in order to meet new challenges and changes in technology. Suffice to mention, for example, the Law of the Sea adopted by an international convention, and the Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act. These events have impacted on the Canadian coasting provisions and made it necessary for a new coasting trade act to be adopted.
The current provisions were established in 1934 and were amended in 1966, 1983 and again in 1987.
An important part of both the present and proposed legislation is the system that provides for the Minister of National Revenue to issue a licence to a foreign ship to engage in the coasting trade of Canada if no suitable Canadian ship is available.
Bill C-33 provides for the use of foreign registered and non-duty paid vessels in cases where there is no suitable Canadian ship available to carry out an activity within the waters under Canadian jurisdiction.
I should like to point out that Bill C-33, in its present format, contains provisions that are required by the shipping industry and by the new rules of business today.
The main points of the bill could be summarized as follows. Concerns were raised earlier regarding the treatment of cruise ships. That concern has now been resolved by defining coasting trade in such a way that a cruise from Vancouver to Alaska and back to Vancouver would not be included in the definition. The current definition is supported by the cruise industry. However, it is important to note that a cruise ship must return to

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
the port of departure and make a call at a foreign port in order to be excluded from the coasting trade.
This provision does not apply to the Great Lakes, thereby protecting the important tour boat industry that operates day cruises in the Thousand Islands region and on the Great Lakes.
As with the current legislation, we must appreciate that there is not always a suitable Canadian ship available or capable of carrying out all the required activities. Thus, Bill C-33 retains the possibility to issue a coasting licence to foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in all waters under Canadian jurisdiction.
It goes further by establishing a pecking order if there are no suitable Canadian ships available. In such cases, first priority is given to the Canadian registered non-duty paid ships and second priority to foreign ships.
For the purposes of Bill C-33, a non-duty paid ship is a foreign built, Canadian registered ship upon which applicable duties and taxes have not been paid. This legislation contains a number of exemptions.
First, a specific exemption is granted to a foreign ship used as a fishing vessel as defined by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as well as to a ship engaged in any ocean research activity commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Similarly, exemptions are provided for ships operated or sponsored by a foreign government and authorized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. These exemptions will ensure a minimum of conflict with other legislation.
It also exempts salvage by U.S. flagships in water contiguous to the United States as permitted by our Canadian legislation and known as the U.S. Wreckers Act, on the basis that a similar treatment is granted to Canadian ships in U.S. waters contiguous to the Canadian border.
During the discussions of the standing committee, various motions for amendments were defeated because these amendments were considered unacceptable by government representatives. One of these motions intended to move the demarcation line established at Saint
Lambert lock for the protection of the Great Lakes day cruise and the tour boat industry to the Inland Water Limited and Anticosti Island.
The proposal would also eliminate the possibility of granting a coasting trade licence to a foreign ship in this area even if there is no suitable Canadian ship available to provide the service. Such a change would prevent the operation of a foreign cruise ship currently operated by a Canadian operator with a Canadian crew in that region. It would also inhibit any opportunity to develop a world class cruise ship industry out of Montreal, Quebec City and the Saguenay River.
Certain movements and activities cannot be carried out by the Canadian fleet because the required technology does not exist in Canada due to the fact that there is not enough demand and the operation of such a vessel would not be viable. Therefore, denying temporary access to foreign vessels would be detrimental to shippers and to the shipping community.
A second defeated motion was aimed at the imposition of a minimum 30-day application period prior to the issuance of a coasting licence. Further amendments suggested perhaps 14 days, as we discussed this morning. The imposition of such a delay was considered an unacceptable interference in the normal business practice and administration of private enterprise. A mandatory waiting period would unnecessarily impede the timely and efficient movement of passengers and goods in Canadian waters.
The third defeated motion was aimed at the crewing of all foreign ships granted temporary coasting licence to engage in an activity within Canadian waters. The crewing of foreign ships temporarily imported in Canada is currently administered by manpower and immigration pursuant to the Immigration Act. It would be unacceptable to add provisions with respect to immigration and labour in legislation dealing with transportation and other commercial marine activities.
As stated earlier, we have agreed to several amendments presented by our colleagues with respect to certain clarification of the definition of coasting trade and other provisions of the bill regarding the protection of the interests of the Canadian shipping industry.
April 28, 1992

Government Orders
During the period of the preparation of Bill C-33, we determined that there was a need to ensure that no confusion exists during a marine pollution emergency. Thus, there is a specific provision ensuring that a foreign ship may engage, with the approval of the pollution prevention officer, in activities related to a marine environmental pollution emergency.
This bill also recognizes the normal maritime practice whereby in both the offshore and Canadian waters foreign ships rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in distress will not be subject to provisions of this bill and we do not expect any misunderstanding or conflict over this practice.
To summarize, the proposed Coasting Trade Act will extend the jurisdiction of the current coasting trade laws to include:
(1)	All commercial marine activities within 12 miles within the exceptions noted.
(2)	All commercial marine activities related to resource exploration or exploitation out to 200 miles or the outer edge of the continental shelf, whichever is greater, again with the exceptions noted. This bill protects operators of Canadian flagships wishing to work within Canadian waters on the continental shelf.
At the same time it allows international cruise ships to operate without meeting the requirements of the Coasting Trade Act. As a consequence, cruise activities in Canada can grow and develop and jobs for Canadian ships' crews will be protected. As market conditions improve, more job opportunities will be created for ships' crews and those in related industries.
I would like to thank the chairman and the members of the Standing Committee on Transport for their excellent work. I would like to thank members of this House for the support provided to bring about this legislation. I believe this bill addresses many of the concerns of our industries and will be of benefit to all those engaged in this vital aspect of our economy.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to move that Bill C-33, an act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade, be given consideration by this House and sent to the Senate as quickly as possible.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that although we support the coasting bill, there are a number of problems I want to discuss this morning in connection with the government's trade negotiations with the United States.

I would like to refer to a question and answer on March 24, 1992 in Question Period after the release of a draft text of the North American free trade agreement. I use that occasion to ask the minister of trade about the U.S. Jones Act and why in the NAFTA proposed text the government seemed prepared to negotiate an opening up of land transportation but not water transportation.
I said at that time, and I quote from Hansard at page 8710:
The government knows that in the Jones Act, the United States has a major element for protection of important parts of its transportation network. We now know that the government is willing to give up on our land transportation to continental pressures.
How can the government be so cavalier about Canada's land transportation system in the face of very severe U.S. protectionism on the water?
The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade in part responded: "One of our objectives is to break open the Jones Act. That is one of the key objectives of the policy".
I want to express my concerns about this bill in the context of overall support for the bill. By and large, all parties are supporting this bill. It is a good bill and clears up some issues that are of a very technical nature that have been lying around for a number of years waiting to be resolved. They were nearly resolved, at least in part, in the previous Parliament in a bill that died when the House was dissolved for the 1988 election.
I want to speak about ship building. I want to put this in the context of the on-going negotiations between Canada and the United States with respect to North American free trade.
I want to point out that if Canada could succeed in the objective that the minister of trade referred to in his answer in Question Period in breaking up the U.S. Jones Act, the Canadian shipping industry could stand to benefit significantly. When you take into account the differences between our coastal shipping laws, as repre-

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
sented by Bill C-33, and the Jones Act itself, you notice some quite startling differences.
The Jones Act in the U.S. reserves the coasting trade of the United States to American ships, period. There is no waiver system in the Jones Act that would permit the use of foreign registered ships. It is impossible to compare our system as set forth in Bill C-33 with licences and waivers to the Jones Act. The Jones Act is far more protectionistic.
We have already talked a bit about the waiver system so I will not prolong that.
Second, regarding the rules of origin, the Jones Act reserves the U.S. coasting trade to American-built ships only. There are no exceptions. There is no ability to build a ship heavily subsidized in Brazil, for example, and then import it, having paid duty on it, to the United States.
Bill C-33 reserves the Canadian coastal trade to vessels built in Canada or built outside Canada but upon which a 25 per cent fair market duty has been paid. That is a major difference, particularly from the point of view of our shipbuilding industry.
Concerning the crewing of vessels, under the Jones Act American flag ships used in the U.S. coasting trade must be crewed with United States citizens. I am sure this will not surprise the House, having heard a few things about the Jones Act already.
Under section 2 of the Canada Shipping Act, it is required that the master, mates and engineers on Canadian ships used in the coasting trade be properly certified officers. The Canada Shipping Act makes no reference to the qualifications or residency status requirements for deck hands or engine room crew. Bill C-33 is silent on the issue. Foreign workers employed in these positions would be governed by the generally applicable rules and regulations of the Immigration Act.
Regarding ownership, American flagships must be owned by U.S. citizens or by a company incorporated in the United States and 75 per cent owned by U.S. citizens. The Canada Shipping Act is silent on the ownership of Canadian shipping companies.
On remission of duty to passenger ships, because no foreign built passenger ships can engage in the coastal trade of the United States, there are no remissions of duty with respect to such ships. The Canada Shipping Act is silent on the issue but full remission of duty has been granted on passenger ships having accommodation for more than 100 passengers by Order in Council.
The point of this is simply that the government is sitting at a trade negotiation table at the present time with the United States. The United States is engaged in the most extreme form of protectionism with respect to its own coastal trade.
The draft NAFTA text that was released indicates no weakening of its position on that. The minister of trade said in the House that breaking open the Jones Act is one of the key objectives of the policy of the government with respect to trade and the negotiations of a North American free trade agreement.
Like some kind of international boy scouts, here we are bringing in legislation prior to the completion of the trade negotiations with the United States, saying that if a U.S. ship wants to ply our coastal trade, it need only apply for a licence. There is no waiting period required. All that need be shown is that no suitable Canadian vessel is immediately available and a licence will be granted to our good friends from the United States.
As is often the case with extreme protectionism, it builds up a very weak domestic industry. We could compete very well with the United States if we were to break open the Jones Act. We do not need a Canadian Jones Act, but I find myself confused about what the minister portrayed takes to the table when he sits down to negotiate with the United States. What is he proposing to give up in order to break open the Jones Act?
He has nothing to give up. He has already given it up.
We have seen this happen before with this government and the way it conducts trade negotiations. It knew the Americans found the Foreign Investment Review Act to be offensive. Did it try to take that to the table when it negotiated the current free trade agreement? No, it repealed it voluntarily before it ever went into the negotiations.
April 28, 1992

The Conservatives took one of the best cards they had and they flung it on the table and said: "Here, take that. Now let us talk about other things". They knew the Americans disliked aspects of the National Energy Program. Did they sit down at the table and try to negotiate something from the Americans in order to relax and finally eliminate the National Energy Program? No, they threw the card on the table and said: "Here, we do not like it either. You take that. You do not have to give us anything for that".
On coastal trade, the government brings in a bill, which I acknowledge is a good bill, but it gives everything away while it is sitting at the table ostensibly, according to the minister of trade, seeking as a key objective the breaking open of the Jones Act. Bonne chance, Monsieur le President, bonne chance, ministre.
I would like to talk for a few minutes about the provisions in sections 4 and 5 of the bill which permit the issuances of the licences to foreign ships. These provisions both basically parallel one another.
I will start with what exactly the scheme of this act purports to be. It is set out in section 3 of the act, which says:
Subject to subsections (2) to (5), no foreign ship or non-duty paid
ship shall, except under and in accordance with a licence, engage in
the coasting trade.
Point one on this, in terms of the scheme of this act, is to protect the Canadian coasting trade for Canadian ships or duty-paid foreign vessels; so far so good.
As I read section 3, subsection (1) permits these vessels to engage in the trade under and in accordance with a licence. These licences are generally granted under sections 4, 5 and 6. Let me refer to section 4 of the act, subsection (1):
- on application therefor by a person resident in Canada acting on behalf of a foreign ship, the Minister of National Revenue shall issue a licence in respect of the foreign ship, where the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the Agency has determined that no Canadian ship or non-duty paid ship is suitable and available to provide the service or perform the activity described in the application;
The aforementioned agency is the National Transportation Agency.
This is the crux of the licensing provision contained in this bill.
Government Orders
We proposed earlier today an amendment which would have left this system in tack but required a 14-day delay in order to issue the licence for reasons which I explained in support of that amendment. It is our belief that this relatively minor delay would have provided market assistance to Canadian vessels to ensure that they had adequate work to justify their further construction, their continued maintenance, the continued existence of Canadian ships with Canadian crews in the coastal trade in Canadian waters.
The government has refused despite the fact that a similar amendment was adopted by the Standing Committee of Transport when the predecessor to this bill was dealt with prior to the 1988 election. The government has chosen not to grant this delay.
As I read from section 4, the wording is mandatory. In other words, the Minister of National Revenue shall issue a licence. That terminology is continued in section 5 as well, "shall issue a licence".
As anyone familiar with legislative language knows, there is a world of difference between the word shall and the word may. The word shall is mandatory; where the conditions are met, the minister has no choice but to issue the licence. The word may implies a discretion by the minister, where the conditions are satisfied, to use his best judgement in the interests of Canada as to whether a licence should be granted.
The amendments that were proposed in committee, which would have made this power discretionary to the minister, would have provided the flexibility for the minister to consider in each case what was appropriate and what was in the best interests of Canadian shippers, Canadian shipping companies, Canadian ship builders and Canadian ship crews. Instead of accepting this element of discretion, giving the minister the power to make the best judgment, given all the circumstances, the government chose the strait-jacket of mandatory language and rejected the amendment.
I was obliged to my colleague from Burin-St. George's for a visit to Marystown earlier this year where, having visited some of the shipyards in Nova Scotia and at St. John's, New Brunswick, I was able to visit an excellent shipbuilding facility. I am told it is also the home of the Marystown mariners, presumably a bantam hockey team which participated in the unity tournament recently in Toronto sponsored partly by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. In addition to having a

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
very good hockey team, there is a very good shipbuilding facility which is seriously underutilized.
That facility, which was built in the 1950s, is well-equipped and has within ready reach qualified and capable individuals experienced in shipbuilding. It sits to a large extent idle. One of the tragedies of that particular visit was to see some trawlers docked beside the shipbuilding facility, not because they were there for repairs or refitting, but because they were idle and needed to be tied to the wharf as a place to sit at rest in view of the crisis that exists in the fishing sector.
What I wonder is whether the Government of Canada has come to terms with the fact that this very important industry, shipbuilding, is continually in a state of crisis. We are seeing shipyards closed. We are seeing highly qualified, well-trained individuals put out of work with little immediate hope for finding other work before retraining. You cannot take a man who has spent 20 years in a shipyard, welding heavy sheets of metal, and train him to be a computer operator. Some of the men I saw could not operate a keyboard, their fingers were so thick. These are skilled, able-bodied, dedicated people with a reputation for quality and craftsmanship who are a terrible waste for our country as their shipyards sit idle.
What are we going to do about it? As far as I can tell, the government's only policy is to rationalize.
Rationalizing is a polite word for putting people out of work. It is a polite word for saying we have given up on shipbuilding in Canada; we are going to scale it down until there are fewer and fewer yards, fewer and fewer people involved in the industry and less and less work going on on Canadian ships being built by Canadians to serve the Canadian trade.
There are many problems that have given rise to this, not all of which are under the control of any government. What seems clear in reviewing this situation with people in the yards and with policy makers is that underlying many of the problems faced by the Canadian shipbuilding industry is the practice by many, many countries of heavily subsidizing this industry.
The result is that even where we have state of the art shipyards with very well qualified shipbuilders, we find that they are unable to compete with shipyards in countries whose governments are prepared to underwrite in part and in very extensive amounts, very large amounts, the cost of the construction of a ship.
Why do other governments do that? They do it to keep their yards open, to keep them employed, to maintain the critical mass of shipbuilders and of very important industrial facilities.
Why should it be stopped? It should be stopped because it makes no sense whatsoever for the taxpayers of Brazil, Belgium, Holland or any other country to subsidize the cost of ships that are being constructed for use by ship owners in other countries or even in their own country. It does not make sense. It costs everybody. Everyone loses.
Why is Canada out there in the forefront of cutting off any kind of support for this vital industry? Why, instead, is Canada not in the forefront of countries saying we will protect our shipbuilders because we have to until we can get everybody or at least the important countries to realize that this is a lose-lose proposition.
Again, why do we go to the bargaining table every time, having already given up our best advantages? I urge the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology to come down to Marystown. I am sure my colleague from Burin-St. George's would be happy to give him the same tour.
Let him come down to Marystown and the other shipyards in Atlantic Canada to see what they have there. Let him address his mind to the problem of an industry being killed because Canada has failed to act to protect its vital interests in the face of unfair competition from elsewhere in the world.
How can you expect the reinvestment in science and technology, in research and development and in the latest methods of shipbuilding in the face of heavy government subsidization on other countries? If that does not happen, then sooner or later, we will be uncompetitive and we will have no way of rebuilding what we once had.
The time for action is now. Unfortunately, when you look at Bill C-33, however well it serves the immediate concerns of the coastal shipping trade, it fails totally to look at the bigger picture in Canada's shipbuilding industry. It reveals once again the complete lack of industrial policy that this government has in this sector, as in so many other sectors, in order to deal with what is
April 28, 1992

of crucial concern to people whose livelihoods should be able to be based upon building and refitting ships.
There is also the fact that concern has been expressed over safety with regard to foreign licensed ships.
This is of particular concern with respect to the foreign crews that in many cases work on these ships licensed by the minister. The bill that we have before us in no way guarantees that foreign ships will be crewed comparably to Canadian ships. Standards such as the number of deck hands and working conditions on board are not mentioned.
In the absence of the waiting period, this means that you build in a bias on the part of Canadian shippers to use foreign vessels which, because they are not subject to the same level of safety standards as Canadian vessels, they can offer their services more cheaply. Therefore, it need only be done very quickly that a licence is granted to a foreign ship on application by a shipper seeking to use and to take advantage of the cheaper costs being offered by the foreign vessel because it is not subject to the same level of standards. These are the concerns we have with this bill.
As I have said, we do support it but in doing so we call upon the government to address in a clear and unambiguous fashion its stand on the Jones Act and what it is going to do to open up U.S. shipping to Canadian ships to the same degree that it has by this bill opened up Canadian shipping to U.S. ships.
What is the government's position going to be on the Canadian shipbuilding industry? When is it going to take action to ensure that Canadian shipbuilders are building vessels other than national defence vessels?
Finally, what is it going to do to ensure the compliance with Canadian standards, particularly with respect to safety on foreign licences vessels that are plying the Canadian coastal shipping trade?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the occasion of third reading debate on Bill C-33.
Let me start at the beginning by asking why we are here. Why did this bill not pass in 1988 after having gone through first and second reading debate, committee stage, third reading passage and on to the other place?
Government Orders
In part it was because of my regular seat mate, the member for Vancouver East, who, along with a large sector of the B.C. cruise shipping industry, or at least the B.C. basis thereof, worked together to lobby members in the other place to delay the bill because it was written in such a way that the existing cruise shipping industry using British Columbia, Vancouver and Prince Rupert was in danger of going under.
The bill we dealt with, I believe, was originally tabled in 1987, five years ago, and passed this House in 1988. It would have prevented the cruise shipping industry from stopping in Vancouver or any one of the coastal ports along the way and allowing people to get on and off. It was a very restrictive piece of legislation. It was only the intervention of the 1988 election, which brought about the death of the bill on the Order Paper in the other place, that kept that coastal trading act out of the law books.
It has come back in a form that is acceptable to the cruise industry on the Pacific west coast, the Great Lakes and our east coast. We made minor modifications in committee to provide for the ability of a cruise ship to stop at a particular port and off-load its passengers. This would allow them a land based opportunity or even another water based opportunity to travel down river, downstream or upstream, whichever direction they want to go, to another port to be picked up.
For example, passengers could get off in Quebec City and take VIA to Montreal and board the same cruise ship, part of an expanded package basically to allow foreigners who are on these cruise ships to see a bit more of Canada.
We have made some improvements. I know that had the member for Vancouver East been here she would have been up on her feet to say how pleased she was at the fact that this House and obviously the government has listened to the concerns of the coastal trading industry on the west coast. Quite frankly, we are talking about millions of dollars.
These may be foreign-based ships bringing passengers to Canada, stopping off in Vancouver, perhaps even picking up in Vancouver in terms of the commencement of the voyage and then on up to Alaska. Certainly, I know that the cruises along that coast are extremely

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
popular as people get the opportunity to see the magnificent scenery of the mountains, fiords, and everything else along there.
That is why we are back at it today. I can only hope that the folks in the other House give it quick passage.
What we do not have in this bill, however, are the kinds of protections that the men and women who work on our ships in the cargo trade were looking for.
They were looking for a Canadian Jones Act. They wanted to ensure that Canadian cargo moving between two Canadian ports was carried on a ship that was built in Canada, was owned by Canadians, carried the Canadian flag, hired Canadians, and operated under Canadian law, whether that be income tax law, labour law, health and safety law, marine safety law, environment law, whatever.
That is what the workers and their representatives brought to the committee, not just this time around but back in 1988 when we dealt with the previous bill. We made attempts on both occasions to strengthen the bill, to provide the same kind of protection for Canadian workers and for Canada as the United States has provided for their workers and their countiy, a Canadian Jones Act if you like.
But this government has consistently refused to support any measure that will bring about the redevelopment of a domestic maritime fleet.
As I said before in this House today and at other times, certainly in the Great Lakes our fleet is in jeopardy. We have seen it decline from somewhere between 140 and 160 vessels down to somewhere around 60 to 80. Every year from now to the year 2000 we will lose a ship a year. We will be down to the point where we can no longer provide for our export needs through the use of vessels on the Great Lakes.
At the same time we are seeing our shipyards disappear, in part financed for their closures by the Government of Canada. At the very least that money is being used to treat the workers decently, those workers whose jobs are being removed from them forever, those communities whose jobs are being removed from them forever and I am thinking of the Collingwoods.
We are still downsizing our shipbuilding industry. There is nothing in this bill that gives any hope to those shipyards. There is nothing that will make it more attractive, albeit with a negative stick for Canadian shipping companies to have their vessels repaired or retrofitted in Canadian yards. There is nothing in this bill to provide for that.
That is a failure, a failure by this government to recognize that something has to be done to protect both those industries, because as goes one, so goes the other. As there are fewer and fewer vessels, that means less repair and retrofit work in our yards. As there is less work there, it means we lose the capacity to build those ships, should we ever get a government with enough wisdom to invest in that industry. We once did, and we did it in a couple of ways.
The Government of Canada under the Liberals provided a subsidy to a private interest to build ships in Canada. I think it was as high as 40 per cent. That gradually declined and it ran out in about 1982 or 1983 when there was no longer a subsidy. Yet at the same time other governments in other countries were continuing to subsidize not only their domestic construction, but also any foreign work that they could attract. They are attracting Canadians because it is cheaper for a Canadian company to have a ship built offshore because of the subsidies, not to mention the lower wage rates, the lack of benefits, and I could go on and on.
The second thing that we did, not directly as a government, but the Canadian Wheat Board would enter into long-term contracts with a particular shipping company that I gather provided them with a basic amount of movement for a period of time at a set fee. So that shipping company knew that it had some work and therefore it could re-invest.
M. Patterson & Sons, headquartered in Thunder Bay, did that very thing. That is what helped finance that last commercial vessel coming out of the Collingwood shipyard. It was the basis of a long-term contract with the Canadian Wheat Board. Patterson & Sons knew it could afford to build that ship because it knew it had work for that ship for a prescribed period of time.
That is gone, too. My understanding is that there are no more long-term contracts like that. What we are left with is a situation where companies having built vessels
April 28, 1992

called "salty lakers" that can be used in places other than the Great Lakes, which requires a particular type of ship, and can be used in salt water, re-flagged them.
Certainly CSL has re-flagged a number of its vessels, going so far as to re-flag the vessel named after the founder of the company, a former member of this House, the hon. Paul Martin, Sr. However, when it re-flagged the ship his name was taken off, I suspect because the company was too embarrassed about what it was doing. In a lot of ways the company had no choice. The economics of ship operations in this country dictated that it had to find a way to reduce costs.
The ship industry itself in conjunction with its workers came to this government. Together they came to this government and said: "Look, we have a solution. It is not the most perfect solution. It is not one we would normally promote, but it would work. It is working elsewhere in the world. It is called a second registry".
That would allow a Canadian company to continue to operate in Canada. All of the Canadian operations would be taxed at the normal rate. All of its workers' wages would be taxed at the normal rate. When offshore work was being done, when cargoes were being carried between the United States and Europe, for example, they would be exempt from Canadian taxes, both the company for that part of the operation and the workers for time worked offshore.
We have lost the jobs. We have lost the taxes. When the government said: "No, we are not going to give you a second registry", even though a number of other countries in the world have done so, everything went anyway. They re-flagged the total operations. They pulled down that Canadian flag and ran up the flag of Panama, or any one of a dozen countries which offer tax havens for shipping. We lost 100 per cent of the taxes and 100 per cent of the jobs because they did not hire Canadians. They hired workers at $100 a month. We lost all around.
But the government had a chance. It could have said yes to the second registry. Instead, what did it do? It said yes to a tax haven for the headquarters of the companies. It was trying to attract the people from Hong Kong who are getting out before 1997 and encourage them to move their shipping companies to Vancouver, Toronto, or
Government Orders
Thunder Bay or wherever and that they would be granted tax-free status.
It is okay to give the corporations tax-free status. For proposals that would have given the workers the opportunity to continue to work on Canadian ships bearing Canadian flags the answer was no. For companies whose work was offshore the answer was no. However it was okay if your work was in Canada. I do not understand the logic.
The other element I want to briefly touch on is one of the amendments I moved today. It was unsuccessful in getting a specific change in the legislation. It dealt with Yukon.
This past weekend I met with officials of the transportation department of the Government of Yukon Territory. I did so at the request of my leader, the hon. member for Yukon, because they had put forward a proposal to the Standing Committee on Transport dealing with Bill C-33. There was a slip-up and it was not presented to the committee. I recognize it was a legitimate mistake, but they had a concern about a monopoly situation that was unique to the Yukon.
Because of Yukon's geography, it does not have any of its own ports, certainly not on the southwest comer of Yukon. It is land-locked. In order to get any commodity from a marine carrier it has to go through the Alaska panhandle. The Government of Yukon was looking for some protection so that when there was a monopoly situation that was out of control and it perceived that the current situation is such, that the Government of Canada would have a tool with which to help.
I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in his response to my motion and my comments. I believe I heard him say that the Government of Canada does have the ability under Bill C-33, under the provision dealing with regulations, if it finds that someone is abusing its monopoly situation that it has the power to act.
I am pleased to hear that because, as the parliamentary secretary knows, I would prefer to have things dealt with in that way as opposed to having full-bridled competition between a Canadian carrier and a non-Canadian carrier. I was looking for a mechanism and I was pleased to see that the government was able to respond in such a positive way. I will communicate that to the Government of Yukon.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
I would assume that once this bill passes and receives Royal assent that it will be up to the Government of Yukon, should it believe at that point that it is still being held captive, to make its case directly, government to government, to the Minister of Transport to argue for the use of that regulation, and that is as it should be. We need to know that the power is there, but the responsibility is then put on the aggrieved party to make representations to the government.
I would also anticipate that because it is a regulatory process, should the normal publication of those regulations be deemed necessary, it would be done through The Gazette so that parties which are, in effect, being challenged as to their practices and therefore are going to be restricted under this regulation would have the opportunity to object or to participate and to work with the government.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary may wish to chat with the minister and suggest that the Government of Canada might want to formally get in touch with the Government of Yukon in the next little while and ask how they can work together and perhaps jointly approach White Pass to say, "Look folks, we have a problem here".
Yukon has the perception that it is being ripped off. There is a perception it cannot source products in Canada at affordable prices. I mentioned fuel oil from Seattle. I mentioned crusher balls from Missouri as opposed to Kamloops and I suspect that the Yukon government would come forward with a number of similar examples to make its case.
I would encourage that kind of dialogue between the two governments because I think it is in the interests of all of us that people in such a far-flung place like Yukon, a place that is already captive to distance, not be further captive to unbridled monopoly such as appears to exist.
I see that my time has run out. Let me conclude by thanking once again the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the staff of the minister for their assistance in the work of the Standing Committee on Transport and in the preparation of the amendments and the modification thereof. Once again it shows that this is not always a confrontational place and while sometimes we may not get everything we want, that at least we move forward.
We can work together as political parties and as a Chamber.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Ottawa South has said, we in the Official Opposition are pleased to support the legislation.
My colleague from Ottawa South outlined the reasons why we are pleased to support the bill. My friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan has also indicated that there is some good reason for giving support to this legislation.
Since these two speakers have so eloquently said all the things that are right about the legislation, it becomes my task, of course, to say some of the things that may be wrong with the legislation.
I spy my good friend from Calgary Southeast, the parliamentary secretary, who did such a nice job of representing the government on third reading and elsewhere in this process. I want to say this to him because I listened very attentively to what he had to say a few minutes ago. He said that not always is there a suitable Canadian ship available. I want to say to him in the course of my few remarks one of the fairly glaring reasons why a suitable Canadian ship may not be as readily available as he might hope.
Bill C-33 reserves Canadian coastal trade to Canadian ships. That is what the notes say and that is what the hope is and that is clearly what the objective of the bill is, to reserve Canadian coasting trade to Canadian ships.
That is why we support this bill, but at the same time, that statement in some respects is like the big lie. It says something that is not genuinely the case. It is the equivalent of saying as I stand here that there is no more poverty in Canada, except among children, except among single parents, except among native peoples, except among low income people.
If exceptions are written carefully enough, any statement is correct. There is no poverty in this country, not one ounce of poverty in this country, except for the exceptions where there is lots of poverty.
By parallel, just listen to what is being said in the notes. Bill C-33 reserves Canadian coasting trade to Canadian ships except fishing vessels covered by the Fisheries Protection Act, ships involved in oceanograph-
April 28, 1992

ics, ships assisting ships in distress in Canadian waters, ships engaged in salvage operations, American ships performing certain operations, et cetera, et cetera.
We could not in conscience be against this bill because the objective is absolutely right. We are not against the bill or against the principle of the bill. A great opportunity has been missed here, an opportunity to revitalize a shipbuilding industry in this country, an industry that is clearly on its knees.
There seems to be a mad, insane rush by this government to embrace everything that is American. Every day the Prime Minister and his ministers stand here and spend a good part of their time defending themselves on their actions in cosying up to the Americans or trying to justify things that the American administration is doing.
In an area where they could take a page of the American's book, i.e. the Jones Act, either by embracing some of the measures in that legislation or by taking initiatives to have the effect of that legislation mitigated in so far as Canadian ships are concerned, the irony is that it is the one area in which the government refuses to act. It is the one area it is walking away from the possibility of doing something that would rebound to the benefit of Canadian shipbuilding and the workers in the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
We cannot really have a fair, balanced debate on this important issue of coastal trade in Canada without putting on the record this government's flip-flop on the whole issue of Canadian shipbuilding policy. We always have to back off whenever we are dealing with legislation in this House and ask ourselves why are we passing another law? Laws for the sake of laws are wasted time. Every law that is legislated in this Chamber ought to have some positive purpose. We have always as legislators to ask the question before we proceed to legislate, why this bill? Why do we do this now? Why do we need another law? Why do we need to regulate something else?
In the case of the present legislation there is no point at all in having new provisions, new parameters on coastal trade unless it serves some positive purpose for Canadians, the people who send us here in the first place. That is who we represent. That is who we ought to be running the laws on behalf of.
Government Orders
Members have to back off and see in perspective Bill C-33 and say yes it is a good thing, all parties agree, it is going to be an improvement over what was. We also have to back off and ask the second question, how in particular will it benefit certain groups of people in the industry?
It is clear from the arguments from the government side it will benefit the ship owners. Indeed, it looks after them pretty well thank you very much. I am not surprised about that. This government has always looked after people who are fairly well off financially. It has always looked after the captains of industry, its corporate bosses, so I am not surprised ship owners will benefit from this by having all the freedom in the world to go wherever they want to get whatever boats they want at any time.
The fine print defies the objective of this bill. The objective is to Canadianize the operation. The fine print allows enough loopholes to drive trucks through. The exceptions are so many that the good objective of this legislation is largely lost sight of. The question remains, who will benefit from this legislation? I can tell hon. members that some people who will not benefit very much from this legislation and that is the workers in the shipbuilding industry.
I was grateful to my friend for Ottawa South who made some very kind references to the shipbuilding facility in my riding at Marystown. He and I had the opportunity, as he indicated, to be there together just a month or two ago. I can tell him in your presence, sir, his visit was much appreciated and the workers and the union there have indicated to me since they were rather impressed with his interest in getting his head around the issue and indeed his grasp of the issues that are involved in this industry which is very much in crisis at this particular time.
The workers at Marystown, the few that are left, under 100 now, maybe 75 workers in that yard today, where there used to be up to 600 workers will not particularly benefit from this legislation because a golden opportunity has been missed here to revitalize the shipbuilding industry. Not a lot of time is left.
This government when it was seeking to be the government back in the election of 1984 had some pretty brave words. Here is what the government in waiting said in 1984: "A top priority of a Progressive Conservative

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
government will be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry".
That was the promise of 1984. The reality of 1992 in so far as Maiystown is concerned, and it is fairly indicative of what has happened in yards throughout the country, is there is no longer 500 to 600 workers there. There are now under 100 workers.
The skills are being lost. People are being forced to move out of the area, to go elsewhere to find some gainful employment. If we are not very careful we are going to lose an entire industry because the skills will be lost forever. The promise of 1984 by that party which is now the government was not followed through.
Here is what it did instead. Instead of taking initiatives to ensure, in its words, a viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry, the government proceeded to do the opposite. It dismantled the few shipbuilding initiatives that were in place. It dismantled, for example, the shipbuilding industry assistance program which had served the industry extremely well, stabilized operations, preserved jobs all over this country including at Marys-town.
Second, this government dismantled, phased out, the productivity improvement grants which, together with the other program I mentioned, the shipbuilding industry assistance program, had gone a long way to helping that industry survive difficult times in providing over-all aid to that industry. This government, barely in office in its first fiscal year, took steps in contravention of its direct promise to set about creating a viable, prosperous industry. In contradiction of that, it proceeded within its first fiscal year in office to dismantle those two programs, the only two remaining programs at the time targeted toward assisting the shipbuilding industry.
This government began to phase them out as of March 31, 1985. It is true for the record that some of the residual funds were used after that date. The last were used in the period ending March 31, 1991. However, no new funding was applied. A direct decision of cabinet was taken to cut off any new funding for those programs as of March 31, 1985-not a year after this government had taken office.
We here could get a lot more excited about this particular bill if it had not failed to grasp the very clear opportunity that was before it, an opportunity to give the
Canadian shipbuilding industry at Marystown and all over this country a much needed shot in the arm. It is not a matter of general rhetoric. It can be a matter of specifics. If this government wants specific suggestions as to what can be done to revitalize that industry, while still honouring the spirit of this piece of legislation and at the same time keeping its commitment to the people of Canada in 1984, there is no shortage of them.
For a start, it could eliminate all the tariff exemptions on vessels entering this country, giving shipbuilders in this country a break, instead of spending our time giving foreign yards such a break. If it wants another idea, I say to the government from now on see to it that no fishing vessels be issued licenses to fish in Canadian waters unless they are built here in this country.
One of our great industries, the fishing industry, ought to be given the wherewithal to support its colleagues in the shipbuilding industry, its fellow workers in that other great industry.
If the government wants a third suggestion, what about the idea of concessionary financing? The government should make that available to ship owners and purchasers who are constructing their vessels here in this country.
Why does the federal government not go back to the idea of providing financial assistance to shipyards requiring upgrading and refurbishing? These are just four ideas. There are many more that I am sure the parliamentary secretary is familiar with.
A fifth is that all goods moved between domestic ports ought to be carried in Canadian built, Canadian crewed and Canadian flagged ships. These are not such revolutionary ideas. They are ideas that have been on the carpet for a long time. The government skates over them. The government ignores them, ignores the plea of the industry.
The Alliance of Shipbuilding Unions put those ideas to the government three or four years ago, the ideas that I have mentioned and many others besides them.
I make a plea. I know it is the third reading of the bill. I make a plea to the government to come to its senses on this one. Sure, preserve the objective in this bill. We support that objective, but give it some teeth. Give it some meaning. Give the workers in Marystown some hope. Give the people in the shipbuilding industry across this country some reason to believe that this government puts its money where its mouth is; that when it said in
April 28, 1992

1984	it wants to revitalize and make prosperous the shipbuilding industry, it meant it.
I say send out the signal that when the government in
1985	began to dismantle programs to aid the shipbuilding industry, it was really a faux pas. It really did not mean to do that, and it would like to have another chance before it is judged by the electorate on those points.
I see my time is running out. I, with my colleagues, support the principle of the bill. Our one regret-it is a very big regret-is that the government did not use this legislation as an opportunity to give a shot in the arm to revitalize a shipbuilding industry that is in very desperate straits.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. We have one additional speaker on this side, my colleague from Dartmouth.
I understand that there is unanimous consent. Particularly, the parliamentary secretary is anxious to hear what my colleague from Dartmouth has to say. He has told me. I understand there would be unanimous consent not to see the clock at 1 p.m. so that my colleague can complete his remarks. We can put the question at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent that the Speaker does not see the time at one o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House for being so generous, and also the Speaker for being blinded at one o'clock.
My colleague from Burin-St. George's is always a hard act to follow because he is one of the best people in the House to express his point of view not just on behalf of his constituents, but on behalf of many Canadians. He has a unique ability to take complex issues and put them in human terms, and that is what he has done here.
I will tty not to abuse the generosity of the House. I have a few comments to make on the bill.
It seems that all parties have somewhat agreed that this bill is long overdue and that it offers a degree of incentive and protection for the Canadian shipping
Government Orders
industry. There seems to be some unanimous agreement among the three official parties that this is the type of bill that should go through.
I am unfortunately going to echo a little bit of the sentiments of my colleague from Burin-St. George's. As he so aptly put it when he was using the poverty analogy, there would be no poverty in Canada if you listed all of the exception and the exemptions from the definition of poverty.
The reality of the situation today is that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is in great peril. There are many who would indicate that the days have passed when the Canadian shipbuilding industry could compete internationally.
We are finding increasingly that even on Canadian small fishing vessels that are being constructed on the east coast, Canadian shipyards, among the most efficient in the world, are simply unable to compete for that type of vessel construction.
This particular bill addresses some of the problems and some of the concerns. It addresses shipping that takes place within Canada's coastal area and that is why it is called the Coasting Trade Act. It will offer perhaps some incentive for the shipping companies that are involved in coastal trade in Canada to look at purchasing or building Canadian-made vessels.
The reality of the situation is that there are a lot of exemptions in this bill. One of the big requirements that we have here is that the vessel used in coasting trade in Canada, in order to be licensed, either has to be constructed in Canada or has to have tariff paid.
The tariff for a new vessel is about 25 per cent. The reality of the international situation is that of all the modem shipbuilding nations in the world, the subsidies that are offered by each and every one of the governments of those nations are extremely high. The only place the subsidy is not offered in the major shipbuilding nations in the world is in Canada.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party from Thunder Bay-Atikokan had indicated that the past Liberal government did have a policy and a program in order to assist in creating a level playing field.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
Nobody in this day and age believes that in the global context governments should be heavily subsidizing their industries. We should try wherever possible to let market forces prevail. That is the case. In this type of global environment it is also foolhardy for governments to believe that when every other nation with an industry competing with your industry is offering a level of subsidy, Canadian industries, no matter how efficient, will be able to operate competitively if you are dealing with a highly subsidized international marketplace. That is exactly what has happened in the shipping industry around the world.
Ideally, the thing to do would be to negotiate with all of these other countries to simply not have subsidies for the construction of new vessels. In reality that is not going to work. We see how difficult it is to talk about tariff reduction when you look at the current round of the GATT negotiations.
The fact of life is that in some parts of this country shipbuilding has been one of the reasons we have been able to populate some of our coastal areas. In the province of Nova Scotia, shipbuilding has a very long and proud tradition.
The yards in Nova Scotia produced the Bluenose I. It is on our dimes. That is part of our proud Canadian tradition and it was built right there in Nova Scotia; the Bluenose II as well.
Increasingly, we find that it does not matter how efficient or modem our shipyards are in places like Dartmouth or Saint John, New Brunswick or Maiystown on the Atlantic coast. It does not really matter unless the government seizes the issue and the day and addresses the real imbalance that currently exists internationally which affects even the most efficient yards like the Saint John Shipbuilding in Saint John, New Brunswick, one of the most efficient mid-sized construction yards, not just in Canada, not in North America, but in the world. It is having trouble competing on the international market.
It is fine to say that this bill is going to address the problem of foreign owned vessels coming in and plying the coastal trade in Canada. I would put to this House that there are many nations that are in competition with our yards in Canada that are offering subsidies well in excess of the 25 per cent tariffication that would have to
be paid before a foreign owned vessel could get licensed for the coastal trade.
The bill does fall short in that regard. It is some help, but let us also look at other things that the bill simply does not address. There are two other major exemptions.
The first major exemption is that fishing vessels are not included because they come under the Fisheries Act. We all think that maybe we should deal with the other act. The fact of life is that if you go out on the high seas off Newfoundland or on the Scotia Bank in Nova Scotia, you are going to see one heck of a lot of vessels that are licensed to fish in Canadian waters taking Canadian fish from Canadians, taking jobs from Canadians in the fishing industries. Those vessels are not constructed in Canada. There is virtually no benefit at all for industries or individuals in Canada, but because of some international conventions we give our fish away.
We are about the only nation in the world that within our 200-mile limit gives fish to foreigners because somehow we feel that we have made deals in the past and we cannot go back on them. As a result, we have thousands and thousands of people in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada who are out of work, who cannot fish, while we give our fish away. That is one issue.
The second issue is that if you go out just within the 200-mile limit you will find out how many large factory freezer trawlers come in with licences from the Canadian government to fish various stocks, underutilized and utilized stocks, within Canadian waters. None of those vessels has been built in Canada. Maybe one way we can cut down foreign overfishing-and I know it is a bit of a simplistic solution-is by saying that if they want a licence to fish our fish their vessel is going to have to be built in Canadian shipyards. If foreign fleets want to come over to rape and pillage our fishery and want to take hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our fish to sell in their markets and process on their factory freezer trawler, they are going to have to construct that vessel in a Canadian shipyard, or there will be a massive tariffication attached to that vessel before the licence can be given.
Some people would say: "Don't be so crazy. How could you possibly say that?" I can say it because I have been through the shipyards in Atlantic Canada. The federal government is currently undergoing what is called a
April 28, 1992

shipbuilding rationalization program. Put another way, it is pay-offs or lay-offs. That is exactly what it is doing.
The federal government currently is negotiating with the Halifax-Dartmouth Industries Ltd., a very good company which operates two shipyards: one on the Halifax side of the harbour and the other on the Dartmouth side. The Dartmouth side is called the Dartmouth Marine Slips. The individuals who work at the Dartmouth Marine Slips are hanging on by a thread because the federal government is trying to entice HDIL to close one of its yards. Why does it want a yard closed? It says it is because there is not enough business to go around.
If the government had the intestinal fortitude it should have in trying to protect viable Canadian industries, there would be all kinds of work for yards like the Dartmouth Marine Slips and the 130-odd workers who have worked there for God knows how long and may find themselves out of a job, because instead of addressing the real problem which is highly subsidized foreign competition in shipyards, it is prepared to lay off and give a few bucks over to HDIL to sort of put a few more pieces of equipment on the Halifax side.
The net result, because this government has failed to come to grips with the necessity of having a national shipbuilding program, is that yards across Canada are shutting down. The individuals who work in those yards are not easily transferred over to other parts of the private sector or the industrial infrastructure because they are highly skilled individuals in specific skills necessary in some cases only in shipbuilding.
Although this bill goes somewhat to try to revitalize the Canadian shipbuilding industry, it completely ignores the reality that there are lots of companies in Canada that do international shipping from Canada. This bill certainly does absolutely nothing to try to rebalance the playing field so that any vessels that those companies are using are built in Canadian shipyards.
I am going to give a pretty startling fact. My colleagues from Ottawa and from Burin-St. George's and I did a little tour of the Atlantic shipyards not that long ago. It was perhaps a month and a half ago and one thing just struck me as incredibly odd. I live on the ocean and every
Government Orders
time I look out my window I see a ship. We went and toured Halifax-Dartmouth Industries on the Halifax side and on the Dartmouth side. The Dartmouth side basically had no work, and over on the Halifax side they were doing some work on a tug, I think it was. What they told us was that that small little tug boat was the only non-governmental ship, in other words the only commercial ship being built in Canada today.
My goodness, if we have thousands of ships plying our waters on both coasts and up in the Arctic, I suppose, why in the name of goodness is it that we are losing thousands of employees almost every other year in the shipbuilding industry? It is because the government has simply refused to come back and admit that perhaps what it should have done back in 1984 was to look at some type of subsidization for Canadian shipyards so that we could compete; not just compete for the construction of coastal vessels that will be licensed to operate in Canadian waters but to compete internationally.
We have great technology in this country. If anybody doubts that, he or she should go down to Saint John Shipbuilding in New Brunswick. It will outrank almost any shipbuilding yard in the country. Let us look at the skill level and the productivity our shipyards on the Atlantic Coast have provided. We are a known commodity. We are known around the world, but the Canadian government is so hell-bent on ensuring that government retrenches on all of its fiscal and financial responsibilities from any type of industry subsidization that it basically allowed tens of thousands of jobs to be put at risk in Canada's shipbuilding industry and to be exported offshore.
In conclusion, I would hope some of the loopholes which appear to be in this bill will never be used. I think my colleague from Ottawa initially proposed a motion, but I do not think it has gone anywhere. I am sure it was not accepted. One of the things we are concerned about is that some people want to get an exemption to this particular legislation by saying that they have a very specific requirement on a very specific type of vessel that is simply not available and that the minister has a responsibility, a requirement to issue a licence.

April 28, 1992
We see all kinds of potential for abuse in a provision like that. One can almost drive a truck through it, or perhaps a small herring seiner through it since we are dealing with the fisheries.
This is a small step in the right direction. Let me put it that way. However, it is our hope the government will not say that we have dealt with the shipbuilding industry because we have had Bill C-33 before the House of Commons, that it will recognize this is a small first step in addressing the major problems facing the shipbuilding industry in Canada, and that it will fulfil a commitment it has made many times. I refer specifically to the Prime Minister back in 1984 when he talked about creating a viable international shipbuilding industry in Canada. I would like to remind him of that promise today.
This bill goes a small way in the right direction. I hope the government will understand that the jobs lost because of its inaction, those high paying jobs in the Canadian shipbuilding industry, if maintained, will spur further economic development and help our communities, particularly our communities on the Atlantic coast that rely so heavily on these industries, to be contributing parts of our nation.
In conclusion, our party and I support this bill even with its warts and pimples, and there are lots of those on it. We urge the government at this time when we are in such a devastating recession to come forward with further steps that have been suggested by the Marine Workers Federation and other such people to address the imbalance currently existing in the international shipbuilding environment.


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.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.13 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1.13 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, Friday is International Workers' Day. Workers in the Montreal area, however, will have nothing to celebrate. Workers, the unemployed and people on welfare are worried and demoralized by the general increase in poverty.
Unions and community groups have now decided to raise public awareness by holding a demonstration that will take place on May 1, at the Pie IX Metro stop.
The unions want to make the federal government aware of the despair that has taken hold of so many workers and unemployed workers. In the Montreal area, 615,000 people are living in poverty.
The government must put a stop to this human misery immediately. The CRIM has made several proposals for dealing with the socio-economic decline of the region, including a full employment policy. The government would be well advised to consider these proposals and start taking action, because people have had enough.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank is the bank specifically dedicated to providing financial assistance to Canadian businesses that are unable to find other sources of available financing on reasonable terms and conditions.
Small business people in my riding of Carleton-Charlotte, however, are consistently frustrated at the unwillingness of the FBDB officials to provide clients with this assistance on projects that by all accounts fall within these reasonable terms and conditions.
April 28, 1992

The FBDB has the potential to assist in fostering economic growth in this country, particularly in Atlantic Canada where the chartered banks are taking a hard line in terms of extending small business loans.
It is clear, however, that a number of internal changes are going to have to be made within the FBDB to make the institution more responsive to the needs of the small business community. If this cannot be done, then perhaps it is time that the Government of Canada took a serious look at disbanding this bank of last resort.


MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in 1990 communities near Montreal were literally taken hostage. A few people who had acquired military equipment and weapons terrorized members of these communities. This tragedy created tensions within our society and, furthermore, these events have been used to cast aspersions on Quebec's reputation.
Today it seems that a number of people from Akwe-sasne have in their possession military equipment from the United States. This is very disturbing.
That is why I want to ask the federal government to notify the U.S. administration of this fact and to its duty and guarantee the security of the people in this area.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the role and operations of Canada Customs is vital to our efforts to address the problem of cross-border shopping.
To be successful, we must have the universal collection of all applicable duties and taxes at the border. Governments can impose all the taxes and promote all the innovative ideas we want, but our situation is not going to improve if we do not have them enforced and collected on a consistent basis.
I recognize that the collection of duties and taxes can be influenced by a number of factors, like the physical constraints at a border crossing, traffic patterns and the adequacy of customs personnel.
What I am saying to the government is that we must have the adequate customs personnel to do the job. This is particularly true at border crossings where the physical constraints are being removed.
Our border communities, like Sarnia-Lambton, can compete with our U.S. neighbours. Yet to do so, we need a level playing field. One prerequisite, whether we get tax harmonization or not, is the consistent collection of all duties and taxes at the border.
To me, this is only right, fair and just.


NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, today across Canada, at 11 a.m. at the Workers' Monument at Vincent Massey Park and at noon before Parliament Hill, hundreds of workers gathered to pay their respects and to mourn the many thousands of their fellow workers, men and women, who die or are injured on the job in Canada each year.
Today marks the first anniversary of the first official observance by the Parliament of Canada of the official day of mourning, established as a result of passage of a private members' bill introduced by my NDP colleague, the hon. member for Churchill.
On this occasion, I wish to ask the government to join issue with us on two particular matters affecting the lives and health of Canadian working people. One is to plead with them to end their continual cuts to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety which is resulting in a slow death for that agency.
It particularly attempts to end the inquiry service. The second is to pay increasing attention to the issue of violence in the workplace. The chief cause of death among women in North American on the job last year was homicide. That is a devastating statistic and it is one that all Canadians and this government should pay increasing attention to.

April 28, 1992



Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, following on the previous remarks of the other member, each year scores of Canadian men and women are killed or injured as a result of work place accidents or they suffer from industrial disease.
Today, April 28, is the national day of mourning for workers who have died, who have been injured or who have suffered from diseases as a result of unsafe workplaces. I would like all hon. members, employers and workers to remember that progress and prosperity must never be paid for with the lives and the well-being of workers.
As one of Hamilton's members of Parliament who is proud to include the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, I want to honour and pay tribute to the workers of Canada and the contribution they make to our country.
No one is immune to the dangers of an unsafe work environment, but together we can make a difference. Let us make sure that occupational safety and health becomes a daily challenge and a reality to all of us.


CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage Winnipegers, Manitobans and indeed all Canadians to help kick cystic fibrosis, a debilitating hereditary disease which affects thousands of Canadian children and prevents them from participating in a full range of daily activities.
I urge Manitobans to join the Blue Bomber kicking team at the 18th annual Kinsmen and Kinette bike-a-thon in support of cystic fibrosis research. The event will be taking place on Saturday, May 9, 1992 at St. Vital park beginning at 10 a.m. It is presented by the Kinsmen and Kinette clubs of All Saints.
Pledge forms are available at St. Boniface and St. Vital Safeway stores.
One in two thousand babies is bom with cystic fibrosis, the most common fatal genetic disorder in Canada.
Together we Canadians along with clubs such as the Kinsmen and the Kinettes can provide additional research to conquer this dreaded disease.


FIREARMS REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore) Mr. Speaker, the new firearms regulations now before this House leave some questions unanswered.
For example storage provisions require that firearms now be stored in a place "that cannot be easily broken into". What does that mean and in whose opinion? Will firearms owners have to purchase special storage equipment for several hundred dollars or will common sense prevail?
Similarly, many guns and clips will have to be converted to correspond to the new requirements. What is the time frame within which these conversions must take place and who will bear the cost, those who have demanded the changes or those who are required to make them?
These regulations have brought back several of the concerns that were removed from Bill C-17 in order to get it through this House. Regrettably regulations like laws must be reasonable and make sense if they are going to be adhered to by the population.

[Stage Direction]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River) Mr. Speaker, last fall the government indicated to Canadians through its "Shaping Canada's Future Together" proposals that it was considering entrenching property rights in the Constitution.
What has happened? It would seem that the Tories no longer support the idea and instead have embraced the concept of a social charter as proposed by the NDP.
I entreat this government to reconsider its refusal to entrench property rights in the Constitution. My constituents of Beaver River have demanded through a survey conducted in my riding that limits be placed on the now unrestrained capacity of Parliament to enact laws which deprive people of their property arbitrarily, unfairly and without compensation.
April 28, 1992
[Stage Direction]
I can understand the NDP wanting to appropriate private property from Canadian citizens, but I thought the Conservatives were a party that believed in the right of every person to the use and enjoyment of property.
I was obviously misled, as were other Canadians, to believe that there was a significant difference between the Tories and the NDP.
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, on April 24 and on Sunday, April 26, Canadians of Armenian heritage commemorated the 77th anniversaiy of the Armenian genocide.
In Canada, denial of the Jewish holocaust has been recognized in our courts as a violation of our hate laws.
Yet the Turkish government continues to deny this historical blot on its reputation for which the term genocide was coined in spite of the pictures, the testaments of survivors, and ample documentation.
The European Parliament has recognized this act of hatred. A UN subcommittee on the motion of Canadian Justice Deschenes recommended the United Nations recognize it. I therefore urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to publicly acknowledge this attempted genocide and to submit the matter to the United Nations in concert with Europe.


THE BALKANS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent - Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Balkans has caused considerable concern among many of my constituents. In particular, the issue of Macedonia represents great potential for further destabilization in the region.
As is evident with the escalation of the slaughter of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the issues of the former Yugoslav republics cannot be resolved by the simple act of international recognition.
The inhabitants of these countries have cultural and national identities. They have to be addressed within the
setting up of new state borders. The failure of the government of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to assure its ethnic groups of their rights and adopt a name that is not linked to Hellenism threatens to cause chaos in this turbulent region.
Canada has already sent 1,200 troops to participate in the peacekeeping efforts in Yugoslavia. It would be a great pity if this number had to be increased. Canada should insist that the Gligorov government respect the culture and tradition of its neighbours as well as the rights of all ethnic groups that make up the population and drop the name Macedonia, which implies territorial claims before any recognition is given.


AGRIFOOD INDUSTRY
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a conference was held entitled "Enhancing Competitiveness in the Agrifood Sector".
The participants discussed the dramatic restructuring that is occurring in the food manufacturing industry and the need to manage change more effectively by developing new solutions, new approaches, and new attitudes.
A joint presentation was made by the Grocery Product Manufacturers of Canada and the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. This is quite a change.
Just one year ago they virtually had no dealings with each other and they never really thought about working together, but both organizations have learned when they approach problems from different philosophies, although they have different philosophies, in the end their concerns and objectives are the same.
I congratulate the two groups for this positive step forward. It is a necessary step if one hopes to foster greater understanding, dialogue, compromise, and cooperation.
=k * 5jC


COLLEEN MCCRORY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to honour one of Canada's hardest working environmentalists, Colleen McCrory. Colleen is the recipient of one of the most prestigious environmental awards in the world, the $60,000 U.S. Goldman Environmental Prize.

April 28, 1992
Colleen is one of Canada's environmental heroes. In fact, her work has been so outstanding she is the environmentalist chosen to represent the entire North American continent. This award is a recognition of the time, effort, and personal sacrifice she has made on behalf of Canadians. Her courage is an example to us all.
Colleen has worked on a number of crucial environmental battles, but she is perhaps best known for her work to convince this government to set aside 12 per cent of land as wilderness; a goal that would ensure Canada never loses its unique natural heritage.
Colleen will be meeting with President George Bush and the head of the United Nations in the coming weeks in preparation for the earth summit in Brazil in June.
I look forward to working with Colleen at the earth summit to ensure substantive progress is made on the crucial global environmental issues facing the world today.


QUALITY OF LIFE IN CANADA
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in my holiday message, I urged my constituents to reflect on how lucky they are to live in a free, tolerant and compassionate country.
This observation was repeated recently by the United Nations, which rated Canada as the country with the best quality of life in the world.
This measurement of quality of life was instituted to emphasize people's well-being in such areas as level of schooling, life expectancy and purchasing power. At the same time, the International Monetary Fund, in its world economic outlook, predicted that Canada would have the strongest economic growth of all industrialized countries in 1992 and 1993.
Leading the world in these two rankings makes me think of the motto of a great Quebec daily newspaper, "fais ce que dois", and tell my government to continue to do what it must do and Canada will be the better for it.


FISHERIES
Mr, Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory government continues to strip Prince Edward Island of federal support services, facilities, and services in fisheries protection and inspections. The latest in the government's steady centralization efforts and withdrawal of services to islanders is the announcement of the phase-out and closing of the fisheries and oceans department laboratory in Charlottetown. The fisheries and oceans lab provides a vital service to the shellfish industry in Prince Edward Island, especially the oyster and mussel industry.
If shellfish are not properly handled and transported and if the environment in which they are grown is not monitored and tested, the whole industry is put in jeopardy as it was a few years ago with the mussels scare.
Consumer confidence in shellfish necessitates a high quality safe product. Any move to diminish that confidence will hurt the industry immeasurably. The logistics of forwarding samples to a laboratory off island is fraught with danger in relation to spoiling of the sample due to the unreliable temperature controls, misdirecting or loss of a sample and delays in the actual testing and retesting of samples.
These things will happen as has been demonstrated in the Nova Scotia experience. The fishermen and fish processors will pay and will probably pay dearly. P.E.I. has the largest shellfish industry in Canada, yet a new lab is being proposed on the mainland and all the small labs in the maritimes will close.
It would be very convenient for scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to centralize in Moncton, but it will put our lobster, oyster and mussel fishermen in great danger. We must always remember our Public Service is working, by definition, for the public and the public must always take precedence.
April 28, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada released the census today showing that after four decades of decline the birth rate in Canada increased during the last five years. That is welcome news.
However, the problem we face is that more and more Canadian children are being born into poverty. At last count almost 4 million Canadians were living below the poverty line. More Canadian children are bom into families who are unemployed, on welfare, or have no child care.
When is the Prime Minister going to honour his seven and a half year commitment to proper child care in this country? Does he not understand that when children do not have proper child care the damage lasts forever?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the member exactly all that the government has done in the last year for children in Canada.
I hope she remembers it was not a long time ago that we put $2 billion more over five years for low income workers in Canada. The Prime Minister signed the convention last December. We will be making an announcement in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver about something else, what we call children at risk in Canada, which will total around $3 billion by this government for children for the last three months. The Liberals never succeeded to do that much.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made the promise seven and a half years ago. I would like to hear from the Prime Minister on his day care promise.
A lot of Canadians heard last week that Canada is the best place in the world to live.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Thanks to Liberal governments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that reality only applies to Canadian men. According to the United
Oral Questions
Nations, once our treatment of women is included, we tumble to eighth place. Not only do we have a bad record on child care, Canadian women receive two-thirds of the pay of men, are caught in part-time jobs and are largely heading single parent poor families in this country.
The Prime Minister loves to talk about the number of women he has appointed, but the United Nations concluded that the vast majority of Canadian women face a dismal economic situation.
What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that Canada is the best place in the world to live, not only for men but for women too?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue the progress that has been made in Canada in respect of the search for equality for women.
My hon. friend is quite right. Canada does lead the world in some very important considerations, but there are other countries that do better than we do.
For example, some of the Nordic countries in regard to the disparities between men and women in terms of work and in the workplace, governments, public service, and the private sector and so on.
This disparity is unfair and we are working toward correcting it.
My hon. friend says that there is a prediction about a dismal situation for women in Canada. That is not accurate. That is not accurate at all.
In point of fact, family income has increased dramatically. Jobs have increased since 1984. Some 70 per cent, I believe, of the full-time jobs in Canada have gone to women. In a progressive way we are eliminating those disparities.
We have a long way to go, but I share my hon. friend's point of view that while Canada is ranked number one in the world by the United Nations pursuant to some objective criteria, there are others where we should improve very dramatically our situation including the one that she raised. We are working as best we can to make sure that Canada makes progress to become number one in that area as well.

April 28, 1992
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, the reality is that Canada treats women very badly. I am glad to leam that Montreal's population is now over three million, but unfortunately the number of children living in poverty in Montreal is growing faster than the population. The number of single mothers living in despair is also rising.
What will the Prime Minister do for women who do not find work? What will he do for women who do not have access to child care? What will he do for women who do not enjoy employment equity with men? Indeed, what will he do to reduce this wide gap between women and men that was unfortunately pointed out by the United Nations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same in French as in English. It is essentially the same question that the hon. member just asked. She says in French that the United Nations report mentions Canada treating women very badly. That is not true. The United States report says no such thing. That is not true.
I agree with my friend that we must reduce and eventually eliminate this employment gap between women and men in Canada. That is just what we are trying to do. How? The hon. member could refer to the report of another well-respected international agency, the International Monetary Fund, which said this week that our economic growth would be the highest of all industrialized countries in 1992 and 1993, that employment growth would be No. 1 in the world and that inflation would be the lowest in the world. These factors will help create an economic base and new wealth that we can share more, of course, as a country, with the female population of Canada.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Women and children are not the only groups that have suffered under his government. He has also failed to create opportunities for youth. Nothing exemplifies this more than Canada's shameful youth unemployment
rate. It is now 16.9 per cent which means that over 400,000 young Canadians are now on the unemployment roles of this nation.
The government's response has been to cut 40,000 jobs from the students' summer employment program since 1985.
How can the Prime Minister justify this action against Canada's youth?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, obviously youth, like other Canadians in the country, have suffered over the past year with respect to the general economic situation. This is a world-wide situation.
I would think that my hon. colleague, when he makes comparisons, will make the appropriate comparisons. What he has to think about is that the budget with respect to the jobs he is referring to was increased last year and was increased this year again.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response cannot be taken seriously, given the desperate economic conditions Canada's youth face.
Every member of this House is aware of the thousands of SEED applications that do not get approved. Thousands of job opportunities are lost. Every member knows how difficult it is to say no to young people who desperately need a summer job to complete their education.
How can this government be so indifferent to Canada's youth, Canada's future?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague forgets to acknowledge the fact that the budgets have been increased.
He also forgets to acknowledge the fact that some of my predecessors made the adjustments in the programs that he is trying to compare with 1985 in order to deal with those students at risk, including the ones dropping out. That is where we have concentrated some of the money in order to make sure that students get the appropriate education and stay in school rather than drop out of school.
April 28, 1992


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he intended to table a bill to allow a referendum to be held on the Constitution. Yesterday's announcement, however, does not answer any of the questions that necessarily arise.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: what guarantees can he give that this referendum will unite the country, will not be a source of division and will not be used to impose a solution on the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any guarantees to anyone.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me for a personal guarantee or a guarantee on behalf of the government. I can give no such guarantee. Of course we-the House of Commons-would use a referendum or plebiscite to consult the general public and seek their views on an important question, and this would be in an attempt to unite the country, not to divide it.
I hope my hon. friend realizes that much as I would like to do so, I can give her no guarantees.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: What I am asking the Prime Minister is whether in this enabling legislation that is proposed by his minister it is the government's intention to ensure that this legislation will include specific details such as what the question would be, such as what would constitute a majority. Obviously, minority populations in this country, which would of course include Quebec and would include aboriginal people, would want to be assured that any referendum and any legislation proposing a referendum would ensure that there was a fair and equitable formula for the result of the referendum and for what would constitute a majority.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, I think the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs indicated yesterday in his comments to the media that in regard to this proposed piece of legislation, he would introduce it pursuant to intensive consultations with the leaders of the major recognized parties in the House of
Oral Questions
Commons. Of course, that involves my distinguished friend. As soon as draft legislation is ready, I am sure he will be by to see the hon. member, review things with her, and get the benefit of her counsel.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think the important issue here is that the legislation we put forward, for the government in order to be clear to the people, is that it is not just simply blank cheque legislation but that it includes specific details about a referendum including the question, including the timing, including spending limits, and including what constitutes a majority.
The Prime Minister has said that there will be consultation. I want to ask him what kind of consultation will there also be with provinces and territories and aboriginal people prior to such a piece of legislation being put before this House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada speaks for all of the people of Canada.


An hon. member:: Try an election. You'll see.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, my friends from the Bloc Quebe-cois say "Let's call an election." Believe me, it is only charity that causes me not to call one because I am thinking of their pensions. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put them out on a snow bank without their pensions.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last and final gift from a grateful nation when they leave will be an indexed pension.
I say to my hon. friend, the Parliament of Canada speaks for all the people of Canada. After the leaders have been consulted and after draft legislation has been introduced and debated, voted up or down in the House, then that is the position of the Parliament of Canada. Pursuant to that legislation a consultation will take place.
I do not believe in this case that we can undertake prior to consultation with other party leaders to consult with everybody else in town. We are here to take our responsibilities. We are elected to the Parliament of Canada. This Parliament speaks for all the people of Canada and when this Parliament makes up its mind, that is the decision that affects the people of Canada.

April 28, 1992
Oral Questions


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In its report last week, the International Joint Commission said that toxic substances were too dangerous to human health to allow continued dumping of even the minutest quantities in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
Does the minister agree with the Joint Commission and will he insist that the parties concerned prohibit altogether the production and disposal in these waters of substances that are so dangerous to the health of Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is working on this problem with the Department of the Environment, which has major responsibilities in this area, and with my colleague at Industry, Science and Technology. My department is, of course, monitoring very closely all the implications for the health of Canadians as a result of this problem, and it is taking action accordingly, but always, I repeat, in a spirit of co-operation with the policies of the Department of the Environment. In fact, the Minister of the Environment has said several times in the House that the problem is being given serious consideration and that measures to deal with it are being taken by his department and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Given the fact that the Minister of the Environment has done very little in this area, I would suggest to the minister that he involve himself personally.
Let me quote from last week's report of the International Joint Commission on toxic discharges into the Great Lakes. "Are humans in danger now? Are future generations in danger? The answer to both questions is yes". The report then goes on to say that the government's current approach to the problem "cannot protect human health".
The commission calls for the elimination of the manufacture, the use, the transport and the disposal of the substances in question. That calls for a program that must include, and I quote again from the report, "a target date".
The question in this instance is: what is the government's target date to begin protecting human health?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said before that the Department of National Health and Welfare is working very closely with other departments in the way that we apply regulations related to the environment.
Obviously I would disagree that the Minister of the Environment has not given the House and Canadians, periodically, different announcements and measures dealing with the green plan or any other decision by his department to deal with the problem.
I take exception when he says that the Department of National Health and Welfare does not look after the health of Canadians. That is what the Health Protection Branch does. We have different sectors in the department that do that all the time. We continue to do it.
I agree that changes in the environment have given different challenges to the health department and all people dealing with the health of Canadians. It is what we do, what we will continue to do and, I believe progressively, as we do in the environment itself.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The International Joint Commission said in its report on water quality that in human beings it is the infants who are exposed to toxins, not the parents themselves, who are being damaged.
Surely the minister will admit that when it is the next generation that is being harmed the time for action is now.
Why will the government not take the urgent advice of the IJC and set deadlines now for eliminating the use of all these toxic substances?
April 28, 1992


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member is not aware that three weeks ago, I believe, within the green plan I made an announcement that we will spend $170 million to deal with the problem of environment and health. We particularly said that we would target particular groups. It just so happens that two of the groups we are targeting are women and children.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The huge amount of money is extremely interesting, but we have a report with some very specific recommendations. The Minister of the Environment is admitting that his regulations for effluents into the Great Lakes still allow 400,000 tonnes a year of toxic substances to flow into our lakes and rivers.
The IJC says that any quantity of toxic substances is too dangerous to human health. They say zero discharge means zero.
Will the government now listen to this urgent advice? Will it act immediately at least to admit that it made a mistake last December and that it must ban all effluents of organo-chlorines into our waters?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will not admit that the Minister of the Environment made a mistake last December.
I will repeat what I said before to the member's colleague and to her. The question is not just to announce money. The government has done a lot when dealing with the question of health and the environment, obviously much more than you did before, but that is not the problem. We do progressively what should be done in terms of health.
The member will admit that we have many different reports on the relationship between the environment and health. The experts in all departments, in all committees and all reports are not unanimous all the time, but we are trying to deal with all reports in a way that will continue, because we do well, to protect the health of Canadians.
Oral Questions BREAST IMPLANTS


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well.
Yesterday the minister released the Baines report on breast implants. The report complained of a shortage of data on everything from the constituents of silicone implants to how long the devices can be expected to last in the body. The report is an indictment of the health ministry that after 30 years on the market and years of sustained questioning about safety, and after government studies upon studies, the ministry has failed to ensure that scientific research was done to protect women.
In all of last week's announcements, the minister has failed to provide one word that women with implants would know where to go and who to see for help. When will the minister provide that information?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there are so many errors in what my friend said that I will not have enough time to answer that question.
First of all, she should know that Dr. Baines said that there was no evidence that the silicone gel breast implant does not create problems, and she also said that there is no evidence that they create problems.
Second, when the member said that women have nowhere to go she is wrong. She has not read the report correctly. The doctor proposed, and I accepted the proposal, that we should first of all look at a registry for all women with breast implants.
Second, we said we will consider a survey by Angus Reid of women who have had breast implants to give not only their impressions but their experiences. We have decided to study this for the next six months before making a decision.
We will have more studies such as those she asked for. We will have more data and that will permit us to determine whether to lift the ban on breast implants. In the meantime, we have decided to protect Canadian women.
There are no silicone gel implants on the market today when they are available in the United States.

April 28, 1992
Oral Questions


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to review my question in Hansard and point out where I have erred.
I have here a document obtained through the access to information from a researcher in the Clinical Advisory Division to the Chief of Research in Standards Division.
The memo is dated January 1989. It says: "I believe that the risk of the severity of the complication outweighs the apparent possible advantage of such an implant," referring to the Meme.
Could the minister explain why he did not immediately act to get the Meme off the market? What research is being done now to ensure that those women who have Memes have the kind of protection they need from the risk? Will he undertake an independent inquiry to ensure us that the department acted properly on the information it clearly had? I would like to table the document.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous studies on breast implants. Incidentally, the Meme implant was taken off the market a year ago. It is no longer available. The manufacturer is no longer marketing this type of implant. Studies are going on at this very moment. I felt that six months would give us a chance to do further studies.
We have just had a report, and now the hon. member is asking for another study, another investigation. I believe we now have the mechanisms we need, and meanwhile, we intend to make a decision within the next six months. For once the hon. member for Hamilton East congratulated me at the press conference on the decisions I made because I felt they were the right ones to protect the well-being of Canadian women.


DOMESTIC WORKER PROGRAM
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Employment and Immigration.
Yesterday the minister implemented changes in the Domestic Worker Program, despite the fact that the
House of Commons committee was still studying his proposals of January 30 and had not yet reported to the House.
In fact the committee was awaiting further information from his department in order to schedule additional meetings and write its report.
I want the minister to tell this House why he proceeded with his announcement yesterday before the committee reported its recommendations. Why has the minister totally snubbed, debased and humiliated this parliamentary committee?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows me. He knows, I am sure, that I would never snub colleagues of the House of Commons.
The announcement I made on January 30 resulted from a two-year consultation process and study of the then foreign domestic program. I know that the subcommittee of the standing committee is looking at that program.
If hon. members on the committee come up with recommendations to improve this program, I will look at them seriously. I do not think that this takes away from the efforts of the subcommittee of the standing committee.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government talks about parliamentary reform and the important role of committees, but time and again it ignores the committees and disregards their advice.
In this case, not one witness before the committee supported the government's proposals. None were consulted as alleged by the minister, and his official failed to provide information requested by the committee on February 26. That is two months ago. In these circumstances, again I ask: why did the minister proceed with these changes yesterday and will he not put these changes on hold until the committee reports in a few weeks?


Bernard Valcourt: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not because this is not an immigration program. This is a labour market program. There is a demand for live-in care givers by Canadian families. The program was suspended in January. Because of the need, we have decided to proceed.
April 28, 1992

If the committee has recommendations to make, as I stated before, it does not take away from the good work of the committee. If we can further improve that program, we will.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The minister's decision in the Spencer-Lamont case relies upon the justice and police systems of Brazil, a system whose police solution to the problem with street kids is to acquiesce to their assassination.
The minister gives no weight to Cardinal Arns, the person who stayed with David and Christine all night to preclude their anticipated torture, sat through the trial and heard the judge's admission to political pressure.
Will the minister not, on humanitarian grounds, reverse her regressive decision?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the parents of Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer, I am very sympathetic and very concerned for their situation and that of their families.
I have spent a great deal of time as a result reviewing this case and the implications both for the two who are in prison and for their families to assure myself that I reached a thorough and correct decision.
Let me say that the appeal process is still open. I know that they will take advantage of that. There are some difficulties with the process which our consulate is quite prepared to help with to the extent that is possible.
I believe that the decision I reached was a fair one based not just on the legal advice that I have but on our international obligations both to Canadians and to the conventions we have signed with regard to hostage-taking and kidnapping.


George Saunders Rideout: My supplementary question is for the same minister.
I have been told by the Lamonts that Christine is working in the prison infirmary, a prison infirmary that does not have Canadian standards of health care, an
Oral Questions
infirmary in which her parents worry about her exposure to the AIDS virus. The most recent figures indicate that 30 per cent of Brazilian female inmates either have AIDS or test positive.
Would the minister not rescue David and Christine and not abandon them in Brazil for 28 years?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we officially told the Brazilian authorities and I have told the parents personally as well as said in this House before that we regard the sentence as excessive and that there are means by which we can achieve the same objective.
First of all, we have an exchange of offenders treaty which has been negotiated and will be ratified later this year. We are ready to ratify it now. The Brazilian process takes a little longer. That would mean that Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer could serve the rest of their term in Canada. It would also mean that they would be subject to earlier parole.
The other thing, of course, is that we could ask for expulsion at a later date should that be deemed appropriate at some future time.


HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Human Life International is holding a conference in Ottawa this weekend. This organization is anti-birth control, anti-sex education, anti-gay and lesbian, and anti-abortion, even when the woman's life is in danger. Yet this government supports its activities by giving it charitable tax status.
Why are Canadian taxpayers subsidizing this organization when pro-choice groups are denied charitable tax status?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, without knowing the details of this particular organization, I can assure the hon. member that the terms of reference and the rules and regulations within Revenue Canada are to put everybody on an equal basis, a level playing field, but I will be very happy to look into this specific matter and get back to the hon. member forthwith.

April 28, 1992
Oral Questions


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. Human Life International is organizing political protests. It has inundated all members of Parliament in this House with absolutely revolting postcards that show a foetus at almost full term as well as pamphlets that say: "How day care destroyed a nation" and "The victims of an abortion profiteer".
I appreciate that the minister will review it. I want to ask him if he will also report back to the House after his review of this organization and its status?


Otto John Jelinek: The
answer to the last portion of the hon. member's question is yes. At the same time I want to make it very clear that this government, as I am sure all members of this House of Commons, does not condone any such activities as the hon. member refers to. I repeat again that I will be looking at it as early as this afternoon and will get back to the hon. member right away.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the government hit on a unique way to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the 1942 referendum on conscription. The Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs announced that he intended to table a referendum bill very shortly.
The government must be aware of the fact that Quebec passed Bill 150, which provides for a referendum on sovereignty to be held next October.
My question is this: why does the government plan to short-circuit what the people of Quebec will decide in their referendum?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have said, and the minister has said on many occasions, that the government or the Parliament of Canada does not intend to usurp the right of any province, including Quebec, to have a referendum when and on what it sees fit. And this of course includes the important question coming up this fall.
That being said, we as the federal Parliament of this country will not yield our right to consult Canadians as well. Quebecers are also Canadians, and most are proud of it. If the Parliament of Canada decides to consult Canadians in Quebec, we will do so.
Now my hon. friend raised the subject of Bill 150, which has become a sacred cow for him and his colleagues, although the Parti Quebecois voted against the bill in the National Assembly.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may remind you that I signed the Belanger-Campeau commission's report and was the only member of this House to do so.
English Canada has every right, and we respect that right, to decide what its own future will be. However, with all due respect, it has no right to make a decision on Quebec sovereignty. That is a matter for Quebecers to decide in a Quebec referendum held under the auspices of the Quebec government.
This prerogative should be respected by a Conservative government that last year was so proud of the fact that it recognized Quebec's right to determine its own future.
Will the Prime Minister promise not to interfere with the workings of Quebec's democratic system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
hon. member has a seat in the Parliament of Canada, is paid by Canadian taxpayers and expects to receive a pension paid by the Canadian people, and he would deny the Parliament of Canada the right to consult Canadians living in Quebec? I think not. If the Parliament of Canada decides to consult Quebecers, we will, because we represent all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have said on several occasions that we would respect Bill 150, despite the fact that the PQ voted against the bill. We intend to respect this legislation. Nor do we have any intention of usurping the legitimate right of the Quebec government and the Quebec National Assembly to consult the people of Quebec, just as British Columbia has the right to consult its citizens under legislation passed by that province. However, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that as far as this government is concerned-and I think as far as all parliamentarians are concerned, at least those who believe that this country, which was ranked number one by the United Nations last week, is worth saving-we in
April 28, 1992

the Parliament of Canada represent all Canadians, and that includes Quebecers. If Parliament decides to consult Quebecers and other Canadians, we will do so.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Madam Justice Wilson says that too many Canadian judges have a gender bias. Madame Justice L'Heureaux-Dube and Mr. Justice Gonthier agree with her. The Minister of Justice says mandatory education for judges interferes with their independence.
Will the Prime Minister act upon the suggestions of the Supreme Court Justices and convince his Minister of Justice to implement mandatory gender sensitivity training today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to precisely this very important question, we have taken the number of federal judges I believe from 33 when I came in as Prime Minister to 100. Rosalie Abella I think was our hundredth appointment last month.
My hon. friend says it is not the issue. Of course it is the issue. The important thing is to put women in positions of decision-making in this country at the highest level, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have increased the number of women on the Supreme Court. We appointed last month the first woman Chief Justice in history of an appellate court in Alberta, Cathy Fraser. Bev McLachlin was the Chief Justice of British Columbia.
We have increased from 37 to I believe 100 the number of women in the Federal Courts. I think it is very important that governments proceed to appoint high quality women to positions of decision-making so that justice can then follow.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am edified, I am delighted, I am thrilled that the Prime Minister has appointed all these wonderful women. Unfortunately and with the greatest of respect to the gentlemen here
Oral Questions
and across the land, the majority is still men. Indeed the National Judicial Institute said that 40 per cent of these judges have not taken gender sensitivity training that is available to them.
Unless the Prime Minister intends to fully implement an all-female bench in every court in the land, would he tell us how he is going to ensure Canadians are not subject to sexual stereotyping in the courts.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I cannot give a complete answer to that but I can give an important beginning. Just the other day I was telling the Minister of Justice that I thought the member for Halifax had all of the qualities for a judicial appointment.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I bet. Flattery will get you nowhere.


DAVID MILGAARD
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: My question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the David Milgaard case. Last fall the Prime Minister spoke to Mrs. Milgaard and expressed sympathy for the plight of her son. Since then his murder conviction has been quashed.
As the Prime Minister well knows, Milgaard's name is still in legal limbo. Due to Saskatchewan's decision to stay charges against Mr. Milgaard, he is unable to bring forward evidence which might clear his name.
In view of these circumstances and the Prime Minister's apparent sympathies, why will his government not consider compensation for Mr. Milgaard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right. I met Mrs. Milgaard in Winnipeg and talked with her. She pointed out the dilemma as she saw it and the problems, and I discussed it with the members of the government. I am very happy for the results the Minister of Justice caused to ensue pursuant to the decision of the court. I am not sure, but I do not believe that the Supreme Court said that the murder conviction was quashed. I do not believe it did.


Some hon. members:: No.

April 28, 1992
Tributes


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think it recommended that it be referred back for a new trial and the Government of Saskatchewan, which prosecuted this matter, has apparently decided not to proceed.
It seems to us that in this case and these circumstances the legislative jurisdiction responsible for initiation of the matter of the first case ought to examine David Milgaard's request for assistance and/or compensation.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, there are guidelines in place for compensation for people who have been victimized by the system of justice. However, Mr. Milgaard is not considered eligible for compensation because he has not been declared an innocent man. Only his murder conviction has been quashed and charges stayed.
It is important to know how the government feels about this. The man, after all, has been incarcerated for 23 years. Does the government just shrug its shoulders and say "too bad, that would not be consistent with the Prime Minister's expressed sympathies"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we would not propose to shrug our shoulders and say "too bad" any more than I would have considered saying that when I met Mrs. Milgaard. She gave me her point of view. She explained the situation of her son and, as I say, I did what I thought I ought to do further to that meeting.
I have just explained to my hon. friend that further to the reference, or pursuant to the reference to the Supreme Court, decisions of the court were made. The principal decision was to refer it for re-examination for prosecution, and if that was the decision, a new trial, by the chief Crown prosecutor of Saskatchewan. Apparently he has declined to prosecute, in which case it would seem to me that any cause for compensation or assistance which might arise from that decision would be the area or the jurisdiction to which Mr. Milgaard might want to address his attentions.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for
Small Businesses and Tourism. It concerns the administration of the Federal Business Development Bank.
The FBDB appears to have strayed from its original mandate or sense of purpose. Business people in my riding are continually frustrated at the inconsistencies and bureaucratic red tape associated in attempting to obtain assistance through local FBDB offices.
My question is simply this: what measures is the minister prepared to take to ensure that the FBDB is made more responsive to the needs of Canadian business?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking the trouble to share with us his concerns. I would like him to know that no individual branch of the FBDB is perfect. I am going to examine the procedures in his region and especially in his constituency.
He should know that in Atlantic Canada 495 files were approved last year. We had in Canada over 2,000 new loans last year alone. We have a bank here which is a supplemental lender to the major chartered banks that funded over 4,000 files the year before, presumably financing the chartered banks would not do.
I think the FBDB is doing a good job in a difficult climate, but if improvements can be made we will make them.


THE LATE MAURICE SAUVE
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we were dismayed to learn of the death of the Hon. Maurice Sauve on Monday, April 13.
An experienced businessman and tireless politician respected by all, he served his community in exemplary fashion throughout his career in politics and social affairs. He will be remembered as a vigorous, direct, straightforward man who was not afraid to take risks, as his participation before the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, for example, shows.
I would repeat the words of the Prime Minister in his tribute. He said, "Those who had the privilege to know and be touched by the depth of his convictions will always remember him as fiercely Quebecois and passion-
April 28, 1992

ately Canadian. We will miss the wisdom, experience and clear insight of this great Canadian at a crucial time in our constitutional development".
I join all our fellow citizens in offering his wife, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, and their son, Jean-Francois, our sincerest condolences.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it was with both sadness and regret that we learned on April 13 of the loss of a great Quebecer and a proud Canadian.
On that day the Hon. Maurice Sauve, politician, businessman and husband of our former Governor General Jeanne Sauve, passed away. Maurice Sauve distinguished himself as both a strong voice for Quebec's interests and as a strong proponent of national unity. Just last December he said to the parliamentary committee on national unity: "I plead with you all, not only the committee but Parliament as a whole, to do its duty and come up with a proposal that will unite this country".

Maurice Sauve was born on September 20, 1923 in Montreal. He was the son of Joseph Honore Sauve and Melanie Duguay. Maurice had an outstanding education. After studying with the Jesuits at College Sainte-Marie, he entered the University of Montreal. In 1948, at age 25, he completed his education at the London School of Economics and the University of Paris to obtain a doctorate in economics. On his return, he was involved in the labour movement and recruited workers for the CNTU.

Maurice Sauve enjoyed a most prominent career in both the public and the private sectors. In his capacity as member of Parliament for the former riding of Iles-de-la-Madeleine and as a minister, he was known for his energy, his ability and his outspoken manner.
As part of Mike Pearson's team, he won his first election to the House of Commons in 1962. Two years later Maurice was appointed Minister of Forestry and consequently appointed Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Tributes
As a member of the federal cabinet, he was a strong proponent of bilingualism in the federal government and of balanced regional development for all of Canada.
Shortly after leaving politics in 1968, Maurice Sauve became the vice-president of Consolidated Bathurst.

Any tribute to Maurice Sauve would be incomplete if we forgot to mention his hard work in the years preceding the 1980 referendum. During that time of reflection for Quebecers, Maurice had the courage and pride to chair the important Quebec-Canada movement, which had more than 120,000 members and worked for Canadian unity. This desire to keep Canada united never died.
On January 28, Maurice Sauve told Le Droit that Canada, despite its shortcomings, had 100 years of positive achievements to its credit.

We would like to thank Maurice Sauve for his contribution to and belief in Canada. He will be greatly missed.
To his wife, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, and his son, Jean-Francois, we would like to extend our most sincere sympathy for their loss.

To his wife, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, and his son, Jean-Franqois, allow me to express our sincerest condolences.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: It was with a great deal of sadness that we learned of the death of Maurice Sauve a couple of weeks ago.
When I was first elected to this House in 1968, Maurice Sauve was no longer a member. I got to know him shortly after because his wife Jeanne became a member of Parliament. Eventually she occupied the Chair you occupy today as Speaker of this House. She then became the Governor General of this great country.
It was only a few weeks ago that Mr. Sauve appeared before the committee on the Constitution, of which I was proud to be a member, along with the former premiers of Ontario and Saskatchewan, Bill Davis and Allan Blake-ney, to plead for this country. At that particular time he made a very eloquent plea.

April 28, 1992
Tributes
He was a great Quebecois and a great Canadian. He wanted Canada to remain a solid united country. That is what he stood for as a great Quebecer and as a great Canadian.

Mr. Sauve was a member of Parliament from the province of Quebec. He was a minister in Mr. Pearson's cabinet. He sat here with the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and many other members of this House. He was a very well known businessman in Quebec and eveiywhere. He had a great deal of wisdom and, as I said in English, he was a great Quebecer and a great Canadian.
On behalf of my party and myself, I want to offer condolences to his wife Jeanne and his son Jean-Frangois.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to know Maurice Sauve personally. He was a man who was both a Quebecois and a Canadian and distinguished himself with unwavering political commitment at a crucial time in the history of Quebec and Canada.
Maurice Sauve was one of those who made it possible-and that is one of his claims to fame, I think-for Jean Lesage and his "equipe de tonnerre" to take power in Quebec in 1960. He is even credited with coining the slogan "equipe de tonnerre", the wonder team that greatly contributed to electing the forces of reform in Quebec. That government, which Maurice Sauve strongly supported, led to the political, economic and social awakening of Quebec in the 1960s. After two eventful careers, one in politics and the other in business, Mr. Sauve gave his wife Jeanne unfailing and outstanding support as she so admirably filled the high office of Governor General of Canada.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and in my own name, I extend the deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to Mrs. Sauve, his son Jean-Fran^ois and Jean-Frangois' wife.


THE LATE PIERRE DENIGER
Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, misfortunes rarely come alone. Two weeks ago, in the Montreal area, misfortune struck a second time after it took the Hon. Maurice Sauve, to whom we have just paid tribute. Death also claimed Pierre Deniger, who served as the member for Laprairie from 1979 to 1984.
After a dazzling career as a transportation lawyer, Pierre Deniger served his fellow citizens honestly, enthusiastically and competently in this House for five years and then pursued his business career with great success.
My colleagues in the House of Commons and the Progressive Conservative Party join me in offering his wife Lynne and his two very young children, Christiane and Patrick, who are nine years old, our sincere condolences at this time of extreme sorrow.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have lost a friend, a confidant and an excellent political advisor. That is what I said to Pierre O'Neill of Le Devoir on the death of Pierre Deniger, who was the member of Parliament for Laprairie from 1979 to 1984.
In politics, I had the opportunity to chair the first and second nominating conventions that chose him as a Liberal candidate. In return, Pierre honoured me by presiding the celebration of my 25th anniversary in politics three years ago. At 44 years of age, Pierre had already made his mark.
As his great friend, Jacques Olivier, the former member for Longueuil, said in Le Devoir, Pierre Deniger did not have cold feet and in Parliament, at meetings of the Liberal Party and in caucus, he never hesitated to say aloud what many colleagues thought to themselves.
He was active in the private sector since 1984. He was vice-president of Labatt Brewery, president and executive director of the Quebec Brewers' Association and, since 1991, vice-president of Domtar.
As Le Devoir reports, Pierre was a lawyer for the Transport Commission from 1972 until he became a political assistant to Transport Minister Otto Lang. He rightly fought for Quebec to obtain its share of navy frigate contracts and subcontracts. Later, he was very interested, with his usual legendary determination, in encouraging the development of the aerospace industry in the Montreal area.
April 28, 1992

A gifted political strategist and analyst and a very cultured man, he knew almost everything about what was going on in politics.
He was very courageous. He knew that he had a relatively rare form of cancer, but still it was Pierre who encouraged those close to him and his friends like me. I thank the staff of the Royal Victoria Hospital who treated and cared for him with such dignity.

Pierre was a caring, approachable, passionate, action-oriented member of this House of Commons whose integrity was above reproach.
[ Translation)
The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who is here asked me to say that he wanted to join in a special way in the tribute that I would pay to Pierre Deniger.
On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition, the party and his very many friends, we offer Lynne and his dear nine-year old twins, Christiane and Patrick, our sympathy and the assurance of our support.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we all were saddened when we learned of Pierre Deniger's passing.
For those of us who knew him personally, it was a particularly serious bit of news that we received. I knew Pierre when he was elected in 1979 and re-elected in 1980 as one of the most dedicated and compassionate members of the House of Commons.
He was a great Canadian and a great parliamentarian. He was one who struggled and fought and represented his riding well. I remember on many occasions in the House of Commons how he spoke in terms of building the aerospace industry in Montreal. He spoke for the shipbuilding industry along the St. Lawrence and particularly represented the concerns of his constituents in Laprairie across the St. Lawrence River from Montreal.
I particularly remember, myself being a new member from western Canada, that he was one of the members of Parliament from Quebec who was prepared to spend a lot of time talking and chatting with us newly-elected
Tributes
members from western Canada to explain his vision of Canada from a Quebec perspective.
I remember those long evening discussions with a great deal of pleasure as an opportunity to build my understanding of Canada as we know it today.
Our hearts and our thoughts go out to his wife Lynne and their two children. We will miss him greatly.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it is very sad to have to speak in memoriam of someone with whom we had so much in common. In the seventies, Pierre Deniger and I were young, ambitious executive assistants, so ambitious that in 1978, we both resigned from our jobs to run for Parliament.
I will always remember that time, in 1978-79, when every month we expected an election would be called, when we rented halls, cancelled and started all over again. This was typical of a government winding down, I was told.
We developed a very good relationship with Pierre Deniger during those uncertain times. On election night in 1979, our patience was rewarded, and we were ecstatic at being here in the House of Commons. We were re-elected in 1980.
I am sure Pierre Deniger would have liked to stay with us. His love of politics gave him a special dimension that we, his colleagues, did not have. For instance, he was very interested in all the ethnic communities. As Francophone members, we often tend to deal with our constituents on a one to one basis, but Pierre had developed this close relationship with ethnic communities, and at each caucus meeting he would talk to us about the celebrations and holidays of the various ethnic groups in Montreal.
I know it was my friend Marcel Prud'homme who introduced him to the multicultural aspect he appreciated so much. Pierre was also very interested in the rest of the country, as our NDP colleague pointed out, and I know that Pierre agreed to go and make speeches across the country because he wanted to see the country for himself.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
Finally, he was one of those people who is convinced that politics is a noble profession. He was an ardent defender of his constituents' interests, but his first love was political science, and I am sure that one of the greatest disappointments of his life was that he could not join us in 1984 and 1988. But he kept in touch by telephone.
I know that many of his former colleagues regret his passing and that they sympathize with Lynne and the children. I do so as well, because it is a sad time for all of us.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, so many of those in this House who spoke about Pierre spoke about him as a politician and how they knew him in this House.
I knew him long before he became an MP. We worked together. I did not see him that much when he became a member, and then saw a great deal of him after he left this House to become a member of the Quebec business community. He displayed, in those vocations, the same enthusiasm and dedication to everything that he touched that was described here.
He was impressive in everything that he did, except perhaps on the golf course. But he was never more impressive than he was in those last months when he was locked into the pain of a terrible disease, one in which he demonstrated enormous courage and more than anything else, phenomenal optimism.
Pierre was going to beat this thing and he convinced all of us that he was going to do so. He did not. Quebec and Canada are the poorer for it. So are all his friends.
Our hearts go out to Lynne and his two children.


NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation and agreement among all parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent to have the House observe one minute of silence this afternoon to commemorate the second annual official day of mourning for Canadians killed and injured on the job.
In the past year there have been more than 1,100 killed and over 1 million injured. We can do no better than to take the one minute of silence to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that this toll shall not rise.
Do we have one minute of silence?


Mr. Speaker:: I ask hon. members to rise.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - StoufT-
ville): Mr. Speaker, I was the second one on the list to ask a question from our side of the House. I waited patiently. You were aware, Sir, that I wanted to ask a question. If I am not mistaken, near the end you went to the members for Halifax and Winnipeg-St. James.
With great respect, if I am to serve my constituents I would like to be able to speak. It is not as though I were the fifth questioner. I was the second from our party. I do not rise all that often on question, but when I do in that order, I would like to be heard.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as the whip of my caucus I tend to keep an eye on the clock. I would suggest to the hon. member that it may be helpful if he speaks to his leader, the right hon. Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister can shorten his replies which are consistently long.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a complaint with the Chair. It is not a question of privilege but it is a complaint. I take his comments as I think they are intended. He wants, as do all hon. members, to serve his constituents. It is disappointing when one does not get on. I regret that and I hope that tomorrow will be easier.
There was only one name from the government yesterday and yesterday would have been an easy day to have the hon. member on.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
April 28, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker:: This morning the Chair heard from the hon. member for Mackenzie on the admissibility of certain amendments made in committee on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof. I indicated at the time that I would return this afternoon to render a decision on the matter. I am now prepared to deliver that decision.

Before I begin, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the hon. members for Mackenzie, Algoma, Elgin-Norfolk and Prince Edward-Hastings for their submissions on this point of order.

To briefly outline the matter: the Standing Committee on Agriculture to which Bill C-54 was referred, reported the bill with amendments on April 6, 1992. Two of the amendments reported by the committee had been ruled out of order by the chairman on the grounds that they attempted to amend sections of the parent act not contained in the bill. The decision of the chairman was appealed and overruled and the committee adopted the amendments in question. Another amendment to clause 10 was ruled beyond the scope of the bill and again the chairman's ruling was overturned by the committee and the amendment was carried.
The crux of the matter now before the Chair is whether the committee exceeded its powers and went beyond its order of reference, the bill itself. This is the question which the hon. member for Mackenzie has put in his point of order.
When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

In some cases, this last cardinal rule is graphically clear. For instance, if a committee is examining a Criminal Code bill dealing with lotteries, a member cannot reach back to the parent act to propose amendments to those sections dealing with firearms. In certain other cases, this principle is more difficult to explain.
In the present case, two amendments were proposed to section 17(l)(e) and 17(2)(e) and 34(1) of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
These sections of the act were not part of Bill C-54, hence it was not in order to propose these additions in the bill pertaining to these sections of the act.
A third amendment to clause 10 went beyond the scope of the bill as it attempted to broaden the application of the bill to other farm products not contemplated by this bill.
Just as the chairman of the standing committee ruled these amendments out of order, I must also rule that all three amendments are inadmissible for the same reasons the chairman expressed in committee.
In cases in which the Chair is asked to rule on the admissibility of committee amendments to bills, any modifications which offend a basic principle in the legislative process are struck from the bill. Tliis was the practice followed by Speaker Jerome on April 23, 1975 in relation to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, and by Deputy Speaker Francis on April 7,1981 in relation to Bill C-42, an act to establish the post office corporation.
Consequently I must rule that the inadmissible amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture to new clause 9, new clause 10, and clause 10 of Bill C-54 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the Bill as reported to the House.
Again I thank hon. members for their contributions.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling and I thank you for returning so quickly with your decision.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
However, I would like to inquire if we might have unanimous consent of the House to include new clause 9.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk, who spoke on this matter earlier this morning and who obviously has a very great interest in it, accepts the ruling of the Chair and I appreciate that.
However, he is asking the House whether there would be consent to accept an amendment. That is procedurally acceptable if the House does agree.
Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might also seek unanimous consent for new clause 10 of Bill C-54.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Elgin- Norfolk has proposed that new clause 10 be included and be put to the House again. I assume that although you have not ruled on the amendments before the House per se, the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk would be pleased to see Motion No. 1 put before the House again as well, assuming that his Motion No. 10 is adopted for consideration by the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that what the Votes and Proceedings list as new clause 10 would be acceptable to me and my party but the one that is listed as clause 10 and shown as subsection 4 of clause 10 should not be treated in the same manner.
I am presuming we are separating the two clause 10s, new clause 10 being different than clause 10 as listed in the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we all get confused here, I do not want to make a ruling and find that we have the wrong clause in. Perhaps the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk would respond.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I would table new clause 9, new clause 10.
If we have approval on new clause 10, and I think we did hear unanimous consent, I would then ask for
unanimous consent on clause 10, which is the one that the hon. member is questioning.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is a disposition in the House to agree.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: For a final clarification, if that becomes subsection 34(1) I am in agreement with that and we will have full agreement.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, subsection 34(1) of clause 10 is on page 8, and subsection (4) of clause 10 is on page 9 of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There is disposition in the House to accept the propositions as put forward. As hon. members will know, many years ago the rules were changed so that a Speaker's ruling could not be appealed. Clearly the effect of a Speaker's ruling can be changed. We have just had an example of it.


SPEAKER'S RULING-MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: According to the ruling by the Speaker, Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.
There are nine motions in the amendment to Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, on the Notice Paper for report stage.

Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma, was moved, debated and rejected in committee. Therefore it will not be selected.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma, and Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Further to the decision of the Chair rendered earlier today, I must tell the House that Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie, is out of order because it includes a new concept unrelated to the bill and goes beyond the scope of the clause that the motion seeks to amend.
April 28, 1992



Motions Nos. 4 and 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma, will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 4 will dispose of Motion No. 5.
In other words, Motions Nos. 1 and 3 are not selected; Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately; Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 4 will dispose of Motion No. 5.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-54 be amended in clause 10 by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
39(l)The Governor in Council may, upon a request by producers, or producers and importers, as the case may be, establish a promotion-research agency by proclamation with powers relating to one or more.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 12 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, no promotion and research plan or amendment thereto may provide for the imposition of levies or charges referred to in the definition of "promotion and research plan" in section 2, that are in excess of one half of one percent of the value of the regulated product in respect of which the levies or charges apply."
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 12 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act of Parliament, where a promotion plan and research plan provides for levies or charges payable by persons who are engaged in the production or importation of a regulated product, or the marketing thereof, at least eighty percent of all such levies or charges received by the agency each year, shall be expended to promote the marketing or production of any regulated product for the purposes of interprovincial, export or import trade and on research activities related to the regulated product."
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 12 the following:
"42.1(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where a promotion and research plan provides for levies or charges payable by persons who are engaged in the production or importation of a regulated product, or the marketing thereof, at least
(a)	five percent of those persons engaged in such production or marketing; or
(b)	fifty percent of those persons engaged in such importation may, where they are dissatisfied with the manner in which or the purposes for which an agency receiving those levies or charges is expending them, petition the Governor in Council to review the
Government Orders
activities of the agency in respect of the expending of those levies or charges.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where the Governor in Council receives a petition referred to in subsection (1) that is accompanied by a solemn or statutory declaration
(a)	signed by the petitioners,
(b)	stating the names and addresses of the petitioners, and
(c)	setting out the nature of the petitioners' dissatisfaction,
the Minister shall conduct a review of the activities of the agency in respect of the expending of any levies or charges received by the agency."
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately
after line 10 at page 13 the following:
"44.1 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, each year an agency shall send
(a)	a copy of the report of the annual audit of the agency referred to in section 29; and
(b)	a copy of the report referred to in section 30
to every person who has paid to the agency any levies or charges described in paragraph 42(l)(e) owed to the agency in the year of the audit."


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with two new clauses, the new clauses 9 and 10 on page 8. Because of the information which has been provided to us by the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, I propose that the government might agree to have my Motion No. 1 dealt with and at least debated by unanimous consent.
I would like to propose to the hon. member looking after the government's affairs this afternoon that we allow Motion No. 1 to be put for debate at least. Perhaps we might be successful in seeing the minister or the member looking after the government side this afternoon agree since we have been so co-operative on the other two motions which were brought back. I would like to propose that we deal with Motion No. 1 and allow it to stand for debate.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I know you have ruled Motion No. 1 out of order. I would not want to accept the hon. member's proposal to debate Motion No. 1.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, that seems in my view extremely regrettable when we on this side are agreeable to allowing the other two motions which had been ruled out of order by the Speaker. The government was looking for our support at that time. Now it turns tail and will not allow Motion No. 1 to be put, even though very new and very significant information has been brought to the attention of the government. It knows that it is in trouble on this issue with many of the supply management agencies. Unless it is its own Machiavellian design to destroy the supply management system in this country, it will regret not even allowing consideration of Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper today.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
I will be dealing with Motion No. 2. Before I do that I would simply like to point out the gravity of the situation facing our supply management systems with Motion No. 1 which I proposed not being put today.
I have a letter which was drafted and sent to the chairman and all members of the agriculture committee, including the hon. member for Elgin, a couple of days after the last meeting of the agriculture committee. It points out the gravity of the situation that has developed because of the amendments which the government has put and the way the bill has been drafted.
In the legislation which is before the House today, the National Farm Products Act has been divided into three sections, one dealing with the council itself. Under part I the council has the authority to deal with processed and unprocessed farm products.
In part III, which is the basis of this legislation before us today, it deals with both the processed and unprocessed farm products. That is the establishment of the check-off legislation for products and the establishment of agencies.
This leaves part II, which is the legal basis background, the authority for the establishment of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Poultry Marketing Agency, the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, the Canadian Hatching Eggs Marketing Agency, at variance with the other two parts of the act.
The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency sent an urgent letter to the chairman and all members of the committee saying their proclamation, their authority for operation, has been put in jeopardy by the amendments which the government has brought in. It provides historically their proclamation. It gives them the authority for dealing with processed and unprocessed dairy poultry products. Now that section of the act which gives them the authority for their establishment simply states:
(b) for the purposes of Part II, eggs and poultry and any part of
any such product;
The authority has been stripped away. In the letter they have written, they said in part:
The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency is of the view that such wording inevitably leads to the conclusion that marketing agencies under Part II have no authority to deal with processed products.
Such results, albeit unintended, removes the ability of Part II marketing agencies to exercise powers over processed products now conferred or which may be conferred in the future by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
They go on to say that in their opinion the government should bring in an amendment and that is the amendment which I have proposed. It is standing in the motions before the House today:
(i) eggs and poultry, whether processed or unprocessed, and any part of
any such product.
Only a month and a half ago we had some 40,000 farmers on Parliament Hill. They were essentially here to protest the lack of progress the government has made in those GATT negotiations. In those GATT negotiations the government claims it is seeking a clarification of article XI 2(c)(i) of the GATT agreement which would make the supply management system not only cover raw poultry and dairy products but processed ones that contain at least 51 per cent of the raw product.
Here we have the government exposed totally, speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It says it goes to GATT and negotiates one thing. We saw the former Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister telling 40,000 farmers that on the steps of Parliament Hill on February 21. Now we do not see a single minister, and we have three Ministers of Agriculture and one parliamentary secretary. They are introducing amendments which weaken and undermine the supply management system, certainly for the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, and we do not have a single minister or parliamentary secretary here to defend this. We have a private member, a member of the committee, saying no to even having this important amendment debated today let alone voted on.
April 28, 1992

What we are going to see is this legislation gradually undermining the authority of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, as stated in its letter to every member of the standing committee two days after the meeting in which these amendments were put. The government came out steadfastly opposing it, thereby weakening the National Farm Products Marketing Act.
I think that it is simply a travesty if the GATT negotiations fail. They do not seem to be going very well, but we hope that they will. There is only one narrow window there for the government to recover what it gave away in the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. In that negotiation it gave up the right of import controls. The Americans kept their import controls under the 1954-55 GATT waiver. Canada negotiated an agreement where they are going to remove the tariffs on processed dairy products and processed other products. They have identified I think 17 forms of chicken which are not considered chicken for the terms of import controls.
What we are seeing here is a government that is slowly and gradually undermining the supply management system which has been so useful and which has provided stability and security to the Canadian agriculture industry. That is why we had 40,000 farmers here on the Hill.
Motion No. 2 really provides that the initiative for the establishment of an agency for a check-off for the promotion of an agriculture commodity must come from the farmers. It cannot just come from the government itself as existing legislation proposes.
I am extremely distressed that the government has not seen fit to even allow debate on Motion No. 1. I hope that Motion No. 2 will carry because we believe that the initiative for the establishment of these agencies should come from producers and not from the government. After all, it will be the producers who, at the end of the day, have to pay for these check-offs.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of motions that have been lumped for debate here today at the report stage of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
The bill is attempting to set up a procedure under the Farm Products Marketing Act which would permit the collection by various commodity groups of levies for
Government Orders
conducting research into marketing for promotion of the product. We have seen a number of such agencies proliferate in some of the provinces of Canada. Quite frankly, some of them are not that efficient. They collect a lot of money, but the money does not get directed to promotion and research. A big chunk of the money is eaten up by the collecting organization for what they call administration fees.
What is even more ironic is that often these organizations barely existed before getting the right to run a check-off on a certain commodity. The administration fees are largely spent in promoting the organization itself, rather than the product that was supposed to be the purpose of collecting the fees.
I want to have the House of Commons set some rules which were not stated in the original draft of the legislation. Since this is our last chance to amend the legislation, I want to do it here. Motion No. 6, for instance, points out that the levies that are charged on a commodity shall not be in excess of one half of 1 per cent of the value of the regulated product in respect of which the levies or charges apply. In other words, it limits the amount of levy that can be charged on a product that farmers are marketing and it says that the agency that is trying to collect the money can go up to one half of 1 per cent of the value of the product as it is sold at the farm gate.
I think that is a reasonable amount. If government members would like to come up with a better figure, they can do so. I would hope they would do that rather than simply leave it wide open to the discretion of some future minister of the Crown.
Another thing that Motion No. 7 does in the same manner, providing some direction to these agencies that are established under this legislation, is point out that at least 80 per cent of all such levies or charges collected by the agency each year shall be expended to promote the marketing or production of the regulated product, et cetera. In other words, I do not want to see federal legislation and federal agencies established which end up only collecting money from farmers to promote an organization rather than to get out and do the promotion of the product and do the research that they claimed was the reason for collecting the money in the first place.

April 28, 1992
Government Orders
I want to see at least 80 per cent of those moneys collected actually going into the research and the promotion of the product which was ostensibly the reason for having obtained the right from Parliament to make that kind of collection.
Motion No. 8, while it is fairly lengthy, basically I think we should be stating in this act what the ground rules are with regard to bringing to an end one of these agencies. The act is quite silent on that. I think it is possible under the current wording of the act for the minister and the marketing council to call for an end to an agency, but is not really clear.
What this proposal would do would be to add a 42.1(1) which would make it possible for 5 per cent of the producers engaged in the production or marketing of the product being able to petition the marketing council and the Governor in Council, in other words the cabinet, to bring to an end the particular check-off that was established by the Governor in Council or under this act.
Because there are fewer persons engaged in the importation of the product that might be subject to this levy, I thought that it would be only fair if at least 50 per cent of those persons would be required to petition an end to the provision of payment of levies on their part. Essentially, Motion No. 8 simply points out that it would be possible for a democratic process to occur to bring to an end to one of the agencies that had been established for the collection of these levies. In effect, 5 per cent of the farm producers would sign a petition asking that the agency come to an end and/or 50 per cent of those persons engaged in the importation of the product. That is basically what Motion No. 8 does.
Motion No. 9 would put as a requirement the reporting by the agency as to what it did with the money and make it accountable to the producers from whom it collected the money on an annual basis. A copy of an annual audited statement or audited report of the agency and a copy of what the agency did with the money would have to be made available to each of the contributors to the program, which it seems to me is common practice. However, that is not outlined clearly in the bill. I believe the intention of the government is simply to have an annual report gravitate somehow to the Farm Products
Marketing Council and it can do with it as it pleases. I think it should be made more public than that.
Motion No. 9 would have that report made public to all the contributors to the fund the agency is managing to promote products and promote more research.
I think these are quite common sense, logical kinds of amendments and I would call on all members of the House to give them their full support.


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 Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 6 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 7 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
April 28, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 8 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 9 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 4 will dispose of Motion No. 5.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately
after line 35 at page 11 the following:
"(e.l) enter into an agreement with Her Majesty in Right of Canada for the collection, on behalf of the agency, of any levies or charges provided for in a promotion and research plan, that the agency is authorized to implement that are payable to the agency by persons who are engaged in the importation of a regulated product;".

Motion No. 5
That Bill C-54 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 39 at
page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"under paragraph (e) or under an agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph (e.l);"
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 4, and Motion No. 5 as consequential to No. 4, is an amendment to the bill which has been found to be in order by the Speaker. It is a strong recommendation from practically every farm group that came before the Standing Committee on Agriculture when it dealt with Bill C-54. It simply makes provision for the customs department to collect checkoffs.
An example would be the Canadian Cattlemen's Association or the Canadian Pork Producers where they are collecting a check-off for promotion or for research purposes for those commodities coming into the country.
Establishing an agency to do promotion work or to do research can be quite costly for the various commodity associations. What is done in this regard in the United States is that the customs department collects the
Government Orders
check-off amount as products are imported into the country. Of course they pay the standard amount of the fee whatever it may be.
This is a recommendation that comes from practically every agriculture commodity group that came before the standing committee so I would strongly recommend it to the House. The officials from the department claim there is no problem in the legality of this amendment. It is just that the current Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance did not personally like this provision.
It seems to me that if that is the case and the existing government which may not be around for too long does not want to use it, well that is its choice. It can require that the Canadian Pork Producers or other farm commodity groups that establish a check-off for promotion of their commodities, or research on their commodities, collect the fees for those imports.
The key part of this whole legislation, check-off agriculture commodities, check-off legislation, is that where there is a substantial proportion of the commodities, 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or 40 per cent coming in as imports, then there can be a check-off on the imported product just as much as you have a check-off on Canadian commodities.
It is important that this technique is used in the United States. There is no reason that it cannot be used by our customs service in Canada. For many commodities, especially those in the fruits and vegetable sector which are not large volume commodities, or even for the Canadian Pork Producers it would be almost crucial to them whether or not it would be worth while establishing this legislation because if they had to set up some collection agency of their own it would not be practical. Whereas if the check-off could be carried out by the customs branch, the Department of National Revenue, then ft would make it feasible.
I would hope that the government side would pay attention to those representations which have been made by practically every group: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Pork Producers, the Canadian Horticultural Council. A number of other agencies might agree to see this amendment passed. I think it would be very beneficial to those producers and new promotion and research agencies that would be established.

April 28, 1992
Private Members' Business


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I would like to remind all members that the vote on Motion No. 4 will dispose of Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 4?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since we have disposed of Bill C-54 and the Chair has no other indication, am I to understand that hon. members would agree to have the House suspend its proceedings until five o'clock, the time provided for Private Members' Business?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Hie sitting of the House is therefore suspended until five o'clock this afternoon.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.13 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: 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 Ottawa South-Air Transport; the honour member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-Hibernia; the hon. member for Drummond-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Pensions; the hon. member for London East-The Economy.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre) moved: that Bill C-300, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act (tuition credit and education credit), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise to speak to this bill today.
There are two fundamental areas where no one is going to dispute that government should be involved: health and education. This bill deals specifically with education.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a tax deduction for Canadians who incur costs for educational programs, tutors and so on; programs that are required but are not available through any public educational facility.
There has been a lot of concern and a lot of attention placed toward the education of Canadians, particularly in the last few years. We have heard that 30 per cent of high school students do not finish high school. The government, to its credit, has started a stay in school initiative which is to be commended. We still have a lot of students not finishing school because of social or cultural factors. They may be from broken homes, they may be drug or alcohol abusers or they may just choose to leave.
The House resumed at 5.00 p.m.
April 28, 1992

However, the most tragic situation is a student whose needs cannot be met because the services are not there or the family can simply not afford them, and that is very tragic. The public school systems across this country, which are provincial in jurisdiction, are designed for the average student. Certainly the purpose of our educational system is to educate the masses. The general educational system simply cannot meet the needs of all children.
The provincial system that we have set up across this country is unable and is not intended to meet the needs of every person. What does a parent do if he or she has a child who does not fit into the normal channels? This child may be intellectually impaired or physically impaired in some fashion. There are many, many thousands of children who simply do not fit the normal pattern.
Over the years we have made progress. Certainly there are programs and there are public institutions with respect to assisting those who are intellectually impaired, visually impaired in certain cases, certainly hearing impaired, and so on. They do not meet all the needs. Many students simply do not fall within the mandate of a particular institution or they are from a particular area of the country that does not have access to institutions. Certainly rural Canada is an area where this would be very applicable, where students simply do not have the facilities there.
There is one particular group I would like to highlight that is really being hard hit-those with learning disabilities. Those who suffer from learning disabilities make up fully 10 per cent of the population of this country. A lot of Canadians are not even aware of what a learning disability is and how it is described.
I am going to read a definition as set out by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada:
Children with learning disabilities are not intellectually disabled. Their intelligence may compare favourably with that of their peers, while their performance level does not. In other words, a learning disability is identifiable and specific, and inhibits a child from learning in accordance with his or her ability and potential. Ten per cent of the population has learning disabilities and these may affect them in one or more of the following areas: attention, memory, reasoning, co-ordination, communication, reading, writing, spelling, calculation, social confidence and emotional maturation.
Private Members' Business
Students with learning disabilities have trouble receiving
information through the senses and transmitting that information
accurately to the brain.
Only a small fraction of students in this country today who have learning disabilities are receiving the attention they deserve through the formalized education system and the public educational system. Some of those children who do not receive that attention through the public institutions go to private institutions. Those are not cheap. I have had occasion to chat with various colleges and so on across the country and various associations for the learning disabled. It is a major concern for them.
I had a letter from a woman named Judy Flannery who is in charge of the Strategic Learning Centre of Montreal. In that letter she gives me an example, and she says that this is a typical example of thousands of kids right across this country:
"I am sending you information from our accounts about a student who came to us for one year because her school was unable to teach her to read by the end of grade 3. She is a student with learning disabilities whose parents had her tutored by our centre twice a week for a year. As a result of our work, she moved from being a non-reader and writer who had to repeat her grade, to a competent student reading and writing at grade level. The extra help her school had been able to provide had been wholly inadequate for her needs. Her parents were very anxious that she be able to succeed at school since they rightly felt she was bright enough to do so.
You will notice that her parents paid for her two tutoring sessions a week-$32 an hour for July and August and $35 an hour from September on. This was for a period from July, 1990 through June, 1991 for a total of $2,346.
This student is now in the top quarter of her class. She is confident of her ability to succeed in school and is keeping up well with all her school requirements. Her parents are exceedingly pleased with her present progress. They had to pay all of the cost for our specialized services which were what their daughter needed and which the school was unable to provide. They paid out of their own pockets with no income tax relief whatsoever. Fortunately, they were able to afford these services. Many people, however, are not able to do so and

April 28, 1992
Private Members' Business
therefore their children do not learn the basic skills required to complete school".
There is a child who is very fortunate that her parents had the income to pay for her education, to correct her disability and put her on her way so that she can be a productive Canadian.
This bill, if it is passed by this Elouse, is inadequate because it will not come anywhere near meeting the needs of these types of individuals. That certainly is a job of provincial governments.
Certainly with the situation that the provinces are in with cutbacks in EPF funds and so on, there is an awful lot of pressure on governments simply to maintain the status quo, let alone expand in educational areas.
Although this aspect of education is largely provincial, the federal government, through the Income Ikx Act, at least can provide some relief to these Canadians by making these costs tax deductible.
A tax deduction would seem eminently fair. People spending their hard earned income to better the lives of their children or someone around them are benefiting not only that child and that family, but this entire country.
We all talk about the need for better educated people in this country in order that this country can develop in the areas that we need if we are going to be a competitive nation in the world today.
To deny 10 per cent of the population-that is only those with learning disabilities and not counting those with other disabilities-the best possible opportunity to achieve their education and some intellectual standing is a shame.
Although we should be doing much more for education, this is the very least we can do. If most Canadians knew that at least 10 per cent of this country was being denied such an opportunity, there would be an outcry. Most Canadians would certainly agree that there should be some tax relief in this sort of situation.
I raise this bill today in the hopes that the government and members of this House can see fit to take a hold of this issue. Maybe this bill is not drafted in a form that is fully acceptable to the government. Let us make some changes to it. Maybe there should be different wording. Maybe there should be a different direction, but it would
be certainly a step to get a commitment from the government that it agrees that the direction in which this bill is going is the right one.
If it could commit itself to that, that would be the first step. If there is a need for some sort of revision or some changes, that is fine. If there can be some direction in another form, that is fine as well but there is a need. It is a crying need at a time when we, as a Parliament, address this most basic need for Canadians and for the future of this nation.
I close by calling on the government to open its heart. Let us do something for the children of this country. Let us do something to make life that much easier, to give them more potential and to provide an opportunity that is being denied to thousands of children across this country.
Unlike this little girl in Montreal who has had the opportunity, there are thousands who are being denied that opportunity. I would simply call upon this government to take some action to help these children.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Moose Jaw for bringing forth this concern. His intentions are of the highest order and I commend him for the concern that he has shown for Canadians with disabilities and for the cause of education in Canada.
I might say, however, in his remarks he indicates the education system really only targets to serve a certain group. I would with respect suggest to him it is the responsibility of provincial departments of education and school boards to serve every child within their jurisdiction. I would even go so far as to say if in fact they are not doing that they are perhaps in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights of each Canadian child to be treated equally before the law.
There are a variety of programs available in Canadian schools responding to young people, children with disabilities, and they are getting better all the time. We have some very active lobby groups working on their behalf. I think of organizations like the Canadian Association for Community Living, for example. Their lobbies are targeted primarily at the provincial government. That is where they should be. This is where I have some concern with the bill, if not the sentiments of my hon. friend opposite. What we are dealing with here is something that falls clearly and unequivocally in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
April 28, 1992

I am not so sure the kind of tax credit he is proposing in his bill is really going to help children from disadvantaged families in Canada. If parents opt to send their child to private school we are talking about thousands of dollars a year. That is beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of Canadians. That is particularly true of private schools in the United States. Provinces adhering to their responsibilities will underwrite the cost of sending children to those institutions if they feel it is appropriate and necessary.
At this time it is not appropriate for the Parliament of Canada to intrude into the field of primary and secondary education, an area in which it has not previously trod. Perhaps when we hear from the former deputy minister for Manitoba later in the debate we may find that position is either sustained or is not sustained.
The federal government nevertheless has been involved in education in this country and, indeed, is involved heavily today but it has been involved primarily through support for higher education at the post-secondary level where students have to pay a share of their own tuition costs on an individual basis. Tuition in primary and secondary schools in Canada is covered 100 per cent by the taxpayer through appropriate taxation vehicles.
Where the federal government has been involved is at the post-secondary level only. Indeed, the commitment of the government is very strong and has been rather profound. I might point out, for example, the government this year will be contributing $6 billion through the EPF program for post-secondary education.
I might point out that 215,000 students in Canada will benefit from Canada Student Loans with an average of $3,000 per student. These are targeted primarily at students from low income and moderate income homes.
I might point out also that support for post-secondary education exists through personal income tax now through the tax credit on tuition fees, the tax credit each month for full-time study. Credits are also transferable to the spouse, parents, or grandparents of the student on whose behalf the tuition has been paid. Indeed, up to
Private Members' Business
$500 of scholarship, bursary, or fellowship income is tax free as well in this country.
These last four benefits add up to $280 million of tax credit provided by the Government of Canada in support of students at the post-secondary level.
As to the budgets in 1992, for example, the budget made further increases in these benefits that will assist 600,000 students in Canada and 400,000 supporting taxpayers. I do not think there is any question, considering the fact that technically the Government of Canada has no jurisdiction in education, that this Government of Canada is making a rather profound contribution and a most significant contribution to education.
At the same time the other side of the issue brought forward by my hon. friend has to do with the needs of Canadians with disabilities. I must say I am very proud with the progress that has been made in the last couple of years and particularly since the two reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons in Canada which this government has responded to. In September of last year the Prime Minister, who has been such a leading force in recognizing the need to assist disabled Canadians to be integrated fully into Canadian society and to have an opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of Canadian life, made an announcement. The Prime Minister announced the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. This strategy involves 10 government departments. It involves an expenditure of 158 million new dollars over the five years of the program. In addition to that I might mention that the budgets of 1991 and 1992 have provided additional tax benefits to Canadians with disabilities, benefits that are targeted toward facilitating the integration of persons with disabilities fully into Canadian society.
In summary, what I am saying and indeed would say on behalf of the government is that while we agree with the very commendable concern articulated by my hon. friend opposite, I think it is more appropriate that his concern, as I have done and as other members of this House I am sure have done, should urge provincial governments to ensure that they fulfil their responsibilities to children

April 28, 1992
Private Members' Business
with disabilities as to all other children within those school systems.
It is perhaps appropriate that we leave to the provinces the delivery of education services within their jurisdictions. Rather than intrude, particularly at a time for example when we are going through severe constitutional difficulties, shall we say, and considerable discussions, I am not sure how well an intrusion by the Government of Canada would be in this area of education during these delicate constitutional negotiations.
I see the chairperson of the very eminent committee that recently reported on the Constitution. I expect that she may well be able to attest to what I am saying, that the provinces would not welcome an intrusion by the federal government at this time into the field of education.
Nevertheless, it is an important matter. I commend the member for bringing it forward. Similarly, I might say that he need not be concerned with whether or not this government is going to respond adequately, appropriately and indeed compassionately and fully to the needs of Canadians with disabilities. I do not think there has been a government in the history of this country that has been so responsive to the needs of Canadians with disabilities.
That does not mean that there is not a lot more that can be done. I for one, certainly when I reflect on my own personal experience over the years as a human rights commissioner in my province of Nova Scotia in working with courageous Canadians with disabilities who face challenges that some of us do not have to face in our lives, believe it is important that as Canadians we always recognize the needs of our fellow Canadians in all their dimensions. I want to assure the hon. member that this government is extremely conscious of those Canadians and the need to support their efforts to take their full place in Canadian society.
I want to assure him that this government is fully committed to the needs of disabled Canadians and to seeing them fully integrated into Canadian life.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend my colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, for having undertaken this initiative which I consider an extremely laudable one. The very fact that we are discussing it I think is
particularly important and hopefully can lead to some changes that might be useful to those Canadians who have certain disabilities.
I also want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his particular comments, which I found for the most part helpful. I do not mean to suggest there were some that were not, but some were more supportive than others.
With regard to the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, I shall speak to that. I think that there are ways of going forward without doing that and I shall propose a few ways that we might want to consider.
We all know that the government has not had a particularly progressive record in the area of education. I do not say that unkindly. I think the intent, the addresses that have been given, have been well intentioned. If one looks at the record it has not been the most flattering.
I think the government could recoup some of its losses if it were to go forward with this bill or something similar. As my colleague from Moose Jaw has indicated, if the wording is not appropriate, providing that sense of direction is maintained, there is no particular problem.
When I say that the government might be able to recoup, I mean that in a very serious and sincere kind of way.

What this government has done in education leaves much to be desired. From 1986 to 1995, transfers of funds will be cut by some $10 billion. That means $10 billion less will be transferred to the provinces for college and university education.
As for training and retraining, for example, we realize that there is less money today, given the number of unemployed people, than a few years ago.
Although a promise was made to double investment in research and development, we know very well that the amount has slipped. The percentage of GDP is less than it was.
We know that the government had the right intentions for literacy. But take a good look at what it invested: somewhat less than $5 per individual in need of help. Of course, they have to work with the provinces in this field. It is not the only investment, but it still leaves something to be desired.
April 28, 1992

In the area of aid to students, for example, there is talk of privatization. We really wonder where it is leading, how it will be done and what it will achieve. We find the 3 per cent tax on student loans deplorable. The government indicated that it would be removed, but when? We also realize that the government added six months of interest to student loans. They are ready to go ahead with that, but they are not prepared to cancel the 3 per cent that they had promised.
As I just said, I have the feeling that the rhetoric and intentions were quite laudable. I believe that they wanted to do the right thing, but this government has had big problems in this area. I therefore suggest that it look carefully at this bill in order to make up a little.

Bill C-300 is intended to try to help those Canadians with learning disabilities who may need additional assistance to be able to get it when they do not have the financial resources. There would be some incentives, some ways in which very often the parents, although it is not always the case, would be able to get some financial assistance from some level of government.
We know, as my colleague has indicated, that there are as many as 10 per cent of Canadians with learning disabilities and that is without counting people with physical disabilities where there has been significant progress made.
We are talking about children and we are talking about adults as well. These people, as I indicated, often require special assistance. It is not that they are not as able to learn. In some cases they need more assistance in order to be able to start at the same place as others. That is what we are talking about. If we were to do something for them, chances are we could assist them in participating fully in Canadian society.
As I have indicated as well, special assistance is often unaffordable. They simply do not have the means to purchase it. Therefore they need more in order to catch up or in order to keep abreast and they are not in a position to do that. If we do not help, then what is going to happen? Many of us would recognize that these individuals are often among the poorest of the poor in Canada. Therefore, their state of poverty would no doubt deteriorate over time.
We are trying to make sure that they, just like then-neighbours, have not only the same access but the same
Private Members' Business
possibilities of completing this race if you wish to complete their education.
We have spoken about education as the provincial jurisdiction. Everyone knows that. But there is nothing preventing us from co-operating with other levels of government. In fact, my colleagues would acknowledge that that is essential. In fact the more co-operation there is, the more Canadians benefit.
We are talking about ways in which we can look at this and a number of other problems where we can in fact do the job better than we are doing it today. That will always be a challenge for all governments, not just this government, always to try to improve on that which we have built. That is the challenge today.
We have a specific problem we are given to deal with. There are a number of others that I have identified. If we get governments working together, we could do a much better job than we are doing.
I found it interesting that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, indicated that if certain parents or their children are not getting assistance with particular learning disabilities and are not being responded to appropriately by school boards they might be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is probably quite so. It is really unfortunate. I know my colleague is going to agree with my comment. I can see him smiling already.
The Court Challenges Program has been eradicated, blown out of the water. It was a mechanism whereby the Canadian citizen could say: "These are the rights that I have and this Court Challenges Program is going to make sure that they are being respected".
This program-and I am sure my colleague will acknowledge that; he will probably want to get up and make a special statement on that-would have been extremely useful for situations such as this one.
How can the federal government help if it chooses to? I have indicated co-operation. That is an essential ingredient. It could introduce through its income tax laws deductions or credits. It could make them available to individuals. I am sure that would be applauded. I am not terribly afraid of any premier saying that it is a naughty thing to do, that it should not be doing that if it is trying to help people in their respective jurisdictions get additional assistance so that they could compete and participate fully in society. I do not see many people jumping up and down and saying that is not the right thing to do.

April 28, 1992
Private Members' Business
Another point I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues is that while some provinces are more sensitive about this issue than others, there are others that would welcome it with open arms.
I would like to make one more point of some importance. Some members will know that I have prepared two reports in the domain of education. I flagged as important people with learning disabilities, to see what we might be able to do more of in order to help them compete fully in Canadian society. One of the points I made was that the most important contribution of government at the federal level may be to equalize social and economic opportunities for these citizens. In other words, perhaps we could eradicate the poverty we have today. Many of us know that we are talking of more than five million people, over one million of whom are children. There is a correlation between poverty and academic achievement. Perhaps that is the federal government's greatest role.
This is such a common sense motion that we should all stand in this house and give unanimous approval for it to go to committee to be studied and brought back to this House for further debate if necessary. I would end on that request.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be part of the debate this afternoon on the bill put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I know his riding very well because I was bom and raised not too far from it.
This government is very well aware of the importance of providing educational opportunities for Canadian students, the young people who will lead this great nation into the 21st century.
But my hon. friend's bill-and I am not wanting to question the intentions of the bill-has ramifications that go far beyond the boundaries of education. Even though we fully recognize that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, this government has done more than any previous federal government to provide educational opportunities for Canadian youth.
In recent years enrolment in our colleges and universities has shown considerable growth during a time when
fiscal realities have put an unprecedented restraint on fiscal resources. We know it is education and training, especially at the post-secondary level, that must provide the advanced skills, knowledge and research to form the infrastructure that will sustain and increase Canada's economic and social development.
Each year the competition in the expanding global economy confirms our need to develop the best possible human resources. Through the prosperities and learning initiative the federal government is providing an opportunity for all Canadians to work together to ensure a prosperous future for themselves and for their children.
This government's support to education has been much more than just moral support. In the 1990-91 fiscal year the government support of the post-secondary education was over $7.5 billion and is still continuing to increase.
I say to my hon. friend that 75 per cent of this support was provided through arrangements that authorized federal contributions of cash and tax points to the provinces and territories. To be specific, under the post-secondary education component of these arrangements the federal government's contribution totalled over $5.5 billion. That is not all. Besides the support I have just mentioned, the federal government provides other forms of support to post-secondary education. In the 1990-91 fiscal year we channelled $1.9 billion into areas such as university research, student assistance, federal schools and official languages.
Besides the support I have outlined for post-secondary education, the federal government also provides income tax benefits for students, their families, educational institutes and those who contribute financially to the support of education. Students and in some cases their families are assisted through provisions for an education tax credit. This is currently $60 per month, but the 1992 budget indicated that it would be increased by one-third to $80 a month.
Likewise tuition fees for post-secondary education are tax deductible and the first $500 scholarship or bursary income is tax exempt. As well, families are helped to provide for costs of post-secondary education through special tax treatment for registered education savings plans.
April 28, 1992

The recent budget further benefited the families of students by increasing the amount of tuition fees and tax credits that can be claimed by a supporting spouse, parent or grandparent from $600 to $680. Both corporations and individuals are encouraged through the income tax system to make charitable contributions to educational institutions. In total these tax provisions directly benefit some one million Canadians, whether they are students or families of students.
Not only that. The government's commitment to supporting education is strongly reflected by our exemption from the GST of many educational services provided by colleges and universities. Among the exemptions are tuition fees for credit courses leading to a diploma or a degree, fees for seminars and conferences, accommodation and meal plans.
As I have shown, the federal government is doing everything it can to support a broad range of educational opportunities for Canadian students. The OECD figures indicate that Canada already spends more than any other member country on education as a percentage of government expenditures.
I say to my hon. friend that we are in a time of economic renewal. As a responsible government we must be prudent and give very careful consideration to any new measures that would significantly affect spending Canadians' hard earned tax dollars.
Canadians are not required to pay tuition to attend elementary and secondary schools. Allowing tax credits for primary and secondary level education would mean a substantial increase in costs for the government and ultimately the taxpayers. Moreover, this would not guarantee increased expenditures on education.
While well intentioned, Bill C-300 is not in the best interests of children with disabilities. A child with a disability is in reality a child like any other child. He or she wants and needs to be part of the mainstream of life, to learn and to play with others. The bill proposed by the hon. member, while well intentioned though it may be, is not in line with this fundamental principle.
As for participation in higher education, here too the emphasis must be on access to the programs of regular
Private Members' Business
colleges and university, not on the creation of separate facilities.
The Secretary of State as minister responsible for the status of disabled persons has therefore provided funds to support the establishment of centres of development at several universities across Canada. These centres seek to develop methods and services that will permit students with disabilities to gain the fullest possible access to learning opportunities and other aspects of life on campus. In all of these areas the federal government is working closely with groups promoting the interests of persons with disabilities.
Likewise, when it announced the prosperities and learning initiative a year ago, the government recognized the key to strenghthening our systems of education and training. This is to encourage all of the stakeholders, parents and children, young adults, business and labour and learning institutions, to work together to identify goals and seek solutions. The theme of the government's post is best summed up in the title of one of the major discussion papers: Learning Well-Living Well.
It is through the consultative and co-operative efforts that we will find the ways to ensure the best possible education opportunities for all Canadians, not through costly ineffective changes to the income tax system.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but at the end of my speech I asked whether there was unanimous consent for going ahead with this bill and referring it to committee. I did not get an answer to my question. Is there unanimous consent for sending the bill to committee?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair notes there is no unanimous consent.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I say to my colleague, that we could not find unanimity. This is a very important topic and of course we want to respond as fully as we possibly can.

April 28, 1992
Private Members' Business
The hon. member has put forward for consideration a private member's bill which would amend the Income Tax Act so that tuition fees and education credits would be extended to cover certain primary and secondary level students. I would like to clarify for the hon. member that the funding of education, as I am sure my other colleagues have mentioned to him, is a provincial responsibility. At a time like this when we are searching our souls to find out who has responsibility for what, it is certainly not something that we want to put on the table to confuse the issue even more.
While the federal government has historically provided supplementary, direct and indirect support to post-secondary students, this support recognizes that post-secondary students must pay tuition fees to attend educational institutions. The families of primary and secondary students generally pay no fees for the education of their children.
The greatest amount of federal support to post-secondary students is provided indirectly through federal transfers to provinces and to territories under the Established Programs Financing, commonly known around here as EPF, which provides per capita assistance to all provinces and territories in the areas of health and post-secondary education. The post-secondary education portion of this support is worth $6 billion per year.
Significant direct support is also provided to post-secondary students throughout Canada through the Canada Student Loans Program. Over 215,000 students benefit from this program each year. The Canada Student Loans Program targets students from modest income families who might not otherwise be able to afford to attend post-secondary educational institutions. The interest rates charged on these loans are much lower than the market rate of interest on a consumer loan. In addition, while the student is in school the interest on these loans is paid by the federal government.
Finally further direct support is provided to post-secondary students through the federal tax system. Students of course are eligible to claim two types of federal tax credit: a credit in respect of tuition fees and a credit based on the number of months of full-time study that the student engaged in during the taxation year. If the
student does not have enough or sufficient income to take advantage of these credits they may be transferred up to a specified limit to a spouse, a parent or a grandparent. Many hon. members in this House have taken advantage of that particular provision in the law. Post-secondary students may also earn up to $500 of scholarship, bursary or fellowship income tax-free.
The tuition fee credit reduces federal taxes by $130 million per year for 1.1 million students across the country. The education credit reduces taxes by $35 million for almost 600,000 students, and another 400,000 spouses, parents and grandparents benefit from the transfer of the tuition fee I mentioned a moment ago and/or education credits. The federal taxes are reduced by $95 million. Over 160 students have their federal taxes reduced by $20 million due to the $500 exemption for scholarship, bursary or fellowship income as I mentioned earlier.
The 1992 federal government budget announced that the dollar limit on which the education credit is calculated would be increased by one-third, up from $60 to $80 per month of full-time study. In addition, the limit on the total number of tuition fees and education credits that may be claimed by another taxpayer will be increased from $600 to $800. This will benefit 600,000 students claiming the education credit and 400,000 taxpayers claiming the transfer.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments on this bill, but the hon. member knows the federal government already provides substantial assistance to students attending institutions for post-secondary education. This assistance is threefold. First, the federal government transfers substantial amounts to the provinces and territories every year. About $6 billion is transferred annually through EPF programs for post-secondary education.
The provinces and territories may use these funds as they see fit. Furthermore, about $8 billion is transferred annually to the poorer provinces in the form of equalization payments. There are no strings attached, so that the provinces are free to spend these funds on education or on other services for which they are responsible.
April 28, 1992

Private Members' Business
Second, the federal government provides assistance under the Canada Student Loans Program, to help students from low income families attend institutions for post-secondary education. The program provides for loans totalling approximately $635 million for about
215.000	students annually. Until the students have finished their studies, the interest on these loans is paid by the federal government.
Third, the federal Income Tax Act contains a number of measures that provide tax relief for students. A tax credit is available for tuition fees paid to post-secondary institutions.
About 1.1 million students claimed this credit for the 1992 fiscal year, thus reducing their federal income tax by $130 million. Students may also claim an education tax credit based on the number of months of full-time study at a post-secondary institution.
For the 1992 fiscal year, this credit was claimed by
585.000	students who were able to reduce their federal income tax by $35 million. When students are unable to use all their tuition fee and education credits, the unused portion may be transferred to their spouse, a parent or grandparent, up to a certain maximum. About 400,000 spouses, parents and grandparents were able to reduce their income tax by $20 million in 1992.
Finally, the federal tax system also allows an exemption of $500 of bursary income. This measure provides tax relief for over 160,000 students, totalling $20 million.
In the 1992 budget we announced that the dollar limit on which the education credit is calculated would be increased by one-third, to $80 per month of full-time study. In addition, the limit on the total amount of tuition fee and education credits that may be claimed by another taxpayer will be increased from $600 to $680. These changes will benefit 600,000 students claiming the education tax credit and 400,000 taxpayers claiming the transfer. These changes will reduce federal tax revenues by about $25 million annually.
Finally, education is largely a provincial responsibility. Generally speaking, there are no tuition or registration fees for primary and secondary education. Since post-secondary education is partly financed by tuition fees, the federal government has traditionally provided direct and indirect assistance to students at the post-secondary level.
That was more or less what I had to say. Although the hon. member made some very good points, I believe that since education is a provincial responsibility, it would be appropriate for the provinces to implement this proposal.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on a question concerning education. I am aware that the purpose of the member who made the proposal is to increase in some way the tax credits for Canadian students.
First, I will speak on the constitutionality of his bill. I think that education on the whole is in provincial jurisdiction, and we know that the federal government still contributes as much as $14 billion or so a year to it. I do not want to go into a lot of detail by giving a breakdown of the various amounts that the federal government gives for education. However, I would like to suggest a new line of thinking about education.
For maybe a quarter of a century, Canadians and the provinces as well have always turned to the government so that young students can obtain academic diplomas. Educational institutions and the federal and provincial governments develop and plan the education of our students throughout the country. We parliamentarians give them large amounts of funding. This involves a transfer from the federal to the provincial governments and the various departments of education, universities and colleges and finally secondary and primary schools.
Our educational institutions use these funds. Increasingly, because of bureaucratic constraints, they spend their resources on meeting government standards regarding the proper expenditure of funds allocated by the federal and provincial governments.
I think that our system has helped moved our school administrations and educational planners away from different requirements: the needs and laws of the market. I do not know if our planners understand that the demands in the field of education are different and have changed greatly in recent decades.
For example, I will speak about my own province. Quebec and the rest of Canada continue to train lawyers and educators and related professionals. Young people are directed towards the humanities and social sciences, and there is a reason for that. Our colleges and educational institutions receive government grants in relation to the number of students. Therefore the more students,

April 28, 1992
Adjournment Debate
colleges and universities have, the more money they receive from the central government agencies. We know that in general the humanities and social sciences cost educational institutions much less than the hard sciences and technology. Our Canadian society needs to train engineers and technicians and the whole educational system is not prepared to meet our needs for engineers and technicians.
Let me give you for example what is being done or will perhaps be done progressively in the United States.
We know that the Bush administration is also experiencing major problems in the field of education and in terms of the monies that its budgets must provide for education. So, the Americans figured, and I believe this could also work here, that they should make the market partly responsible for the education system.
For all intents and purposes, those who work in the field of education are there to meet the needs of our businesses and society in general. In order to meet those needs, our educators should be put in a competitive situation. In other words, some colleagues could announce that they will specialize in the training of technicians in a particular field or the training civil engineers, bio-technicians, environmentalists, etc., which are all new scientific fields. Those people would market their human resources, that is their own human resources as teachers, and this marketing operation would be aimed at promoting certain scientific fields in order to later enable students to find better job opportunities in the work-place.
Instead of financing a network of planners which, from their bureaucratic laboratory, plan in advance, with more or less accuracy, the orientation and the future of the students, it would be the students and the market that would determine that orientation. Instead of putting money in central organizations, the State could implement a system whereby a young student that graduates from high school and reaches the post-secondary or college level, would be entitled to an annual amount given by the State. For instance, a student could be entitled to $3,500 if he or she took a specific course.
The student would choose his or her college. It would probably be an institution that is close to his or her home, but it would also be one whose specialty and reputation would add to the resume of the student. If the student had that choice, it would also promote competitiveness among teachers. Consequently those teachers would try to sell their products instead of trying to get more and more money from the government. The teachers would direct their services and their marketing efforts to their clientele.
I believe the system of vouchers will enable the government to save money and avoid a lot of red tape. We will thereby get a lot more for our money. It is the Canadian society as a whole that will benefit from this progressive change in our education system.
I hope that what we are debating in this House will at least show that we federal legislators are searching for new forms of education systems, in order to stop entrusting to our bureaucrats the future of the best elements of our society, namely our young human resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to talk on this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to a question that I asked on February 4, 1992, regarding air transportation services here in Canada. At that time I asked two questions to the Minister of Transport: first, a question regarding the negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada for air services; second, a question on the future of the airline industry in Canada, that is Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.
April 28, 1992



As you know this debate period is meant to afford us an opportunity to revisit some of the questions that were previously put in Question Period. What I was really attempting to obtain from the government on February 4 was some indication of its view of air transportation policy and what it will evolve into over the months to come.
Since posing those questions almost two months have passed and a number of things have happened.
Essentially the context is this. Last year, 1991, was probably the worst single year in the history of aviation in a commercial sense in terms of the economic prospects of the companies involved in it. Most of the major international airlines, including the two national airlines in Canada, lost money last year. Air Canada lost $218 million in 1991, Canadian Airlines International lost $161.7 million, for a total of almost $380 million lost by our two airlines last year. This was not unique in the context of international aviation because other airlines were losing money as well.
Delta Airlines, which is possibly the most successful of the companies, certainly it has the lowest cost factor of any of the large airlines. It lost money last year; the first time in its history. We are at a point of very important change in the context of our aviation policy here in Canada.
Meanwhile we have had ongoing discussions with the United States with respect to the bilateral air treaty between us, popularly known as the open skies negotiations. The Canadian negotiator for those negotiations resigned shortly before this question was put in the midst of these negotiations.
Since the questions were put, we have had the announcement by American Airlines and Canadian Airlines International that they are engaged in a discussion concerning an arrangement between them that would see an investment by American Airlines of some $200 million in equity in Canadian Airlines International. It would involve joint scheduling, arrangements between them with respect to aircraft maintenance and accounting, and a computer reservation system access.
Adjournment Debate
The full details of the proposed arrangement have not been announced, although we can gather from what has been said that the details could be expected in the very near future.
What I was attempting to elicit from the minister at the time of the question, which I hope the parliamentary secretary may be able to assist us with this afternoon, is whether or not the Government of Canada has any view whatsoever on what the Canadian aviation industry should look like as it continues to evolve. There are a series of things I would hope he can elucidate on to the House and the people of Canada. He is going to have to tell us whether the government has a policy now on two airlines or one airline.
If the government thinks one Canadian carrier is a possibility, is it prepared to signal the facilitation of a merger under the competition law if such a deal could be reached?
The series of questions continues. I gather I have miscalculated my time. I hope that perhaps in the near future the government will facilitate in the committee perhaps a full discussion of what our air transportation policy should be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind all members that the order of business indicates the time; four minutes for the speaker, and two minutes for the answer.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, Canada has embarked on bilateral air negotiations with the United States in order to provide opportunities for increased air services between our two countries.
We have consulted extensively with the provinces, communities, consumers, businesses, tourism interests, and the airlines. They all want a new air agreement.
We are taking an approach that is designed to ensure the viability of our airlines, that is we are looking at the phasing in of new services with adequate safeguards including a head start in major markets for Canadian carriers.
Negotiations are continuing on schedule. Canada has made it clear to the Americans that our objective is to open up air services in a manner which will serve the interests of our consumers and ensure the viability of our carriers.

April 28, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Further discussion will take place in May in Washington concerning proposals covering scheduled charter and cargo services as well as essential safeguard features such as guarantees for fair airport access and mechanisms for review. We are mindful of the difficulties facing the Canadian airline industry.
The current operating environment is very difficult, due to drops in traffic, rising costs and increasing debts. The airlines have identified the Canada-U.S. air negotiations as a positive opportunity to improve their financial situation.
We are intent on ensuring that the Canadian airline industry remains viable and that the travelling public continues to be offered competitive air services. Our position, as stated by the Minister of Transport, is that we want to see our airlines able to operate as financially competitive entities.


HIBERNIA
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to speak on the Hibernia project.
As you are aware, on February 3 shock waves were sent through the system when it was discovered that Gulf Oil would pull out its 25 per cent of the Hibernia project, which represented $1 billion in construction costs.
The following day I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for his opinion on this, how he felt about it and his response was fairly optimistic. He did promise to visit St. John's, Newfoundland, as necessary and to brief me and my colleagues.
I have to report to the House that the minister was as good as his word and was very forthcoming in the information he gave me, and has done so, and continued to do so in the last three months, for which I am very grateful.
On February 71 requested an emergency debate in the House. Regrettably the Speaker did not see fit to allow the debate at that time.
The next part of this chronology was on February 14.1 was in the Hotel Newfoundland when the announcement was made which put to rest, to a certain extent, some of the rumours and speculation about what would happen in this regard when Mr. Norman McIntyre, in his capacity as the Hibernia executive committee chairman,
came in with some news. He stressed at the beginning that the news would be difficult. It was difficult. It certainly was not the best news in the world, but it was not the worst news in the world.
What he did say which gave me some hope was that their planned action, that was the action of the consortium, was being taken to ensure that every effort was being made to maintain reasonable progress on the development of Hibernia which is so critical to the economy of Newfoundland, to Canada, and as far as oil was concerned I suppose really to the rest of the world.
Mr. McIntyre announced that no new work would be initiated and that most work currently under way would be rescheduled. The work on the gravity based structure would be stopped immediately but other work would continue.
The effect of the action was to cut the projected daily expenditures from $3 million to $1.5 million a day, reduced employment levels by 500 to 600 people, and delayed completion of the project by one year from 1996 to 1997.
I would stress that there will be 1,000 people working on the project, another 600 in Montreal, and in Paris there will continue to be some transfers to Newfoundland.
I remained optimistic and still continue to be so.
However, there was a setback on March 3, when the chairman of the board of Petro-Canada at an oil and gas industry conference quoted that the partners were basically on a 60 day count down. I am not sure what he meant by basically, because 60 days from that announcement is next Monday and I am not aware that anything magic is going to happen. There is nothing in these 22 agreements I have here, dated April 7 of this year, that talks about 60 days.
There is something in here that says that from the day that Gulf pulled out, on February 3, it is liable for 243 days of making its contribution to the construction. That is that it will be carrying its share of the load until early October this year.
I continue to meet with the minister and I continue to remain optimistic about this. I know that the owners are currently involved in an active marketing campaign to find additional investors. As I have said, they are spending $1.5 million a day.
April 28, 1992

There will come a time when they will have to make a decision between now and the early part of October. I know they are in regular contact with the minister and I know the minister is actively trying to elicit some replacements for the contractor so that the project, Hibernia, can continue. I remain optimistic and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary will also remain optimistic.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for giving me this opportunity to report on the current status of the Hibernia project and to provide all the assurance to him and to his constituents that this government remains committed to the continuation of this very important project.
First, let us review the main elements of Canada's financial assistance package for Hibernia. The government will be providing a cash contribution of $1.04 billion to the Hibernia consortium during the construction period. The government will also provide loan guarantees of up to $1.66 billion to the project owners. In addition, $175 million temporary financing facility and a $300 million interest assistance loan will be made available to the owners under certain conditions.
This very substantial public assistance package in itself serves to demonstrate that the government is truly committed to Hibernia.
The notice of withdrawal from the project as was presented by Gulf Oil, I believe it was February 4, 1992, was really very unfortunate. This was a business decision that was taken by Gulf as a result of oil and gas prices constraining the company's cash available for its investments.
Gulf did state that this reduced cash flow combined with the long lead time before any production would have committed too large a portion of Gulf's resources to a single project for too long a time.
Following Gulf's notice of withdrawal, the three remaining owners reaffirmed their commitment to the project. The other owners have embarked upon a veiy
Adjournment Debate
aggressive world-wide marketing campaign to find one or more new investors.
We realize that the owners have been keeping the government informed all along the way. I know the minister has been keeping my colleague informed.
All I can say is that we are behind it and I am pleased that my colleague raised this tonight.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
M. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to pursue the matter I have first raised in this House on February 5 when I asked the Prime Minister of Canada a question about the GATE
As you are aware, ambitious objectives are being pursued with regard to farming in this eight round of negotiations which deals with four areas. First, agricultural support; second, border protection and restriction on imports; third, direct and indirect assistance to exports; and, fourth, health and phytosanitaiy standards.
Negotiations have been going on for six years now at GATT. Still, the government of Canada insists on maintaining its policy of defending the four pillars of the Canadian farm industry, namely our quota system, farm income stabilization and crop stabilization payment programs as well as our farm credit.
Faced with a deadlock, the GATT Secretary General, Mr. Arthur Dunkel, suggested last December to do away with farm products marketing boards such as those we have here in Canada and to institute a universal tariff system instead.
Following the deadlock in negotiations, GATT Secretary General Arthur Dunkel suggested last December that farm product marketing boards like those we have in Canada be replaced by a universal tariffication system. This proposal met with serious concerns on the part of Quebec and Ontario producers who are afraid to see their markets flooded by U.S. products.
There is considerable resistance in Canada and Quebec to the border protection proposal, because it also includes GATT article XI which prohibits import quotas, with a few exceptions.

April 28, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian government has spared no efforts to get other countries to understand and accept its position. Canada is still demanding that GATT article XI be clarified and reinforced. The ratification of new GATT agreements on the liberalization of farm exports, as proposed by Mr. Dunkel, would provide attractive opportunities for grain producers, red meat producers and processors of agrifood products in Canada. The same cannot not be said for the dairy, egg and poultry sectors.
Elowever, there have been signs recently that maintaining Canada's marketing boards would not meet with too much resistance. The president of the Commission of European Communities, Mr. Jacques Delors, mentioned the other day that a comprehensive agreement on 90 per cent of the issues was better than no agreement at all. The remaining 10 per cent might include the Canadian question and there might be others as well.
Considering the importance of maintaining our marketing boards, is there not a case for negotiating with countries like the United States or Japan, for instance, which also have measures to protect products such as cotton, peanuts, coffee, rice and sugar?
Would it not be possible to reach some kind of agreement and set our respective priorities, in order to find a common position, diverse though our products may be, in order to save our marketing boards and ensure our producers get a fair price?
About 60 U.S. senators signed a petition along these lines in the U.S. Congress. About three weeks ago, we had a number of French senators and members who came here to see how our marketing boards, quota systems and supply management work in this country.
I would appreciate an answer to my question. [English]


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, this government has spared no effort to fulfil its long-standing commitment to support Canada's agrifood industry in the GATT negotiations.
All members in this House must agree that Canadian agriculture needs a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. Our grain farmers have suffered through years of rock bottom prices due to the subsidy war. Our supply
management producers have seen import quotas on ice cream and yoghurt ruled out of order under the existing GATT rules.
The sector has told us clearly that the status quo is unacceptable, and together the government and industry have developed a balanced Canadian position in the GATT negotiations. That position has not changed.
Unfortunately the negotiations have been stalled as a result of differences between United States and the European Community. Canada's negotiating position is not the problem, and changing it would not be a solution. In this situation, Canada will forcefully and firmly pursue its negotiating objectives and work with others to bring the MTN to a successful conclusion.
Recent consultations with industry and the provinces have confirmed that there is continued support for the balance of the negotiating position that Canada has been pursuing. The draft agreement put forward in December by Arthur Dunkel would provide for improved and more secure access to foreign markets.
Canada, like other countries, has accepted the Dunkel text as a basis for continuing the negotiations. To our disappointment, the proposal does not call for the straightening and the clarification of article XI, the section of the GATT agreement that allows for the imposition of border controls on supply managed products.
However, I would underline that Canada considers the Dunkel proposal as a basis for negotiations. It is not the final agreement. Canada is continuing to fight for the clarification and straightening of article XI as the negotiations progress.
The government and industry representatives have numerous and continuing discussions on how we can advance Canada's position on this issue. The Prime Minister has raised this issue with other heads of government on a number of occasions. Most recently, he raised it last week with the European Community president Jacques Delors. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture has explained Canada's determination directly to the U.S. agricultural secretary, Ed Madigan, and the European Community commissioner of agriculture, Ray Mac Sharry.
April 28, 1992

In the meantime, Canada's negotiators in Geneva continue to press the case.


PENSIONS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last night the House of Commons defeated an opposition motion to dissolve Parliament and to call an election.
When that vote took place and in the debate that took place prior to the vote, it took me back to the days immediately prior to the general election of 1988.
It will be recalled at that time the election was fought principally on one issue, the issue of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Underlying that issue was a concern that Canadians had about our social safety network, our social security system, a system that is made up of medicare, unemployment insurance, old age security and by the Canada Pension Plan.
The free trade agreement has now been in effect for over three years and we still have a secure social safety network in place and the concerns and fears that people had hopefully have been dissipated.
Part of that social safety net is the Canada Pension Plan. A key part of the Canada Pension Plan is the disability pension provisions of that plan.
Up until last February, just two short months ago, the Canada Pension Plan disability pension provision had a limitation period in it which prevented people who had legitimately paid into that plan for years and years from claiming the disability pension that was rightfully theirs.
It was perhaps because of the fact that they had applied too late. They had applied too late in some cases because they did not know that there was such a provision. In other cases it was because they did not want to admit that they were disabled. In other cases it was because they just did not want to draw financially on the fund. They held off until it was too late. In fact, as the facts shows, there are some 4,000 cases of this sort holding right now where they were late applications, too late to get their benefits under the Canada Pension Plan disability pension, and some 900 new cases are added each and every year.
Fortunately Parliament corrected that problem but it was not easy. I along with others asked questions for
Adjournment Debate
years and only received promises. Finally, I introduced Private Member's Bill C-280, which a committee of Parliament agreed at first would be votable and another committee said it was not votable, but then the House of Commons itself finally agreed by unanimous consent to pass that bill. It was ultimately ruled out of order by the Speaker of the Senate. The government had to introduce its own bill. It went through and has now received Royal Assent, but we still need the provinces to implement regulations to put those amendments in place.
In the meantime, applications are pouring in from former late applicants to receive the benefits they are rightfully entitled to.
What we need now is to make sure that the provinces have passed those regulations and that this act is the law of the land.
I would like to ask tonight when the minister will bring in this long overdue amendment and finally make it the law of the land with the provincial regulations in place? When will the final barrier to fairness and equity in the disability pension provision of the Canada Pension Plan finally be tom down?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57 replaces the Private Member's bill sponsored by the hon. member for Don Valley East which was Bill C-280. The Senate did find his bill inadmissible because it was not accompanied by a royal recommendation, as is required in the case of legislation involving taxes or public spending. Bill C-57 pursues the same goals and basically targets the same group as Bill C-280, and I am referring to late applicants for disability benefits.
Under the provisions of Bill C-57, any disabled person who could have applied for and received a disability benefit will retain the right to a benefit no matter how long it takes to apply. It still will be important for a person to apply as soon as possible after becoming disabled. There are and there will continue to be limitations on retroactive award of all benefits paid under the Canada Pension Plan. Bill C-57 respects the intent of the hon. member's private bill, that is to rescue those several thousands of Canadians paying the very stiff penalty of the loss of a pension for simply applying late. Also Bill C-57 does other things. He is quite right; we do need provincial agreement to move forward.

April 28, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The minister and the department are pursuing this. In fact, once unanimous agreement is received I am sure that the hon. member's intentions with regard to the disabled people will become intact.
I really have to congratulate the provinces for their spirit of co-operation. I think that all of us in this House enjoyed the debate some weeks or months ago with regard to Bill C-280, and I really have to thank my colleague from Don Valley East for his perseverance in pursuing a just cause.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, for months and even years this side of the House has been trying to impress upon this government the importance of a cost-shared public works program. To date, the government at best has given an awful lot of excuses but very little concrete action. In fact, on February 5 the Minister of Finance rejected the suggestion for this cost shared public works program as proposed by our leader in our one-year emergency economic plan.
I understand that the Minister of Finance along with the first ministers at least came part way in terms of a national infrastructure program when they signed their communique on March 25, even though they only spoke of highways. At least that is a start. I would hope that, in fact, the government would continue to move toward cost-shared national infrastructure programs.
On April 7, 21 members of Parliament from all three major parties met with municipal leaders from across the country. There was consensus established on the need to address this issue and take action. This consensus did not stop there. There was national consensus and solid support for such a capital works program: Support from almost if not all of the provincial premiers, support from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, support of all the municipal leaders across the country, support from the industry, which considers the issue so important that it also has established its own lobby group to promote municipal infrastructure development by the federal government.
The Coalition to Renew Canada's Infrastructure consists of representatives from major Canadian corporations. The labour unions across this country, a number of
whom have communicated their support to members of Parliament as well as the ministers, also support such an important initiative for job creation.
The consensus of such diverse groups on the need to spend government money in co-operation with industry is a rare occurrence in this country. It indicates the seriousness of the issue and the need for this government to act quickly in fulfilling its obligations to improve the economy and provide jobs.
A group of over 100 American economists recently urged the U.S. government to spend $50 billion in 1992 to improve the American infrastructure. Their communique stated, and I quote: "The spending of these funds would help to stimulate the economy. Since the economy has idle resources of labour and capital available to meet additional spending with additional production when the threat of inflation is minimal, it is appropriate to let these expenditures add to the deficit financed by borrowing and it would cancel most or all of the needed stimulus to aggregate demand if they were financed otherwise".
With all Canada's governments talk about improving Canada's competitive position, it should not ignore the possibility that the United States could spend billions of dollars to improve and invest in its infrastructure system. If we want to attract investment as a country, then we cannot allow the U.S. to surpass our available infrastructure.
Infrastructure is not only important for the environment, not only important for job creation, not only important for the economy, but it is also important for our competitiveness. There is no doubt, and industry, labour and governments at all levels will tell you, that in fact improving one's infrastructure is improving one's competitiveness.
Recent studies by the FCM indicate that such a program if initiated today with the low cost of borrowing and with the tremendous amount of people on unemployment insurance and welfare that would be put to work, and in fact start paying taxes, that the effect on the deficit would be minimal.
It is important I think that we draw on this national consensus from all governments, labour, industry and this House and be able to move forward on a national capital works program in this country now.
April 28, 1992


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for London East wants the government to start spending, spending, spending. The Leader of the New Democrats wants the government to spend, spend, spend. These people are not listening to Canadian taxpayers.
The lesson is painfully obvious to most Canadians: more spending means more taxes. Canadians do not want more taxes. The Liberal government, through the 1970s and early 1980s, dug Canada into a deep hole and we are still trying to escape from that hole. The economy and the taxpayers have suffered through this legacy of Liberal debt, but what solution do the Liberals offer for Canada? Even more debt. The opposition parties are in wonderland if they believe that the government has the capacity to provide massive stimulus to the economy through new public works projects.
The interest on the Liberal debt now absorbs one-third of our revenues. Policies of this government are reducing that burden. The policies espoused by the Mad Hatters, Fontana and McLaughlin, would push Canada back into the hole.
The government is doing what is necessary to guarantee Canada's prosperity. We have implemented comprehensive reforms for economic renewal which affect trade, training, taxes, science and technology and regula-
Adjournment Debate
tion. We are bringing inflation down and with it interest rates are coming down as well. We are restoring Canada's fiscal health and by doing that, we are creating a positive investment climate which will sustain economic growth. Above all, we are eliminating the threat that so damages Canadian economic confidence, namely, that future budgets will have to raise taxes.
Canada's economy is poised for a sustained recovery based on fundamental strengths: dramatically lower interest rates, inflation and production costs. The actions taken in the budget will bolster that recovery and work to sustain growth. Reduced taxes, the home buyers' plan, investment incentives and R and D initiatives support the fundamentals that are already in place.
Canada needs a sound infrastructure and the quick-fix solutions recommended by the member for London East and others is not the way to proceed. We need intelligent investment with responsible fiscal policies to guarantee Canada's future and avoid the pitfalls of the debt burden that big spending in the past has given us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 29, 1992